PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

tak
01-01-2010, 23:17
The turn of a decade is usually followed by dreams and new hopes and we, FM players, are all dreaming and expecting wonderful things. I think there is a real chance for our favourite game.

I always believed that this game takes tactics too seriously. In essence, this game is only tactics' tweaking. Nothing much else. It still amazes me that there are, for example, 20 different settings on how much should a player close down. Or, 20 different levels of time wasting?! Fair enough, they have tried to simplify but just for the player. The machine remains as big and complicated.

I've read numerous angry posts defending realism when someone dares to ask if he could repeat a game, I've read experts coming up with important conclusions after reading two libraries of statistical jiberish, but we have all failed to observe the most important thing: There is too much concentration in tactics. Unrealisticaly much. Real life football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things. If the game continues to chanel its energy to tactics it will become less and less realistic and at the end it will have no connection to reality but the players' names and attributes.

What is football management about? What distinguishes a succesful manager? This is what SI must concentrate upon now, take a leap of faith, take our game to the next level and trully create something legendary.

A lot of work needs to be done on personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players). Revolutionary ways have to be discovered to simulate those relationships and how they define a team.

A lot of work and real out of the box thinking needs to be done so that the game can capture the personality and managerial skills of the manager and how they form the culture of the team.

I know this post will shock many people, who will deliberately shut their eyes and try not to think of those things ever again. Most of the people who know and love football will know immediately what I am talking about (tactics is a very small part of management). I am counting on the really forward thinkers of SI. On those who want to take a chance and dare create a "simulation" rather than a "game".

Please, SI, will you attempt to start a revolution?

anagain
01-01-2010, 23:24
I agree that work needs to be done on more than just tactics. There is a whole media side of FM that could do with work, but I don't agree with you that football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things.

I'd be pretty sure that the day to day routine of a football manager is working on tactics, be that in his office watching past teams play, with his players watching old matches, training with his players or devising a tactical approach to the next game.

Yes, SI need to flesh out other aspects of their game, but not in exchange for the tactical side of things. I think you are wrong and I think it would be a bad thing for SI to start a revolution to steer the game away from tactics and tactical approaches.

DivineOne
01-01-2010, 23:26
You're talking about " personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players)". What do you mean with it exactly?

I think I DO know what you're talking about though. And I don't see it happening in a decent way without real AI.

Shanksie1975
01-01-2010, 23:26
Not a bad idea and a good post.
The tactics are in my opinon a little too detailed and by comparison the interaction options are Stone Age, especially the Press Conferences as there are only about 7 oft repeated questions / statements and variations on the same themes.

DivineOne
01-01-2010, 23:31
About the press conferences. I don't see how you can NOT have repeated questions.

cf
02-01-2010, 00:05
Do the changes to the tactical side introduced in FM10 not constitute a bit of a revolution?

tak
02-01-2010, 00:07
I agree that work needs to be done on more than just tactics. There is a whole media side of FM that could do with work, but I don't agree with you that football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things.

I'd be pretty sure that the day to day routine of a football manager is working on tactics, be that in his office watching past teams play, with his players watching old matches, training with his players or devising a tactical approach to the next game.

Yes, SI need to flesh out other aspects of their game, but not in exchange for the tactical side of things. I think you are wrong and I think it would be a bad thing for SI to start a revolution to steer the game away from tactics and tactical approaches.

Watching old games alone and taking notes or with the players and pointing out things is something they definately do. Also, I agree, they do spend time with the players during training and they do make plans about the next opponent. The game only simulates a couple of things from the above. Furthermore there are things like the 20 different positions of the creative freedom slider, for example, that simply do not make sense. And despite having all those buttons and sliders you cannot give simple instructions to your players or train them to execute certain routines, certain ways of defending and attacking.

The point though is that the whole tactics system takes up an enormous amount of time during the game, withou baring resemblance to reality. It is not like that in real life. I mean you do not click a player from closing down 18 to closing down 17 and evaluate what happens.

But more importantly, there are is no management in Football Management. I mean real situation management (I'm not sure how many of you have managed any outfit to understand what I am talking about, it is hard to explain and even harder to simulate, thus the "leap of faith")


You're talking about " personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players)". What do you mean with it exactly?

I think I DO know what you're talking about though. And I don't see it happening in a decent way without real AI.

Real AI. That's the word!

tak
02-01-2010, 00:09
Do the changes to the tactical side introduced in FM10 not constitute a bit of a revolution?

They are a good step towards making the old heavy slider system look a bit more like football. If this gets even more real and is complimented by a lot of work on management, then we're talking...

The-Perfect-Fm'er!
02-01-2010, 00:31
Far more in-depth analysis from scouts/assistant manager. Not just "Chelsea haven't scored many goals in between 76th-90th minute.."

etc..

more like "Chelsea have used a 4-5-1 system more regularly with Joe Cole playing as the most advanced midfielder, he likes to find pockets of space"

"the holding midfielder usually looks to get on the ball as much as possible, while the other midfielder looks to break from midfield to support forwards"

"The striker likes to drop deep to recieve the ball OR..the striker likes to run the channels"

"both their wingers enjoy staying right out wide and keeping their width.."

"this team usually play a high line"

Things like this, this is information managers will recieve before everygame, along with player monitors fitness levels, distance covered...or things like "Assistant manager informs you, Player A's work rate drops considerably as a game goes on.."

then it's upto you what you do with that information.

tak
02-01-2010, 01:23
That is indeed some good input and has to do with the poorly working scouting system. We all know that SI has introduced many things to make the game feel more real but they've done it half heartedly, without putting effort. Do you know why? Because there is a thing called tactics tweaking that takes up the majority of their time. This is the leap of faith I am talking about. Simplify tactics, work a lot less on sliders and understand real life football management more.

The issue begins because the starting point is wrong: There is a widespread belief that how a team performs can only be explained by its tactics (hence the "it's your tactics" moto we constantly hear). This belief is very, very wrong and it leads to complete distortion of football.

The reason that there is so much focus on tactics is simple: It is extremely difficult to realise, let alone simulate in a computer program, what are those things that define good or bad management. The solution was to forget about that and just explain everything through the tactics prism.

I repeat: Tactics cannot explain why a team is succesful and why not. Tactics is a tiny thing of a team's performance. I am sure seasoned football fans know that. Unfortunately, this game is attempting to simulate football based almost exclusively on tactics. The whole concept is wrong. I will give one example: some engine developer in some other thread I was reading was saying that ManU, Arsenal and Chelsea have completely different ways of unlocking stubborn defences (or something like that). He then explained those differences by using tactical terms. This explanation is partly true. Of course, the three teams use different tactics. Those tactics are set by the manager and are worked in training etc. Those tactics have nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the level of detail of sliding sliders we find in FM. In any case after the tactic is set, the real management begins. And, like I said, it has to do with personalities. ManU's way reflects its manager's character, Arsenal's the same. I can't believe for example, that Ferguson is still getting the best out of Giggs by tweaking his creative freedom one notch to the right. Yes Giggs play differently now that he is older, but his will to carry on, his motivation and endless hunger for the game has to do with his relationship with his manager and the club and this is something the game cannot at this point simulate. There are millions of examples of succeses or failures that have nothing to do with tactics, in the real world.

To take this leap of faith, SI needs a cultural change. They need to forget the "it's all about tactics" moto and try to replicate real life football management. It is difficult, I know (wwfan has to be fired hahaha), but they can do it. We need this new and brilliant game.

anagain
02-01-2010, 01:27
Watching old games alone and taking notes or with the players and pointing out things is something they definately do. Also, I agree, they do spend time with the players during training and they do make plans about the next opponent. The game only simulates a couple of things from the above. Furthermore there are things like the 20 different positions of the creative freedom slider, for example, that simply do not make sense. And despite having all those buttons and sliders you cannot give simple instructions to your players or train them to execute certain routines, certain ways of defending and attacking.

The point though is that the whole tactics system takes up an enormous amount of time during the game, withou baring resemblance to reality. It is not like that in real life. I mean you do not click a player from closing down 18 to closing down 17 and evaluate what happens.

But more importantly, there are is no management in Football Management. I mean real situation management (I'm not sure how many of you have managed any outfit to understand what I am talking about, it is hard to explain and even harder to simulate, thus the "leap of faith")



I always said this when people were complaining about the sliders before the tactical redo. You have to have sliders of some sort. It is merely a graphical representation of telling your players how you want them to play. In any case you don't really need to fiddle with them all that much any more. Using the new tactics wizard devises a solid tactic to start with and then you can tweak as much as you need. I think that I always know what I'm asking the team to do and it never takes me an age.

As for player management, well it's there. I signed a Lithuanian player in my first season and he began to play badly and it seemed to come down to him being homesick. I had a choice then, send him home for a while or get in another Lithuanian to help him settle. I got in another Lithuanian and the guy is on fire now.

I also have the players that are on the verge of the team, or not able to force their way in. I have a choice of keeping them happy or sticking them in the reserves. Sooner or later they come to me and ask questions. I admit that interaction is limited but it is there.

The new backroom meetings are great and has opened up a whole new world of interacting with players and staff. Never before have I used so many of the train in a certain move options.

You can also extensively manage the youth coming through your team if you so wish.

As I said, I agree that the player management side of FM could do with a lift but the tactical side needs to remain in charge from where I am sitting. Football is a tactical game after all.

What else could you really do to change the tactical approach that SI have devised too? There has been a major tactical redesign for FM10 because people began to complain constantly about the sliders. The sliders are still in because they need to be there. They are now hidden by an excellent tactics wizard.

If you think that things need to change, then give SI some ideas. Just coming along and saying that the management approach of the game needs to be worked on and that SI need to take a leap of faith is a little weak. At least think of something.

Personally I'd say we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think you are wrong. Obviously improvements to the man-management side of FM would be welcomed but not at the expense of FMs tactical depth, and certainly not in conjunction with a lessening of the depth of the game tactically. More not less. All around.

anagain
02-01-2010, 01:29
Does this come down to a difficulty issue? Is the whole reasoning for this thread because the tactics are too difficult to understand? I don't agree.

That's what the tactics wizard is for, surely.

tak
02-01-2010, 01:31
I always said this when people were complaining about the sliders before the tactical redo. You have to have sliders of some sort. It is merely a graphical representation of telling your players how you want them to play. In any case you don't really need to fiddle with them all that much any more. Using the new tactics wizard devises a solid tactic to start with and then you can tweak as much as you need. I think that I always know what I'm asking the team to do and it never takes me an age.

As for player management, well it's there. I signed a Lithuanian player in my first season and he began to play badly and it seemed to come down to him being homesick. I had a choice then, send him home for a while or get in another Lithuanian to help him settle. I got in another Lithuanian and the guy is on fire now.

I also have the players that are on the verge of the team, or not able to force their way in. I have a choice of keeping them happy or sticking them in the reserves. Sooner or later they come to me and ask questions. I admit that interaction is limited but it is there.

The new backroom meetings are great and has opened up a whole new world of interacting with players and staff. Never before have I used so many of the train in a certain move options.

You can also extensively manage the youth coming through your team if you so wish.

As I said, I agree that the player management side of FM could do with a lift but the tactical side needs to remain in charge from where I am sitting. Football is a tactical game after all.

What else could you really do to change the tactical approach that SI have devised too? There has been a major tactical redesign for FM10 because people began to complain constantly about the sliders. The sliders are still in because they need to be there. They are now hidden by an excellent tactics wizard.

If you think that things need to change, then give SI some ideas. Just coming along and saying that the management approach of the game needs to be worked on and that SI need to take a leap of faith is a little weak. At least think of something.

Personally I'd say we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think you are wrong. Obviously improvements to the man-management side of FM would be welcomed but not at the expense of FMs tactical depth, and certainly not in conjunction with a lessening of the depth of the game tactically. More not less. All around.

I think that's fair enough...

Seabeast
02-01-2010, 02:22
In my honest opion SI need to start releasing FM every two years now. The game has so much more to it than it used to, so updating it yearly seems to be too much for them. FM09 was pretty much unplayable for me, I gave up on it. FM10 is fantastic but was released with some big issues ( some players couldnt even get it to work ) mainly with regens and now the patched 'super keepers'.

S.I could just release updates for the transfer windows to update the squads and release a bug free game every 2 years......I would quite happily pay a small fee for such updates if it meant getting a game that doesnt require patching every 3 months to fix huge issues with it, causing players to pretty much lose months of play in saves because you need to re-do tactics to make them work with a new patch.....

anagain
02-01-2010, 03:01
In my honest opion SI need to start releasing FM every two years now. The game has so much more to it than it used to, so updating it yearly seems to be too much for them. FM09 was pretty much unplayable for me, I gave up on it. FM10 is fantastic but was released with some big issues ( some players couldnt even get it to work ) mainly with regens and now the patched 'super keepers'.

S.I could just release updates for the transfer windows to update the squads and release a bug free game every 2 years......I would quite happily pay a small fee for such updates if it meant getting a game that doesnt require patching every 3 months to fix huge issues with it, causing players to pretty much lose months of play in saves because you need to re-do tactics to make them work with a new patch.....

I think there is definitely some argument for the every 2 years idea, but the idea of 'superkeepers' pops up every year. People have to look beyond the obvious inclination to call the bug 'superkeepers' and try and understand the bug better.

Besides, releasing a game every two years instead of every one would not remove the occurance of bugs. More time would just be spent making a bigger game and the same amount of time, proportionally testing.

I suspect the main opposition to releasing every two years would be the money providers.

The more I think about it the more inclined I am to accept a release every year that is an improvement over the previous year's. Whatever you say, you can not argue that the game has not improved.

Seabeast
02-01-2010, 03:07
I think there is definitely some argument for the every 2 years idea, but the idea of 'superkeepers' pops up every year. People have to look beyond the obvious inclination to call the bug 'superkeepers' and try and understand the bug better.

Besides, releasing a game every two years instead of every one would not remove the occurance of bugs. More time would just be spent making a bigger game and the same amount of time, proportionally testing.

I suspect the main opposition to releasing every two years would be the money providers.

The more I think about it the more inclined I am to accept a release every year that is an improvement over the previous year's. Whatever you say, you can not argue that the game has not improved.

Well said.

I think a game every two years would allow them to release a game with less of the ' super ' bugs or issues that can cause the game to be a real pain. The little bugs are always going to appear, but these can be fixed quite easily with minor updates.

Like you said though, its probably a money issue and a year on this kind of game is probably just about enough time. I tend to play a lot of games and no other game that I play gets released or patched with such god awful bugs/issues. I love FM, I have played them for a good 13+ years now, but as they have improved, they have had more and more of these issues.

No denying that this is the best management game on the market, and very close to being a fantastic game, but im getting tired of the 'bugs' which get patched 3 months later only forcing us to start new games and work out new tactics. FM asks you to invest a lot of time to get the best out of it, so its frustrating for that to be wiped out 3 months later.

rinso
02-01-2010, 03:16
The little bugs are always going to appear, but these can be fixed quite easily with minor updates.

There's no such thing as a little bug, nor an easy fix. Think of each fix as a stone being dropped into a perfectly still lake. See all the ripples that stone makes? thats the kind of effect 1 minor change in the game code has. Hence one change to fix something creating problems in another area.

The 2 year argument has been mentioned many times, and tbh, its not a solution. apart from the money issues, you will STILL end up with a shed load of bugs that need fixing simply because of the huge amounts of different hardware setups people have. One stat was quoted a few days ago on here saying there were in the region of 1500 different graphics card setups. Combine that with all the different OS and Ram and other set-ups, and you see my point.

and yes, "super keepers" appear every year, but, cliche or not, it IS down to your tactics. SI have admitted that a certain type of chance gets created too often on the latest patch, which will be worked on for 10.3.


Agree completely with anagain and the perfect fm'er's posts, and would also add that training is due a massive overhaul. Seems like eons since any work was done there.

Media is way too repetetive for my liking, and the novelty of the press conferences (didnt buy 09) quickly wears off.

Seabeast
02-01-2010, 03:22
Actually, there is such a thing, and if you look at pretty much any other games out there, you will see little updates are released quite a lot to fix them. Most games arent released with as many bugs as FM though, nor do they release updates which remove some and add more.

rinso
02-01-2010, 03:26
Actually, there is such a thing, and if you look at pretty much any other games out there, you will see little updates are released quite a lot to fix them. Most games arent released with as many bugs as FM though, nor do they release updates which remove some and add more.

Really? and how much of experience of coding do you have, then? Shall we take the cricket coach game mentioned in this thread (http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=180307) as an example??

Almondo
02-01-2010, 03:32
Been reading this thread with a bit of interest and feel I have to post now. If you listen to the lastest FM podcast Miles Jacobsen mentions that there are Millions of lines of code in the ME alone. If they cange one bit of code say in the third line of code this could cause a problem in say the 1200th line. A lot of games are now patched due to the fact that the developers especially of console games have to get a game out on a set schedule set by the Publisher. Mind you I'm a big Fallout 3 fan and that was bugged as hell in all versions.

Anyway I have to say the one area of the game that I'd like to see updated is as rinso says the training. I've only played 3 versions of FM but have noted the staleness of this area.

Seabeast
02-01-2010, 03:38
I have some experience with coding during time at Uni, but mainly through my father in law who worked for Remedy Entertainment until he moved onto a much larger games creator.(He worked on Max Payne 1 and 2, and is a huge FM fan). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they can provide a fix within days, but its easy to iron out small bugs in the menus or memory dumps than it is to fix something thats wrong with the ME.

Edit: Some low budget Cricket game is hardly a good comparison.

rinso
02-01-2010, 03:51
I have some experience with coding during time at Uni, but mainly through my father in law who worked for Remedy Entertainment until he moved onto a much larger games creator.(He worked on Max Payne 1 and 2, and is a huge FM fan). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they can provide a fix within days, but its easy to iron out small bugs in the menus or memory dumps than it is to fix something thats wrong with the ME.

Edit: Some low budget Cricket game is hardly a good comparison.

menu bugs, agreed, are easy to fix, but if the memory dumps were easy to fix, do you not think they would have ironed them out by now??

Anyways, enough of hijacking the OP's thread...

anagain
02-01-2010, 04:03
Actually, there is such a thing, and if you look at pretty much any other games out there, you will see little updates are released quite a lot to fix them. Most games arent released with as many bugs as FM though, nor do they release updates which remove some and add more.


That is really not true. In the last 6 months I have played at least half a dozen games that were bugged worse than FM.

You also have to take in to account that FM is a much bigger game than many out there, or at least there is a lot more that can go wrong. I'd put it in the same bracket as an MMO and there is not one MMO out there that has not had problems with bugs at release and appearing after patches.

Rinso's ripple analogy is perhaps the best I have read to explain how fixing one line of code can wreak havoc on many more. Every action has a consequence.

You need to understand this before you can make radical statements.

rinso
02-01-2010, 04:07
Rinso's ripple analogy is perhaps the best I have read

awww shucks, thanks dude!!! :thup:

Seabeast
02-01-2010, 04:14
That is really not true. In the last 6 months I have played at least half a dozen games that were bugged worse than FM.

You also have to take in to account that FM is a much bigger game than many out there, or at least there is a lot more that can go wrong. I'd put it in the same bracket as an MMO and there is not one MMO out there that has not had problems with bugs at release and appearing after patches.

Rinso's ripple analogy is perhaps the best I have read to explain how fixing one line of code can wreak havoc on many more. Every action has a consequence.

You need to understand this before you can make radical statements.

I think most people understand that fixing one issue can cause another.

The MMO comparison is good, but major bugs get ironed out within days or even hours on a certain game, with minor ones done in the big updates. A MMO is going to have bugs, they are huge games that require a lot more work than a game like FM.

Btw, would you be kind enough to name and shame these games with bugs? Most games have minor issues, but not many have ones that effect gameplay as much as they do on FM. I have just finished playing through Dragon Age Origins, and theres quite a lot of bugs ( some scenes repeating over and over, some heals not working etc ) which have happened both on mine and my significant others play, but they are problems that can be passed by without causing too many issues with the experience, but sadly for FM when a ME issue happens it can pretty much ruin the game until its fixed.

rinso
02-01-2010, 04:20
I think most people understand that fixing one issue can cause another.

The MMO comparison is good, but major bugs get ironed out within days or even hours on a certain game, with minor ones done in the big updates. A MMO is going to have bugs, they are huge games that require a lot more work than a game like FM.

Btw, would you be kind enough to name and shame these games with bugs? Most games have minor issues, but not many have ones that effect gameplay as much as they do on FM.

lol there you have just proved you dont know what youre talking about. Look at all the different user settings at the start of the game on FM. Can you possible re-create everything in testing? really?

And the most obvious game that springs to mind is Mass Effect 1 which, incidentally, the developers REFUSED to patch, despite it having a glaring bug that would crash when you got in an elevator....

Seabeast
02-01-2010, 04:27
Sorry, but can you please explain how you came to the conclusion that I don't know what im talking about? I honestly cannot figure out how you got that from my post.

But its funny how i have played through Mass Effect twice and never had such a problem, nor had anyone else I know who played the game complain about this issue. After looking up this bug it seems it wasn't all that common, and a simple restart would fix the issue, shame you can't do that with a bug on FM.

rinso
02-01-2010, 04:37
that require a lot more work than a game like FM. ^^ thats how I came to that conclusion. Do you really understand the amount of work that goes into each version of FM? Look at the amount of researchers FM has. You think maybe they base their opinions based on 1 game? No? Oh so they watch a few? Oh but thats easy. Really? Crap. Complete and utter crap.

as for mass effect, when I had the bug, and looked it up on the forums, thats when I found out there was no planned patch for it, it was a case of, oh well, unlucky, save it before you get in a lift. great customer service there :thup:

rinso
02-01-2010, 04:44
and excuse the double post but, as I said earlier, this is NOT what the Op was intending, and as such, I will desist from now. The OP, along with others, have raised some vaild points, and it would be a shame for the thread to be closed, therefore I will now stfu and leave things be....

Seabeast
02-01-2010, 04:49
^^ thats how I came to that conclusion. Do you really understand the amount of work that goes into each version of FM? Look at the amount of researchers FM has. You think maybe they base their opinions based on 1 game? No? Oh so they watch a few? Oh but thats easy. Really? Crap. Complete and utter crap.

as for mass effect, when I had the bug, and looked it up on the forums, thats when I found out there was no planned patch for it, it was a case of, oh well, unlucky, save it before you get in a lift. great customer service there :thup:

I understand that its going to take a vast ammount of research and people scouting to make up the player database, but when it comes to making the actual game, you will find other developers have to invest a lot more, especially for MMO's. The number of people it takes to make FM is unreal, makes one appreciate the effort put into the research that is done to make this fantastic game. However, this is not the point, none of that has anything to do with this topic, bugs or anything elese i have mentioned in this thread. It just seems to be like you are trying to cause trouble, which is a shame because the OP has a quality thread going on here. Please try not to troll this thread anymore.

As for the complete and utter crap line, well it is that, simply because you basically wrote a paragraph of crap you believe to be what i think, and then dismissed it. Seriously, what is up with that?

phnompenhandy
02-01-2010, 06:22
Please, SI, will you attempt to start a revolution?

Her majesty is clearly terrified by this prospect, which is why she's just decorated the creators. ;)

tak
02-01-2010, 15:16
I understand the arguments in favour of issuing a game every two years. The game does often feel like a mere facelift on last year's one. I would be more than delighted to wait an extra year if SI needed more time to work on a football management simulation game.

The fact of the matter is that certain people within SI clearly realise what it takes to make the game realistic. Although at an infant stage, all the media and player interaction features were a great addition. SI also realises that there is an intangible thing called team morale or harmony that plays a massive part in the game. In numerous experimentations with my favourite tool, fmrte, I have proven that by just changing morale you are able to win impossible games. So the proper weight has been given to it. However, the factors that influence it have not been developed (despite some attempts). This has lead to a weird situation: Morale is hugely important but the player has extremely limited options to do something about it.

Just think about all the things you would do as a real life manager to develop this morale/harmony. All the different approaches you would take with all the different players. Meetings with your staff and directors. Meetings with agends. Communications meetings. Sponsors of team and individual players. The list is endless really.

Like I said, whoever has any experience of managing any team of people of any kind knows perfectly well that assigning roles and putting processes in place is only a small part of management and it is definately not the defining factor between success and failure.

Any manager knows the basics of his industry. Football managers know tactics very very well. The fact though is that no team has ever become great because it used a fantastic tactics. I am not knocking tactics. I am just putting it in its right place. It is an elementary thing in football that managers know how to use. Tactics don't make a team. Management does.

I think it is natural that this game has concentrated so much on tactics. In the past the processing power of computers was limiting the complexity of programming. It was then only feasible to base the game on tactics which is easier mathematicaly than simulating real life management. I was just hoping that, with the development in technology, it could be done now.

If it is a matter that we need a couple of years more to get faster processors, I am willing to wait...

crouchaldinho
02-01-2010, 16:02
Morale is hugely important but the player has extremely limited options to do something about it.

Same as a manager in real life then?


All the different approaches you would take with all the different players. Meetings with your staff and directors. Meetings with agends. Communications meetings. Sponsors of team and individual players. The list is endless really.

Lots of meetings then. :p How do you see that working in FM? :confused:

You can actually organise meetings between the players on FM when morale and underachievement is a major issue. You can also meet with your directors in the 'board room' and you can meet with your staff in the 'backroom advice'. In fact, we now have weekly meetings with our staff in FM10.

The main methods of influencing the morale of your team on FM is through press conferences, team talks and through player interaction. Also winning games, being successful and giving out new contracts can help. I'm not denying that there is room for improvement but I think what we have is pretty good so far. Confidence isn't something that is easy to control in real life, otherwise Liverpool, for instance, might not have struggled so badly this season. Just like in real life, confidence in FM most often comes through winning football matches and performing well.


The fact though is that no team has ever become great because it used a fantastic tactics. I am not knocking tactics. I am just putting it in its right place. It is an elementary thing in football that managers know how to use.

I think this is a gross oversimplification. The entire history of football would seem to disagree with you here, I'm afraid.

Have you ever read Inverting the Pyramid?


I think it is natural that this game has concentrated so much on tactics.

I feel that this is a myth personally but, at the same time, it seems clear to me that any football management simulation should include tactics as a major part of the game.

I think if you read or listen to the opinions of anyone involved in football, we can conclude that the following aspects the most important in the game:
- Player quality.
- Tactical choices and decisions.
- Issues of motivation and morale.

This is what is argued by the top coaches and people involved in the game and this is also the case in Football Manager. In fact, having read the opinions of many football coaches myself, I must say that FM does a rather marvellous job of reflecting the complexity (which I obviously wouldn't deny can be improved - but nevertheless what we have is very good in my opinion).

Going back to the three important factors identified above, we can say that in real life, as in Football Manager, the following (although hugely simplified, of course) might be said to be generally true:
Good players + good tactics + good morale = success.
Good players + bad tactics + bad morale = underachieving.
Bad players + good tactics + good morale = overachieving.

And so on and so forth...

I don't see this argument that tactics need to be concentrated on more than anything else in FM. If you check out Dafuge's record on FM09 with his Dartford team, this pretty much blows the opinion that tactics are the only important thing on FM out of the water. Dafuge normally builds a fundamentally sound tactic but generally works on squad building primarily, scouting for the best players and bringing them to his club. He doesn't tend to do very much in the way of tactical tweaking and, as I understand it, uses the same kind of approach throughout his career. His success is a testament to the fact that good players and good man management/motivation, alongside making good non-tactical decisions in other areas, are all just as important as tactics in FM.

To play Football Manager, you do need a basic knowledge of football tactics, and that is how it should be. Furthermore, the history of football is littered with examples of football teams who have managed to overachieve due to playing to their strengths. Contemporary examples might include Greece in 2004, Liverpool in 2005 or perhaps a team like Bolton under Sam Allardyce. Classic examples might include Hungary in the 1950s, Herbert Chapman's Arsenal or even Sir Alf Ramsey's 'Wingless Wonders'. I'm sure other people will think of even stronger examples. The point is that there are so many examples of teams achieving success way beyond their resources due to tactical choices which meant that they could play to their strengths, play as a collective whole way beyond their individual abilities and also exploit weaknesses in their opposition. That's what the great managers do, as well as being successful at man management, motivation, buying players and all of the 'behind the scenes' work that goes on in the running of a football club, and that is also what you need to do on FM to be successful.

Regards,
C.

tak
02-01-2010, 16:23
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...

anagain
02-01-2010, 16:25
I understand the arguments in favour of issuing a game every two years. The game does often feel like a mere facelift on last year's one. I would be more than delighted to wait an extra year if SI needed more time to work on a football management simulation game.

Yes, but it's not going to happen. Whilst there may be arguments in favour of it, they'll all be rejected. Add to that that 75% of fans (at least) would be appalled with a two yearly game release. Then CM would have a major advantage.


Like I said, whoever has any experience of managing any team of people of any kind knows perfectly well that assigning roles and putting processes in place is only a small part of management and it is definately not the defining factor between success and failure.

And what is your experience Mr Tak? Championship, League 2, Blue Square South or Manchester Sunday League? You keep mentioning this 'anyone involved in management knows'. Do you know someone or do you manage? If you do, and you manage a Sunday League team or schoolboys then I think there is a whole world of difference.


The fact though is that no team has ever become great because it used a fantastic tactics. I am not knocking tactics. I am just putting it in its right place. It is an elementary thing in football that managers know how to use. Tactics don't make a team. Management does.

Yes, but a good manager uses his quality knowledge of the tactical side of the game to build success. Do you think Manchester United win everything because morale is good or because Sir Alex knows how to build a winning formation? It's a bit of both, I suspect, but his tactical knowledge of the game is phenomenal. And I hate Manchester United, but I respect that Sir Alex is a manager of the highest quality and that his team don't win games because they're all happy and having fantastic team parties.

Right now I am listening to Bournemouth lose 2-0 to Northampton (yes, I know I should be there - working nights wreaks havoc with your life). Eddie Howe is having a torrid season with injuries and it is made worse by the FL trying to screw us. We lost Cummings (left back) this week so Eddie went out with a 5-3-2 formation and we conceded twice in the first 15 minutes. After the second goal he switched the team back to the usual 4-4-2 and Northampton suddenly didn't find it so easy. Are you, then, saying that tactics had no part in that? If we'd gone out 4-4-2 would we be 2-0 down?

Yes morale has a part in the players favouring the usual 4-4-2 but the tactic is the key part here.

Eddie bought on Supa Fletch near the end of the first half to add more height to the front line and a more battling presence. Now that's a tactical change that makes us look a different side.

Again, it's the morale that Supa brings us changing things, but, more so, it's a tactical change.

The Bournemouth team morale is great. It's a small squad brought together in challenging circumstances. Eddie is a great manager but it's not just him boosting morale. He picks the right teams and the right formations. That's what wins us games.




I think it is natural that this game has concentrated so much on tactics. In the past the processing power of computers was limiting the complexity of programming. It was then only feasible to base the game on tactics which is easier mathematicaly than simulating real life management. I was just hoping that, with the development in technology, it could be done now.


Well it's the match engine that keeps causing people to say the game is bugged to hell, not the team morale mechanisms. I think there is infinitely more complexity in the tactical/match engine side of FM than there is the player happiness/morale side of FM.

Maybe the fact that the mental side of the game hasn't change a huge amount has something to do with that.

anagain
02-01-2010, 16:29
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...

He took the time to reply to your thread and yet you don't wish to reply to him? Are you not willing to accept that your ideas may be wrong? You have to look at both sides of a discussion, even if you may disagree with the other view.

walsh
02-01-2010, 16:29
I definitely think that small changes to tactics or slight "problems" in the tactic have too much of a negative effect.

I wish SI would focus more on the media as this is how we all see and experience football. As you say in the OP, relationships need to be more in-depth and you should be able to improve your team by genuinely getting them to trust you and want to play for you which it just doesnt feel like it does.

crouchaldinho
02-01-2010, 16:34
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.

I haven't been shouting and swearing anywhere. :confused: I don't like swearing for a start!

I cannot help but wonder if you have got me mixed up with someone else?

I've given you some constructive feedback on your topic of choice. I think it is a shame that you won't consider it. :(


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.

Although I do feel that what we have at the moment is very good, I also see plenty of potential for improvement, a fact which I stressed in my post above. I'm always trying to think of ways to make this game the best it can be. That's why I am involved as a beta tester and a researcher for SI. You will see that I give constructive feedback on the game very often in the beta forum, on the research forums, in the bugs and data threads, in the tactics forum and here in GD. Also see my FM09 feedback thread from last year. To say that I am not interested in improving FM is therefore thoroughly incorrect.

Regards,
C.

jcafcwbb
02-01-2010, 16:50
The big change the game needs to make is to create challenges in the game more realistically.

It is claimed that the game balances itself out by making teams counter your tactics due to levelling up - is this true?

In reality the teams at the top are the ones with the better players. Face it Chelsea's real life tactics are pretty poor. No width, no creativity in midfield - so why are they top scoring the most goals? Well, a strike force of Drogba and Anelka helps and midfielders like Lampard, Essien and Ballack. In other words the players transcend the tactics. There is serious talk of how the loss of the African players will affect them as they know Chelsea's tactics rely on the strength and goals of Drogba - Sturridge is not a replacement.

In my game I am in the play-off places with Romone Rose heading towards 20 goals and yet there has been no interest from higher league clubs. In reality Chris Hussey showed form and was signed by Coventry forcing us to replace a player - something we haven't yet done. This is a challenging part of the game I haven't seen - your best players being poached by higher league clubs. Is it in the game because none of my players have been bid upon? Forced squad rebuild is a way to add another layer of depth to the game.

I also disagree with teams learning your tactics and this seems to be the way the game balances itself out. A tactic lives or dies by the players in it - one equation that Crouchaldinho left out = Good players+bad tactics+good morale=Success dependant on the quality of the players. We also need to have individual players carrying a team forward to success - Steven Gerrard is a good example of this - regardless of the tactics.

The game should be balanced less with artificial balancing but more with injuries, suspensions and losing players to bigger clubs - that is the revolution the game needs. A philosopical one

tak
02-01-2010, 22:08
Well said, a philosophical change is what I am talking about.

Anyway,

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=173086

This is a thread that shows the quality of the players/media/staff interaction "features" we have at the moment. "Features" that some people have characterised "excellent". Let me repeat: fair play to whoever within the SI decided to build them in. Nevertheless, they are still very very poor.

Anagain, wrote previously that we simply disagree and let's leave it at that, I said fair enough, and then he decided to attack me personaly. I have never managed a football team, if you really like to know. However, I have started by managing small teams and I currently manage a large organisation.

I am glad you brought the Alex Ferguson example up. Alex is a great manager and a personal acquaintance from the races. He is not presenting some unkown tactic that shocks the opponent. Everyone knows how ManU plays and it is really simple. One of Alex's talents is that he gets the best out of his players. Careful though, because you are inclined to say "but, sure, this is what FM is all about: to give specific instructions to specific players and maximise their performance". Big mistake. Taking the best out of a player has not so much to do with giving him the right instructions but more with the relationship you develop with him. What instructions did Alex give Solskjaer before he went in? Were they tactical instructions? Did he tell him how many clicks forward he should be? lol

I don't want to concentrate on morale either. Morale is a general term and does not really help my cause. Relationships include mixtures trust, love, hate, fear, respect, ambition, competition, jealousy, anger etc.

That is why a visionary is needed to simulate the wolrd of management. Someone who sees into the future. Because it is extremely complicated and daunting.

Super Striker
02-01-2010, 22:22
Personally, I think it's far too easy to build a squad capable of dominating the league. The game has balanced this in the last couple of versions by making player quality less important than real life IMO, to make the game more of a challenge.

dafuge
02-01-2010, 22:46
I don't see this argument that tactics need to be concentrated on more than anything else in FM. If you check out Dafuge's record on FM09 with his Dartford team, this pretty much blows the opinion that tactics are the only important thing on FM out of the water. Dafuge normally builds a fundamentally sound tactic but generally works on squad building primarily, scouting for the best players and bringing them to his club. He doesn't tend to do very much in the way of tactical tweaking and, as I understand it, uses the same kind of approach throughout his career. His success is a testament to the fact that good players and good man management/motivation, alongside making good non-tactical decisions in other areas, are all just as important as tactics in FM.

Just to add to this, I've done the same thing this year.

This is my current career with Tooting & Mitcham, which I have played using the same tactic from day one that I created using the demo. I never change my tactics going into a match and only ever make changes if I need to towards the end of the game. The tactic hasn't even been adjusted after the patches.


Season League Position Achievements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010/11 Blue Square South 5th Promoted via playoffs
2011/12 Blue Square Premier 8th
2012/13 Blue Square Premier 2nd Promoted via playoffs, FA Trophy finalists
2013/14 Coca-Cola League 2 6th Lost in playoff final
2014/15 Coca-Cola League 2 1st Promoted as champions
2015/16 Coca-Cola League 1 4th Promoted via playoffs, JPT finalists
2016/17 Coca-Cola Championship 9th
2017/18 Coca-Cola Championship 6th Lost in playoff semi
2018/19 Coca-Cola Championship 4th Promoted via playoffs
2019/20 Barclays Premier League 16th
2020/21 Barclays Premier League 11th
2021/22 Barclays Premier League 3rd FA Cup finalists
2022/23 Barclays Premier League 7th Carling Cup finalists, FA Cup winners
2023/24 Barclays Premier League 3rd
2024/25 Barclays Premier League 5th Champions League finalists
2025/26 Barclays Premier League 3rd Carling Cup finalists
2026/27 Barclays Premier League 2nd
2027/28 Barclays Premier League 1st Premier League and Champions League winners
2028/29 Barclays Premier League 1st PL, CL and CWC winners, Carling Cup finalists

What has been said is true, I work hard on a solid tactic then concentrate on getting better players and keeping them happy.

tak
02-01-2010, 22:58
Sorry lads but it's very funny that dafuge had to present his "achievements" as some sort of an argument. Most of the players do that at least once in every edition. We take a tiny little team and lead it to conquering the Champions League.

anagain
03-01-2010, 01:35
Anagain, wrote previously that we simply disagree and let's leave it at that, I said fair enough, and then he decided to attack me personaly. I have never managed a football team, if you really like to know. However, I have started by managing small teams and I currently manage a large organisation.

I am glad you brought the Alex Ferguson example up. Alex is a great manager and a personal acquaintance from the races. He is not presenting some unkown tactic that shocks the opponent. Everyone knows how ManU plays and it is really simple. One of Alex's talents is that he gets the best out of his players. Careful though, because you are inclined to say "but, sure, this is what FM is all about: to give specific instructions to specific players and maximise their performance". Big mistake. Taking the best out of a player has not so much to do with giving him the right instructions but more with the relationship you develop with him. What instructions did Alex give Solskjaer before he went in? Were they tactical instructions? Did he tell him how many clicks forward he should be? lol

I don't want to concentrate on morale either. Morale is a general term and does not really help my cause. Relationships include mixtures trust, love, hate, fear, respect, ambition, competition, jealousy, anger etc.


Well, I am sorry if you took my question as an insult. It wasn't meant that way. You sounded like you were managing in football to give your the points you draw your conclusions from. I was merely asking, in my own way (which was probably the wrong way, as it usually is), where this management was.

I decided to continue the discussion because you seem unwilling to accept a counter viewpoint as if your thoughts are obviously correct.

As I said before the slider system is just a way of putting the tactical side of the game into a computer simulation. What would you do to better represent that Solskjaer should play advanced or deep? You have to have that represented somehow, and I don't think you can make that happen just by treating Solskjaer with respect. You have to have some sort of input system to tell him where to be. The sliders do that.

If you completely take the sliders out of FM what are you left with to tell your team how to play? Set formations with no degree of tweaking? You play 4-4-2 A or you play 4-4-2 B, but you have more ways to let your players know they respect you and to boost their trust, love, hate or fear of you. That, somehow, seems as shallow a game as one that susposedly is a simple case of pick a tactic and go with it.

We can take FM forward in new ways, because I agree that the personal relationship side of FM can be improved upon, but you can't take out the sliders completely. You have to tell a player how you want him to play, even if that is just to tell him to play a free role.

So what instructions did Sir Alex tell you he gave Solskjaer if you know the man?

The game uses Morale because it encompasses a range of terms into one easy to compare category. If FM starts to use a whole range of social relationships then it is going to become over complicated and more Sims 2 than Football Manager. Would knowing how jealous your top scorer is of you or his fellow striker really help you improve team performances?


I don't want to concentrate on morale either. Morale is a general term and does not really help my cause.

But this is a discussion. Discussion's can't evaluate a theory if you choose to ignore something because it does not conform to your wishes. It's like Newton saying he ignored the apple because he didn't want to believe in gravity. It didn't fall because it wasn't there. And, yes, I know Newton believed in gravity....just suppose he didn't.

You have to look at different viewpoints or you come across fanatical. SI looked at different viewpoints when they devised their current tactical interface; the wizard. People had said they didn't like the sliders so SI gave them a new way to devise tactics that left the sliding of sliders to the engine. They obviously decided they couldn't be removed though, and you can still tweak them to get across how you want your team to play.

tak
03-01-2010, 02:11
It is a misunderstanding that you think I want to toss the whole tactical system of FM. All I want is to give tactics the same importance as they have in real life. Which is not as big as it is in FM now. Because the actual management is more important.

We have reached a point where almost everything that happens in the virtual FM field has to be explained by tactics. And that is fine, it is a great game, I will always buy it anyway. That's not to say though that there is not an opportunity to create something monumental. I don't even think it will be like SIMS. I imagine it will be like nothing we have experienced before. But I am just a romantic fool sometimes...

Sir Alex told Ole (and I know that from an interview not from the horse's mouth, so to speak) "see this cup? you will walk in front of it but you won't be able to touch it". Now, this is some fine piece of management and I am sure Sir Alex would have a different thing to say to anyone he would choose to throw in.

Of course the natural question is "ok, so how do you actually propose to simulate real life management?" The natural answer is "I don't have a single clue" I am not a creative developer, sadly. I believe though that there is a great opportunity.

iacovone
03-01-2010, 02:16
Without reading the responses so far, here are my two cents:


Most of the people who know and love football will know immediately what I am talking about (tactics is a very small part of management).

That could not be further from the truth. Tactics and the evolution of tactics is arguably the most key component of the 'real life' game of football. To think that it isn't basically nullifies your post. I'd suggest posting this in the tactics forum and I imagine you'll get a fairly good discussion in there.

You've also not mentioned many ideas in reference to your 'leap of faith' SI need to take. For me the game is at a stage now where it has all the components a real life manager has at his disposal. What SI need to work on now is making certain aspects slightly less tedious (press conferences) and more varied (team talks).

iacovone
03-01-2010, 02:23
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...


Sorry lads but it's very funny that dafuge had to present his "achievements" as some sort of an argument. Most of the players do that at least once in every edition. We take a tiny little team and lead it to conquering the Champions League.

And now having read through the thread and responses I've read these frankly childish responses. Tak you started off a thread with good potential for discussion here but these above responses indicate you are very blinkered and stubborn in terms of being 'creative'. Shame really as crouchaldinho clearly put a lot of thought into his response. If you can't take constructive criticism of your own ideas then I'd suggest you don't look for discussion like this in future. Shame. :(

iacovone
03-01-2010, 02:32
The fact though is that no team has ever become great because it used a fantastic tactics. I am not knocking tactics. I am just putting it in its right place. It is an elementary thing in football that managers know how to use. Tactics don't make a team. Management does.

I think the tacticians behind these successes would disagree actually:

Greece - Euro 2004
Porto - Champions League 2004
Marseille - European Cup 1993
Red Star - European Cup 1991
Ajax - European Cups 1971/72/73
The Dutch Team that totally revolutionized tactics with Total Football in the 70's.

To claim that tactics are an elementary thing that all managers know how to use is absolutely ludicrous. The difference between winning and losing over the history of football has been down to tactical 'leaps of faith' so to speak. Outwitting the other team. Knowing more about how to exploit weaknesses in the opposition. I can understand you calling for greater detail in other aspects of a manager's day to day life in FM but at the cost of the tactical engine? Ridiculous.

tak
03-01-2010, 02:37
This is how much thought crouchaldinho puts into his response: "It's just rubbish. Moronic and infantile nonsense."

Excuse me iacovone but I am not talking to a bully.

As for presenting dafuge's career as some kind of an argument, what can I say, I think it's funny.

To answer your observation about tactics, I completely agree that tactics have been evolved during the history of football (along with player's abilities, pitches, equipment, training methods, diets and many many things). I don't think that has anything to do with what I'm saying though...

Edit: I would like to ask you to keep this discussion civilised. As for the examples you mentioned, I am delighted. Let us take Greece 2004, for example. What was the revolutionary tactical approach? Put 11 players behind the ball and wait for the right moment (preferably a set piece) to strike. Trully innovative! Greece's success had nothing to do with a new tactic that confused the opposition. It was based on pure psychology, masterminded by the great Otto. He basically created a team (hard to tell how) that was determined, strong and resilient. Those players would do anything for each other. He also exploited the fact that Greece were complete underdogs and their opponents never saw them coming.

Almondo
03-01-2010, 02:39
Sorry lads but it's very funny that dafuge had to present his "achievements" as some sort of an argument. Most of the players do that at least once in every edition. We take a tiny little team and lead it to conquering the Champions League.

Why do you find it necessary to belittle dafuge's achievements with Tooting and Mitchell. Dafuges challenge as well as Gundo's and all the other small club to big club challenges are actually quite difficult and rely on using all the areas of FM. So this includes the morale system, the scouting system etc but the most important one is the Tactical side of it.

Dafuge has posted his achievements as a means to show what can be achieved when you have a very strong tactic and also bring in the players who will fit your systerm and not just those who are the best in the world.

You did have a great opportunity for a very good and possibly lively discussion here (which is why this is the General Discussiono forum) but unfortunately you've managed to kill that dead with your refusal to take on some constructive critisim and also the proof thatg tactics are an important part of the game.

iacovone
03-01-2010, 02:44
This is how much thought crouchaldinho puts into his response: "It's just rubbish. Moronic and infantile nonsense."

Excuse me iacovone but I am not talking to a bully.


As far as I can see (please point out if I've missed it) he has not written your thoughts off as 'rubbish, moronic or infantile nonsense' :confused:. He has written a good post addressing what you believe needs changing and fought with a counter argument.


As for presenting dafuge's career as some kind of an argument, what can I say, I think it's funny.It was a frame of reference to back up Crouchaldinho's point that a lot can be achieved in FM without the need for being a tactical expert.


To answer your observation about tactics, I completely agree that tactics have been evolved during the history of football (along with player's abilities, pitches, equipment, training methods, diets and many many things). I don't think that has anything to do with what I'm saying though...

Tactical evolution has everything to do with what you are saying. You are stating that tactics have very little to do with the modern manager, which as shown by my posts is completely incorrect. If you can't see past this basic error in your argument then there isn't much hope of a decent debate here. Tactical knowledge is THE most important tool a football manager must have, especially at the top level, where without it he will not succeed. Simple as that.

tak
03-01-2010, 02:54
It's not really. And I don't understand how the fact that tactics evolved throught 100 years (as they would) makes them THE most important tool of a manager. Of course a succesfull manager has to have strong tactical knowledge, but, especially at the top level, this is secondary.

You are really getting confused though. Dafuge made a point that a lot can be achieved in FM without the need for being a tactical expert? I thought you were saying tactics is THE most important thing in real life? Is FM such a bad simulation then?

tak
03-01-2010, 03:01
Why do you find it necessary to belittle dafuge's achievements with Tooting and Mitchell. Dafuges challenge as well as Gundo's and all the other small club to big club challenges are actually quite difficult and rely on using all the areas of FM. So this includes the morale system, the scouting system etc but the most important one is the Tactical side of it.

Dafuge has posted his achievements as a means to show what can be achieved when you have a very strong tactic and also bring in the players who will fit your systerm and not just those who are the best in the world.

You did have a great opportunity for a very good and possibly lively discussion here (which is why this is the General Discussiono forum) but unfortunately you've managed to kill that dead with your refusal to take on some constructive critisim and also the proof thatg tactics are an important part of the game.

Dafuge made a point that he played one tactic for 25 years and won everything, so the game is not very much about tactics.

At the same time other people say that football is all about tactics and fair play to the game for reflecting that.

I am saying.. well you know what I'm saying

iacovone
03-01-2010, 03:03
Right let me show you my standpoint on the issue:

FM is an excellent simulation in my opinion.

Tactics are an integral part of a manager's arsenal in real life.

The tactical element in FM is therefore one of the largest and most detailed parts of the game.

However, despite it having great depth, Crouchaldinho, and then dafuge emphasized that it is NOT essential to be an expert within the game to achieve something - backing up your point originally.

I think it is you that is getting confused.

My final point tonight on the issue:

FM is great in this respect because it allows the casual gamer to be successful in FM if they can buy the best players in the world for example. In that instance (as in real life for the most part) your team will be a success. HOWEVER for the devoted tacticians amongst us it is possible to turn an 'average' side into an overachieving side, capable of great success with below top class players. That is why I'd say the FM series has been so successful - it incorporates a whole host of managerial duties, but never insists on you being an absolute expert in all fields to achieve success within the game. And this happens in real life too.

ps. Please explain to me why you think tactics are secondary at the top level. Night.

Seabeast
03-01-2010, 03:08
I think the game needs what the OP is suggesting. We pretty much pay for SI to update this game yearly with new features, which is pretty much how it is with all sports games, so thats not a dig at SI. However, It would be nice to come into a new FM that feels fresh, new, exciting, because lets be honest, not much has changed over the last few years.

Talkin to the press is very poor, and feels pretty much meaningless for the most part, and some of the reactions you get from the players...well the less said about it the better. 9 times out of 10 you tend to just click the same old reply to the question. do we even read the full question after a month or two of them?

Training needs a total revamp, it should allow us to focus on a player a lot more rather than simply move a few sliders which allows a player to work on 4 or 5 areas when most of the time you would rather they focused on one. I find the training side of the game to be a giant snorefest, and would love for S.I to revamp this with better options, maybe a training ME that allows you to set up full on training sessions which would allow you to see how the players train, who is on form before the games. I know you get the odd report about players training, but its not really enough to get a feel for what they are doing during the days before games. Many little things could be used here, setting times for training, showing what time players show up for it, and the time they leave. Some people would probably hate to do this so it could be something you set up and set the assistant to do for you and give you a weekly report. I know some of this could be a little much, but its simply a few ideas.

I have said this many times, but the transfer/contract negotitations should be a face to face, or over the phone action so you can barter with the clubs/players rather than wait for a day or two for them to reject a bid/contract. It's a bit annoying to have to wait a day to hear back if the player has accepted terms or not, then have to do it all over again if he wants a bit more money, surely this is where agents could come into the game. A director of football, or whoever deals with the transfers should have more of a role in the dealings too ( I'm not talking Dennis Wise style, but more like Ivan Gazidis of Arsenal, or how David Dein used to do his job ) I know on the Jose Antonio Reyes deal DD went over to talk over the deal with the Sevilla president, so the deal was sorted out and Reyes flew to England to complete the move later that day. I know all deals arent completed this way, but its better than the current FM dealings.

A lot of managers tell the DoF the player they want and leave them to do the work, which would be something that could take away from the transfer system, so they could be used to make dealings more of a real time things, done either via conference call, face to face or whatever. I would love a system where you get in touch with the club/agent regarding the player, then theres a meeting with the player to trash out personal terms before the medical. I would think the player gets 'interviewed' a little by the manager and are asked questions, and id guess that they have questions for the manager also....like what position they would be used etc, because the story about Silvestre turning down Liverpool before Joining Man united was interesting, considering he turned them down because they wanted him to play at left back, which he ended up doing for Man utd anyway, but this could be something that would make the transfer dealings a lot more interactive and intersting.

I think it would make the transfers something that would be a lot more interesting than pressing submit bid, selecting player role ' back up for the first team ' and offering the contract.

Agents pretty much have no place in FM and it would make the transfer windows more interesting if players were offered to you more, agents contacting you saying a player would like to join the club etc etc. If you watch a lot of real life managers during Press sessions they always talk about agents calling them saying they have a player who is the best thing since sliced bread, or they constantly have the mobile on the go with agents trying to sell them players, but ive only been offered about 3 players in FM10 so far.

The players medical would be something that could be improved. A full report of the player would be something that could add another interesting factor in transfers. The club doctors/physio could send you a report regarding the players health, past injuries and maybe even their opinion on how the players health will be in the future, for example....say Liverpool sign Emile Heskey this month, they would obviously check his levels of fitness, any past issues and pass/fail him based on this and more, but surely if they reported to Rafa that it looked like he only had a year left in his legs because his fitness was low, it would be something that could make Rafa switch transfer targets, but again, only ideas off the top of my head.

The tactics are almost there for me, in FM10 its done quite well, although id like a little more diversity in what instructions i can give to certain players.

Anyway, thats enough for now, hope you guys like some of the ideas.

tak
03-01-2010, 03:10
Right let me show you my standpoint on the issue:

FM is an excellent simulation in my opinion.

Tactics are an integral part of a manager's arsenal in real life.

The tactical element in FM is therefore one of the largest and most detailed parts of the game.

However, despite it having great depth, Crouchaldinho, and then dafuge emphasized that it is NOT essential to be an expert within the game to achieve something - backing up your point originally.

I think it is you that is getting confused.

My final point tonight on the issue:

FM is great in this respect because it allows the casual gamer to be successful in FM if they can buy the best players in the world for example. In that instance (as in real life for the most part) your team will be a success. HOWEVER for the devoted tacticians amongst us it is possible to turn an 'average' side into an overachieving side, capable of great success with below top class players. That is why I'd say the FM series has been so successful - it incorporates a whole host of managerial duties, but never insists on you being an absolute expert in all fields to achieve success within the game. And this happens in real life too.

ps. Please explain to me why you think tactics are secondary at the top level. Night.

How, according to what you are saying that football management is all about tactics, can FM be an excellent simulation when, still according to you, you can achieve something without being a tactical expert?

anagain
03-01-2010, 03:20
It's not really. And I don't understand how the fact that tactics evolved throught 100 years (as they would) makes them THE most important tool of a manager. Of course a succesfull manager has to have strong tactical knowledge, but, especially at the top level, this is secondary.


Well here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football_tactics_and_skills) is something to start reading, then. Yes, it is only wiki but you'll be linked to other articles.

I'm not sure you're willing to understand if it doesn't get people on your cause though.

You could spend some money on this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inverting-Pyramid-History-Football-Tactics/dp/0752889958) if you so wish too. Someone mentioned it above.

iacovone
03-01-2010, 03:26
How, according to what you are saying that football management is all about tactics, can FM be an excellent simulation when, still according to you, you can achieve something without being a tactical expert?

Have a think about the definition of 'achieve something'. It doesn't mean win every competition in world football, its relative. If you're Burnley and you can take them into the top half then you have achieved something significant in my book. My point is that this could be achieved following either method in FM. You could be a tactical expert working with average players (like Hodgeson at Fulham IRL), or you could be a transfer guru (like Redknapp was at Pompey). That is reflected in game and is why I stated that I think FM is an excellent simulation.

Seabeast
03-01-2010, 03:39
Guys, this little war would be much better done via the private messaging or something, its ruining the thread.

tingting
03-01-2010, 06:42
I have no problems with the current tactical system in the game (though it could do with some more individual options) I think sliders are the most important part in the game (you cannot very well talk with your virtual players) because you cannot expect your players to perform how you want by just putting them in a formation. Similarly tactics is the most important part of the real game....a tactical genius could overachieve with a bunch of poor players while a tactical fool could destroy a team containing superstars. The tactics creator has gone a long way in simplifying the sliders in this version (though i have ditched it after finding that my team will play a more solid game if i go back to the old model).

However as anagain said...it does retain the 20 numbers. This is the only sore point in the game (for me). Once again please dont misunderstand (happening a lot to me these days:()...sliders are necessary...but what is not necessary is the 20 clicks for mentality, passing, creative freedom and closing down...in one of the earlier versions someone said you need it to position a player on the pitch...but you already have so many positions available in the formation...for example a central midfielder has defensive, normal and attacking positions while the defenders too have the option of standing in the penalty box or outside (i have not tried this so i dont know whether this is true...stating what i see on the pitch :))

What really is the difference between a 16 creative freedom and a 18-19 creative freedom?? how does it affect the passing of a player if it is set to 2 or 4 (seeing that both the options are short) Maybe instead of all those numbers, you can simply the tactics system to just three (or in case of mentality and passing to five) clicks? For example passing can be set as short, mixed, direct and long? That will go a long way in simplifying the system to what type of passing should be chosen rather than deciding whether to choose 7 passing or a 12 passing?

And the numbers of options could be increased in the individual tactics screen? There has been some improvement in this region with the "Roam from Position" and the "Wideplay" options...but a couple of other options that could be used are asking the players to come deep to get the ball...or asking them to help the defense (which could see the player in question following the ball by coming one (or two depending on his mentality) position back??

Regarding media interaction...i remember that in my first championship manager game (i think it was 01/02) you used to get a news item if your team went through (i think it was five games) a winning, losing, unbeaten or winless streaks. The same was for the players who impressed in a number of games. I wonder why did they leave that out (i understand why they left the players' since you can release a comment but why did they leave the team's?) That could have increased the players' bonding with the manager.

Another media item that could be used was for an uncapped/dropped player from the national team with the club manager saying that he is ready to play for his country (or something along that line) and either the national manager agreeing/disagreeing with the comment and/or a news item saying that while the player is in good form, the current first choice player is performing on a consistent basis..or even the opposite might be used?

(p.s.: I think this post is a logical one and hope that it adds something constructive to the thread. I have written the post based on my understanding of the game and i hope it is enough to know how the game works. I also hope that i am not being "pedantic" nor am i "trolling" the thread. Finally, the gist of this post is not about arguing that night is day or day is night...if i have wasted someone's time...then i apologize....thank you:))

dafuge
03-01-2010, 11:24
Sorry lads but it's very funny that dafuge had to present his "achievements" as some sort of an argument. Most of the players do that at least once in every edition. We take a tiny little team and lead it to conquering the Champions League.

But I've done it without any real tactical input at all, all I've achieved is due to the 'other stuff' without concentrating too much on tactics. I thought that was what the thread was getting at.

I'm not trying to say that my 'achievements' are outstanding and something completely out of the ordinary, other people have done a lot better than I have. I'm just trying to say that it is possible to achieve a decent (not unbelievable) level of success with almost no focus on tactical tweaking at all.

I'm quite happy to admit that the way I play is perhaps not the most realistic, it is just the way I find the most enjoyable.

Geoff Newman
03-01-2010, 11:50
I personally don't believe that the game is too reliant on tactics. The ease with which to build a decent tactic with the wizard underlines this. The most important factor of this game is managing your squad. It's about having the right players to suit your tactics.

It's no good littering your team with attacking flair players with low determination if you're going to play on the "overload" setting. You risk falling behind in such situations, and the low determination will hinder any comeback. This is not a result of the games reliance on tactics, this is a result of poor management of the squad (picking the wrong players).

You also won't win if you're unable to manage your players' condition. Having a strong first XI is not enough, because fatigue and injuries will occur. If you have to rely on unfit players playing, or you haven't properly organised your back up, then you will struggle.

Morale and teamtalks have been explored numerous times, and the effect both have on the way the game pans out is vitally important. This is why people come on here and complain about going on long unbeaten streaks to then suddenly find themselves on long non-winning streaks. It's not that the game is unfair, but merely that the player undervalues the role of morale. Look at Villa last season - went 16 games unbeaten, and then failed to win in 11. Similarly, look at Birmingham City at the moment. Not a team of world beaters, but their belief in themselves has helped put them on an incredible run.

jcafcwbb
03-01-2010, 12:13
One thing about the sliders is does it give us too much control over players? And does it give too many options?

For example if you look at Nani. He was obviously bought as a replacement for the outgoing Ronaldo but he hasn't worked out. But I am sure that by using the sliders you can probably find a formula to make him an effective player. But if you sign a new winger who has the ability to beat players but has a poor final ball - Aaron Lennon for example - you will obviously have to work on his final ball and decision making; I get the impression Harry has. This would never happen overnight and FM10 has bought this aspect into the game very well. But they could go further, instead of being able to change the slider values of a player the adjustment should be made over time from training and the PPM selection. It is a manager's job to spot the gaps in a players game and solve it.

Also during the match you should only have access to touchline shouts. This can be evolved to team and individual shouts - ie telling a team to hassle more or an individual to pass into space. You can already change opponent instructions/substitute etc in the touchline instructions.

Sliders may be needed for the ME engine to work properly by with player roles, duties and an amended touchline shouts to encompass individual shouts we should be able to change tactics without us directly accessing them. They should be in the background without our ability to change them.

Blanchflower1
03-01-2010, 13:02
Far more in-depth analysis from scouts/assistant manager. Not just "Chelsea haven't scored many goals in between 76th-90th minute.."

etc..

more like "Chelsea have used a 4-5-1 system more regularly with Joe Cole playing as the most advanced midfielder, he likes to find pockets of space"

"the holding midfielder usually looks to get on the ball as much as possible, while the other midfielder looks to break from midfield to support forwards"

"The striker likes to drop deep to recieve the ball OR..the striker likes to run the channels"

"both their wingers enjoy staying right out wide and keeping their width.."

"this team usually play a high line"

Things like this, this is information managers will recieve before everygame, along with player monitors fitness levels, distance covered...or things like "Assistant manager informs you, Player A's work rate drops considerably as a game goes on.."

then it's upto you what you do with that information.

This type of in depth analysis would need to have complex programming language!

crouchaldinho
03-01-2010, 13:08
Right let me show you my standpoint on the issue:

FM is an excellent simulation in my opinion.

Tactics are an integral part of a manager's arsenal in real life.

The tactical element in FM is therefore one of the largest and most detailed parts of the game.

However, despite it having great depth, Crouchaldinho, and then dafuge emphasized that it is NOT essential to be an expert within the game to achieve something - backing up your point originally.

I think it is you that is getting confused.

Spot on Iacovone. That is exactly our argument.

It is possible to be a Kevin Keegan or a Harry Redknapp on FM (i.e. someone who focuses primarily on players, motivation and man management). At the same time, you can be a tactical mastermind (as I pretend to be when playing FM! :p) and switch between 4-2-3-1s and 4-3-1-2s etc., tweaking this and that to your heart's content! :)

Of course, the very best managers in real life can do both and you'll have most success on FM if you can manage the tactical side, motivate your players and bring in top quality players to add to your squad. That's what all of the top coaches do. :thup:

Regards,
C.

crouchaldinho
03-01-2010, 13:13
You've also not mentioned many ideas in reference to your 'leap of faith' SI need to take.

Quite right. This notion that the game needs to take a 'leap of faith' is all very vague and it seems to be based on largely unsound principles.

Of course, there are aspects of the game that need to be worked on. However, I think the depth and complexity is very impressive. If you read any work by a top coach on tactics and motivation and you will find pretty much everything translated to some level in FM. The key to the future of the series is to continue to improve these factors.

Regards,
C.

crouchaldinho
03-01-2010, 13:26
Talkin to the press is very poor, and feels pretty much meaningless for the most part, and some of the reactions you get from the players...well the less said about it the better. 9 times out of 10 you tend to just click the same old reply to the question. do we even read the full question after a month or two of them?

Have you ever heard an interview with Rafa Benitez? He gets asked the same questions 90% of the time and he 'clicks' the same answers, usually involving the phrases, 'we have kwality', 'we have confidence' and 'we concentrate only on the next game' etc. :D

Press conferences are pretty dull to watch in real life. Have you ever sat watching Sky Sports News before? Yawn. Zzzzzzzzzzzz. :p

I'm actually enjoying the press conferences in FM10. I put myself in the shoes of the manager and, although I sometimes give the same answers, I also shake things up when I'm going through a bad run of form or I need a win.

Having said all of that, this is clearly an area of the game which will continue to evolve and it's obvious that there is plenty of room for improvement. :thup:


Training needs a total revamp, it should allow us to focus on a player a lot more rather than simply move a few sliders which allows a player to work on 4 or 5 areas when most of the time you would rather they focused on one. I find the training side of the game to be a giant snorefest, and would love for S.I to revamp this with better options, maybe a training ME that allows you to set up full on training sessions which would allow you to see how the players train, who is on form before the games.

Training is an area that could be developed and possibly changed. However, something like a training ME would be pretty boring in my opinion. It wouldn't add very much to the game at all. I predict that we would end up with a flashy add-on that barely any of us use.

You have to be careful with the training aspect of the game. I don't know if you have ever watched a training session in real life, but it isn't terribly interesting. I mean to say, it is kind of interesting in real life to see how players are doing, but can you imagine it in FM? The first thing most people would do is turn it off! So it is difficult to see how much beyond the slider control system and the player interaction it could move without becoming terribly dull in the process.


I have said this many times, but the transfer/contract negotitations should be a face to face, or over the phone action so you can barter with the clubs/players rather than wait for a day or two for them to reject a bid/contract.

I'm not sure that I could stand this personally. It sounds horrible to me and very tacky in my opinion.


Agents pretty much have no place in FM and it would make the transfer windows more interesting if players were offered to you more, agents contacting you saying a player would like to join the club etc etc. If you watch a lot of real life managers during Press sessions they always talk about agents calling them saying they have a player who is the best thing since sliced bread, or they constantly have the mobile on the go with agents trying to sell them players, but ive only been offered about 3 players in FM10 so far.

This one is a potentially good suggestion. I quite liked it when agents used to send you a video of a player. I'm not dreaming, am I? I'm sure that was on one of the CM games. :confused: Does anyone remember?


The tactics are almost there for me, in FM10 its done quite well, although id like a little more diversity in what instructions i can give to certain players.

I agree with this and I think (and hope!) it will continue to develop. But tactically, I really feel that we are heading in the right direction. I'm thoroughly enjoying the tactical side of FM10 and the tactics creator and tactics shouts are the biggest recent revolution in the game for me personally (bigger than 3D!)

Regards,
C.

Mr Sandman
03-01-2010, 13:30
love the new role selection, it lessens the importance of the "twenty" slider positions

tak
03-01-2010, 14:09
First of all I would like, once more, to ask crouchaldinho to keep away from this thread. We all remember what happened last time (http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=177980&page=4, post 325). He even had the nerve to say that he never swears. People like him disgust me and I wonder why is he not getting banned.

I would like to say a few things about the importance of tactics issue. My position is of course that tactics are not the most important thing in football management, which for many people is very strange. I too grew up with those wonderful stories about evolution of tactics etc. and believed for many years that they are very important.

Tactics have indeed been evolved together with players' abilities, training methods, dieticians' studies, improved equipment, improved pitches and many other things. As football grew in popularity, more people got involved and more money were spend, it was only natural that it would get better. The evolution of football becomes easier for the reader if he is shown certain examples like the great Ajax team someone mentioned above. It is customary to think about this team in terms of revolutionary tactics. It was a lot more than that. Michels took revolutionary approaches to building the team and managed the club from top to bottom turning them from amateurs with day jobs to the top European team. Mainly, he worked with psycho-analytical methods. Cruyff said Michels was their father. What Michels did is instill ambition, remove the fear of pain, instill fighting mentality etc.A strong hierarchy was introduced, a clan mentality, the leader being Cruyff. Weak links were sacked, it was the most terrible environment to work in. Many players and staff are still bitter.

Michels' work was the work of a true leader and yet we are told that he introduced some fantastic tactics and the team became great. Incredibly wrong. Ajax tactics came naturaly through the new managerial approach. It was a result rather than a cause.

More answers later, because I have to go now...

dafuge
03-01-2010, 14:33
I'm still confused as to why my post was so laughable. Didn't it show you that what you are after is possible, backing up your argument?

Oypus
03-01-2010, 14:47
Your suggestions are pretty good Tak. But until you can find a way for AI to respond to real situations exactly as a human, they are impossible. I would suggest letting us know when you got that, along with the whole scientific world. ;)

The current responses to situations are hard coded. They happen, you get a message, maybe a few choices based on that. (What can happen is have more choices. And I'm all for that.) The AI can't exactly look at a situation, then apply human reasoning and make a decision. IRL, the amount of choices any human has at any given time is infinite. Really, you can do whatever you like, whenever you like. Most people, of course, don't. What you're proposing will end up being unnecessarily complex. How do you code something to have infinite choices? A game where you micro manage the egos of twenty or so international superstars, in addition to trying to win a game here and there? That's hardly what most people are looking for. I think we just want to win some games.

crouchaldinho
03-01-2010, 15:08
First of all I would like, once more, to ask crouchaldinho to keep away from this thread. We all remember what happened last time (http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=177980&page=4, post 325).

I will admit that this wasn't my proudest moment. It was an emotional response to some of the trolling going on in that thread. I regret it and would delete the post if I could do so now. At the same time, I also don't think that it was as terrible as you are making out. You didn't exactly cover yourself in glory either!

Please accept my apology if I have upset you by referring to the idea of the AI cheating as 'moronic and infantile nonsense'. That thread has gone and finished. I would hope that you could move on.


He even had the nerve to say that he never swears.

I don't see any swearing at all in that post. :confused:

I would like to emphasise the fact that I have not been swearing at anyone, so I do wish you would stop making such a claim against me! :mad:

I don't like to swear. I consider it vulgar and unnecessary.


People like him disgust me and I wonder why is he not getting banned.

What on earth should I be banned for? Giving an opinion that is different to yours, I assume? :rolleyes:

Anyway, you seem very adept at ignoring all points of view but that of your own. Perhaps you might consider addressing some of the alternative points of view on this thread. Thank you. :)

iacovone
03-01-2010, 15:47
To be honest Crouchy I think its worth us all just ignoring Tak and his 'opinions'. He hasn't offered any ideas of his own for this 'leap of faith' as we well know.

His most recent post could be the funniest yet seeing as he has quite obviously, very unsubtly read up on the Ajax team of the 70s. He may as well have cut and pasted from wikipedia :rolleyes:. I have very little time for his childish responses to you Crouchy. Whilst your response in the superkeeper thread may not have been that wise (as this one probably isn't from myself), it did highlight the generally deluded standard of posting he offers. :thdn:

Calling for you to get banned ffs :D

Neji
03-01-2010, 16:15
Let's leave out the comments on other users posting style please. All it does is cause arguments. Anyone ignoring this warning, will be dealt with accordingly.

Ezequiel_Lavezzi
03-01-2010, 18:16
Tactics need to be toned down a bit. Player intuition needs to be heavily buffed.

Motivational skills need to be heavily revamped in a way that a player just wont become angry or unsettled by little team talks or heavily motivated in the same manner.

In FM it is far too easy for a side to become unhappy and far too difficult to keep the dressing room happy and friendships formed and players bonding.

It isn't totally wrong in it's current state, but it needs to be a little less aggressive with the way the game responds to certain events.

wwfan
03-01-2010, 21:54
FM is already what you make it.

If you decide that you will only access the creator settings, FM is a finely balanced simulation of tactical, motivational and strategic play. Using the creator ensures you cannot 'break' the ME or employ strategies the AI cannot cope with, meaning you have to successfully manage motivation and squad building issues to achieve. If you send out a poorly motivated team, you have to react quickly and introduce tactical solutions to limit the damage. If you send out a fantastically motivated team, you often don't have to do much in tactical terms. If you have the wrong players for the tactic you are trying to play, you will struggle. If you have balanced player ability with your tactical ideas you will do well. If you have lost the dressing room and/or morale is shot, you are in for a difficult season.

Rejecting all the creator/match functionality can either make motivation and squad management more or less important. If you use the creator to design a single tactic which you use all the time, you will need to be a superb motivational and squad developer in order to succeed. Because you aren't doing tactical things the AI can't cope with, man and squad management are the only tools in your armoury and you need to become amazingly good at them. Get a team talk/press conference/management interaction wrong and your team might implode, with you powerless to stop the problems as you won't make any tactical changes. Consistently get them right and you'll do well.

Reverting to the classic siders can make motivation and squad management next to irrelevant. Although the AI is far more sophisticated than it used to be, it is still possible to 'break' it (or at least seriously challenge it) with certain 'custom' settings. If you custom tweak your own settings to come up with a tactic that dominates the AI no matter how it plays, then it doesn't matter how motivated your players are or what players you have as you will always have a chance of winning through tactical manipulation alone. For people who reverted to the classic system as the creator tactics were too 'unstable', it is because you are not very good at motivation or squad management and thus must rely on designing micro-detailed tactics to gain a consistent advantage.

Although in real life it is possible to be revolutionary in a tactical sense, it only ever gives you an advantage for a few seasons at most before other teams catch on and catch up, thus rendering your tactical innovation obsolete. Every 'revolutionary' tactical system that succeeded spawned imitators and/or opposites deliberately designed to counter the problems they posed. Winning titles through tactical innovation alone was/is possible, but only for a season or two. Greece's Euro win was, for example, built on a foundation of man-marking. Man-marking was a lost art, and when Greece re-introduced it, teams didn't know what to do against it, giving the Greeks just enough advantage to beat teams that, player for player, were superior. However, once the Euros finished, post-competition analysis levelled out the advantages of their system as everyone now knew what to expect and slowly worked it out. For the coming World Cup, it will be interesting to see if other teams follow the USA's tight-pressing defensive system against Spain's idiosyncratic narrow/possession game as it reduced their outlet balls and dried up their passing. If they do, Spain still have the players to overcome it, but the tactical questions it poses the Spanish system will require them to perform on the day every day.

In FM, if you have such an innovative system, the AI never works it out, meaning you never need to worry about motivation and squad management issues. You know you will play well every time you send the team out. The AI will never catch on, so you may as well just keep on pressing continue. In my opinion, playing like this limits the potential enjoyment of the game, although I can appreciate the reasons for doing so. However, the arguments that extend from such a playing methodology are flawed. Tactics seem overly important and man/squad management less so, simply because of how you have constructed your tactic. You have manipulated numerous 20 point sliders into a 'perfect' combination that ensures success, which is impossible and unrealistic in the real world. Forgetting they exist and using creator settings only brings about a far more rounded and enjoyable simulation.

tak
04-01-2010, 15:33
I'm still confused as to why my post was so laughable. Didn't it show you that what you are after is possible, backing up your argument?

I have sometime now to answer that, apologies for the delay.

My argument, dafuge, was never that it is impossible to succeed in FM if you do not constantly tweak tactics. Of course you can succeed by buying good players and doing little tactical work.

What I'm saying is that this game is built around tactics, ignoring or being unable to cope with real management issues. I never bother with tactics even, my way of playing is very similar to yours. I just find good players for the certain roles and then trying not to upset them.

So, of course you can ignore tactics, but does that change the fact that there are no real management features? No. All you can do if you don't want to become a tactical nerd in this game is:

a) answer the same questions over and over again
b) saying the same things over and over again
c) hearing the same advice over and over again
e) taking the same decisions over and over again

Whoever said that the man and communication management features are good has really no ambition in life. The management side of the job is there, and I gave credit to SI for trying to put something in, but it is so shallow that it actually reduces the feel of realism. The management tools are:

a) too few (team talks, press conferences, individual comments)
b) very poor (repetitive, lifeless, dull, plastic, beige)

The fact is that the higher you go to the football food chain the more you have to be a manager/leader than a tactician. Hell, you can even employee a tactician if you want, someone who read many books and can amuse you and, who knows, he might even say something clever. But, let us face the truth here, top managers are managers, they are not nerds.

Someone mentioned a few football successes, two of which I talked about: Ajax and Greece. I argued that they were both based on leadership skills and psychology and that tactics were less important (not unimportant, mind you). What were the answers to that: Well, about Ajax I was told that I read wikipedia and about Greece that their success was based on the re-introduction of man-marking (?). In essence, I got no answers.

The truth is, all great football successes were based more on man management than tactics. Naturally, at various points throughout football history, new tactics have stemmed from great teams. Years later, historians wrote books about those tactics and concluded that they were the makings of great teams. It is the same with many other stories both in sports and other aspects of life. Some historian puts what happened in a jar and draws conclusions.

Anyway, I will try and make some propositions later (sadly, I am not a programmer but I will try to start a brainstorming session)

dafuge
04-01-2010, 15:53
My argument, dafuge, was never that it is impossible to succeed in FM if you do not constantly tweak tactics. Of course you can succeed by buying good players and doing little tactical work.

Fair enough, I think I was reading between the lines and came to the wrong conclusion that you were annoyed at how difficult the game is if you are not tactically astute. In my defence, we do get an awful lot of those types of threads here so you can't really blame me.

Focussing on the 'other stuff' in management is something which FM will always need to do to move forward although it isn't always that easy, you've seen the reaction from a lot of people regarding the new press conference feature when it was introduced.

If things are going to be added/changed, it needs to be in such a way that is enjoyable to play and realistic, I'm looking forward to reading your suggestions :thup:

djwilko6
04-01-2010, 16:03
For once I agree with tak, tho I know Crouchy doesn't agree :p

Tactics do play too big a part in the game at the moment (possibly for the last few games actually), but what other way is there of doing it? Buying good players relative to the league and man managing them is something I have tried ad have had reasonable fun in doing so, but that doesnt nessercarily translate into success (winning leagues).

In my opinion it should be possible to be successful by having an above average squad (but not great) and a reasonable tactic to be semi-successful and then use the man management to take it up a level. But for me this just isn't possible, I find I have to take advantage of the match engine short falls (in the case of one-on-one chances, or the so called "superkeepers" issue, thats playing much wider than I'd like) rather than a narrow,long ball tactic ala-Bolton/Stoke.

I realise I'm all over the place in this post, that's my shortfall :p

crouchaldinho
04-01-2010, 16:19
First of all, I am curious to know your nationality Tak, if you don't mind me asking?

Now, to respond to your post.


The fact is that the higher you go to the football food chain the more you have to be a manager/leader than a tactician. Hell, you can even employee a tactician if you want, someone who read many books and can amuse you and, who knows, he might even say something clever. But, let us face the truth here, top managers are managers, they are not nerds.

I think before you start talking about what is the 'truth', we need some evidence here. This is simply your opinion really, isn't it? What is it based on?

A lot of evidence would seem to suggest that actually the top managers are great tacticians, as well as being good man managers and motivators.



Someone mentioned a few football successes, two of which I talked about: Ajax and Greece. I argued that they were both based on leadership skills and psychology and that tactics were less important (not unimportant, mind you). What were the answers to that: Well, about Ajax I was told that I read wikipedia and about Greece that their success was based on the re-introduction of man-marking (?). In essence, I got no answers.

I think you got a fairly good answer from WWFan regarding Greece actually. How can you dismiss his answer so readily?



The truth is, all great football successes were based more on man management than tactics.

There you go again with the 'truth' where this is just your opinion. Can we have some evidence of this? Could you explain how you have reached this conclusion?

Can I also ask if you have ever read Inverting the Pyramid? Have you read any other tactical theory books or any football history books? Also, do you have any experience in football coaching or even football managing?



Some historian puts what happened in a jar and draws conclusions.

Just as you seem to be doing by dismissing tactical theory. Your just putting it into a different jar, aren't you? :p

Can we really ignore what football historians, scholars and academics have to say? Can we really ignore what the top people in football, both in history and in the present, have to say?



Anyway, I will try and make some propositions later (sadly, I am not a programmer but I will try to start a brainstorming session)

I'm very interested to see what you come up with and I mean that very genuinely. I look forward to it. :thup:

Just a few quick points regarding things like press conferences etc. before I finish this post. You mention about the repetitive nature of such things, well, as I wrote above, have you ever heard an interview with Rafa Benitez? The questions he is asked are all very similar and we could all quote his answers (e.g. 'we have kwality', 'we have confidence' and 'we concentrate only on the next game' etc.) without much prompting! This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XOogJhhI7Y)is an example of what I mean. :D

Things like press conferences and team talks are necessarily repetitive. Of course, I wouldn't disagree with the idea that they need to continue to evolve and it's obvious that there is plenty of room for improvement. However, it is very important to be careful with these aspects of the game because new additions could become terribly dull very quickly. The plethora of meetings you were talking about - which seem to be your main contribution to this 'leap of faith' so far - could be potentially very boring for the gamer. Even more repetition would presumably be involved! I personally would hate to see tacky add-ons involving telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and so on.

One thing I would like to see is the ability to directly communicate with your players. Right now, we must always go through the media, and I find that frustrating. It would have to be carefully managed but there are possibilities here that need to be explored in my opinion.

I cannot agree with your assertion that 'football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things' though. I feel this is as wrong as claiming that tactics are the only important thing in football. I think that you might find Jonathan Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid - mentioned very often on these forums - to be a most illuminating read and I would thoroughly recommend it given your negative stance regarding the tactical side of the game.

crouchaldinho
04-01-2010, 16:29
In my opinion it should be possible to be successful by having an above average squad (but not great) and a reasonable tactic to be semi-successful and then use the man management to take it up a level.

I find this is how it works for me. Are you using creator tactics or classic tactics?

Have a read of WWFan's post a few posts up where he talks about exactly this.


But for me this just isn't possible, I find I have to take advantage of the match engine short falls (in the case of one-on-one chances, or the so called "superkeepers" issue, thats playing much wider than I'd like) rather than a narrow,long ball tactic ala-Bolton/Stoke.

I wonder if this is a shortfall of the way that you are approaching the game, rather than a shortfall of the game itself. I often find that the people who make claims about the tactical side of the game are playing FM very much as if it is a game to be beaten. They look at how they can beat the match engine and the AI, instead of thinking about real life football. Reading your post, it seems that this is exactly what you are doing (e.g. looking for something to take advantage of the match engine).

Similarly, I get the impression that Tak does the same things and I also get the impression that he does the same with the media side of the game. He talks about giving the same answers over and over again, and about making sure that he doesn't 'upset the players'. This is all very gamey. It's an attitude which seems to be saying, 'how can I beat the game?' rather than 'how can I win this football match?' if you understand my point.

I have always approached FM by trying to apply real life football ideas to it. My tactics are based on what I see every Saturday when I attend a match and my man handling and motivation skills in the game are based on what I see going on in real life. I never try to 'beat' the game. I just try to win a few football matches and make some good decisions along the way. :D

I can't help but wonder if WWFan's post actually shed more light on this whole thread than I realised at first. He talks about the different ways to play the game, and I definitely play FM as a simulation, rather than as if it is a game to be beaten by finding some perfect combination. I feel that this is where the main issues with tactics, motivation and man management may lie.

djwilko6
04-01-2010, 16:39
One thing I would like to see is more ability to directly communicate with your players. Right now, we must always go through the media, and I find that frustrating. It would have to be carefully managed but there are possibilities here that need to be explored in my opinion.

100% agree here, I always thought it strange that it goes through the media at all really.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that team talks still need a lot of work. I realise this is about to possibly contradict what I said about tactics, but it is my opinion that they play more of a part than they should. For big occasions, yes maybe they should (taking Liverpool's CL win as a RL example there), but for more mundane games, I don't think the players should be AS influenced by a good team talk.

What should happen is that everything together should result in a successful team. As a sort of grading scale what I think should happen is as follows, tho obviously it wouldnt be as simple as laid out, and with luck not included:

Great players, better tactics = Team that will be challengeing for the title
Great players, average tactics = Challengeing for a CL spot, should struggle more against teams with the great players.
Average players, better tactics = Midtable/Europa spot.
Average players, average tactics = Midtable/relegation

I'll be happy to answer any combination and where I think they should finish.

djwilko6
04-01-2010, 16:49
I find this is how it works for me. Are you using creator tactics or classic tactics?

Have a read of WWFan's post a few posts up where he talks about exactly this.



I've tried both, I found it easier with the creator tho.




I wonder if this is a shortfall of the way that you are approaching the game, rather than a shortfall of the game itself. I often find that the people who make claims about the tactical side of the game are playing FM very much as if it is a game to be beaten. They look at how they can beat the match engine and the AI, instead of thinking about real life football. Reading your post, it seems that this is exactly what you are doing (e.g. looking for something to take advantage of the match engine).

Similarly, I get the impression that Tak does the same things and I also get the impression that he does the same with the media side of the game. He talks about giving the same answers over and over again, and about making sure that he doesn't 'upset the players'. This is all very gamey. It's an attitude which seems to be saying, 'how can I beat the game?' rather than 'how can I win this football match?' if you understand my point.


I'm not denying that fact, it very could be my own shortfall.

However I don't play to "beat the game", tho winning is always fun :p, I try to put into practise what I see on the pitch (I don't go to real life games tho) but if I can't get it to work aswell as I'd like I'll look for the weaknesses in the match engine. Most certainy that is my own shortfalls, but it could also be that I don't have the tools to put across what I'd like in the game.

Just as quick and easy example, I had reasonable success in get an Arsenal-like system working with short, quick, counter-attacking football. But what I really wanted is a way to get the 4 forward players in my 4-1-1-3-1 interchanging, but I just couldnt work it out.


I have always approached FM by trying to apply real life football ideas to it. My tactics are based on what I see every Saturday when I attend a match and my man handling and motivation skills in the game are based on what I see going on in real life. I never try to 'beat' the game. I just try to win a few football matches and make some good decisions along the way. :D

I can't help but wonder if WWFan's post actually shed more light on this whole thread than I realised at first. He talks about the different ways to play the game, and I definitely play FM as a simulation, rather than as if it is a game to be beaten by finding some perfect combination. I feel that this is where the main issues with tactics, motivation and man management may lie.

Perhaps this is true (I was writing my previous reply while you were writing this) and I have also thought that maybe posts on this forum have influenced my views on the motivation side of things, but I'm not usually that easily swayed and I'd have had to see something in game to help me understand where the OP's are coming from. Perhaps I was looking too hard for a link.

crouchaldinho
04-01-2010, 16:57
Just as quick and easy example, I had reasonable success in get an Arsenal-like system working with short, quick, counter-attacking football. But what I really wanted is a way to get the 4 forward players in my 4-1-1-3-1 interchanging, but I just couldnt work it out.

Bit off topic but have you tried increasing 'creativity' and increasing 'roaming from position' in the tactics creator? Also go to the advanced mode and use the 'swap' command to get two, or perhaps even all three players, to swap position. I like having the outer players on the wings swapping so that sometimes they cut inside, and other times they play as a true winger. Furthermore, using a deep-lying forward, or a complete forward on support, will get him dropping into space, and then try using an attacking midfielder on an attack duty behind him, who will push on. You should then see some pretty dynamic and fluid movement from the front four, with them all on a free reign to do what they want (high creativity), all of them roaming (roam from position) and some of them swapping positions too.

Drop into the tactics forum and ask for more advice if you're still struggling, as there are plenty of people willing to give their opinions. :)

djwilko6
04-01-2010, 17:05
Bit off topic but have you tried increasing 'creativity' and increasing 'roaming from position' in the tactics creator? Also go to the advanced mode and use the 'swap' command to get two, or perhaps even all three players, to swap position. I like having the outer players on the wings swapping so that sometimes they cut inside, and other times they play as a true winger. Furthermore, using a deep-lying forward, or a complete forward on support, will get him dropping into space, and then try using an attacking midfielder on an attack duty behind him, who will push on. You should then see some pretty dynamic and fluid movement from the front four, with them all on a free reign to do what they want (high creativity), all of them roaming (roam from position) and some of them swapping positions too.

Drop into the tactics forum and ask for more advice if you're still struggling, as there are plenty of people willing to give their opinions. :)

If I remember right the creative freedom was already high due to the type of player I chose them to be. For the swap position I had the RW swap with the ST, the LW swap with the AMC, the AMC to swap with the RW and the ST to swap with the AMC. Perhaps I was thinking about it too much in that respect, and I will give your idea's about deep-lying a try when I can get back into the save, currently playing a game with Livingston and one as Eastleigh.

tak
04-01-2010, 17:06
I'll find some time to answer other issues, crouch, but just a quick one about Greece (as my geneaology is partly Greek, to answer your question about nationality):

I watched all games more than once, and not just the ones after group stage. Greece's success is a monument of man management and psychology. One of the tactical tools that were used was probably man-marking. To hear that Greece's opponents didn't know what to do against man-marking, and that was the reason Greece conquered the champonship, is just very poor, I think you'll agree, and it was only written because wwfan was desperately looking for a tacical explanation of this success.

The fact that even the great man himself could not come up with a plausible tactical reason is very satisfying.

Matt123456
04-01-2010, 18:03
I think it is sad that a very good thread has turned into what seems to be a cussing match. I think this is due to the inability of Tak to realise that this is debate. Please try to consider other people's points which they have thought out well and have put the time and effort into putting forward. I think that it would also be a mistake to reduce the importance of tactics in this game. Mostly because I think that Tak is over estimating the importance of the tactics already in the game. Sure it is important, but, especially in FM 2010, there are other factors that affect this (e.g. moral, general form, media interaction, team talk etc.)It is also a mistake to say that tactics aren't important for a real life football manager. I cannot understand why you would say tactics aren't important. Succesfull tactics=succesful team, and unsuccesful tactics=unsuccesful team. However, it is not the overrall tactics that is the most important, but the individual tactics. And that is what I think needs to be improved in FM.
Firstly I think there needs to be more options for player instructions. There are already good options, but I think that there is definite room for improvement. I think also the player traits can be developed a lot further (the Aaron Lennon example that has already been mentioned,) and the manager should have a much greater say on how his player plays. Revamping the training system could also help this, (though I think that is something that everyone will agree on,) by adding training for certain set piece combinations. I would love to be able to devise set pieces for my players and seem them put it into action. I'm not so sure how this would be integrated into the system, but it would be a very good option to have if anyone from SI is looking at this. :D Also perhaps you should be able to train players more specifically, for example intensive training one-on-one's or deep crossing or cutting inside etc.
And please Tak could you not resort to insulting those who have put down perfectly valid and well-thought out points. It is frankly childish, and only succeeds in making you look foolish. And don't take this as a personal shot at you. It isn't.

iacovone
04-01-2010, 20:06
Someone mentioned a few football successes, two of which I talked about: Ajax and Greece. I argued that they were both based on leadership skills and psychology and that tactics were less important (not unimportant, mind you). What were the answers to that: Well, about Ajax I was told that I read wikipedia and about Greece that their success was based on the re-introduction of man-marking (?). In essence, I got no answers.

You are just rambling now. You got a great answer from WWFan regarding that Greek side.


Anyway, I will try and make some propositions later (sadly, I am not a programmer but I will try to start a brainstorming session)

That would be nice. You don't need to be a programmer to at least provide one idea for your 'leap of faith'. Any danger?

iacovone
04-01-2010, 20:10
I'll find some time to answer other issues, crouch, but just a quick one about Greece (as my geneaology is partly Greek, to answer your question about nationality):

I watched all games more than once, and not just the ones after group stage. Greece's success is a monument of man management and psychology. One of the tactical tools that were used was probably man-marking. To hear that Greece's opponents didn't know what to do against man-marking, and that was the reason Greece conquered the champonship, is just very poor, I think you'll agree, and it was only written because wwfan was desperately looking for a tacical explanation of this success.

The fact that even the great man himself could not come up with a plausible tactical reason is very satisfying.

I'm not returning to this topic as I can't actually read any more of your incessant drivel. You are an incredibly ignorant poster.

wwfan
04-01-2010, 21:35
I'll find some time to answer other issues, crouch, but just a quick one about Greece (as my geneaology is partly Greek, to answer your question about nationality):

I watched all games more than once, and not just the ones after group stage. Greece's success is a monument of man management and psychology. One of the tactical tools that were used was probably man-marking. To hear that Greece's opponents didn't know what to do against man-marking, and that was the reason Greece conquered the champonship, is just very poor, I think you'll agree, and it was only written because wwfan was desperately looking for a tacical explanation of this success.

The fact that even the great man himself could not come up with a plausible tactical reason is very satisfying.


There's been a huge amount written about how and why Greece won the Euros, with the re-introduction of man-marking receiving much focus. I have no doubt pride, commitment and
good motivational management also contributed, but to determine Greece won the Euros just because they were the most motivated team is massively assumptive. Firstly, how can you quantify how much more motivated Greece were than any other European side? Secondly, how much more motivated do they need to be in order to turn inferior players into quality results? It's impossible to do so and hugely dismissive of the levels of motivation and man-management skills of other national managers.

Greece won because they played in a manner that asked serious questions of other teams to which they had no answer. They man marked and pressed aggressively, which had both fallen out of favour in the continental game. Nobody had the answers to the questions they posed, allowing their players to gain in confidence of themselves and the system, and ultimately overachieve.

If you wish to take this discussion into theories of motivation and man-management instead of tactical, I am a management researcher by occupation and would be happy to discuss concepts of charismatic leadership and self-efficacy, as both (alongside other motivational concepts) have influence on performance. However, performance is never just other or self-motivated. It is always steeped in practice, which feeds back into theoretical development, which then loops back into practice. In football terms, the practice is the technical training and actual match play, with the theory the tactical efforts to improve the collective abilities of the players on match days. Good man management just better enables the transmission of theory into practice, providing employees with the motivation and confidence to try and succeed at new things and ideas and to improve performance at practices they already know.

Tosh178
04-01-2010, 22:20
I personnally think that tactics play a huge part in real life football. Just look at Hull City last year. In the first half (maybe the first 1/3) of the season we employed a 442 with quick wingers and an AMC that quickly moved into a 5 man attack when we had the ball. We passed the ball around and made space to go forward. Things went downhill for City when Marlon King was dropped (for legitimate reasons), and we changed to a 451 for the rest of the season. This formation, and the long ball tactics that came with it were the downfall of City.
I agree that man management and motivation are important in football, but in the second half of last season you could see that the players were clearly motivated, and putting in plenty of effort, but they were fighting a losing battle as the tactics didn't suit the team.

tak
04-01-2010, 23:22
There's been a huge amount written about how and why Greece won the Euros, with the re-introduction of man-marking receiving much focus. I have no doubt pride, commitment and
good motivational management also contributed, but to determine Greece won the Euros just because they were the most motivated team is massively assumptive. Firstly, how can you quantify how much more motivated Greece were than any other European side? Secondly, how much more motivated do they need to be in order to turn inferior players into quality results? It's impossible to do so and hugely dismissive of the levels of motivation and man-management skills of other national managers.

Greece won because they played in a manner that asked serious questions of other teams to which they had no answer. They man marked and pressed aggressively, which had both fallen out of favour in the continental game. Nobody had the answers to the questions they posed, allowing their players to gain in confidence of themselves and the system, and ultimately overachieve.

If you wish to take this discussion into theories of motivation and man-management instead of tactical, I am a management researcher by occupation and would be happy to discuss concepts of charismatic leadership and self-efficacy, as both (alongside other motivational concepts) have influence on performance. However, performance is never just other or self-motivated. It is always steeped in practice, which feeds back into theoretical development, which then loops back into practice. In football terms, the practice is the technical training and actual match play, with the theory the tactical efforts to improve the collective abilities of the players on match days. Good man management just better enables the transmission of theory into practice, providing employees with the motivation and confidence to try and succeed at new things and ideas and to improve performance at practices they already know.

Studies have shown that Greece showed 740KPa of motivation compared to an average of 265Kpa between the other teams. No, I'm kidding, I can't quantify how much more motivated Greece was, although it is proven that in order to beat a superior opponent, a team has to be 17% more motivated. I'm joking again.

Excuse the poor humorous attempts but I am asked some very strange questions.

And then, we have the strange notion that aggresive pressing and man management had fallen out of favour. Pressing definately hadn't. Man marking is used less than it used to, but it is still used, especially in lower levels (for example when the opponent has a very talented midfielder and your team is not so great in safeguarding space). As a matter of fact, most teams of lesser quality will use a man mark or two when they face a more talented opponent. In many ways, it was a natural choice for Otto. Did Greece's opponents "not know what to do against man-marking"? Are we seriously discussing that now? Had Greece's opponents never played football in their lives? I mean, come on lads. They didn't equip themselves with swords and shields and formed a phalanx. They played some man-marking when it was needed. In a while we are going to hear that if you man mark a few players the other team are having heart attacks.

I would like to clarify something else though: I never said that tactics play zero role. They do not. I said, firstly, that the higher you go in the world of football the less important they become and, secondly, that tactics take a disproportionally big part of the FM pie. Mainly because the psychology of man management is hugely underdeveloped in the game. Since people relationships, their formations and effects are extremely difficult to simulate in software, I said it would be a leap of faith that one would need to take in order to achieve such a simulation.

"If you wish to take this discussion into theories of motivation and man-management instead of tactical, I am a management researcher by occupation and would be happy to discuss concepts of charismatic leadership and self-efficacy, as both (alongside other motivational concepts) have influence on performance." I would very very much like to discuss those issues. That is why I started this conversation, I guess. Since you work with theories of motivation and I practice management (not football though) it will be a very interesting discussion.

Tez01979
04-01-2010, 23:56
I kind of understand where tak is coming from in this subject but I beleive his viewpoint is a bit skewed (This isn't an attack tak just an observation).

It's all very well in saying the game should have more focus on the motivational, man management aspect rather than focus on tactics but in reality in making it into a game is a lot difficult than it sounds. Now I have no experience coding games (I've known ppl who do) and 23 years experiance of playing them and tbf the current tech doesn't really allow it in the way tek is describing what he wants to see. In fact he hasn't really described what kind of things he would like to see.

If I'm right in thinking you'd rather be able to have more say on players and their attitude, how they behave in a match, how they interact with the manager, with other players, how they're thinking and feeling, that type of thing. This isn't something you can just put into a database and have a computer at 2GHZ to be able to calculate.

afaik AI programs atm tend to run off of large databases with some procedual gerneration thrown in and are not very sophisticated in terms of interaction. I.E Black and White To have the type of interaction your looking for would require a super fast computer and even then the results wouldn't be spectacular.

Where as I do agree that it would be beneficial to the game to have something like this the practicality of it atm is just not viable and yes I know you do managerial for a living but let the real experts that are the coding staff do what they can within the limitations that are put in place as it's hardly their fault. Work is only as good as the tools your given.

tak
05-01-2010, 00:02
Don't get me wrong Tez, I am not trying to tell the boys who do code how to do their job. If it is not possible, then fair enough.

I am just trying to get something more real.

Blaupunkt
05-01-2010, 00:06
I would like to clarify something else though: I never said that tactics play zero role. They do not. I said, firstly, that the higher you go in the world of football the less important they become

i could not disagree more with this statement, we only have to look at the England football team and some of managers we have had.

Kevin Keegan, fantastic motivator and i would guess a good to very good man manager but was average at best when it came to the tactical side of things, if i remember right when he left the position of England manager he actually went on record of saying he was not tactically good enough at that level.

Sven, Personally i would say an average motivator but good man manager, tactically ok better than Keegan but never had a plan B. most international managers knew how we would be setup and knew exactly how to counter and nullify his tactics, i even remember Leo Beenhakker who was managing Trinidad and Tobago in the 2006 world cup saying in a press conference that he knew what the England team would be and knew exactly how we would play. If you watched that game then you would have seen a team with very very good tactics playing a team who had A tactics of sorts, and England were out played and lucky.

Steve Mcclaren, awful in everything and so were England.

Fabio Capello, personally i would say he is a good motivator, and good man manager but he is regarded an a very good tactician with in the game, probably the best we have played since Glenn Hoddle was in charge, who was not the best man manager at times if reports are to be believed (that i remember reading in the papers) but was very good tactically.

InterWolf
05-01-2010, 00:07
I think one of the main problems SI face is the amount that a manager on his own can achieve. While they get the blame, much of the success is down to pre-existing and external situations. In a manager game, the influence of a manager clearly has to be exaggerated, hence much of the tactical focus.

Tez01979
05-01-2010, 00:13
I personally understand that and from the two threads that I've seen you post in I can see you making that point. Unfortunally such is life that not everyone sees it from the same point of view and are more defensive than they need to be. As from these two threads not one person has said in certain terms that I see your point but it can't be done. (Again not attacking anyone just a general observation as I have read through both threads) It's a damm shame it can't really be done (well it can just not well wouldn't want to see a cross of FM and Fifa Football Maanger now would we) as the prospect of having proper control in the game would give me great pleasure and hours of fun. Yes I'm a control freak, but ain't we all). Hell I'd love to see more interation in the Sims 3, More options and ways to buil citys it sim city games. More larger life like FPS but this is about 10 years away from becoming reality. So Tak don't give up that fsith cos some day your dream will be reality.

tak
05-01-2010, 00:16
I think one of the main problems SI face is the amount that a manager on his own can achieve. While they get the blame, much of the success is down to pre-existing and external situations. In a manager game, the influence of a manager clearly has to be exaggerated, hence much of the tactical focus.

Wow. This is actually a brilliant post...

iacovone
05-01-2010, 01:30
No, this is a brilliant post. One of the best I've seen on here. And again you've dismissed it. Are you really so close-minded to not be able to understand what is being said here?


There's been a huge amount written about how and why Greece won the Euros, with the re-introduction of man-marking receiving much focus. I have no doubt pride, commitment and
good motivational management also contributed, but to determine Greece won the Euros just because they were the most motivated team is massively assumptive. Firstly, how can you quantify how much more motivated Greece were than any other European side? Secondly, how much more motivated do they need to be in order to turn inferior players into quality results? It's impossible to do so and hugely dismissive of the levels of motivation and man-management skills of other national managers.

Greece won because they played in a manner that asked serious questions of other teams to which they had no answer. They man marked and pressed aggressively, which had both fallen out of favour in the continental game. Nobody had the answers to the questions they posed, allowing their players to gain in confidence of themselves and the system, and ultimately overachieve.

If you wish to take this discussion into theories of motivation and man-management instead of tactical, I am a management researcher by occupation and would be happy to discuss concepts of charismatic leadership and self-efficacy, as both (alongside other motivational concepts) have influence on performance. However, performance is never just other or self-motivated. It is always steeped in practice, which feeds back into theoretical development, which then loops back into practice. In football terms, the practice is the technical training and actual match play, with the theory the tactical efforts to improve the collective abilities of the players on match days. Good man management just better enables the transmission of theory into practice, providing employees with the motivation and confidence to try and succeed at new things and ideas and to improve performance at practices they already know.

I know I said I'd leave the thread but I can't. Tak you said:


I never said that tactics play zero role. They do not. I said, firstly, that the higher you go in the world of football the less important they become

Explain how this can be possible. In my opinion you have it completely the wrong way round.

Poor players at a lower standard are in that lower standard partly because they are tactically inept. They lack the footballing intelligence to be able to adapt and enact tactical instructions. At this level therefore, the motivational managers have the advantage as this becomes the difference. The VAST majority of lower league clubs in England simply adopt a 4-4-2, put players in at and shout at them until they are fired up enough to go out and kick the other team about and battle to a victory.

At the highest level, teams and managers have similar backroom teams of advice, equipment, facilities, etc. Managerial motivation at this level is secondary. It is here, when you have teams of top level players capable of adopting and sticking to tactical instructions that tactics are at their most important. Tactical discipline and understanding are the gamebreakers here. The line is so fine here that one lapse will cost you a goal. No amount of motivational speaking will amend this. I don't think this can be denied (though I'm sure you'll find a way of avoiding the issues I've posed)

tak
05-01-2010, 10:51
There are a few reasons why tactics are more important in the lower levels. Like you said, players there are less capable (technicaly, psysicaly, fitness wise etc.) It is therefore necessary that the manager

a) spends more time explaining and teaching tactics
b) spends more time working with tactics that will exploit those limited capabilities to the maximum

As a matter of fact, the worse players a manager has at his disposal, the more he has to work on his tactics.

However, at the higher level we meet very good players. The manager can just throw a talented player into the pitch, with minimal instructions, and sit back to watch (a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). Of course, we all always learn and those players do not by all means know everything, but they definately don't need the tactical guidance that lesser players need.

There are other things that happen in higher levels though, many of them come externally as InterWolf brilliantly pointed out. Players are very popular, they earn huge amounts of money, they have shrewd agends, negotiate massive advertising contracts, get photographed wherever they go, marry models and buy sportscars.

Do you really think that managing those players, you basically need to be a tactical genius? No, it is a lot more than that and it takes the strongest of characters to make those super star players form a team. Tactics at this level are important but certainly secondary.

Blacksquare
05-01-2010, 10:58
Lets time I suggest to do something besides with tactics, everyone yelled this is football MANAGER not football DIRECTOR.

crouchaldinho
05-01-2010, 12:25
However, at the higher level we meet very good players. The manager can just throw a talented player into the pitch, with minimal instructions, and sit back to watch (a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). Of course, we all always learn and those players do not by all means know everything, but they definately don't need the tactical guidance that lesser players need.

Carlo Ancelotti would seem to disagree with you. See the following quotation:


... a coach has to say what kind of movements he wants and should give clear indications. These are 'guides' for the talent, but it will be up to the talent to enrich the situation. But a 'guide' is always necessary.

(Note, I have added italics).

I'll ask you again, have you ever read Inverting the Pyramid or any other tactical books? I would thoroughly recommend it given your lack of knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game.

crouchaldinho
05-01-2010, 12:25
Lets time I suggest to do something besides with tactics, everyone yelled this is football MANAGER not football DIRECTOR.

What did you suggest?

tak
05-01-2010, 12:54
Crouch can you post my quotation again but this time highlight what is in the parenthesis? I like the fact though, that Carlo backed my argument about higher leagues.

I have read the book, and indeed my knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game is indeed very good. However (and this comes with maturity) I realise that tactics are a) overrated in FM and b) overrated by some analysts.

I think what Blacksquare used the word director in its literal meaning (someone who directs). He points that there is more in football manager than directing your players.

crouchaldinho
05-01-2010, 12:54
I never said that tactics play zero role. They do not. I said, firstly, that the higher you go in the world of football the less important they become

In this case, how would you explain the tactical innovations going on at the top level of the game, in particular the fact that 4-4-2 has been more or less superseded by 4-2-3-1 at the very top level of football (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson)? Futhermore, how would you also explain the 'death' of 3-5-2 at the top of the game (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/nov/19/argentina-napoli)?

Compare this to the lower leagues. I'm not sure if you watch a lot of lower league football (it sounds as if you don't) but basically 4-4-2 is still very much in the ascendancy. You also get a number of sides employing 3-5-2 variations also. How can you account for this if, as you suggest, tactics are not important at the top level?

Of course, you still get some sides who play 4-5-1 variations and even 4-2-3-1, even at non-League level. I actually thought this was an extremely interesting point though and it is something that I have often wanted to start a discussion thread about in the tactics forum. It is my understanding that Luton Town, a Conference National side and one of my local teams, have recently been employing a 4-2-3-1. However, at the level I most often watch football at, which is the Conference South, I have rarely seen this system employed by a manager, apart from one time when the St. Albans City manager seemed to deploy his side in a 4231-cum-433. A quick glance at the non-League paper every week shows a plethora of 4-4-2s but very few 4-2-3-1s or 4-5-1 variations.

Anyway, I seem to have gone off topic slightly. Coming back to the point...

Given that you feel tactics are such a small part of the 'pie' at the top level Tak, I would be interested to know how you can account for this?


and, secondly, that tactics take a disproportionally big part of the FM pie.

Haven't we already had quite a good counter argument to this point of view from Dafuge, WWFan and also myself? Are you going to continue to ignore it? :thdn:

crouchaldinho
05-01-2010, 13:00
Crouch can you post my quotation again but this time highlight what is in the parenthesis?

Regardless of what you said in parenthesis, you still argue that a top player needs minimal instructions. Ancelotti's quotation is in direct opposition to what you are saying.


I like the fact though, that Carlo backed my argument about higher leagues.

No, that quotation hasn't backed up your argument at all. A tactical guide is always necessary. The player 'enriching the situation' might be seen as 'creative freedom' and 'roaming from position' in FM terms. They are freer than lower league players perhaps, at least in some cases, but a player, no matter the level, always needs tactical instructions. It's exactly the opposite of what you are saying.


I have read the book, and indeed my knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game is indeed very good.

If you have read the book, and indeed your understanding of tactical theory is so good, please could you explain the proliferation of specialist roles in modern football at the top level in light of your argument that tactics are not important for elite players at the top of the game?

edgar555
05-01-2010, 13:00
Crouch can you post my quotation again but this time highlight what is in the parenthesis? I like the fact though, that Carlo backed my argument about higher leagues.

I have read the book, and indeed my knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game is indeed very good. However (and this comes with maturity) I realise that tactics are a) overrated in FM and b) overrated by some analysts.

I think what Blacksquare used the word director in its literal meaning (someone who directs). He points that there is more in football manager than directing your players.

Carlo hasn't backed your argument. Tactics are crucial in football. If they weren't then teams would still be run by commitees (ala England in the 1900's to 1950's). They are not overrated, good tactics can get great results out of mediocre players.
Tell you what, you go off and make your game and have less tactics, I'll contine playing FM for my dose of football reality. :)

tak
05-01-2010, 13:21
No, that quotation hasn't backed up your argument at all. A tactical guide is always necessary.

I disagree. A tactical guide is always unecessary. Sorry, I'm joking. I never actually said that.

More answers to follow.

RBKalle
05-01-2010, 14:14
I didn't read the whole thing, but here come my two cents on that...

* I agree FM isn't "too much about tactics", but "it's your tactic" is pretty much the easy answer any FM'er has been getting around here for the majority of complaints about underachieving, poor performances, etc.
So it's no wonder many tend to think FM is heavy on the tactical side of the game when it comes down to success or failure.

* On the other hand, the Tactical Wizard has introduced a cosmetic façade to the infamous Slidermania the tactical section was and still is.
See, I can play my Midfielder as Supporting Box to Box, but under the realistic-like terminology, the sliders are still there, alive and kicking.

The point is: I can use a 5-options method, but what's the difference if, in the end, the ME and possibly the AI, work on 20 options?
It's like playing on a guitar with only 4 strings or 12 frets... it's "easier" but the music still requires the whole instrument...


* Also, the non-tactical side of FM can still be improved by leaps and bounds...

A very underlooked (ignored?) side of the manager-players interaction, related to the tactical side is the "positional issue".

To this day we can evaluate how our tactic is working just by match results and ratings.

What we're lacking is a specific, personal evaluation of the playing system.

E.g. how many threads asking "how should I play ____?" or "is _____ a Poacher or a Target Man?" are we having?

In real life, the player himself will most likely bitch and moan if used in the wrong way, or even if asked to play in a position he's technically able to play but which he doesn't like.

What about MC/AMCs you can totally switch from Box-to-Box to Trequartista without a noticeable drop in performance or morale? That doesn't happen too often, and not without consequances.
Instead in FM I can totally use my offensive MC as DM with little or no penalty, in total spite of his attributes [and of logic]

The biggest "flaw" with so-called SuperTactics [or even with a rather standard but successful tactic] is that it almost looks like no matter who you play in it, it'll work...

Actually I half-think we should get Player-specific instructions instead of Positional ones... E.g. in my 4-4-2, Andrea Pirlo will play Defensive Playmaker, but if I put Steven Gerrard in THE SAME POSITION, he must play Box-to-Box, or Ballack will play Offensive Support.

As things are now, each one will "inherit" the player instruction set in the tactic, but surprisignly enough the performance won't drop much.


* I appreciate morale being such an important part of FM, too bad more often than not I don't understand why morale changes...
And Press conferences and team talks shouldn't monopolize the Morale factor.

We need a total revamping of the player interaction, with feedback about tactics and more.

Then scouting and transfer market, but that's for another topic.

tak
05-01-2010, 16:04
Some very interesting points were raised by RBKalle. If FM is released from the tactics tyranny, there is a whole new world that can be explored.

But I think crouchaldinho has asked me a few questions (without swearing once, what a progress!)

I read the articles you provided crouch and they are a interesting discussions on formations. You are very quick to suggest books and blogs I should read, because I "lack knowledge of the tactical side" but I increasingly think you urgently need some training in logic.

I will repeat my thesis: In FM the greatest part of the manager's duties is tactics, whether you choose to use them or not. Just look at how deep you can go in altering tactics compared to what choices you have in player interaction, for example. In contrast, in real life, tactics is not a big part of management, although, of course, they are a part.

You, crouch, linked me to two blogs talking about formations. How on earth, I ask, is this a logical answer to my thesis? Your question was, how do I explain the tactical innovations. I explain them by natural football evolution, physical and technical evolution, mental evolution, new training methods, new psycho-analytic developments, television, sponsors, gossip magazines, other changing external factors and, yes, of course, certain managers' intuition. Yes crouch, there are intelligent football managers that understand the dynamics of all those factors and adapt, sometimes by introducing something new in tactics, sometimes by changing the time of training sessions (and I intentionaly put something trivial sounding here). The point is, managers make many decisions that you and I don't have a clue about, reacting to hundreds of factors you and I don't have a clue about.

The higher a manager is, the force and number of those factors increases. That is why tactics become less important (but not unimportant). You asked me how could I explain the proliferation of specialist roles in modern football at the top level in light of my argument that tactics are not important for elite players at the top of the game? The proliferation of specialist roles is a development that occured through financial pressures, not tactical. Many footballers are a product these days and they have to a) be protected (stricter rules about fouling) and b) attract audience (freedom to show technical skills). So here is a development in football that wasn't initiated by a tactical need.

Honestly, crouch, I think you have to sit down for a moment, forget about formations and think of football in other ways, as a business for example. If you grasp the size and influence of some organisations you will realise why tactics is a secondary task in a football manager's job at these levels.

iacovone
05-01-2010, 16:29
I honestly despair. This is the most blinkered, ignorant, arrogant OPer around. Open your eyes for a second. Stop trying to ram your "thesis" down our throats and accept that your argument has been disproved about 20 times in this thread. You are not a revolutionary thinker. You are deluded. :mad:

tak
05-01-2010, 16:48
Please let us all return to a civilised conversation and leave the trauma of reading iacovone's contribution behind...

robbert_o154
05-01-2010, 16:53
You asked me how could I explain the proliferation of specialist roles in modern football at the top level in light of my argument that tactics are not important for elite players at the top of the game? The proliferation of specialist roles is a development that occured through financial pressures, not tactical. Many footballers are a product these days and they have to a) be protected (stricter rules about fouling) and b) attract audience (freedom to show technical skills). So here is a development in football that wasn't initiated by a tactical need.

Honestly, crouch, I think you have to sit down for a moment, forget about formations and think of football in other ways, as a business for example. If you grasp the size and influence of some organisations you will realise why tactics is a secondary task in a football manager's job at these levels.
Nice try, but the task of a manager as spearhead of a business organisation is not primarily to attract an audience by having technically skilled players perform tricks, like circus monkeys. It's to win matches. How, in your opinion, does viewing football as a business (has anybody denied that it is a business?) correlate to reduced importance of tactics? You do not even bother to attempt explaining, but none of your patronizing "listen to papa" posturing will obfuscate that.

crouchaldinho
05-01-2010, 16:59
But I think crouchaldinho has asked me a few questions (without swearing once, what a progress!)

Not this again. :mad:

I don't swear and I haven't been swearing. I wish you would stop this constant attempt to drag my name through the mud by repeatedly insinuating that I have been swearing at you. It is soon going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Now, as you well know, my answer was directed not at this new 'thesis' of yours (which is constantly changing, I might add) but at your insistence that tactics are less important at higher levels. You have neatly sidestepped the points I have made (I suppose I should at least be grateful that you have even acknowledged them for once! :rolleyes:) and made a quick U-turn by claiming that I was addressing a totally different point! Then you have the audacity to claim that I lack logic. :D

I've tried to contribute to your thread in a pleasant and constructive way but all you have done is targeted me throughout the thread. If you spent as much time explaining your ideas for this 'leap of faith' (which, by the way, appear to be non-existent) as you do trolling then we could potentially have a very interesting read here. Instead, you reach conclusions about things you appear to know very little about, and you make outrageous claims about your opinions being the 'truth'.

All I will say is that I am glad that the future of FM is safely in the right hands. I trust the footballing knowledge of the Collyer brothers and their many fine colleagues at SI, and also the knowledge of WWFan and Millie who know football as a passion, as an object of study and as an object of pleasure. I also trust the opinion of people in the game, from non-League level to the very top. I note with interest that you are quick to rubbish books and writing on football - which is made explicit from your very first post on this thread where you talk about 'books of gibberish' - but I would much rather trust the writing of Jonathan Wilson, Brian Glanville, Massimo Lucchesi and so on and so forth. Finally, you were quick to name drop that you know Alex Ferguson earlier in the thread. Next time you see him, let him know that you believe that tactics aren't very important at the top level, I'm sure he will be pleased to know your opinion and to set you straight. :D

Anyway, I've tried to be friendly, but it clearly isn't working. You've been 'trolling' me since my first post and so I give up now. This attempt to make it look as though I have been swearing (and you have even decided to call me a bully for no reason) is the final straw. Anyone who has read my posts in the past will know that I do not swear and will know plenty about my character. I have no interest in what you think and I have no more time for your games. Obviously it is time to put you on my 'ignore list' and for me to leave the thread. Something I should have done from the very start, no doubt, but we all live and learn.

tak
05-01-2010, 17:05
Lol, this comment about swearing was a joke, crouchy, my way of accepting your apology earlier (it's difficult when we communicate in writting).

Haven't I addressed your questions?

tak
05-01-2010, 17:08
Nice try, but the task of a manager as spearhead of a business organisation is not primarily to attract an audience by having technically skilled players perform tricks, like circus monkeys. It's to win matches. How, in your opinion, does viewing football as a business (has anybody denied that it is a business?) correlate to reduced importance of tactics? You do not even bother to attempt explaining, but none of your patronizing "listen to papa" posturing will obfuscate that.

Well, if you don't view the team you're managing as a business, you might make some very bad decisions. Would you ignore profitability, for example? As other factors become bigger in your agenda, other become smaller.

robbert_o154
05-01-2010, 17:15
Well, if you don't view the team you're managing as a business, you might make some very bad decisions. Would you ignore profitability, for example?
The ultimate objective of an organization is continuity. Profit is a means of achieving said objective. Usually, long-term profitability will be a result from continually winning matches. You can gain short-term profitability by selling your best players, but that might well endanger the long-term sustainability of your organization.

Frankly, I don't see what point you're trying to make with this post.

muncherdave
05-01-2010, 18:00
tak - How specifically should the interaction with players and so on be improved? How about coming up with a few solid suggestions instead of just bickering the importance of tactics. There was some promise in post #1 but I am not seeing it anymore. Why not leave the arguing about the importance of tactics aside for a while and focus on the improvements that can be made to actually help water this down? After all, if other things get added into the game that can affect how your team performs then this will in effect should lessen the importance of the tactical sliders anyway.

gunner86
05-01-2010, 18:19
My hope is that the tactical overhaul of this version means that for the next few versions the other aspects, media, training, scouting etc can be fleshed out or overhauled where needed. I don't have any specific ideas or requests yet, but the tactical side now is very good so lets leave that aside now and find something else to improve.

tak
05-01-2010, 19:03
tak - How specifically should the interaction with players and so on be improved? How about coming up with a few solid suggestions instead of just bickering the importance of tactics. There was some promise in post #1 but I am not seeing it anymore. Why not leave the arguing about the importance of tactics aside for a while and focus on the improvements that can be made to actually help water this down? After all, if other things get added into the game that can affect how your team performs then this will in effect should lessen the importance of the tactical sliders anyway.

Yes you are absolutely right. I will try to put something together tonight if I find some time.

tak
05-01-2010, 19:06
The ultimate objective of an organization is continuity. Profit is a means of achieving said objective. Usually, long-term profitability will be a result from continually winning matches. You can gain short-term profitability by selling your best players, but that might well endanger the long-term sustainability of your organization.

Frankly, I don't see what point you're trying to make with this post.

Sorry, I misread your initial posts. My point is, as we go to higher levels the means to win matches become a lot more complicated than finding the correct tactics. Other factors play a more important role.

Heisenberg
05-01-2010, 19:19
Sorry, I misread your initial posts. My point is, as we go to higher levels the means to win matches become a lot more complicated than finding the correct tactics. Other factors play a more important role.

To be honest tak I'd disagree with this point. How many times do we see football pundits covering the top leagues discussing how Manager X got their tactics spot on for the game being covered and credit that for the victory? Obviously you have a point when you say that other factors such as motivation and other aspects of man-management have a role to play as well, but the individual instructions given to players (which I would consider to fall under the general heading of "Tactics") and the overall tactical instruction to the team will have a greater bearing on performance.


With regard to your original post, I would like to see more depth in the non-tactical aspects of the game as well, but I feel that drastic improvements are unlikely as the ability to code AI is not at an advanced enough stage. I am more than happy with the way the game is now, even with the repetitive aspects of certain areas like press conferences. I'm sure if one of us attended a manager's press conferences for every game of the year (between 40 and 60 per year, depending on the competitions they are competing in) we'd see a fair bit of repetitive question asking.

Blaupunkt
05-01-2010, 19:45
as an example, how can you so readily dismiss the following, i have highlighted 1 important bit.


When Kevin Keegan admitted he was simply not up to the job of England coach, it was one of the most painfully and searingly honest resignation speeches imaginable.

Having just quit in the wake of his inability to alter proceedings as England lost 1-0 to Germany in the final game at Wembley, Keegan characteristically wore his heart on his sleeve. "I've just been a bit short in what it takes. Tactically at this level, results will tell you that I have struggled," he said candidly.

Les Girondins
05-01-2010, 19:51
Couldn't agree more. In fact I have been carping on about this total lack of any immersion/depth in the game since 2007 ..

FM needs to broaden its scope and provide something for everyone not just the tedious micro management game it has become.

Huge chunks of the game experience have been continually neglected for years now in favour of ever more complex tactical modules - the result? Less fun. More confusion, more angry rants, never ending cycles of bugs/exploits and their resultant fixes producing more etc.

The transfers are rubbish, the media is rubbish, the ui lag is rubbish, the job/contract system is rubbish, basic staples that create and perpetuate a sense of achievement, progress, dynamism, realism, long term reward are either half baked, missing or simply not finished.

I don't think SI realises just how much of a polarized affair the game has become in recent years. I think they believe that the ME is FM and thats just not true - nothing could be less fun. In fact how many times have you fired up the game to play a career and realised after about half an hour you are just waiting for the next match and not even looking forward to that? Oh well.

FM is a good game, but its no longer what I want in a football management simulation. Its become far too nerdy and micro intensive. I don't want to spend 15-20 mins on every match, I just want to have fun. And the game has increasingly in recent years forced me to have less and less whilst demanding more and more of my time and time spent 'working' the spreadsheet before I can even think about how much fun I am having.

Frankly its become extremely shallow/one dimensional, tedious and far too complicated.

dankrzyz
05-01-2010, 19:54
So much of the game, especially at the highest levels, is MAN MANAGEMENT... which could probably read "ego" or "personality" management. Making sure everyone's happy, playing to their best, in the right place in the lineup, getting along with teammates, getting the training they want, managing to get the media or national team recognition they think they deserve, happy with contract, happy with club performance... if the player interaction were bumped up to the level of realism and complexity that the tactics have been, this would be a totally immersive game.

I think this goes for relationships between managers, and between managers and their Board, and between managers and their staff. Also between the club/manager, media, and fans.

tak
05-01-2010, 21:20
Excellent post Les Girondins and excellent point by dankrzyz. Unfortunately, this thread has been immediately attacked but, hopefuly, as the dust settles down we will have an good discussion. Actually, I have to gather all positive contribution so far when I find some time and write a little brief.

The game, as said above, is one dimensional. Because its largest chunk is tactics. How did I come to that conclusion? Simple: How many tactical combinations are available? Just multiply all formations X all diiferent roles per position X all different position clicks X all different creative freedom clicks etc. etc. If someone is good enough in mathematics to calculate all the different tactical combinations available he will probably find that there billions of them. Let us compare that now to the different combinations of team talking, for example. About 125 combinations of pre-, during- and post- talk.

This is an awkward example but it shows how much more developed the tactical side is compared to everything else you can do in the game. So other aspects of management are not "excellent" as I was told at the beginning of this thread, they are very underdeveloped to the point that they look and feel like a gimmick. The other problem is that there is a thing called morale that is largely out of the manager's hands BUT plays a very important role during the game.

Other things that are out of the manager's hands are "player can't settle down", "wants to move on", "things player A takes himself too seriously" and many many more. Now, how is it realistic that you can do absolutely shag all about them?

Anyway, I am drifting off topic. Like I was saying, most available tasks for an FM manager are tactics. By contrast, the available tasks for a real life manager are a lot more diverse. How many times did you want to tell something to a player that did not exist in the list? How many times you wanted to do a tactical thing that was not available? See what I mean?

If SI works with the same intelligence and innovation on management issues like they worked on tactics and attributes in the past, we will see something really great.

Matt123456
05-01-2010, 22:25
Though I disagree with your points about the unimportance of tactics Tak, I do agree with the idea that the man-management side of FM needs to be drastically improved. However to call the game "one-dimensional" is frankly insulting to the developers and researchers and coders who have put a lot of time and effort into making a game that his fun and engaging for 95% of the consumers. And as for Les Girondins lambasting most of the game as "rubbish", well it is safe to say that that is a gross overreaction. It is also frankly wrong to say that the game has become more like a spreadsheet and more micro-intensive. Especially in 2010, SI have worked to make sure that the game is accessible to a wider audience than the die-hard FM fans who have played the games for 10 years.
The answer is, I think, not to reduce the tactical options and the role of tactics, but increase the amount of man-management options. At the moment they are, to be totally honest, terribly under-developed in FM. I have always wished that there one day would be a way to actually talk to your players, coaches, scouts etc, and though I know that that is not feasible in the near future, the closer we can come to emulating that the better. But I will be interested in hearing your suggestions Tak. :thup:

tak
05-01-2010, 22:37
I don't want to be pedantic Matt but I didn't make points about the unimportance of tactics. I said that tactics are disproportionaly more important in FM than real life, where they are not as important as some people would have us think. Thanks for the support on the management changes though...

Wee Aja
05-01-2010, 22:52
Excellent OP tak. I really like what you've said and there have been some very good points made in the thread so far by other users.
I do feel that tactics have become the be-all and end-all of the game, but there are so many more facets to 'real' football management that are, as you've said, basically not represented in-game. I'm pretty much just agreeing with/reiterating what you've said tbh.
Odd how there is yet to be a post in here from anyone at SI.

RBKalle
05-01-2010, 23:11
Can't we try to go past the tiresome "tactic is everything! no it's not!" argument for a moment and concentrate on WHY the perception of the tactical aspects being so overwhelming did grow so much?

As The Girondins put it, sometimes the funniest part of FM is the off-the-pitch one, and the matches almost become a burden.

I do have fun scouting, buying and selling, tutoring etc... Then on matchday I suddenly find out my squad, despite Superb morale and superior skills, inexplicably struggle to put two straight passes together, or to score simple chances, or to defend at a Sunday League level etc etc etc. [then the following they hammer 4-0 our main contenders]

All of that will most likely get the typical "it's your tactic, you're a crappy/lazy manager". But that's not my point.

I WANT TO UNDERSTAND why an EPL-level striker can squander like 3 good chances against a League 1 keeper, or why my Poacher will not run straight on goal but will instead point to the corner flag on open field.

Moreso, I want my players to give me actual feedback... I bet a MC/AMC won't be as comfortable in playing either position, much less if I toss him around every other game.

I want my players to ask me if I'm drunk at work or what, when I keep switching back and forth from 4-4-2 diamond to 4-2-3-1 wingers, while fielding more or less the same players [AMLC can surprisingly play on wednesday as wingers and on sunday as Trequartistas...]

Also, training... While I'd rather NOT have more micromanagement crap, like personal schedules with Cross-Country Run, Pig in the Middle and other puzzling activities, I definitely want to be able to train my players, even by role, but with more power over what I want them to learn/develop...
I need Fullbacks to CROSS, not to become world-class Long-throwers or to gain 2 useless points in FK taking (if their base attribute was 5)

And don't get me started on transfer market... Top Clubs buying mediocre players, obscure players leaving their country to join fourth-rate clubs in second-tier leagues, older players being chased by half Europe, while perfectly good ones rot on Free Transfer, Youth system being in need of [more] tweaking.

And with the Youth System, Scouting needs an overhaul too.

Ditto for media interactions.

So yeah, tactical-wise I think we're set for some years to come... Just decrease the number of sliders and of sliders' "steps".

And then let's focus on player/manager interaction in order to help us to UNDERSTAND what works and what doesn't with our tactic!

Tafse
05-01-2010, 23:40
Also, training... While I'd rather NOT have more micromanagement crap, like personal schedules with Cross-Country Run, Pig in the Middle and other puzzling activities, I definitely want to be able to train my players, even by role, but with more power over what I want them to learn/develop...
I need Fullbacks to CROSS, not to become world-class Long-throwers or to gain 2 useless points in FK taking (if their base attribute was 5)

This! :thup:
I couldnt agree more. I want my promising right winger to improve on his crossing ability. Not to get better at long throws. And I want my young, gifted attacking midfielder to work on his free-kick skills, not improve his crossing. This lack of control of specific training need to be looked at.

grade
06-01-2010, 00:06
Well I have to agree with Les Girondins.

I said many time, this is computer game, not a course of Football manager wannabes. (sorry, people, no matter how much knowledgeable you get you will never know more then Alex Fergusson, Carlos Anceloti or José Mourinho on football, unless you are full time manager then I'm sorry).

The thing is the game lost its fun 8at least for me, when tactics and morale became too much important factors in the game, that seems sometimes to some users have sensation that the AI is cheating with the last minutes comebacks.

Despite agreeing that tactics hold some importance in football, but doesn't have that in real life. There are so many factors that is difficult to simulate like luck or unlucky (Man United last game for one of the Cup, that no matter how much you tried the ball doesn't want to get in. But - and i need to make a note - this doesn't happen that so often like in the game, but yes it does happen from time to time.

One of the things i say that tactics haven't much importance and prime example of that is José Mourinho. He knows tactics like every manager, but what gave him the edge was that he learn how to communicate, motivate and bring the players as team. You want to know the key to his success? it is very simple and basic. "I don't teach the players how to play football, I teach them how to play as a team." This have earn him to win two or three english premierships, one Italian title, one Champions League and one Uefa Cup titles.

One thing that Si need to remember no matter how much close to reality, they can't forget that this is computer game and its main goal is to provide hours of fun.

I think FM series would vastly improve if SI would interview managers, coaches and players to get more deep inside the works of football management to get more realism and maintaining the fun. FM would greatly benefit from that.

PS: It would help if graphical improvement (not referring the 3D), and less text that help the users get the same information but taking less time.

wwfan
06-01-2010, 00:42
I don't want to be pedantic Matt but I didn't make points about the unimportance of tactics. I said that tactics are disproportionaly more important in FM than real life, where they are not as important as some people would have us think. Thanks for the support on the management changes though...

The main problem I have with your posts is that you make this claim but defend it with remarkable ignorance about real world tactical innovation. Your discussion on Greece's Euro tactics misses the following points:

Greece didn't just man-mark a few players. They man-marked everybody bar the opposing centre backs, having one floating central player to pick up anybody who had temporarily escaped his man
The liberalisation of the offside law has severely handicapped the high pressing zonal marking systems that predominated in the 80s and early 90s (Sacchi's Milan, Taylor's Watford).
Greece didn't press in this traditional 'hold shape/win the offside' style, but pressed players on a man to man basis
A combination of heavy pressing on a man to man basis is extremely unusual and highly innovative in the modern game
During the Euros, no team could work out how to play against it as the questions it posed were completely different than players and managers were used to
Because the competition involves so few matches, Greece held the tactical advantage for long enough to win the competition. Given time, they'd have been worked out and relative player quality would have begun to tell



This is a form of tactical innovation that, for a short period of time, allowed an average side to overperform. In FM, innovative systems like this are never worked out by the AI, so allow constant success. This is unrealistic.

However, knowledge of basic tactical strategies are a 'must have' requirement for any modern manager. A quality manager must know how adapt a game plan for different conditions, formation shapes and specific player threats. If you are ignorant of these areas, you deserve to fail. Most of the tactics creator functionality mimics this type of knowledge requirement.

Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that tactical management is only relevant for less good players and that great players can be left to their own devices. In doing so, you miss out on how a manager ensures the donkey work is done so the great player has a platform on which to perform. You also miss out on the work done by opposing teams to try and stop said great player performing. These are vital parts of management.

Having said all that, this doesn't mean you don't have a point. You are just ridiculing it by arguing about things of which you have very little knowledge. If you stop trying to prove tactics are unimportant (which you are unable to do because you lack the necessary theoretical knowledge) and focus on what areas of the managerial experience are lacking, you might get somewhere.

Football management is about these things:

1: Understanding the theoretical side of football (strategy, tactics)
2: Ensuring your players are as prepared as they can be (technical coaching, fitness)
3: Ensuring your club has the best possible players available for how you want to play (judgment, tactics)
4: Trying to keep the squad motivated and happy (man management)


Let's look at how FM treats them:

1: Strategy & tactics: The new tactical creator has brought this to the forefront in a manner pervious games have ben lacking. However, it has also illustrated how many FMers were previously reliant on downloaded super-tactics and don't understand football, can't man-manage or both. This area still needs to be made clearer and it's something I am working on.

2: Technical coaching & fitness: Sorely lacking in detail and depth right now. However, how much can you do? We can change training regimes so the manager can tailor them more minutely and design regimes that start up for different points in the season, which would both be changes for the better, as would more detailed feedback. But what more can be done? Real time training would suck. Minutely detailed set piece creation is unrealistic and ME breaking as CM has proved. Needs work but cannot become the focus of the game.

3: Judgment & tactics: Again, areas of improvement are pretty obvious, but not all would make the game better. We could provide the scouts with details of exactly what type of player we need to improve our performance (Player x only has a couple of seasons left in him at this level. I'd like you to find a like-for-like player between ages 20 & 23 who'd be willing to be his understudy for a year or so before graduating into first choice), or we could have a scout recommend players and tactical changes we'd need to make to fit these players in (i.e. Player x would provide the creativity we are missing and provide us with some much needed dynamism in the final third. However, his unwillingness to track back and powderpuff tacking would require the rethinking of our midfield balance and shape). Both these I'd like. However, introducing aggressive agents forwarding details about their clients might become very tedious very quickly.

4: Man-management: Currently it is all about morale pre-match and confidence/complacency/anger during the match. I think the motivational in-match information needs to be made more obvious and have more importance, and possible extend into non-match management, with managers having options to work with a player with a crisis in confidence or lacking in motivation to play for the club. However, in the end, there are not that many methods in which we can simulate confidence/morale/motivation management and make it interesting. Given that this is the area of management you believe is most important, can you expand on how you think it could be done while keeping it fun?

wwfan
06-01-2010, 00:49
One of the things i say that tactics haven't much importance and prime example of that is José Mourinho. He knows tactics like every manager, but what gave him the edge was that he learn how to communicate, motivate and bring the players as team. You want to know the key to his success? it is very simple and basic. "I don't teach the players how to play football, I teach them how to play as a team." This have earn him to win two or three english premierships, one Italian title, one Champions League and one Uefa Cup titles.

= I don't try to make them technically better, but I do get them to follow a game plan.

Mourinho famously researches and prepares minutely detailed tactical dossiers on all his opponents. How anyone can use Mourinho as an example of how tactics don't matter is beyond belief.

Les Girondins
06-01-2010, 01:16
= I don't try to make them technically better, but I do get them to follow a game plan.

Mourinho famously researches and prepares minutely detailed tactical dossiers on all his opponents. How anyone can use Mourinho as an example of how tactics don't matter is beyond belief.

Mourinho gets paid £200k a week to do it. I don't. :thup:

tingting
06-01-2010, 11:32
Well I have to agree with Les Girondins.

I said many time, this is computer game, not a course of Football manager wannabes. (sorry, people, no matter how much knowledgeable you get you will never know more then Alex Fergusson, Carlos Anceloti or José Mourinho on football, unless you are full time manager then I'm sorry).

One thing that Si need to remember no matter how much close to reality, they can't forget that this is computer game and its main goal is to provide hours of fun.


This is the most important point that has been forgotten by many in the last couple of versions. I think all the realism bandwagon started from 08 (i think..) I understand where all those who want realism in the game are coming from. They have a very good understanding of how the ME works and have applied logical strategies for them. When you take an unknown lowest division club and make them consistently win the Champions League, the game really starts to become boring.

I am all for realism in the game. However there is a difference between actual realism and game realism. You cannot use actual realism for a game whose ME is far from realistic. FM's ME is the best in the market by a long way, but it is far from perfect. Using actual realism to an unrealistic ME leads to a number of problems.

tak
06-01-2010, 12:23
I think it is time to re-visit some of the ideas given so far:

Anagain talked about development of the media side, while Shanksie pointed out how poor press conferences are.
The Perfect Fmer asked for realistic analysis of the opponent by the scout and ass-man, to improve on the few cliché phrases we get now.
SuperStriker intelligently realised that the game, in the last couple of versions, made player quality less important than real life, to present more of a challenge.
Seabeast said that it would be nice to come into a new FM that feels fresh, new, exciting, because lets be honest, not much has changed over the last few years. Press, training, transfers and medical were his areas of concern. Many interesting ideas were proposed for the training revamp. He also explained how the transfer system does not reflect reality and proposed changes. Finaly, he made some realy original observations on the poor medical information.

Tingting asked some good questions about the tactical side of FM and made some good proposals for the media interaction.

Jcafcwbb also criticised the tactical system but what was very interesting was the need for individual shout remark, which will make the manager’s role during a match a lot more realistic.

Oypus rightly pointed out that the current responses to situations are hard coded. They happen, you get a message, maybe a few choices based on that. He agreed that we could get more choices but life imitation would require infinite choices.
Ezequiel Lavezzi said that tactics need to be toned down a bit. Player intuition needs to be heavily buffed. Motivational skills need to be heavily revamped in a way that a player just won’t become angry or unsettled by little team talks or heavily motivated in the same manner.
Djwilko does not think the players should be AS influenced by a good team talk, for mundane games
Matt thinks there is room for more development in players’ instructions and that revamping the training system could help this, by adding training for certain set piece combinations.
InterWolf brilliant observation in full: “ I think one of the main problems SI face is the amount that a manager on his own can achieve. While they get the blame, much of the success is down to pre-existing and external situations. In a manager game, the influence of a manager clearly has to be exaggerated, hence much of the tactical focus.”
RBKalle:
* I agree FM isn't "too much about tactics", but "it's your tactic" is pretty much the easy answer any FM'er has been getting around here for the majority of complaints about underachieving, poor performances, etc.
So it's no wonder many tend to think FM is heavy on the tactical side of the game when it comes down to success or failure.
* On the other hand, the Tactical Wizard has introduced a cosmetic façade to the infamous Slidermania the tactical section was and still is.
See, I can play my Midfielder as Supporting Box to Box, but under the realistic-like terminology, the sliders are still there, alive and kicking.
The point is: I can use a 5-options method, but what's the difference if, in the end, the ME and possibly the AI, work on 20 options?
It's like playing on a guitar with only 4 strings or 12 frets... it's "easier" but the music still requires the whole instrument...
* Also, the non-tactical side of FM can still be improved by leaps and bounds...
A very underlooked (ignored?) side of the manager-players interaction, related to the tactical side is the "positional issue".
To this day we can evaluate how our tactic is working just by match results and ratings.
What we're lacking is a specific, personal evaluation of the playing system.
E.g. how many threads asking "how should I play ____?" or "is _____ a Poacher or a Target Man?" are we having?
In real life, the player himself will most likely bitch and moan if used in the wrong way, or even if asked to play in a position he's technically able to play but which he doesn't like.
What about MC/AMCs you can totally switch from Box-to-Box to Trequartista without a noticeable drop in performance or morale? That doesn't happen too often, and not without consequances.
Instead in FM I can totally use my offensive MC as DM with little or no penalty, in total spite of his attributes [and of logic]
The biggest "flaw" with so-called SuperTactics [or even with a rather standard but successful tactic] is that it almost looks like no matter who you play in it, it'll work...
Actually I half-think we should get Player-specific instructions instead of Positional ones... E.g. in my 4-4-2, Andrea Pirlo will play Defensive Playmaker, but if I put Steven Gerrard in THE SAME POSITION, he must play Box-to-Box, or Ballack will play Offensive Support.
As things are now, each one will "inherit" the player instruction set in the tactic, but surprisignly enough the performance won't drop much.
* I appreciate morale being such an important part of FM, too bad more often than not I don't understand why morale changes...
And Press conferences and team talks shouldn't monopolize the Morale factor.
We need a total revamping of the player interaction, with feedback about tactics and more.

Les Girondins said: FM needs to broaden its scope and provide something for everyone not just the tedious micro management game it has become.
Huge chunks of the game experience have been continually neglected for years now in favour of ever more complex tactical modules - the result? Less fun. More confusion, more angry rants, never ending cycles of bugs/exploits and their resultant fixes producing more etc.
The transfers are rubbish, the media is rubbish, the ui lag is rubbish, the job/contract system is rubbish, basic staples that create and perpetuate a sense of achievement, progress, dynamism, realism, long term reward are either half baked, missing or simply not finished.

I don't think SI realises just how much of a polarized affair the game has become in recent years. I think they believe that the ME is FM and thats just not true - nothing could be less fun. In fact how many times have you fired up the game to play a career and realised after about half an hour you are just waiting for the next match and not even looking forward to that? Oh well.
FM is a good game, but its no longer what I want in a football management simulation. Its become far too nerdy and micro intensive. I don't want to spend 15-20 mins on every match, I just want to have fun. And the game has increasingly in recent years forced me to have less and less whilst demanding more and more of my time and time spent 'working' the spreadsheet before I can even think about how much fun I am having.
Frankly its become extremely shallow/one dimensional, tedious and far too complicated.

RBKalle would like TO UNDERSTAND why an EPL-level striker can squander like 3 good chances against a League 1 keeper, or why his Poacher will not run straight on goal but will instead point to the corner flag on open field.
“More so, I want my players to give me actual feedback... I bet a MC/AMC won't be as comfortable in playing either position, much less if I toss him around every other game.
I want my players to ask me if I'm drunk at work or what, when I keep switching back and forth from 4-4-2 diamond to 4-2-3-1 wingers, while fielding more or less the same players [AMLC can surprisingly play on wednesday as wingers and on sunday as Trequartistas...]
Also, training... While I'd rather NOT have more micromanagement crap, like personal schedules with Cross-Country Run, Pig in the Middle and other puzzling activities, I definitely want to be able to train my players, even by role, but with more power over what I want them to learn/develop...
I need Fullbacks to CROSS, not to become world-class Long-throwers or to gain 2 useless points in FK taking (if their base attribute was 5)
And don't get me started on transfer market... Top Clubs buying mediocre players, obscure players leaving their country to join fourth-rate clubs in second-tier leagues, older players being chased by half Europe, while perfectly good ones rot on Free Transfer, Youth system being in need of [more] tweaking.
And with the Youth System, Scouting needs an overhaul too.
Ditto for media interactions.
So yeah, tactical-wise I think we're set for some years to come... Just decrease the number of sliders and of sliders' "steps".
And then let's focus on player/manager interaction in order to help us to UNDERSTAND what works and what doesn't with our tactic!”

Tafse: “This!
I couldnt agree more. I want my promising right winger to improve on his crossing ability. Not to get better at long throws. And I want my young, gifted attacking midfielder to work on his free-kick skills, not improve his crossing. This lack of control of specific training need to be looked at.”

Grade: “Well I have to agree with Les Girondins.
I said many time, this is computer game, not a course of Football manager wannabes. (sorry, people, no matter how much knowledgeable you get you will never know more then Alex Fergusson, Carlos Anceloti or José Mourinho on football, unless you are full time manager then I'm sorry).
The thing is the game lost its fun 8at least for me, when tactics and morale became too much important factors in the game, that seems sometimes to some users have sensation that the AI is cheating with the last minutes comebacks.
Despite agreeing that tactics hold some importance in football, but doesn't have that in real life. There are so many factors that is difficult to simulate like luck or unlucky (Man United last game for one of the Cup, that no matter how much you tried the ball doesn't want to get in. But - and i need to make a note - this doesn't happen that so often like in the game, but yes it does happen from time to time.
One of the things i say that tactics haven't much importance and prime example of that is José Mourinho. He knows tactics like every manager, but what gave him the edge was that he learn how to communicate, motivate and bring the players as team. You want to know the key to his success? it is very simple and basic. "I don't teach the players how to play football, I teach them how to play as a team." This have earn him to win two or three english premierships, one Italian title, one Champions League and one Uefa Cup titles.
One thing that Si need to remember no matter how much close to reality, they can't forget that this is computer game and its main goal is to provide hours of fun.
I think FM series would vastly improve if SI would interview managers, coaches and players to get more deep inside the works of football management to get more realism and maintaining the fun. FM would greatly benefit from that.
PS: It would help if graphical improvement (not referring the 3D), and less text that help the users get the same information but taking less time.”

To all the above helpful inputs I would like to start adding some:

A lot of football successes are a win of “mind over matter”. Greece showed that camaraderie, hard work and sheer will power can triumph over skill, technique and flair. How do we see that in the game? (Apologies for returning to the same example. I will also stop arguing with wwfan on that because next thing he will say is that the Greek bench was man marking the opponent bench and they couldn’t make substitutions). There are mental attributes like determination, concentration, composure, bravery, aggression etc. that are static in the game but heavily influenced in real life, in certain occasions.

So firstly, let us think how is the manager’s personality (extremely important in real life) portrayed in the game. Well, it is not, or at least it is very shallow. Some players will dislike you based on what you say on match day or press conferences and some will like you if you say how good they are (a few more factors exist in the game but I won’t mention them). I believe the personality of every player and staff should be worked on, like their attributes. Personality attributes is not my expertise but I am sure a psychologist will give a comprehensive list. Many of the current “mental attributes” can be used there. Then a lot more real life interactions and circumstances should be added and a lot more reactions should be introduced. The manager then should be able to work on issues like mental toughness, work ethos, drive, energy, self-discipline, nerve, courage but also values, beliefs, learning abilities, imagination etc. There must be opportunities in the game for the manager to show how just he is, how decisive, enthusiastic, how much information he shares, how much integrity he has, what are his mental endurance thresholds. Also, what organisational structures does he put in place. I am sure I am leaving a lot out but you get the idea.

That is not to say that his technical knowledge and proficiency are not important. I regret saying that tactics play a tiny part in my original posts. It is definitely not tiny, but I was trying to make a point. However, I still believe it is a lot less important than what a certain school of thought tells us.

That’s all for now, let us begin discussions on the points of previous posters but also how what I humbly suggested can be implemented.

ldktalin
06-01-2010, 12:27
In fact how many times have you fired up the game to play a career and realised after about half an hour you are just waiting for the next match and not even looking forward to that? Oh well.

This pretty much sums my feelings up.

I got into this series during CM2/CM3 days, when you were able to glide through a season during a single playing session (4 hours or so), just playing match after match until the season ends.

FM became too radical and demanding in the recent years. There's only so much realism and depth a game can take before losing its raw entertainment value.

robbert_o154
06-01-2010, 12:50
That’s all for now, let us begin discussions on the points of previous posters but also how what I humbly suggested can be implemented.
So what is it you suggest? A page and a half of this, and we still haven't seen anything tangible, anything solid. In all their convolutedness, your posts suggest the dawn of a new era, a quantum leap forward, to boldly go where no footie sim has gone before. But what is it? What's the plan? "Tactics aren't the be all and end all of football management" is not a plan.

tak
06-01-2010, 12:56
So what is it you suggest? A page and a half of this, and we still haven't seen anything tangible, anything solid. In all their convolutedness, your posts suggest the dawn of a new era, a quantum leap forward, to boldly go where no footie sim has gone before. But what is it? What's the plan? "Tactics aren't the be all and end all and football management" is not a plan.

I know what you mean. In the first part of my post I summarised what other people suggested up to now. You will find my suggestions in the final paragraphs.

wwfan
06-01-2010, 13:13
Repeating poor arguments doesn't actually improve them. Have you actually argued with me about Greece? All I've seen is blanket ignorance about the system they employed plus a highly biased assertion that their manager's motivational skills were amazing and enough in themselves to win the Euros.

You also seem to have swallowed a book about 'strong culture management' which arguably doesn't have a huge amount of relevance to managing a sports club. Whereas you have a few good points, your complete failure to engage on the importance of tactical management in a sporting environment kills them stone dead.

You further have a profound lack of knowledge of FM's development cycle. The tactical system has been static for a number of years. FM2010 is the first shift in tactical implementation for about 5 years. How does that equate to 'focus on tactics at the expense of other management issues?'

As for the rest of the post, most of it is already in the game and can already be managed:

1: Determination, concentration, composure, bravery, aggression: most can be shaped by technical coaching (long-term) and motivational management (short term) already. They are most certainly not static.

2: Mental toughness, work ethos, drive, energy, self-discipline, nerve, courage: Can all be worked on through coaching and tutoring

3: Values, beliefs: corporate theories and practices that might or might not be relevant to a football club. I'd need evidence of a club running a 'strong culture' system, and being successful by doing so, to accept these should be in the game

4: Learning abilities, imagination: Again, relates to technical coaching

5: Organisational structures: Coaching development, feeder networks, scouting networks, delegating control etc

6: Manager personality: Here you do have a point and I believe it could be expanded, but am not sure how. How would you do it?


I'm quite happy to debate with you and try to brainstorm some areas of the game that could be improved, but you need to accept the limitations and biases of your argument for us to get anywhere. If you keep on dismissing actual tactical plans with an assumption that is was only the manager's motivational skills that mattered, you fail to understand not just football, but all sports strategy in any field. Yes, motivational skills matter, but only as a supplement to understanding the game itself.

gunner86
06-01-2010, 14:18
Given that this is the area of management you believe is most important, can you expand on how you think it could be done while keeping it fun?

1 thing that I would like to see implemented revolves player disputes - "Player a is finding it difficult to work with player b", "player c dislikes player d" etc etc.

What I would like to see in this instance is the option in each players interactions to try and resolve his issues with each other. Current players can go on having little tiffs for seasons on end or until you sell one of them - something you may not want to have to do.

Obviously this would not be 100% effective and I think in some cases it would make it interesting if it actually made the situation worse.

This is just one idea and I'm sure there are other ways this can be improved upon as can other aspects of man-management.

muncherdave
06-01-2010, 14:41
Thinking about gunner's post I think more could also be done with the interaction also when a player wants to leave a club. You sign the guy and have high hopes for him, only for when the first club comes sniffing around he's looking to jump ship. It's all fair enough, I'm sure there are plenty of players like that, but at the same time you feel powerless, either choosing to keep a hold of an unhappy player to the detrement of your squad and/or performances or flat out having to sell one of your prize assets.

You should be able to have some sort of interaction with the player to convince him now is not the right time to move, because say you are pushing for european football, or you are still playing european football, or that you just feel the club is heading in the direction of the club he wants to leave for. The second part would be whether to ask him just to stick it out until the end of the season and then if he still wants to leave then let him, or try to convince him to stay entirely. It's annoying when you've brought the kid up from your youth only for him to not show one ounce of loyalty, so perhaps something like this which could help him stay on that bit longer and add another zero to his value sounds good to me.

bigdunk
06-01-2010, 15:20
1 thing that I would like to see implemented revolves player disputes - "Player a is finding it difficult to work with player b", "player c dislikes player d" etc etc...


This sort of stuff is all well and good, and I have no problem with it being in the game, but it's not a 'leap of faith' as requested in the original post. All the interaction in the game at the moment (team talks, player interaction, board interaction, press conferences etc) basically boils down to a limited list of options with it almost always being obvious which is the 'right' option to pick. You can add more and more options to more and more situations, but it's always going to feel flat and repetitive. Added to that, there's the issue of how strong an effect any interaction should have - too much and it overpowers everything, too little and it becomes a waste of time - with the added bonus that nobody knows or can even agree on what effects it has in real life (hence the wwfan/tak argument over the greek team). Plus the fact that it's very difficult to actually judge the degree of influence a comment has had in the game - do you make it explicitly clear (i.e. a bit of text saying player X is unhappy with comment Y) which feels fake, or do you leave it hidden which leaves the player confused as to why a player is playing badly.

I don't have any suggestions for how to genuinely improve interaction beyond expanding what already exists (mainly because I don't think there are any practical solutions out there at the moment). But any genuine leap of faith is going to have to deal with these sorts of issues or the game will simply become bogged down with repetitive interaction where it's either clear which option to pick (and hence boring) or unclear what the effect of each option will be (and hence confusing).

tak
06-01-2010, 16:15
Repeating poor arguments doesn't actually improve them. Have you actually argued with me about Greece? All I've seen is blanket ignorance about the system they employed plus a highly biased assertion that their manager's motivational skills were amazing and enough in themselves to win the Euros.

You also seem to have swallowed a book about 'strong culture management' which arguably doesn't have a huge amount of relevance to managing a sports club. Whereas you have a few good points, your complete failure to engage on the importance of tactical management in a sporting environment kills them stone dead.

You further have a profound lack of knowledge of FM's development cycle. The tactical system has been static for a number of years. FM2010 is the first shift in tactical implementation for about 5 years. How does that equate to 'focus on tactics at the expense of other management issues?'

As for the rest of the post, most of it is already in the game and can already be managed:

1: Determination, concentration, composure, bravery, aggression: most can be shaped by technical coaching (long-term) and motivational management (short term) already. They are most certainly not static.

2: Mental toughness, work ethos, drive, energy, self-discipline, nerve, courage: Can all be worked on through coaching and tutoring

3: Values, beliefs: corporate theories and practices that might or might not be relevant to a football club. I'd need evidence of a club running a 'strong culture' system, and being successful by doing so, to accept these should be in the game

4: Learning abilities, imagination: Again, relates to technical coaching

5: Organisational structures: Coaching development, feeder networks, scouting networks, delegating control etc

6: Manager personality: Here you do have a point and I believe it could be expanded, but am not sure how. How would you do it?


I'm quite happy to debate with you and try to brainstorm some areas of the game that could be improved, but you need to accept the limitations and biases of your argument for us to get anywhere. If you keep on dismissing actual tactical plans with an assumption that is was only the manager's motivational skills that mattered, you fail to understand not just football, but all sports strategy in any field. Yes, motivational skills matter, but only as a supplement to understanding the game itself.

I have argued with you about Greece, saying that man-marking is a common tool used by teams that do not have sophisticated players, good at marking space and by many teams that attempt to disarm dangerous players. I thought it was enough to dismantle the argument that international footballers lost their marbles because of man-marking. However, you increased the craziness and went from "re-introduction of man-marking" to "highly innovative 9 player man-marking". Tell you what: Why don't we both watch the games again and discuss this in about ten days. What do you say?

Now:

1: Determination, concentration, composure, bravery, aggression: most can be shaped by technical coaching (long-term) and motivational management (short term) already. They are most certainly not static. I apologise about that. I used the word static meaning they can't be tought in training. I quote from the ingame advice: "Players will naturally develop their mental attributes through experience as they get older." What I argued is that determination, for example, can in a certain occasion increase dramaticaly (as happened to the players of Greece). Many of the mental attributes should be influenced by the web of internal relationships and external factors I am talking about.

2: Mental toughness, work ethos, drive, energy, self-discipline, nerve, courage: Can all be worked on through coaching and tutoring I disagree but if you prove it I have no reason not to believe you

3: Values, beliefs: corporate theories and practices that might or might not be relevant to a football club. I'd need evidence of a club running a 'strong culture' system, and being successful by doing so, to accept these should be in the game Arsenal

4: Learning abilities, imagination: Again, relates to technical coaching So a player's ability to learn is improving by what type of training?

5: Organisational structures: Coaching development, feeder networks, scouting networks, delegating control etc I am very very sorry to say that but here it is: This is a desparate answer.

6: Manager personality: Here you do have a point and I believe it could be expanded, but am not sure how. How would you do it? Hard to say, because the personality will be reflected in decisions and actions in general. This requires some thought.

I do not dismiss tactical play by saying that only motivation matters. I am saying that tactical play is overrated in FM compared to real life, where is not as important as some people think. I am saying that success comes through working in tactics but mostly because of managerial and leadership skills.

I don't think there is any point anyway in arguing what's more important: tactical knowledge or leadership. Do we agree, however, that there is a lot of room for improvement on the leadership front?

Heisenberg
06-01-2010, 18:14
Thinking about gunner's post I think more could also be done with the interaction also when a player wants to leave a club. You sign the guy and have high hopes for him, only for when the first club comes sniffing around he's looking to jump ship. It's all fair enough, I'm sure there are plenty of players like that, but at the same time you feel powerless, either choosing to keep a hold of an unhappy player to the detrement of your squad and/or performances or flat out having to sell one of your prize assets.

You should be able to have some sort of interaction with the player to convince him now is not the right time to move, because say you are pushing for european football, or you are still playing european football, or that you just feel the club is heading in the direction of the club he wants to leave for. The second part would be whether to ask him just to stick it out until the end of the season and then if he still wants to leave then let him, or try to convince him to stay entirely. It's annoying when you've brought the kid up from your youth only for him to not show one ounce of loyalty, so perhaps something like this which could help him stay on that bit longer and add another zero to his value sounds good to me.

This is something I would love to see in the game. The player interaction options (or lack of them) seems to be one of the biggest issues this thread has discussed, so having the chance to convince a player to stay or even to tell him to play better to increase his chances of a move would be an excellent addition. Likewise, a range of options available to solve internal disputes between players is something which real managers can employ but are not present in FM.

An expansion of pre-match team talks would be good, so that when the team is playing a derby or an important cup match the options could be more varied and more strongly worded. An option to say something to a sub as he goes on to the pitch (as mentioned earlier by tak with regard to Solkjaer and Sir Alex) would be good as well, though I could see some players being annoyed at this popping up every time they make a sub. A tickbox option in the manager preferences might help.

shwan
06-01-2010, 18:17
The turn of a decade is usually followed by dreams and new hopes and we, FM players, are all dreaming and expecting wonderful things. I think there is a real chance for our favourite game.

I always believed that this game takes tactics too seriously. In essence, this game is only tactics' tweaking. Nothing much else. It still amazes me that there are, for example, 20 different settings on how much should a player close down. Or, 20 different levels of time wasting?! Fair enough, they have tried to simplify but just for the player. The machine remains as big and complicated.

I've read numerous angry posts defending realism when someone dares to ask if he could repeat a game, I've read experts coming up with important conclusions after reading two libraries of statistical jiberish, but we have all failed to observe the most important thing: There is too much concentration in tactics. Unrealisticaly much. Real life football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things. If the game continues to chanel its energy to tactics it will become less and less realistic and at the end it will have no connection to reality but the players' names and attributes.

What is football management about? What distinguishes a succesful manager? This is what SI must concentrate upon now, take a leap of faith, take our game to the next level and trully create something legendary.

A lot of work needs to be done on personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players). Revolutionary ways have to be discovered to simulate those relationships and how they define a team.

A lot of work and real out of the box thinking needs to be done so that the game can capture the personality and managerial skills of the manager and how they form the culture of the team.

I know this post will shock many people, who will deliberately shut their eyes and try not to think of those things ever again. Most of the people who know and love football will know immediately what I am talking about (tactics is a very small part of management). I am counting on the really forward thinkers of SI. On those who want to take a chance and dare create a "simulation" rather than a "game".

Please, SI, will you attempt to start a revolution?

will shock you further, when will tell you that tactic in FM is not as much deep and need improvement
i played CM and FM this year, and despite AI match and some other issues, CM has better tools tactically, as main problem with FM, is movement and positioning of players, you just seem able to twick them but not ask them where to run where to go back when defending ..etc .. it just feel it is more limited than CM tbh.
and although I agree that tactic is not only area of management but the main one tbh
and in that sense i think SI need to work more in tactic for hard core tactic people, i know some think twicking is fine as they want to play 5-10 matches a day ... but for hard core like me, i play one match a day and spend lots of time analyzing and studying before starting the game .. so twicking is not enough for me tbh

wwfan
06-01-2010, 22:22
The more I read your posts, Tak, the less I think you know what you are talking about.

In the Euros, Greece man-marked on a man to man basis. No coach had tried this for a good 40 years. It was a calculated gamble which paid off as modern players/managers didn't know how to react to it. There has been a lot written about this by very sophisticated students of football. You can't just wish it away.

As soon as one questions that Greece won the Euros because they were 'super-determined', your whole argument re the importance of man and motivational management falls flat. Yes, Greece were motivated, but to determine they won because of this is ridiculous. For determination to be the crucial factor for success would require all the teams they played against to be less motivated and less determined. Determination did not increase dramatically for Greece while remaining low for other nations. It was not the sole or most important cause of their win. The tactical questions they posed were of far more importance, which you fail to realise as you haven't researched into this area at all. I'm assuming you have some theoretical or practical experience of motivation which you are basing your opinion on? That's fair enough, but you cannot use that experience to displace other elements of managerial practice and need to balance out your assertions with tactical research.

In FM, training and playing improves nearly all the technical, physical and mental attributes in your players. Pretty indisputable. Furthermore, pre and in-match man-management can increase or reduce player nervousness, complacency, confidence, arrogance, fear etc. A better team usually only requires a solid tactical base and confidence to win, whereas less good sides need to be tactically and motivationally excellent. In your opinion, are these not developed enough or not obvious enough (i.e. do you know they are part of the game but feel they are largely cosmetic or are you largely unaware of their existence)?

I need proof that Arsenal operate under 'strong culture' principles. You can't just state a name and assume that does the job.

A player will learn better by improving his professionalism. You can improve a players professionalism by giving him a mentor. You can also judge which PPMs a player is able to learn by reading his attributes. If you want a young player to develop in a certain way, you can try to mould his attribute growth through general training and then get him to learn the PPMs you want. Not always possible, but certainly not impossible.

Given you think an organisational structure of managerial delegation, networks and partnerships is lacking, what areas are missing? You can't just dismiss and offer no reasons for the dismissal. What other organisation structure should an FM manager have control of?


Leadership is a corporate buzzword that slipped into fashion after the technical managerial excesses of the 60s and 70s. Employees were perceived as no longer having loyalty to organisations as management had become purely technical and employees were treated as parts of the system rather than human beings. This caused a crisis in confidence in America's ability to keep up with rising Asian competition (which was based on far more loyal employees) and resulted in the development of strong culture organisation and the cult of leadership.

This was in marked difference to traditional leadership of charismatic personality and was instead turned into a set of skills one could learn (the modern MBA being a prime example). This set of skills was supposed to be facilitate the organisational management of people on a technical and emotional level, thus tying them firmly to corporate values and beliefs. Since then, it, in conjunction with culture, has become an overused buzzword that supposedly explains great/poor organisational performance.

This peculiar modern form of leadership has little in common with traditional charismatic leadership, which is personality rather than knowledge driven. It assumes that good leadership equals loyal employees. When paralleling this with football, we have a problem. For a football club, the base assets are the most important employees, who are traded like stock. For many clubs, their loyalty is not important, but their resale value is. That means managers must paradoxically treat them as loyal to the team and objects of potential profit.

Many, certainly at the top level, are exceedingly wealthy young men. Modern methods of leadership do not have the answers when posed questions of how to control independently wealthy people who know their inherent market value and pay others to improve and act on it. This is a shift back into the management of previous decades, in which the managers job is to improve the technical ability of his employees in order to make the product (in this case the very same employees) viable and profitable. The modern football manager must first and foremost know how to win matches, as this is his shop window and bread and butter, but also know how to best improve his assets technically.

To sum it up, we have the following:

Leadership: Trying to keep employees motivated to work for and emotionally attached to the organisation (to try to win)

Management: Ensuring the organisation runs smoothly on a technical and profitable basis (to improve resale values)

Specific: Being deeply immersed in the practical requirements of the organisation (to understand football at a deep theoretical and practical level)


Traditional management texts, which you seem to be drawing from, have consistently focused on leadership or management and the skills required to perform either or both. These form the basis of many MBA programs. Contemporary analysts strongly argue that management and leadership skills must be heavily related to the practical requirements of ones vocation and management must be learnt alongside specific practical considerations. In football management terms, that means, first and foremost, knowing the game at strategic, tactical and technical levels.

Without this knowledge, management and leadership skills are irrelevant and can do more harm than good. You can end up with highly motivated people working very hard in areas that handicap or hurt the organisation. Once you are deeply immersed in the practical elements, then you can hone your management/leadership skills in relation to the specific requirements they throw up. Good management emerges from practical knowledge. As such, whereas motivational and man-management skills are important, they are useless if the manager is strategically or tactically inept. They are secondary elements of football management, not primary. Yes, they might need more development, but no, they should not become more important than deep knowledge of the game itself.

robbert_o154
06-01-2010, 22:30
I would also like to ask Tak: since you believe that the importance of tactics and the level of football are inversely proportional, how do you explain that tactical innovation has always been done at the top, not the bottom?

tak
06-01-2010, 23:32
Wwfaf, just watch Greece's games and we will talk about that again. By the way, I suspect you have never watched them. Could this be true? (No intention to offend or be sarcastic, it's an honest question)

Your dismissal of the trait of leadership as a buzzword is, of course, your prerogative. You are also entitled to dismiss the concept of culture. Since you like books, I am sure you will find thousands that show that leadership and culture are very real and very important. (By the way I hold an MBA and what I learned was not what you describe. It is from a highly-ranked university as well and I am only saying that just in case you reply "there are many MBAs these days"). Culture is not something that "supposedly explains organisational performance". It does explain it and I confirm that every day. Same with leadership. Far from being a buzzword, I observe its presence or absence daily in a few organisations.

Later, you point out correctly that a good manager has to have very good knowledge of the technical issues. I know that, and you know I know that so why do you construct your arguments on the basis that I dismiss that? Do you want to discuss or do you want to speak? Anyway, good management does not necessarily emerges from practical knowledge. I have seen brilliant managers who started on the factory floor and I have seen brilliant managers who switched to a completely different industry and still thrived.

In football tactical knowledge and management competence are necessary but as you go higher the former becomes less important and the latter more so. This is what I am saying and you think it is the other way around. Like I said, that is fair enough.

OK, about FM:

In FM, training and playing improves nearly all the technical, physical and mental attributes in your players. Pretty indisputable. Furthermore, pre and in-match man-management can increase or reduce player nervousness, complacency, confidence, arrogance, fear etc. A better team usually only requires a solid tactical base and confidence to win, whereas less good sides need to be tactically and motivationally excellent. In your opinion, are these not developed enough or not obvious enough (i.e. do you know they are part of the game but feel they are largely cosmetic or are you largely unaware of their existence)? I am largely unaware of their existence which means that, in essence, they are not there. There are no indications of their existence or hints about what influences them or ways to do so or... you know what I mean anyway.

I need proof that Arsenal operate under 'strong culture' principles. You can't just state a name and assume that does the job. Isn't Arsenal operating under the philosophy "we rarely buy stars and constantly developing youth"? Isn't that a statement according to which all (or most) Arsenal decisions are made?

A player will learn better by improving his professionalism. You can improve a players professionalism by giving him a mentor. You can also judge which PPMs a player is able to learn by reading his attributes. If you want a young player to develop in a certain way, you can try to mould his attribute growth through general training and then get him to learn the PPMs you want. Not always possible, but certainly not impossible. Mentors are largely gimmicky and with completely random effects. PPMs are not relevant to what I was saying there.

Given you think an organisational structure of managerial delegation, networks and partnerships is lacking, what areas are missing? You can't just dismiss and offer no reasons for the dismissal. What other organisation structure should an FM manager have control of? Managerial delegation does not exist in the game with the purpose to enhance building of organisational structures but to relief the player of boring clicks. There are no scouting networks. Affiliations are cosmetic.

Anyway, let us discuss about what personality attributes should be there and how they should be influenced...

wwfan
07-01-2010, 00:35
Thanks for confirming my belief that you were employing MBA style jargon to determine what management and leadership is. I am very aware of the numbers of books and journal articles about organisational culture as it is my job to research them and write about them. I also teach MBA students. My own research activities involve the nature of engagement and resistance in organisational settings, which bounces off concepts of leadership, culture and management on critical and popular levels. My immediate superior is a major culture change expert, and I'm fortunate enough to be friends with and the occasional colleague of the leading figure in critical organisational theory in the world. I've also ran my own consulting company and been involved in designing and running leadership and communication development programmes in some of the biggest organisations on the planet.

Once more we are talking at cross purposes. You have had some MBA training, which is packaged as a set of skills and tools which transcend organisational types. Because you have experienced management/leadership/culture packaged this way, it is hardly surprising you have the belief that these tools are the most important elements of management. You've had it shoved down your throat that they are.

The basic problem we have is the rising contemporary belief that MBA programmes actually hinder good management practice as they avoid specific practical issues. The Harvard method of case study analysis is particularly criticised. As a result, some business schools are trying to redesign themselves in a manner that enables practical knowledge of an industry to synthesise with managerial training. INSEAD is the most famous example.

You are simply trying to import MBA level theory of management into the football management arena, avoiding the practical elements of the trade when doing so. You obviously haven't researched football tactics in any depth so cannot hope to communicate on a level playing field when discussing their importance in historical terms or for specific tournaments, as your Greek examples illustrate (btw, I had a Greek girlfriend during that tournament, so I watched every one of those matches). I also read about them in some detail when arguing with crouchaldinho about marking patterns in modern football.

Not only are you lacking in theoretical appreciation of or practical immersion into football (either of which I'd accept as a stance), you are also lacking in knowledge of management history, which limits your horizons as to what management is/can be. From your Arsenal example, you also seem to be very unsure as to what 'strong culture' actually is. You have provided me with a basic strategic overview, which, unfortunately, has nothing to do with practices of strong culture. You've espoused 'values' and 'beliefs' in classic MBA-style, but what do they mean?

You have also proved that you don't appreciate much of the non-tactical elements of FM as you fail to understand how or why certain elements of the game are in place. You've accepted you are unaware of the existence of certain elements of game-play, which means they are not obvious enough, not that they don't exist. For those of us who are aware of them, they are important aspects of the game. If your team is playing nervously, you need to know how to overcome it, both tactically and motivationally.

Likewise, good mentoring and PPM training can turn a good player into a brilliant player. Again, because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. I suggest you read The next Diaby's threads on Psychological Warfare and Player Development, which explains it all in great detail. Furthermore, a good affiliation network improves your chances of picking up quality overseas talent and getting your players great first team experience. Additionally, the whole point of delegation is so you don't have to do the work. How else can delegation be simulated?

The only point I agree with is that good managers can transcend organisational types if they have the humility to accept they need to understand the practices of the industry they are walking into before they make managerial decisions. That is the essence of good management. For a football manager, that is understanding how football works as a sport and an industry. From thereon in, good man and motivational management gives you extra advantages, but not before.

Your last post has basically clarified for me that you don't understand many of the development, man-management or motivational tools already in the game. This arguably means that they are not obvious enough, which is a more than acceptable stance, but not that they are random or cosmetic. If they feel so to you, it is because you aren't managing them well, not that they don't work. You are further trying to import MBA-style management ideas into the game, which I will stand against for an eternity as they have very little relevance to actual messy and practical management that modern managers have to cope with. They are especially irrelevant to sports management.

RBKalle
07-01-2010, 01:39
in that sense i think SI need to work more in tactic for hard core tactic people, i know some think twicking is fine as they want to play 5-10 matches a day ... but for hard core like me, i play one match a day and spend lots of time analyzing and studying before starting the game .. so twicking is not enough for me tbh

Well...

In that case, why not giving up on FM and becoming a manager in real life (assuming you're not one already)?

I don't want to sound brash, but ONE MATCH A DAY means it's not a game anymore. It's a job, or worse than it, because it's done for free on our free time.

The moment such a level of immersion (obsession?) will be the minimum requirement in order to fully "understand" the game, it'll be the day FM will die.

I mean, judging by the sort of posts we all can read around here, the vast majority of FM users tend to be more on the "casual" side of things, be it in terms of actual football knowledge or in terms of gaming dedication.

And already as it is now, FM seems to have put a lot of people off with its tacticoholism.

See, I think we're running in circles: people complain about a "strange event" [or about the game "cheating"] and what's the reply from the Gurus of the board?
it's your tactic!
People then complain about tactic being convoluted/inconsistent etc.
Gurus retaliate with "you don't understand football".
And so on...

The fact is: are all those who play and have some issues with a particular event either spoiled brats, total morons or football ignoramus?

Or MAYBE, and I stress MAYBE, the Tactical Wizard, as good as it is, is just a cosmetic simplification for a more complex, and seemingly hard-to-grasp, tactical management system which doesn't seem to totally reflect the VISIBLE DECISIONS in its simulation?

In all honesty, I refuse to think we all are stupid (some are thick, some watch football but don't really "get" it, past the fanboy level), so there might be an issue with the user-->ME interaction?


In my very humble opinion, hinting the tactical side of FM needs to be even more in-depth, thus complicated, reeks of elitism. Or at best of poor judgement.


As I said, it's a game, and it's supposed to be fun!

If I have to sit through painful hours of planning (for ONE game), just to see it all fall apart because I forgot to set a slider or to give an instruction to my fullback in injury time... well... how fun can that be?

I'd rather study or work, at least my time would be spent in something equally tiring but more rewarding than claiming Champions League cyber-Gold or an Awesome SuperTactic.


P.S. this has nothing to do with the OP's now-exposed ideas about MBA... something I'm not fond of, and I don't think we need in FM, at least not as he put it.

From "SimFootball: Tactical Micromanagement" to "Dr.Phil's Football Shrink"... not an improvement.


P.P.S. again, don't take this post personal. I just think a game should be fun, even if it comes at the expense of some tiny details.
I'm a supporter of the "Less is More" philosophy.

It's fine you want more tactics, but if it's already "too much" now, and it's not perfected yet, why adding more if the game (and the users) can't chew what they're biting already?

tingting
07-01-2010, 03:21
Well...
See, I think we're running in circles: people complain about a "strange event" [or about the game "cheating"] and what's the reply from the Gurus of the board?
it's your tactic!
People then complain about tactic being convoluted/inconsistent etc.
Gurus retaliate with "you don't understand football".
And so on...

The fact is: are all those who play and have some issues with a particular event either spoiled brats, total morons or football ignoramus?

Or MAYBE, and I stress MAYBE, the Tactical Wizard, as good as it is, is just a cosmetic simplification for a more complex, and seemingly hard-to-grasp, tactical management system which doesn't seem to totally reflect the VISIBLE DECISIONS in its simulation?

In all honesty, I refuse to think we all are stupid (some are thick, some watch football but don't really "get" it, past the fanboy level), so there might be an issue with the user-->ME interaction?


Hit the nail on the head. I really hate it when people start saying "You don't understand football". Sorry to disappoint such people but most of us do....what we don't understand is how apply that knowledge in the game. While the Tactics Creator has gone a long way is providing a base for tactics, it is still far from perfect. You still have gaps on the field which is more apparent in the defense.

Even a balanced philosophy with strategy set at standard has the central defender's closing down rating set at 7-8 (own half). That would mean my defender gets pulled out of position time and again. Now this would not have been a problem if he used his head before launching himself out of position.

This (in my opinion) is a major major flaw in the ME. Players on the field do not have any positional nor mental awareness. Central midfielders do not track back when a striker is taking on my central defenders (i would understand if they were too far upfront...but they just stand there on the halfway line) players do not cover a player when he is pulled out of position, rarely see attackers try to find some space upfront or players offer themselves for a pass.

Even in the tactics creator you can clearly see the issues. A deeplying playmaker has a mentality of 7-8 while a ball winning midfielder has a mentality of 10-11. Both have mentality of normal so why exactly are they on different numbers??? If you try to meddle with mentalities of any one of players, the whole tactic goes kaput (though not if you know what you are doing...this is no way concerned with the understanding of football...this is concerned with the understanding of football manager)

And you cannot set players to different mentalities (for example i would like my defenders to defend, midfielders to have a normal mentality and attackers to attack) This is not possible presently since it pulls the players too far apart and since they do not offer themselves for a pass, such a move would be disastrous.

The dynamism, the constant movement, that we see on a football field is clearly absent on the football manager field

I sincerely hope that the tactics creator is the first step that SI have taken in ditching the numbered sliders. Dont get me wrong...sliders are needed in the game because there is no other feasible way to tell your players what to do..but drastically cutting down on the numbers will allow many of those who do not understand the ME to watch and understand what is going wrong and take appropriate measures.

Someone said that ideas being suggested in this thread does not constitute the "leap of faith" that the OP was talking about. I disagree...A leap of faith does not necessary mean one very big feature...a number of smaller features that help in reshaping the football manager game that we know more than make up for that one big feature.

Toning down the tactical instructions (again dont get me wrong...i agree that tactics is the most important area for a football manager), improving manager-player interaction, improving manager-board interaction, improving manager-media interaction, improving training, improving scouting (not just the scout reports), introducing manager-fans interaction (not exactly a vital feature but would increase the enjoyment), introducing some features such as director of football etc....i bet many of us FM fanatics would have settled for these improvements if we had a choice between them and the biggest feature in recent years (3D)

tak
07-01-2010, 11:49
@ wwfan: I was almost certain you are in the business of teaching rather than doing, and I have no problem with that. Teachers and consultants have both a role to play and I definately have time for them. They are not participating in real time innovation and new frontier exploration but they can understand new discoveries, put them in writting and spread them.

At the beginning I had two theories about your negativity, one professional and one personal. Will I just summarise them for fun? OK:

- Because what I was suggesting was very difficult to simulate in a computer game, part of the FM market would not really care and the current economic climate is more about survival than trying Herculean projects, I thought you were on a spin mission to attract attention elsewhere, confuse the matter and ultimately kill the conversation. However, I am more inclined to believe my second theory which was that

- your theoritical occupation makes you bitter against those that "dare" to suggest things while coming from a practical background and haven't read huge amounts of literature.

Before we go any further I would like to suggest once more that you watch the games of Greece 2004. I think what happened in real time, watching them with your Greek girlfriend, was too strong emotionaly and bad for tactical observations. This is probably why you had to refer to studies afterwards to form conclusions. Please, I beg you, watch the games again and we will talk.

I really want to get this conversation moving so, if you don't mind, I would like to stop this debate about the use or relevance of an MBA (which is judged in real life, anyway) and also I would like to ask you to abandon the theory that my goal is to instill "MBA-style management ideas" into the game. This is something you invented either to derail the topic or because of personal envy. The concepts of leadership and culture, as they appear in bibliography, do not really interest me.

However, I am very interest to see if there is actually an opportunity for FM to simulate (to whatever extend possible) real life management. Furthermore, I am interest to see if there is an opportunity to simulate real life circumstances and their effect on a team. This way, I believe, an FM manager will deal with more real life problems and decisions, because they are extremely important, especially at top levels. The tactical side of FM can stay exactly as it is, I don't mind that.

It is all very well to answer "it's in the game" whenever someone suggests something. I am also prepared to accept that for the sake of conversation. So before we go any further, and since I "fail to understand them", can you make a list of the personality and character traits of players that actually exist in the game (other than "mental attributes")? Can you also tell us how they are affected?

Matt123456
07-01-2010, 12:05
@ wwfan: However, I am very interest to see if there is actually an opportunity for FM to simulate (to whatever extend possible) real life management. Furthermore, I am interest to see if there is an opportunity to simulate real life circumstances and their effect on a team. This way, I believe, an FM manager will deal with more real life problems and decisions, because they are extremely important, especially at top levels. The tactical side of FM can stay exactly as it is, I don't mind that.

What do you think the whole game is supposed to be doing? The whole point of the game is to try and simulate real life management. That is what the game is. And virtually everyone here will tell you that it does a damn good job of simulating management with the technology that is available at this time. It is all well and good making all these suggestions. I already said that it would be brilliant if we could have a conversation with the players. But technologically that is impossible, and technology will have to progress a lot for that to be made possible. It is also impossible to simulate the "real life problems and decisions" more than a certain degree because of how complicated it would be. FM already has some personal issues included - for example personal problems or failing to settle in a certain area - but it is simply not feasible, or even technologically impossible, to go a lot further than that. If you're going to make suggestions, please keep them within the realms of possibility, otherwise there is no point in this thread.

tak
07-01-2010, 12:08
What do you think the whole game is supposed to be doing? The whole point of the game is to try and simulate real life management. That is what the game is. And virtually everyone here will tell you that it does a damn good job of simulating management with the technology that is available at this time. It is all well and good making all these suggestions. I already said that it would be brilliant if we could have a conversation with the players. But technologically that is impossible, and technology will have to progress a lot for that to be made possible. It is also impossible to simulate the "real life problems and decisions" more than a certain degree because of how complicated it would be. FM already has some personal issues included - for example personal problems or failing to settle in a certain area - but it is simply not feasible, or even technologically impossible, to go a lot further than that. If you're going to make suggestions, please keep them within the realms of possibility, otherwise there is no point in this thread.

I understand your point of view. To what extend can technology simulate real factors at the moment?

Matt123456
07-01-2010, 12:19
I understand your point of view. To what extend can technology simulate real factors at the moment?

I don't know, as I don't have any specialist knowledge on the matter. But I think common sense will tell you what is unfeasible or not. I think that coding in new features to the game will always be complicated, and the fact that the features you are suggesting will have such a large impact on the game will mean that they will be especially complicated. I stress that I am not sure of this, but from what I have read earlier on this thread and on other threads, it would be extremely difficult to introduce a whole raft of new personal factors for players. If you think about it, adding more personality traits for players seems relatively simple, but it would effect the way they work with coaches, the way they work with other players, their relationship with the media, how well they work under pressure, how they respond to criticism or praise and how that affects their performance in the match and a whole host of other things. And these mental traits are already in the game - albeit in a very simplified form - so to make such a big change, though benefiting the game, is probably not feasible from SI's point of view. Other changes, for example introducing more ways to interact with players, would also be extremely complicated, and I think suggesting a complete revolution, or a "leap of faith" wouldn't work. Suggesting ways to tweak the current system is a much better way to get SI to take notice as it is easier to do, and most likely they may already be considering for FM 11 anyway.

EDIT: I totally agree with improving the way you interact with players. I don't think there is any doubt this needs to be tweaked.

wwfan
07-01-2010, 12:36
...because of personal envy...

You really need to get over yourself.

Player Personalities

Ambitious: Ambition = 15-19 & Loyalty < 10.
Balanced: none of the rest
Born Leader: Influence = 20 & Determination = 20.
Casual: Professionalism = 2-4 & Determination < 10.
Devoted: Loyalty = 20 & Ambition = 6-7.
Determined: Determination = 18-19 & Ambition >9.
Driven: Determination = 20 & Ambition > 9.
Easily Discouraged: Determination = 1.
Fairly Ambitious: (Ambition = 15) or (Ambition = 16-20 & Loyalty >9).
Fairly Determined: (Determination = 15-17) or (Determination = 18-20 & Ambition < 10).
Fairly Loyal: (Loyalty = 15-17) or (Loyalty = 18-20 & Ambition = 8-14).
Fairly Professional: (Professionalism = 15-17) or (Professionalism = 18-20 & Temperament < 10).
Fairly Sporting: Sportsmanship = 15-17.
Honest: Sportsmanship = 20.
Iron Willed: Pressure = 20 & Determination > 14.
Jovial: Pressure > 14 & Temperament > 9.
Leader: (Influence = 19) or (Influence = 20 & Determination < 20).
Light-Hearted: Sportsmanship > 14 & Pressure > 14 & Determination > 9 & Temperament > 9.
Low Determination: Determination = 2-5.
Low Self-Belief: Pressure = 2-3 & Determination < 10.
Loyal: Loyalty = 18-19 & Ambition = 1-7.
Model Citizen: Determination > 17 & Ambition > 17 & Loyalty > 17 & Pressure > 17 & Professionalism > 17 & Temperament > 17 & Sportsmanship > 17.
Model Professional: Professionalism = 20 & Temperament > 9.
Professional: Professionalism = 18-19 & Temperament > 9.
Perfectionist: Ambition > 17 & Professionalism > 17 & Determination > 17.
Realist: Sportsmanship = 2-4.
Resilient: Pressure = 17-19 & Determination > 14.
Resolute: Determination = 15-17 & Professionalism = 15-17.
Slack: Professionalism = 1 & Determination < 10.
Spineless: Pressure = 1 & Determination < 10.
Spirited: Pressure > 14 & Professionalism = 15-17 & Temperament > 9.
Sporting: Sportsmanship = 18-19.
Temperamental: Temperament = 1-4.
Unambitious: Ambition < 6.
Unsporting: Sportsmanship = 1.
Very Ambitious: Ambition = 20 & Loyalty < 10.
Very Loyal: Loyal = 20 & Ambition = 1-7.


Each can be shaped by assigning the correct tutor. For further details on how best to do this:

Please read:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=12330

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=4791.0

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=8016.0

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=8015.0

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=7938.0

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=5259.0

tak
07-01-2010, 12:53
Thanks wwfan, this is indeed a good start. Let me work a bit with this information in hand...

wwfan
07-01-2010, 13:03
He's wrong about some of the team talks, but most of the advice he gives is excellent.

tak
07-01-2010, 16:08
Fan, can I ask one more thing? I am changing some of my players now on fmrte to model citizens, perfectionists etc. and some I make slack, casual etc. What actually changes in the way the react to external factors?

Edit: Also, how is their game affected by their personalities?

PS: Briefly, no need to get into trouble. Just give an example.

tak
07-01-2010, 21:40
While I am studying FM's "man management" system, here two wise quotations:

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

And my particular bugbear, this week, is ********-artists who try to over-complicate a perfectly simple game by waffling on interminably about formations and tactics; holding midfielders, players in the hole, galloping wing-backs blah, blah, blah snooze yawn in a bid to make out they’re more clever than everyone else. There is, of course, a time for such talk, but as somebody clever once said about analysing humour, dissecting football to that degree is like dissecting a frog. Nobody is particularly interested and the frog dies. — Barry Glendenning.

lol

wwfan
07-01-2010, 22:04
@ wwfan: I was almost certain you are in the business of teaching rather than doing, and I have no problem with that. Teachers and consultants have both a role to play and I definately have time for them. They are not participating in real time innovation and new frontier exploration but they can understand new discoveries, put them in writting and spread them.

I am a management researcher who used to run his own company which specialised in teaching managers to manage. I thus managed people who explained management to managers. Originally, I did this at a practical level, but have since moved into academia to do it at a more theoretical level. I am perfectly experienced with both stances.



At the beginning I had two theories about your negativity, one professional and one personal. Will I just summarise them for fun? OK:

- Because what I was suggesting was very difficult to simulate in a computer game, part of the FM market would not really care and the current economic climate is more about survival than trying Herculean projects, I thought you were on a spin mission to attract attention elsewhere, confuse the matter and ultimately kill the conversation. However, I am more inclined to believe my second theory which was that

- your theoritical occupation makes you bitter against those that "dare" to suggest things while coming from a practical background and haven't read huge amounts of literature.

You brought theory into the conversation by referencing your MBA from a good business school. Now you have realised I have a considerably stronger foundation in management theory than you, theory is irrelevant and practice the only viable stance? You need some level of consistency in your argument. You can't chop and change the importance of theory/practice in order to suit your opinion.

As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I have walked the walk. I now talk the talk.



Before we go any further I would like to suggest once more that you watch the games of Greece 2004. I think what happened in real time, watching them with your Greek girlfriend, was too strong emotionaly and bad for tactical observations. This is probably why you had to refer to studies afterwards to form conclusions. Please, I beg you, watch the games again and we will talk.

Google is your friend (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=greece+man+marking+euro+2004&aq=f&oq=&aqi=). In order to refute this, you need to illustrate how Greece weren't man-marking (with examples) and/or validate your position as a theoretical or practical expert on football tactics or football management. If you are neither, your opinion that Greece didn't man mark has no weight at all.



I really want to get this conversation moving so, if you don't mind, I would like to stop this debate about the use or relevance of an MBA (which is judged in real life, anyway) and also I would like to ask you to abandon the theory that my goal is to instill "MBA-style management ideas" into the game. This is something you invented either to derail the topic or because of personal envy. The concepts of leadership and culture, as they appear in bibliography, do not really interest me.

Once more, you brought it up. You argued that football management should include instilling values and beliefs into players. When I challenged you it was patently obvious you didn't know what it meant, let alone how it is done. If you are going to argue things are part of the management experience, you have to be able to defend the stance.

As for the derailing the discussion and personal envy, it is almost too ridiculous for words. I am trying to get you to explain exactly what this 'leap of faith' should entail and what evidence you have to support it. I'm basically doing the job I do in real life in this forum, which is to improve people's understanding of generalised and specific concepts of management. As of yet you have produced a few interesting snippets of ideas and a lot of biased personal opinion drawn from a pretty low-level understanding of management theory and your personal understanding of management practice. I'm simply trying to get you to expand upon and clarify what you think management means and illustrate the related importance of these ideas to football management. How you have concluded that means I am envious of you beggars belief.


However, I am very interest to see if there is actually an opportunity for FM to simulate (to whatever extend possible) real life management. Furthermore, I am interest to see if there is an opportunity to simulate real life circumstances and their effect on a team. This way, I believe, an FM manager will deal with more real life problems and decisions, because they are extremely important, especially at top levels. The tactical side of FM can stay exactly as it is, I don't mind that.

Then you still need to be clear what that means. I've been trying to get that out of you for post after post now, but you refuse or are unable to clarify what this means.


It is all very well to answer "it's in the game" whenever someone suggests something. I am also prepared to accept that for the sake of conversation. So before we go any further, and since I "fail to understand them", can you make a list of the personality and character traits of players that actually exist in the game (other than "mental attributes")? Can you also tell us how they are affected?

See my above post.



Fan, can I ask one more thing? I am changing some of my players now on fmrte to model citizens, perfectionists etc. and some I make slack, casual etc. What actually changes in the way the react to external factors?

Edit: Also, how is their game affected by their personalities?

PS: Briefly, no need to get into trouble. Just give an example.

They can affect squad gelling, performance in match types (big/small games) and score lines (likelihood of nervousness, complacency,anger), reaction to team talks, ability to reach potential, willingness to stay at a club instead of following the money, relationships with other players, ability to settle in a country, ability to learn a language, ability to adjust to a different football culture, media interaction, reaction to media interaction etc, etc. Quite how is down to the virtual manager to work out.

tak
07-01-2010, 22:11
You brought theory into the conversation by referencing your MBA from a good business school. Now you have realised I have a considerably stronger foundation in management theory than you, theory is irrelevant and practice the only viable stance? You need some level of consistency in your argument. You can't chop and change the importance of theory/practice in order to suit your opinion.




This is a blatant lie. You talked about what MBA teaches and I replied that I hold one but wasn't tought what you said. You brought MBA up. Are you drunk by any chance?

I did not change my stance on theory/practise importance. How did you conclude that?

wwfan
07-01-2010, 22:31
This is a blatant lie. You talked about what MBA teaches and I replied that I hold one but wasn't tought what you said. You brought MBA up. Are you drunk by any chance?

at?

I also explained why you arguably weren't taught that, which is because MBA programmes are going through a massive re-evaluation as to their relevance to the problems and practices of modern management. Unless you were at a select few business schools, you wouldn't be taught any critical or reflective practice.

I only mentioned the MBA in passing as an example of something else. You are the one employing the MBA qualification as an example of what modern management is, unless you are assuming your own management style is what football management should be. It has to be one or the other. Are you employing personal experience of management to determine what football management should be or drawing form a theoretical body of work (MBA related studies)?

The whole problem of MBA style management is that it assumes its skills and tools are transferable to other forms of management no matter its practices. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is exactly what you seem to be arguing for. Basic, MBA-style man and motivational management skills transferred into the football management arena as the most important tools of the trade. If this is not what you are arguing for and you are only using your own personal experiences of management as a basis for critique, how do you expect to be taken seriously? How can how you choose to manage be the most important elements of football management? You have to be basing this on theory not practice at the basic level.



I did not change my stance on theory/practise importance. How did you conclude that?

Exhibit A, m'lud: Your dismissal of the trait of leadership as a buzzword is, of course, your prerogative. You are also entitled to dismiss the concept of culture. Since you like books, I am sure you will find thousands that show that leadership and culture are very real and very important. (By the way I hold an MBA and what I learned was not what you describe. It is from a highly-ranked university as well and I am only saying that just in case you reply "there are many MBAs these days"). Culture is not something that "supposedly explains organisational performance". It does explain it and I confirm that every day. Same with leadership. Far from being a buzzword, I observe its presence or absence daily in a few organisations.


Exhibit B, m'lud: - your theoritical occupation makes you bitter against those that "dare" to suggest things while coming from a practical background and haven't read huge amounts of literature.


So, which is it? Are these thousands of books important or not? Or is the practical experience you allude to in the former paragraph the only thing of importance?

tak
07-01-2010, 22:57
Hi wwfan. Look, I will for the first time attempt to do the many separate quotes thingy that everyone else seems to have mastered. Wish me luck:


I am a management researcher who used to run his own company which specialised in teaching managers to manage. I thus managed people who explained management to managers. Originally, I did this at a practical level, but have since moved into academia to do it at a more theoretical level. I am perfectly experienced with both stances.

I regret to say that, but you are not. You used to manage a company of teachers and then you became a teacher. Like I said, you teach management techniques from books written by people who watch real managers who actually do something. Once more, no problem with that, I find it wonderful. You don't have to convince me that you have management experience anyway. I know pretty well.



You brought theory into the conversation by referencing your MBA from a good business school. Now you have realised I have a considerably stronger foundation in management theory than you, theory is irrelevant and practice the only viable stance? You need some level of consistency in your argument. You can't chop and change the importance of theory/practice in order to suit your opinion.

As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I have walked the walk. I now talk the talk.

This is a lie. I never had any intention to talk about MBAs etc. I don't really give an F about me holding one or not, by the way.


Google is your friend (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=greece+man+marking+euro+2004&aq=f&oq=&aqi=). In order to refute this, you need to illustrate how Greece weren't man-marking (with examples) and/or validate your position as a theoretical or practical expert on football tactics or football management. If you are neither, your opinion that Greece didn't man mark has no weight at all.

I really think you had too many drinks. Find the exact point where I said "Greece didn't man mark". I actually said that "in many ways it made sense for Otto to use man-marking". My position on that is that man-marking did not confuse experienced international players because it is common. And then you said "yes, but they managed 9 people", which by the way does not exists in any of the links appearing in the first page of your Google search.



Once more, you brought it up. You argued that football management should include instilling values and beliefs into players. When I challenged you it was patently obvious you didn't know what it meant, let alone how it is done. If you are going to argue things are part of the management experience, you have to be able to defend the stance.

As for the derailing the discussion and personal envy, it is almost too ridiculous for words. I am trying to get you to explain exactly what this 'leap of faith' should entail and what evidence you have to support it. I'm basically doing the job I do in real life in this forum, which is to improve people's understanding of generalised and specific concepts of management. As of yet you have produced a few interesting snippets of ideas and a lot of biased personal opinion drawn from a pretty low-level understanding of management theory and your personal understanding of management practice. I'm simply trying to get you to expand upon and clarify what you think management means and illustrate the related importance of these ideas to football management. How you have concluded that means I am envious of you beggars belief.


Sorry wwfan, I am really worried at this moment. Are you absolutely sure you feel OK? You accuse me of trying to instill MBA ideas into the game, I say that was never my intention and you reply that I argued that the manager should instill values and beliefs into players. Can the latter be independent of the former?

Look I will very reluctantly be perfectly honest: I did use the world "or" about envy because I am not sure. But if it was there I know where it would come from. Some teachers feel sometimes bad that they are not as good as the ones who actually do. I think you are worried that if we were to manage the same football team in real life I would do better, although I haven't read the Pyramid.

wwfan
07-01-2010, 23:19
As I said before, you really need to get over yourself. You also need to learn to argue factually, not from unsubstantiated opinions about people you don't know and haven't met. You further need to be consistent in your arguments. Additionally, you need to learn to clarify your stance when asked to or people will believe you don't actually have anything more than hot air to back it up. You further need to stop insulting people when you are unable to answer their questions. I am all for passionate debate, but I don't expect to have to deal with puerile comments about my mental or emotional state.

First question: Where have you got your ideas on good management from? Your own experience or from theoretical studies?

Second question: If it is the former, how do you know whether you exhibit good management? If it is the latter, where did you get the theory from?

Third question: Given you argue it should be part of FM, what evidence do you have that this type of management is fundamental to the football management experience?

If you can answer these questions, your OP about a 'leap of faith' has validity.


Specific questions: What are values and beliefs in a managerial/organisational sense? How do you know this (i.e. where did you get this information)? How are they managed and what evidence do you have that they are part of football management?

Successfully answer these questions and I'll accept that there is a fundamental lack in the game that needs addressing.

tak
07-01-2010, 23:25
I also explained why you arguably weren't taught that, which is because MBA programmes are going through a massive re-evaluation as to their relevance to the problems and practices of modern management. Unless you were at a select few business schools, you wouldn't be taught any critical or reflective practice.

I only mentioned the MBA in passing as an example of something else. You are the one employing the MBA qualification as an example of what modern management is, unless you are assuming your own management style is what football management should be. It has to be one or the other. Are you employing personal experience of management to determine what football management should be or drawing form a theoretical body of work (MBA related studies)?

The whole problem of MBA style management is that it assumes its skills and tools are transferable to other forms of management no matter its practices. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is exactly what you seem to be arguing for. Basic, MBA-style man and motivational management skills transferred into the football management arena as the most important tools of the trade. If this is not what you are arguing for and you are only using your own personal experiences of management as a basis for critique, how do you expect to be taken seriously? How can how you choose to manage be the most important elements of football management? You have to be basing this on theory not practice at the basic level.

I am not employing the MBA qualification as an example of what modern management is. The fact is I do not have any specific theory on what modern management should be. In practise, I recognise good or bad management but good comes from different styles and bad is caused by different flaws.

You are assuming that I opened this thread to imposse a certain style of management. I did not do it for that. What I would like to see is that a chance is given to the virtual manager to actually manage a lot more different things than tactics, work more realisticaly with many more real life factors and develop into whatever type of manager he develops into.




Exhibit A, m'lud: Your dismissal of the trait of leadership as a buzzword is, of course, your prerogative. You are also entitled to dismiss the concept of culture. Since you like books, I am sure you will find thousands that show that leadership and culture are very real and very important. (By the way I hold an MBA and what I learned was not what you describe. It is from a highly-ranked university as well and I am only saying that just in case you reply "there are many MBAs these days"). Culture is not something that "supposedly explains organisational performance". It does explain it and I confirm that every day. Same with leadership. Far from being a buzzword, I observe its presence or absence daily in a few organisations.


Exhibit B, m'lud: - your theoritical occupation makes you bitter against those that "dare" to suggest things while coming from a practical background and haven't read huge amounts of literature.


So, which is it? Are these thousands of books important or not? Or is the practical experience you allude to in the former paragraph the only thing of importance?

I don't know if the books are important, I have not read many of them but I know they argue that culture and management are real and important. I also know you like books, so I thought you would read them.

I am not trying to impose my personal management style to the game. I am saying that the game should become a lot more real from a management point of view so that everyone will be able to develop whatever management style they want.

wwfan
07-01-2010, 23:32
Then clarify it. What do managers do that football managers also do that is missing from the game? How do you know this?

If you can't answer these questions, you really don't have a point.

tak
07-01-2010, 23:49
As I said before, you really need to get over yourself. You also need to learn to argue factually, not from unsubstantiated opinions about people you don't know and haven't met. You further need to be consistent in your arguments. Additionally, you need to learn to clarify your stance when asked to or people will believe you don't actually have anything more than hot air to back it up. You further need to stop insulting people when you are unable to answer their questions. I am all for passionate debate, but I don't expect to have to deal with puerile comments about my mental or emotional state.

First question: Where have you got your ideas on good management from? Your own experience or from theoretical studies?

Second question: If it is the former, how do you know whether you exhibit good management? If it is the latter, where did you get the theory from?

Third question: Given you argue it should be part of FM, what evidence do you have that this type of management is fundamental to the football management experience?

If you can answer these questions, your OP about a 'leap of faith' has validity.


Specific questions: What are values and beliefs in a managerial/organisational sense? How do you know this (i.e. where did you get this information)? How are they managed and what evidence do you have that they are part of football management?

Successfully answer these questions and I'll accept that there is a fundamental lack in the game that needs addressing.

I am sorry that you feel insulted but I thought there was something wrong because you are constantly misquoting me. If you say you haven't touched a drink, I have no reason not to believe you.

OK, the dreaded questions!

1st) I got my ideas on good management from experience at work, from school, from reading newspapers and magazines, reading poetry and history, playing team sports and talking to people in the pub.

2nd) N/A

3rd) I don't argue that a particular style of management should be part of FM.

I hope I have done well in the above, but let us go to the next:

What are values and beliefs in a managerial/organisational sense? How do you know this (i.e. where did you get this information)? How are they managed and what evidence do you have that they are part of football management? I am sorry, I can't remeber the definition but I learned it in school. Arsene Wenger has a strong set of values and Jose Murinho has a different strong set of values. Since they are football managers, their values are part of football management.


How did I do?

tak
08-01-2010, 00:06
Then clarify it. What do managers do that football managers also do that is missing from the game? How do you know this?

If you can't answer these questions, you really don't have a point.

That's easy: Managers go to the Xmas party, where they are involved in a funny conversation with another employee while waiting for a taxi to go to the club. Football managers also do that. That is missing from the game. I know this because I was told the same story buy a manager and a football manager (not joking)

Do I have a point now?

wwfan
08-01-2010, 00:10
I am sorry that you feel insulted but I thought there was something wrong because you are constantly misquoting me. If you say you haven't touched a drink, I have no reason not to believe you.

OK, the dreaded questions!

1st) I got my ideas on good management from experience at work, from school, from reading newspapers and magazines, reading poetry and history, playing team sports and talking to people in the pub.

2nd) N/A

3rd) I don't argue that a particular style of management should be part of FM.

I hope I have done well in the above, but let us go to the next:

What are values and beliefs in a managerial/organisational sense? How do you know this (i.e. where did you get this information)? How are they managed and what evidence do you have that they are part of football management? I am sorry, I can't remeber the definition but I learned it in school. Arsene Wenger has a strong set of values and Jose Murinho has a different strong set of values. Since they are football managers, their values are part of football management.


How did I do?

If I'm misquoting you it is largely because I am struggling to follow your train of thought. It seems to be leaping all over the place. This might well be my own interpretive bias and is so, I apologise. However, you might also be leaping around.

1: So, largely through theory and interpretation with some practical experience at a later age.

2: Why is it not applicable? You obviously think you are a good manager and perform in ways that FM should simulate. There must be personal reasons for this.

3: No, but you argue that FM is missing fundamental managerial practices from its simulation. I'm still trying to work out what they are or whether they are already in the game and you just haven't noticed them (which is another argument entirely).

4: That's more an example of traditional charismatic management rather than contemporary structures of management than are intended to transfer organisationally important values and beliefs (held separately from those of individual managers) into the employee mass. If you are arguing purely for the importance of charismatic management, you have a point, but arguably it is already simulated to some degree. If you are arguing for the introduction of structures of engagement to be managed by the user, which is how modern values and beliefs are built into organisations, then I need examples from football management to accept their relevance.

wwfan
08-01-2010, 00:13
That's easy: Managers go to the Xmas party, where they are involved in a funny conversation with another employee while waiting for a taxi to go to the club. Football managers also do that. That is missing from the game. I know this because I was told the same story buy a manager and a football manager (not joking)

Do I have a point now?

So, you think FM should simulate the liminal space. Might be interesting but also a huge technical challenge to stop it from being gimmicky and boring.

tak
08-01-2010, 00:33
Sorry w, I don't know what "liminal space" is.

I understand that there are many things introduced in FM during the latest years in an attempt to pacify voices asking for realism and detachment from just tactics. They are basic and work in a straight way (if you are winning by two goals say pleased). However, it would be better they did not exist because their exostence hinders progress rather than helps it.

If I say, I want to be able to talk to my players like a football manager in real life would (give them a bollocking, crack a joke, invite them for dinner and attend their wedding) you will answer "player interaction is already in the game". If I say I would like when I am fighting for the signature of a young player to be able to promise him that he will be the face of Nike and also buy a car for his mother, you will say "bidding wars already in the game". If I say I would like to take my players to a remote monastery on the Alps where I will torture them mentaly and physically you will say "training schedules already in the game".

I know there is a real danger of features like that becoming gimmicky and repetitive. But is this the only danger? And if so, is it absolutely impossible there is a solution if there is some "out-of-the-box" (sorry about this terrible phrase) thinking? Maybe a tiny leap? Of faith?

Born2killzone
08-01-2010, 00:44
It should be 70 or so % right/superior players and 30 % right tactics. Sometimes it seams like 20 % players and 80% tactics. If both teams have equal players then tactics should win.

At the moment better tactics will almost always beat better players.

tak
08-01-2010, 00:45
If I'm misquoting you it is largely because I am struggling to follow your train of thought. It seems to be leaping all over the place. This might well be my own interpretive bias and is so, I apologise. However, you might also be leaping around.


By the way, I might be leaping around. But I am trying to say something that is not completely formed and that happens in conversations. Your probing helps a lot and I think we will get somewhere. Sorry about the personal comments.

wwfan
08-01-2010, 02:23
Management takes place in two distinct locales, the ritual frame and the liminal space. The ritual frame outlines the type of language and behaviour expected for the managerial/organisational situation, with performance evaluated via these expectations. Breaking the ritual frame often leads to censor or embarrassment. Liminal spaces are the spaces in which critique/management takes place away from the ritual expectations of the organisation. THis could be at an informal lunch, in social gatherings, even in the bathroom.

Ritual frames of the football manager are, for example:

Training and coaching
Tactical preparation
Motivational management
Media interaction
Player acquisition/sales

Some of these frames operate between the manager and players, others between the manager and club administrators/directors, others between the manager and journalists. Each has a set of official and unofficial rules that determine behaviour patterns. How well the manager performs in each of these frames determines how well he does his job. As such, they are key points of simulation.

Arguably, some are simulated better than others. Although I'm hugely biased, I'd argue the new tactical creator/touchline management functionality simulates tactical management with reasonable sophistication. At the very least it is a step forward from the abstract, technical nature of the sliders. However, the link between tactics and training is weaker than it should be. I also think much of the motivational management is too hidden away, meaning the average user misses it. Media interaction is necessarily repetitive. Player acquisitions and squad management could also possibly be improved.


The liminal space covers all areas of management that do not fall within the expectations of the organisation and surveillance of its employees. Although it is an important facet of management and is generating a lot of research interest, there are distinct problems with simulating it.

Firstly, by nature it is unmapped, random, complex and/or chaotic. Because there is no ritualised understanding of the space, it is impossible to design a decent simulation of its processes.

Secondly, it has only recently been researched to any degree. Whereas research into these spaces does stretch back almost 20 years, it is only now attracting mainstream interest. Until the importance of these spaces to processes of good management has been better determined, it would be extremely risky to try and simulate any of its forms.

Thirdly, because it is random and chaotic, actual attempts to simulate it cannot avoid being gimmicky and/or repetitive. FIFA MAnager suffers from such elements, none of which improve the gameplay, most of which are annoying. In my opinion, if it can't be done well, it is best not to do it at all.

HammerDaFanBois
08-01-2010, 03:05
Why don't you guys swap phone numbers? That way you can keep your irrelevant MBA circle-jerk private.

tingting
08-01-2010, 04:26
Can we stop this "i know more than you do" fight? The OP made a decent start to this thread, making a couple of valid points. As far as i remember reading this read...he did not say that tactics do not matter in real life. What he said was tactics are not the only thing that a real life manager does but the game's focus is solely on tactics. People suddenly started jumping on his back claiming that he said tactics was not important (even though he denied saying that in a couple of other posts)

The thread was soon dragged into an analysis of why Greece won the Euro 2004 (more of it later) and now who holds a better MBA degree or understands it better. His main points in the first couple of posts were:

In essence, this game is only tactics' tweaking. Nothing much else. It still amazes me that there are, for example, 20 different settings on how much should a player close down. Or, 20 different levels of time wasting?! Fair enough, they have tried to simplify but just for the player. The machine remains as big and complicated.

There is too much concentration in tactics. Unrealisticaly much. Real life football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things.

A lot of work needs to be done on personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players).

The point though is that the whole tactics system takes up an enormous amount of time during the game, withou baring resemblance to reality.



The thread was completely derailed with many questioning (almost all of the time with a patronizing tone) his knowledge in tactics, his knowledge in football and his knowledge in management. You mean to say that most of the areas in the game needs no improving???

Do you mean to say that the area of personal relationships is good in the game. I hardly believe that Rafael and Fabio will list Dunga in their favored personnel should he suddenly decide to call them to the national squad. Because this is what happens in the game. You give a national debut for a player and he lists you among his favored personnel. From then on it is very easy to unsettle a player at his club. For a game that aiming to be realistic...this is hardly so.

I am finding that when someone opens a thread with a decent suggestion to make...or criticizes the game (however slightly) that thread is being dragged into fights (this thread, the superkeeper thread and the not a rant thread) They either pick only one point, twist it into their own understanding and start to fight...or they patronizingly question the opposite party's football knowledge (maybe they should apply for managerial posts if they understand the game completely)...or start bringing up stats and studies (which are done by academics)....or start throwing insults

There are so many good suggestions in this thread. No one has talked about it...yet people come and pick up the same point and start to fight. The second page is all about "I know more about MBA\football that you" arguments while the first page was all about why Greece won Euro 2004.

With respect to that wwfan i took your suggestion and did a search regarding that subject and came up with 4-5 different sites, none of which say man marking won Greece the tournament. In fact one of the betting sites put up a blog during Euro 2008 said
But the most likely answer lies in their German manager Otto Rehhagel and the team spirit the he instilled into the minds of the Greek players.. Many say Greece had a disciplined and organized defense...but none say they won it for their man marking. Now i believe that the truth is both of you are right...saying that only tactics won is wrong and saying that only motivation won is wrong. Portugal faced and lost to Greece in the opening match...

Is Scolari such a blockhead that he was unable to pinpoint what went wrong in the first game when his side was preparing for the biggest match in its history? Portugal had three of the best flair players in the game during that time (Ronaldo, Figo and Deco) or is it that Greek defenders are some of the best in the business when it comes to man marking??

Edit: Just curious... I see the above post has been given an infraction...can i know why???

Almondo
08-01-2010, 04:51
I have to say that tingting is right in the fact that this thread now seems to have got into oneupmanship. As he says you are both in your own ways right about the game etc, but come on guys lighten up and stop all this "I know more about management/football management than you do" as quite frankly it's getting old.


What is football management about? What distinguishes a succesful manager?

The two questions that tak raised above from his OP are the two that seem to get to the core of things concerning what management is about etc. In my opinion football management is about not just the Tactics side of the game but also the man management of your team etc. I mean is a manager like say Dave Penny at my local club Oldham going to be able to effectively manage a team like Chelsea. It goes without saying that I believe he will not be able to as he would have to deal with the ego's of players like Drogba, Anelka, Ballack, Lapard et al.

Now go to the flip side and just for fun say that Carlo Anchelotti took over at Oldham. He would probably be able to get the team playing succesful attacking football just by utilising tactics as there aren't the big ego's at Oldham to deal with and he could probably get them out of League 1 into the Championship. However if Oldham was full of players with big ego's that need massaging Anchelotti would have to work that bit harder to do exactly the same thing.

Now tak's second question is the one which does raise points that all FM players should really think about. I mean a successful manager needs to have the tactical nous to get a team gelled into a tactic and playing said tactic well, he also needs to have great man management skills to deal with the ego's of his players and also any problems that may arise, he also despite his scouts etc needs to be able to recognise a quality player from an average player in order to make his team one of the best.

I believe that tak has thought about this and realised that and if we're all honest we'll admit that he is right when he says that tactics are relied on too much in FM. Now I understand this point and it is a very valid one. I believe that the options of man management are limited at the moment within the game, what with repetitive press conferences et al.

There are a lot of valid points in the thread that have got lost throughout due to what I will call the sniping being done by certain parties posting here (and yes I do include tak in this). So come on guys lets stop all the nonesense about Greece etc and get back to a well informed discussion about how the game that we all love to play can be made better in the future.

tingting
08-01-2010, 04:59
As he/she says you are both in your own ways right about the game etc, but come on guys lighten up and stop all this "I know more about management/football management than you do" as quite frankly it's getting old.


It is a he please :D

Almondo
08-01-2010, 05:14
It is a he please :D

Edited I was just making sure :D

wwfan
08-01-2010, 05:27
And there I was thinking we were finally getting somewhere. The point I've made consistently throughout the thread is that management needs to be immersed first and foremost in the practical requirements of an industry, which in football means understanding football at a technical and tactical/strategic level. From thereon in, other managerial skills become applicable.

Tak has now finally clarified in which areas he feels FM is lacking. It seems to me that he has actually underestimated much of the man and motivational management already existing in the game, which suggests it is not obvious enough and needs work fleshing it out, both in terms of making it a more in your face feature but also adding richness and depth. He has also identified that he wishes for more 'liminal' aspects of the management experience to be added into the game, which I think is likely to be problematic.

Had he actually clarified all of this at the start, we wouldn't have had to go through all the questions and debate. However, he couldn't have clarified it initially as he didn't know exactly what he was talking about until I pushed him to try and think it through. Despite his unnecessary insults, a lot of the last part of this page has been very useful in terms of trying to understand what might and might not be good/bad about certain elements of the game. Ultimately, that is what heated debate tries to achieve. I have a thick skin and can take the insults as long as the final outcome is positive.

I still don't believe the type of management skills he wishes to improve should be core to the game and more important than football-related managerial skills, but at least I have an idea of where he is coming from. I also think much of his knowledge comes from MBA type theory that is problematic and largely irrelevant to football management, which has meant his parallels seem forced and clumsy. However, I do think he has a strong point when considering the importance of liminal management.

All i have tried to do is sharpen his fuzzy ideas. Unfortunately, this has meant my having to strongly defend my own knowledge levels so actually starts to think things through precisely and clearly. I had no intention of doing so originally, but when you face accusations of ignorance and strongly biased pronouncements, you need to argue forcefully in response.


NB: The poster got infracted for posting a puerile response to what I believe to be a heated but useful debate. It was a completely unnecessary post.


Jonathan Wilson on Greece:


Lurking behind progress, though, are old ideas waiting to be reapplied. Most obviously in the past decade, Greece won Euro 2004 playing with man-markers, setting opponents a problem they had forgotten how to solve. The success Stoke had with Rory Delap's long throws (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/nov/07/stoke-city-rory-delap-long-throws) last season fall into a similar category. Teams now have remembered how to counter them, and so they are no longer such a potent threat. It may even be that towards the end of the next decade, as centre-backs have got used to advancing, that the poacher is resurrected as a counter to attacking defenders.

fuzzrab
08-01-2010, 05:56
Studies have shown that Greece showed 740KPa of motivation compared to an average of 265Kpa between the other teams. No, I'm kidding, I can't quantify how much more motivated Greece was, although it is proven that in order to beat a superior opponent, a team has to be 17% more motivated. I'm joking again.

I have only read up to this point so far so wont comment yet on the overall debate but felt i needed to comment on this point.

As i understand it so far, and i am prepared to adimt i could be wrong here, you are saying Tak that motivation plays a huge part in real life and thus should be reflected in the game also?

If you cant quantify motivation in real life how do you expect it to be implemented into the game itself.

So as i understand it you are asking SI to implement a feature into the game which can't even be quantified in real life?

Apologies if this is incorrect.

tingting
08-01-2010, 06:09
Jonathan Wilson on Greece:
Lurking behind progress, though, are old ideas waiting to be reapplied. Most obviously in the past decade, Greece won Euro 2004 playing with man-markers, setting opponents a problem they had forgotten how to solve. The success Stoke had with Rory Delap's long throws last season fall into a similar category. Teams now have remembered how to counter them, and so they are no longer such a potent threat. It may even be that towards the end of the next decade, as centre-backs have got used to advancing, that the poacher is resurrected as a counter to attacking defenders.

Thats what i am saying. Each and every one of them have got their own opinion. You believe that man marking won them the Euro, tak believes that motivation won them the Euro, while the actual truth may be a combination of the two. Saying you are right...or tak saying he is right...it leads to nothing but fights which derails the main aim of a thread and ultimately leads to mods closing down a thread that had started with a perfectly valid point.

wwfan
08-01-2010, 06:49
Of course the truth is a combination of the two. However, the immersion in specific practices of football has to be the primary focus of football management, not generic motivational and man management skills. No team can beat superior technical opponents without a plan of attack, however motivated they are.

Personally, I think the game has things relatively well balanced, although I accept that maybe the motivational/man management aspects are possibly not clear or obvious enough. They can all be worked out, but perhaps they shouldn't have to be.

Mitja
08-01-2010, 10:34
- tactical area: the game should lean more towards buliding tactics than 'rock, scisiors, paper' way, like it is at the moment.

- training area: linked to what I wrote above, training is fundmental aspect of any sport. tactics cannot work without training and at the moment training and tactics have no conection in FM. irl teams cannot change between differenet tactical styles as easily as in FM (we have maybe even too much tactical control, we shouldn't have without linking tactics to training).

- squad/man managment and motivational area: no doubt it can improve. equaly important aspect as tactics for me. being a manager of Real Madrid is not hard because of finding a right tactics, it's because you're managing 10 superstar egos. the tools available right now are not sufficiant. there should be much more problems we would face and should be able to deal with.

- media/supporters aspect: it is a motivational tool at the moment, which I think it shouldn't be, at least not as drastic as it is. in this context we should be able to interact with players directly (motivational tool). and this area should be a interaction tool with supporters' and media opinon. it's about handling the pressure, which is very important part of managers life at the top level of football.

Cydver
08-01-2010, 10:36
Hi, after all the mud-slinging in this thread I think it's fair to say it's going way too off-topic. Strange really how Greece '04, which was used as an example, became the main talking point of the topic after...a couple of posts.

First off, I want to say, wwfan, fantastic job on the new tactical system. It's a big step towards the perceived "realism" of simulation. I would continue on about how removing a number of slider positions to about 5 or 6 would be even better, but that would be off-topic.

So anyway, for all the work done on the tactical side of FM, I think tak is right to say that the other features require a real lot of work. I do not agree at all with him that tactics play any less of a role than they already do in the game, however. I'm no Premier League manager, but I did give "tactical instructions", if you would call it that, to my absolutely amateur class team. We were the least technically skilled, I would think, but we won and drew 1 game each in a 3-game mini tournament. We lost the other game through a dodgy decision :p

But anyway, the point is, tactics do play a huge part in football. You can't throw people onto the pitch with a tactical outline devised over 10 minutes and expect to win games. That's "Fun" for a while I guess, but then it just becomes boring. Even during training sessions, managers will think about tactical instructions. So as of now, the tactical system is good, the sliders should go (oops!), but the importance of tactics in the game is just alright in my opinion.

What I fully agree with tak on, however, is the improvements in man-management. We know (personal) manager stats have been pretty useless, I'd like to see SI try something innovative with that. Morale and player personalities are in the game and there are a lot of player personalities indeed, but the impact of these variables, slightly underrated. Look at Greece 04, the example that has been used so much here. How would the mean defense have been a tight defense in the first place without great morale, and great teamwork? Morale and personality needs to have a bigger prominent role in the game.

Then there's training, which is too generic a schedule and until now I haven't figured out what the "Training Performances" information in the Manager Overview contributes to a FM-er's management. I'm pretty sure training plays a huge part in football but in this game, its value is severely underrated. Not in terms of effects of course, as I can see the players improve. But I'm certain managers don't assign schedules with clicks or even words like, "We're gonna do some light shooting practice today guys," without going in-depth, or allowing wingers to train crossing instead of long throws at the same time.

The day-to-day basic man-management aspect is pretty much raw and could do with some real improvement.

And about player/media interaction, I believe it's made clear hundreds of times on this forum already that what we have right now is extremely primitive in this day and age. Examples? It's great that we have a box to type additional lines into our conferences, but how much do these lines influence? I would like to see some official or at least user-based research in defense of this. Then there are the repeated questions, the 5 "Best-to-worst" answers and more.

So in all, I agree SI should step up its efforts in improving these aspects which have been pretty neglected bar a couple of minor additions...correct me if I'm wrong. But in no way do I agree with tak that tactics should be less important in FM at all. I would like more tactical freedom, as a matter of fact!

RBKalle
08-01-2010, 11:01
the new tactical creator/touchline management functionality simulates tactical management with reasonable sophistication. At the very least it is a step forward from the abstract, technical nature of the sliders.

I Agree.

Although I still think (correct me if I'm wrong) the Tactical Wizard is just a cosmetic and simplified interface given to the still-existing 20-level sliders system.

Maybe the number of available settings for each slider can be drastically reduced?


However, the link between tactics and training is weaker than it should be.

Indeed.

First and foremost, we should be prevented from being able to change formations as often as we change underwear.
In FM I often feel there is a reward for not knowing which formation suits our players better... The opponents' reaction to X tactic is IMO too high.
It's unlikely I can defeat a team which "struggle against 4-4-2 formation" if I've been playing 3-4-3 the whole time and I just decide to field an impromptu 4-4-2.

Every team should have a "formation prowess" rating for each formation in order to prevent user (and AI too) from going OCD and playing 10 different tactics every season.



I also think much of the motivational management is too hidden away, meaning the average user misses it. Media interaction is necessarily repetitive. Player acquisitions and squad management could also possibly be improved.

It's not a matter of "missing it". It's a matter of not fully knowing WHAT to do.

Players interaction outside of team talks and form praise/criticism is non-existent. And even team talks are a bit too cryptic.

Player A is angry/concerned/wants to leave/complacent etc... but what can WE do to change things?
I praise player B's form, yet he's "under no illusion". So, he means he can play better, fine. But why is he now playing average and looking complacent?

Player C wants to leave, fine. I transfer list him, and now he's suddenly angry because he felt treated unfairly? WTF???

The list could be go on and on and on and on... but you get my point.

We "get" how interaction works, and how personalities work. We just don't get how to effectively deal with it.


The liminal space covers all areas of management that do not fall within the expectations of the organisation and surveillance of its employees.[...]In my opinion, if it can't be done well, it is best not to do it at all.


The game can, as per now, BARELY present the basic aspects of everyday, traditional, football-life in a convincing and functional way

The last thing we need is the far-fetched addition of fancy MBA drivel.

When/if Tactics, Training, Interaction, Scouting, Transfers and Media will be mastered, THEN we can talk again about "liminal space" and other human resources shiny-but-empty concepts.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 12:49
Of course the truth is a combination of the two. However, the immersion in specific practices of football has to be the primary focus of football management, not generic motivational and man management skills. No team can beat superior technical opponents without a plan of attack, however motivated they are.

Personally, I think the game has things relatively well balanced, although I accept that maybe the motivational/man management aspects are possibly not clear or obvious enough. They can all be worked out, but perhaps they shouldn't have to be.

I agree with you WWFan and I think that the opening poster's whole argument has been totally devalued by the fact that he has a basic ignorance about what is already in the game. This is most clearly evident in his lack of knowledge regarding player personalities and their influence in FM. Quite how anyone could reach the 'ground-breaking' conclusions that he has without possessing even a basic knowledge of the existing content of Football Manager is beyond me.

He has also shown a lack of knowledge about football generally, which has resulted in an attempt to dismiss the importance of tactical theory in football. On top of this, he has shown a total lack of ideas in the first place, and often resorted to insulting people in lieu of actually making any kind of valid point. I'm quite frankly shocked that this thread has managed to reach two pages.

There is no doubt that improvements can be made but to claim that there needs to be a 'leap of faith' (the irony, no doubt, being that we need to make a leap of faith to grasp the opening poster's intangible and non-existent argument) with a starting point of almost total ignorance about what is currently represented in Football Manager is quite frankly bizarre. An even deeper irony, perhaps, is that the opening poster is so quick to rubbish books and writing on football in favour of the practical, and yet asks us to accept the idea that the game needs a 'leap of faith' to something undefinable, intangible and, let's be honest, something non-existent in his own mind.

What this thread amounts to is an attempt to offer criticism from the point of view of ignorance (both about the game of football and the content of Football Manager) and what follows is a desperate attempt to find something, in fact anything, wrong with the game. It is a missed opportunity of a thread, which could have resulted in some interesting discussion if it wasn't for the absurd rantings of the opening poster and his arrogant insistence that he has some kind of 'truth' to offer us (he does at least show himself to be adept at providing insults if we don't agree with him). A missed opportunity indeed. :thdn:

wwfan
08-01-2010, 13:20
I don't know. I think we are getting somewhere. I have something a little more crystalline to post that has been inspired by this thread but no time tonight. Hopefully at some point over the weekend.

tak
08-01-2010, 13:24
I am dissapointed with wwfan trying to wrap things up by "oh very well, this is liminal space, kind of complicated, everything else is in the game, case closed, I'm going to bed". Edit: I just read you actually have more to offer. This is great.

Thanks tingting and Almondo for trying to put the conversation back on track. The usual argument coming from experts is "but you haven't read the pyramid". I've noticed this behaviour of intentionaly steering away from the subject but I think we will keep it in the right course (unless the teachers get really wild and the thread is closed).

I think we all agree so far that the football manager must have knowledge of football. I never said he must not. Of course he makes important tactical desicions. If we take that as a given, there are many people that agree with me that tactical decisions are not as important as some people will have us think. Bill Shankly said football is simple, and it is.

I quote something a read yesterday: "Of course, without intelligent formations and plans there would be no football, but it’s wrong to believe football is merely the sum of its tactical parts. Yet today Jonathan Wilson’s Inverting the Pyramid: A History of Football Tactics sells like hotcakes, and every fifteen year-old boy who’s won a few games on Football Manager posts up their opinions of Wenger’s use of attacking midfielders, with the firm belief that if only they’d been in Arsene’s place to option Vela as a lone striker, Arsenal would never have drew [fill in the the lower table underdog here]. It’s considered conventional wisdom that tactics make the football and not vice-versa, and that’s led to an over-emphasis on the importance of the manager as the driving force of the game. Players are no longer considered capable of taking any on-pitch leadership, or of using their instincts and playing to their individual strengths by grasping a fleeting moment, brilliantly, to change a game midstream."

There are lots of people that are tired of endless tactical talk but we never hear them because they don't write books nor spend ages waflling about formations. Tactical conversations can be intelligent but they can often lead to a form of "mental self satisfaction". Tactical changes evolve in football naturaly, affected by countless factors. They do not necessarily start at the top level either as someone suggested. Intelligent managers react to changes with changes and sometimes they come up with something brilliant in terms of tactics. Some football successes are a result of such tactical changes, some have happened with good old tactics and are not.

I find wwfan's argument that you can do the same in FM (succeed based on tactics but also succeed based on man management), is not a suitable answer to my argument. Man management in the game is not as real as tactics are and certainly not as satisfying. There is a reason for that:

FM is based on the central idea that football management is a lot of tactical decisions with a little man-management on the side. I strongly disagree that man management "is there" and a player can exploit as much as he wishes. I have read all of the links that wwfan provided and I verified that FM this so called "man management" is a side function that works in a linear way (this player knows PPMs, tell him to teach that player). Furthermore it is a contradiction that a small function has such big effect on a players game. And it is actually this effect that makes many people say "what are you talking about, man-management is already important in FM". Morale and players characters play a big role but all you can do about them is follow the instructions (tutor him, and say pleased if he gets five sevens etc.). There is zero sense of reality, zero imagination.

Having said that, I congratulate FM on actually putting personalities in the game and I admit I wasn't aware of that. They are a good start but there is not a good follow up. The great man himself admitted that the only way to mould personalities is through tutoring. This is poor. What needs to be created is a dynamic environment where personalities evolve in realistic ways, affected by not just the manager, but the team philosophy, the fans, the media, the sponsors, events in personal life, experiences, local events, national triumphs or disasters etc. InterWolf correctly pointed out, that the game is neglecting external factors.

This all can become very complicated and we end up with a strategy game. This would indeed be dreadful. I don't want something as time consuming as it sounds because I do agree with many people that said this game needs a lot more fun.

If the game detaches itself from feeling as it belongs to a secret brotherhood that meet to discuss formations and player positions (and dismisses everyone else as ignorant, even people that would be a lot better football managers than them, with half the "tactical knowledge"), adds reality and fun, I think we're gonna enjoy every minute of it.

But this will not happen by adding three factors and pretend "man management" has been taken care of. This will happen as a concious all, encompassing change.

edgar555
08-01-2010, 13:33
Who did that quote come from? Where did you find it? You can't put something up to defend your argument but then not back it up with the who, what, why etc?
Besides it doesn't necessarily defend your argument anyway

tak
08-01-2010, 14:01
Who did that quote come from? Where did you find it? You can't put something up to defend your argument but then not back it up with the who, what, why etc?
Besides it doesn't necessarily defend your argument anyway

You are right. It defends part of my argument.

bigdunk
08-01-2010, 14:30
What needs to be created is a dynamic environment where personalities evolve in realistic ways, affected by not just the manager, but the team philosophy, the fans, the media, the sponsors, events in personal life, experiences, local events, national triumphs or disasters etc. InterWolf correctly pointed out, that the game is neglecting external factors.

Do you have any examples from real life where a players personality has been affected by the fans, the media and sponsors? What sort of events in personal life, experiences, local events, national triumphs and disasters are you suggesting? And again, do you have examples from real life the back these up?

And finally, make some suggestions about how this could be implemented! It's your big idea, but you seem to be expecting everyone else to do the work. How should these external factors fit into the game? How should you interact with them? To what degree should they be modelled in FM? How should players reactions be modelled and displayed to the user?

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 14:49
Another good question would be to ask if the opening poster feels that possessing even a basic knowledge of the existing content of Football Manager might be a help or a hindrance to him in reaching conclusions about how well man management and motivation is reflected in the game? :D

edgar555
08-01-2010, 14:51
You are right. It defends part of my argument.

And still you don't tell us who it was, where or why? I'm sure you are on a wind up.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 14:55
And still you don't tell us who it was, where or why? I'm sure you are on a wind up.

A quick search reveals that it is from EPL Talk:

Link to the article (http://www.epltalk.com/tactics-and-the-modern-game-the-perils-of-overstating-the-case/4729)

edgar555
08-01-2010, 14:55
Show me where I called you a liar? Others in the thread haved cited their sources, not sure why you won't do the same.

tak
08-01-2010, 14:56
Another good question would be to ask if the opening poster feels that possessing even a basic knowledge of the existing content of Football Manager might be a help or a hindrance to him in reaching conclusions about how well man management and motivation is reflected in the game? :D

Please, crouchy, this time you have to stay calm. What you are doing is very rude.


And still you don't tell us who it was, where or why? I'm sure you are on a wind up.

Do you really think I am lying?

edgar555
08-01-2010, 14:57
A quick search reveals that it is from EPL Talk:

Link to the article (http://www.epltalk.com/tactics-and-the-modern-game-the-perils-of-overstating-the-case/4729)

Links broken.
Crouch: the point wasn't that you or I could go searching the web for it, just wanted the OP to cite his source. Any of us can just write drivel and then say 'I found it on the internet'.

djwilko6
08-01-2010, 14:58
Please, crouchy, this time you have to stay calm. What you are doing is very rude.

To be fair tak, the way you have spoken to, and continue to speak to, wwfan is much, much ruder.

edgar555
08-01-2010, 14:58
Please, crouchy, this time you have to stay calm. What you are doing is very rude.



Do you really think I am lying?

Crouch is right.
And as my post above this states, show me where I called you a liar?? Show me!

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 15:00
Interesting that the opening poster claims to have read Inverting the Pyramid when it suits him:


I'll ask you again, have you ever read Inverting the Pyramid or any other tactical books? I would thoroughly recommend it given your lack of knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game.


I have read the book, and indeed my knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game is indeed very good.


Later on though, during a conversation with WWFan, it suddenly emerges that he hasn't actually read it at all:


I think you are worried that if we were to manage the same football team in real life I would do better, although I haven't read the Pyramid.

It seems to be easy to offer criticism on a subject you know nothing about. The opening poster appears to be particularly adept at this.

robbert_o154
08-01-2010, 15:01
Thanks tingting and Almondo for trying to put the conversation back on track. The usual argument coming from experts is "but you haven't read the pyramid". I've noticed this behaviour of intentionaly steering away from the subject but I think we will keep it in the right course (unless the teachers get really wild and the thread is closed).
Could you please refrain from continually throwing up comments like these? If anyone's been systematically derailing the debate, it's you. When faced with questions you are unable to answer, you try to steer the conversation back to the ephemeral and intangible. Failing that, you go off-topic or ignore the questions altogether (even though the conversation has already moved on from that topic, I'd still be interested in hearing your answer to the question I put to you in post #149). For all your annoyance over the Greece/Euro2004 subject, let's not forget it was you who ran with that one in the first place. All that wwfan and crouchaldinho have been trying to do is to put you back on-topic and have you answer the fundamental questions that arise from your OP. It's been hard work for them, but their work seems to start to bear fruit at long lest.

Which makes your "getting back on subject" remark all the more odd. We were finally getting there, not away from it. This is a debate after all, not a Speaker's Corner where you can expect to indulge in long-winded monologues unchallenged. You may not like the questions being put to you, but they are at the core of the debate.

edgar555
08-01-2010, 15:07
Could you please refrain from continually throwing up comments like these? If anyone's been systematically derailing the debate, it's you. When faced with questions you are unable to answer, you try to steer the conversation back to the ephemeral and intangible. Failing that, you go off-topic or ignore the questions altogether (even though the conversation has already moved on from that topic, I'd still be interested in hearing your answer to the question I put to you in post #149). For all your annoyance over the Greece/Euro2004 subject, let's not forget it was you who ran with that one in the first place. All that wwfan and crouchaldinho have been trying to do is to put you back on-topic and have you answer the fundamental questions that arise from your OP. It's been hard work for them, but their work seems to start to bear fruit at long lest.

Which makes your "getting back on subject" remark all the more odd. We were finally getting there, not away from it. This is a debate after all, not a Speaker's Corner where you can expect to indulge in long-winded monologues unchallenged. You may not like the questions being put to you, but they are at the core of the debate.

What this man said! :)

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 15:08
Links broken.
Crouch: the point wasn't that you or I could go searching the web for it, just wanted the OP to cite his source. Any of us can just write drivel and then say 'I found it on the internet'.

If you read the article, it doesn't actually support anything that the opening poster is arguing.

The article is about a perceived 'over-emphasis on the importance of the manager as the driving force of the game'.

It mainly uses the tactical argument to make the point but it also calls into question the role of man management and motivation, as in the following quotation:


But the best contemporary example has to be Chelsea, whingeing about how Scolari didn’t “make” them train, didn’t “motivate” them by being tough on them, and was “too friendly.” The notion of individual responsibility has been eroded by the expectation that managers should have total control over their players.

It is questioning the influence of the manager in every aspect and not just in terms of his tactical input. It actually backfires on the opening poster, who has only used the quotation from this article as a wind-up, simply because it refers to 'fifteen year-old' boys who have read Inverting the Pyramid and 'won a few games on Football Manager'. It's not supportive of anyone's argument, it's just meant as a wind-up.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 15:09
What this man said! :)

I agree. Absolutely spot on.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 15:20
What I would suggest to the opening poster is that he goes away, actually plays some Football Manager and studies the already existing motivational and man management content in the game. Earlier he expressed interest in the idea that the players have different personalities and hidden mental stats in Football Manager. He seems similarly unaware of the impact that different events can have on a player's personality. He also seems to be ignorant of the fact that a player can be influenced by a number of different factors both on and off the pitch. This would all be worth investigating by playing Football Manager and trying out what is already there.

Once he has played Football Manager to the extent that he is aware of these already existing factors, then he may be better placed to brainstorm some new ideas as per his opening post. He may also like to go away and do some reading and reflecting on tactical theory and motivational theory. For reading, I would suggest books by Jonathan Wilson, Massimo Lucchesi, David Goldblatt and Richard Saunders etc. I can provide specific titles if necessary. Furthermore, going away and reading about man management and motivational theory within a football setting would be a great idea. My suggestion would be Sven Goran-Eriksson's book, co-written by an expert in sports psychology. Other people may be able to suggest a better book.

By having a better knowledge of Football Manager, and by increasing his tactical knowledge and also reading about psychological theory in a specifically football environment (and the kinds of factors that have an effect on players), the opening poster might be better able to offer some useful constructive criticism and also some ideas for the future of the game. I think he will be surprised by just how much of it is covered in Football Manager 2010. Of course, there is always room for improvement and I think the game can always benefit from new ideas.

tingting
08-01-2010, 15:21
He has also shown a lack of knowledge about football generally, which has resulted in an attempt to dismiss the importance of tactical theory in football.


Not trying to defend everything he said but as far as i have read this thread, he has not dismissed tactics. What he said was the job of a football manager is not just designing tactics but almost all of the focus in the game is on tactics.

That is a point which i have to agree upon. Once you create a decent tactic (half decent for a good team) all you have to do is press continue, play, continue, play. This is more apparent in big teams link Manchester Uniteds, Real Madrids, Barcelonas etc. Man management and personalities are represented in the game but do they really have a major effect on the player or the manager or the team?

Where is the non tactical challenge for such teams. I can drop Rooneys, Ronaldos, Messis for a stretch of 5-6 games and there is no pressure on me by the player or by the media or by the fans. The players' morale remains superb just if they play a reserves match and put up a good performance. However if they are performing decently and i release a statement saying i am pleased with his performance, a player's morale suddenly drops down....and then a couple of wins later it gets back to superb

The game is meant to be about a football manager. What exactly has been done from the manager's perspective for the last two or three versions? Manager contracts, board interactions, player contracts, player interaction, player management, press conferences, team talks, training, tactics all are important aspects for a manager...almost nothing has changed in the past two or three versions (people might say tactics creator but it is just a cosmetic feature to help understand the game's tactics through everyday terms) As a manager i dont even have a personal achievement page which lists out what i have won in my career (you will have to wade through a lot of useless info before getting to the main part)

Also the emphasis on reputation continues (dont exactly know about players but i do know about managers) Started my last save as Leeds, was fourth in the league by February (a poor performance compared to the team's potential) yet i get offers from Ghana and Ivory Coast soon after the ANC tournament just because my reputation is national??? Was struggling with the team so i resigned...but just a month later i get an offer from a team that is two divisions above (Birmingham City) with a club that needs to be at its best in order to avoid relegation???


Edit: Of course what i am saying is completely off the topic regarding the current debate going on in Page 3 :)

tak
08-01-2010, 15:26
I would suggest that everyone relaxes at this point. I understand you felt offended by the quotation, but as I said it supports part of my argument, which is that there is a lot of exaggeration about the role of tactics in modern football, coming from arm chair managers. By the way, in my writting, for a couple of days now, the word "Pyramid" represents this exaggeration and pseudo-management.

edgar555
08-01-2010, 15:28
If you read the article, it doesn't actually support anything that the opening poster is arguing.

The article is about a perceived 'over-emphasis on the importance of the manager as the driving force of the game'.

It mainly uses the tactical argument to make the point but it also calls into question the role of man management and motivation, as in the following quotation:



It is questioning the influence of the manager in every aspect and not just in terms of his tactical input. It actually backfires on the opening poster, who has only used the quotation from this article as a wind-up, simply because it refers to 'fifteen year-old' boys who have read Inverting the Pyramid and 'won a few games on Football Manager'. It's not supportive of anyone's argument, it's just meant as a wind-up.

I thought as much, hence him avoiding providing me with a link or source and instead asking me why I called him a liar.
To be honest yourself and wwfan have tried very hard to put points forward but I don't see why you should bother anymore. I'm fairly certain he's sat in front of his laptop with his hands over his eyes going 'ner,ner,ner,ner, lalalalalalalala!'

tak
08-01-2010, 15:34
What I would suggest to the opening poster is that he goes away, actually plays some Football Manager and studies the already existing motivational and man management content in the game. Earlier he expressed interest in the idea that the players have different personalities and hidden mental stats in Football Manager. He seems similarly unaware of the impact that different events can have on a player's personality. He also seems to be ignorant of the fact that a player can be influenced by a number of different factors both on and off the pitch. This would all be worth investigating by playing Football Manager and trying out what is already there.

Once he has played Football Manager to the extent that he is aware of these already existing factors, then he may be better placed to brainstorm some new ideas as per his opening post. He may also like to go away and do some reading and reflecting on tactical theory and motivational theory. For reading, I would suggest books by Jonathan Wilson, Massimo Lucchesi, David Goldblatt and Richard Saunders etc. I can provide specific titles if necessary. Furthermore, going away and reading about man management and motivational theory within a football setting would be a great idea. My suggestion would be Sven Goran-Eriksson's book, co-written by an expert in sports psychology. Other people may be able to suggest a better book.

By having a better knowledge of Football Manager, and by increasing his tactical knowledge and also reading about psychological theory in a specifically football environment (and the kinds of factors that have an effect on players), the opening poster might be better able to offer some useful constructive criticism and also some ideas for the future of the game. I think he will be surprised by just how much of it is covered in Football Manager 2010. Of course, there is always room for improvement and I think the game can always benefit from new ideas.

Thank you crouch. Can you please put me back on your ignore list and do not open this thread again? That way, you will be happy and we will make some progress. Edgar, Robert, do you mind doing the same.

Once more, thank you very much.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 15:37
Not trying to defend everything he said but as far as i have read this thread, he has not dismissed tactics. What he said was the job of a football manager is not just designing tactics but almost all of the focus in the game is on tactics.

I would disagree with that though. That's my point. And my other point would be that he has reached this conclusion without a basic knowledge of what is actually in the game (almost as if he hasn't really played it!)


Once you create a decent tactic (half decent for a good team) all you have to do is press continue, play, continue, play. This is more apparent in big teams link Manchester Uniteds, Real Madrids, Barcelonas etc.

I couldn't comment on that really as I don't play with big teams. But then again, I don't seem to have found it quite as easy as you have. I find there is a challenge in keeping my players motivated through press conferences, team talks and through other interaction. I work on instilling a culture in my side. A culture of highly ambitious, determined and professional players. The way I treat everything in the game is with a fair but firm approach. Getting the balance right between encouraging my players and being hard on them can actually be quite challenging. This existing complexity is entirely dismissed by the opening poster.


Man management and personalities are represented in the game but do they really have a major effect on the player or the manager or the team?

Yes, I find that they do. That's the short answer.


The game is meant to be about a football manager. What exactly has been done from the manager's perspective for the last two or three versions? Manager contracts, board interactions, player contracts, player interaction, player management, press conferences, team talks, training, tactics

Funnily enough, almost everything you mention there has been changed and added to in the last few versions, with the obvious exception of training.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 15:39
I'm fairly certain he's sat in front of his laptop with his hands over his eyes going 'ner,ner,ner,ner, lalalalalalalala!'

A most striking image indeed. :D

RBKalle
08-01-2010, 16:02
Can we just stop with this inane bickering about who has read or not read what and just move on, possibly to come out with something vaguely constructive?!


I've said it already, but apparently keeping on fighting for a "win" in a sterile argument was more interesting, so I'll say it again.


MAN MANAGEMENT is somewhat present in FM 10, but it's too much of an afterthough (and/or as a chore) to be actually a part of the focal point of the gaming experience.

Tingting put it well: once you have found a decent tactic and the results are kinda okay, you don't need to worry about much more than clicking Play and Continue.
Occasionally you'll have to be careful not to put your foot in your mouth in press conferences not to cause a small and insignificant buzz in the dressing room, but unless you do it on purpose week in and week out, you won't be able to kill the mood.

Players' personalities are a great addition, on paper, but their impact on the game is minimal, at least to my knowledge.

I've had a couple of players Unhappy because they wanted to move to a bigger club, for ONE YEAR or so... Yet their morale is okay/good and they still perform around 7.00 level.
Even those who asked to be transfer-listed haven't lost a step on the pitch.

Now, unless I'm lucky and they'll are model professionals, that's not that real, isn't it?

And there's plenty of situations where FM personality fails to reproduce a life-like scenario.

Psychological tratis would be so much better if the human manager actually had the tools to interact with his players on a regular basis about many aspects of the game

Instead we have:

* Team Talks (cryptic and too generic)
* Form Praise/Criticism (public... often not a wise choice)
* PPM (ok but we need more freedom)
* Squad/Transfer status (with NO explaination possible)
* One-size-fits-all Training.

IMO it's not even remotely enough, if compared with all the tactical fine-tuning still lying under the useful and user-friendly Tactical Wizard.

Tactical interaction is not an option, it's a MUST.

Players must have preferred roles and duties, instead of soldiering on playing (even playing well) on secondary roles, on the wrong side of the pitch and in a way that doesn't suit them...
Model professionals can adapt to that, but an Ambitious and Outspoken FC should have told me (possibly on live TV) to sod off, after the 3rd game I had been playing him as Left Winger, despite him being a Right-footed Striker.

Instead players just say nothing, unless it's a reaction to the wrong answer in press conference, or a response to some other "big story", like a transfer offer.
And even there, there isn't much point in them being mad...

A bunch of appearences and wins, and everything's fine again. Or at least it's not so bad.


Speaking of real life events, wanna discuss about Adriano's alcoholism after his father's death? Or Cassano becoming fat like a blimp at Madrid? Or again Cassano threatening to leave Sampdoria because he got booed by a handful of people?
Or players being ambushed by hooligans after a string of poor performances? Or racist boos? Etc etc etc...

But even without going there... STANDARD FOOTBALL EVENTS should be covered by the "man management" side of FM, which is, at the moment, too little and too buried deep down tons of tactical shenanigans.

Cydver
08-01-2010, 16:20
Can we just stop with this inane bickering about who has read or not read what and just move on, possibly to come out with something vaguely constructive?!


I've said it already, but apparently keeping on fighting for a "win" in a sterile argument was more interesting, so I'll say it again.


MAN MANAGEMENT is somewhat present in FM 10, but it's too much of an afterthough (and/or as a chore) to be actually a part of the focal point of the gaming experience.

Tingting put it well: once you have found a decent tactic and the results are kinda okay, you don't need to worry about much more than clicking Play and Continue.
Occasionally you'll have to be careful not to put your foot in your mouth in press conferences not to cause a small and insignificant buzz in the dressing room, but unless you do it on purpose week in and week out, you won't be able to kill the mood.

Players' personalities are a great addition, on paper, but their impact on the game is minimal, at least to my knowledge.

I've had a couple of players Unhappy because they wanted to move to a bigger club, for ONE YEAR or so... Yet their morale is okay/good and they still perform around 7.00 level.
Even those who asked to be transfer-listed haven't lost a step on the pitch.

Now, unless I'm lucky and they'll are model professionals, that's not that real, isn't it?

And there's plenty of situations where FM personality fails to reproduce a life-like scenario.

Psychological tratis would be so much better if the human manager actually had the tools to interact with his players on a regular basis about many aspects of the game

Instead we have:

* Team Talks (cryptic and too generic)
* Form Praise/Criticism (public... often not a wise choice)
* PPM (ok but we need more freedom)
* Squad/Transfer status (with NO explaination possible)
* One-size-fits-all Training.

IMO it's not even remotely enough, if compared with all the tactical fine-tuning still lying under the useful and user-friendly Tactical Wizard.

Tactical interaction is not an option, it's a MUST.

Players must have preferred roles and duties, instead of soldiering on playing (even playing well) on secondary roles, on the wrong side of the pitch and in a way that doesn't suit them...
Model professionals can adapt to that, but an Ambitious and Outspoken FC should have told me (possibly on live TV) to sod off, after the 3rd game I had been playing him as Left Winger, despite him being a Right-footed Striker.

Instead players just say nothing, unless it's a reaction to the wrong answer in press conference, or a response to some other "big story", like a transfer offer.
And even there, there isn't much point in them being mad...

A bunch of appearences and wins, and everything's fine again. Or at least it's not so bad.


Speaking of real life events, wanna discuss about Adriano's alcoholism after his father's death? Or Cassano becoming fat like a blimp at Madrid? Or again Cassano threatening to leave Sampdoria because he got booed by a handful of people?
Or players being ambushed by hooligans after a string of poor performances? Or racist boos? Etc etc etc...

But even without going there... STANDARD FOOTBALL EVENTS should be covered by the "man management" side of FM, which is, at the moment, too little and too buried deep down tons of tactical shenanigans.

I agree with this. Can we focus on the topic instead of each other?

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 16:23
RBKalle, you make one or two good points, but I'm going to play devil's advocate with a few things that you have said.


Tingting put it well: once you have found a decent tactic and the results are kinda okay, you don't need to worry about much more than clicking Play and Continue.

What tactic is this? A so-called 'super' tactic? A creator tactic?

I simply don't find that to be the case in my games.


Occasionally you'll have to be careful not to put your foot in your mouth in press conferences not to cause a small and insignificant buzz in the dressing room, but unless you do it on purpose week in and week out, you won't be able to kill the mood.

Rather than trying to avoid saying the wrong thing, do you ever try to say the right thing instead? That is, do you ever try to think about press conferences as a tool to motivate your players?


Players' personalities are a great addition, on paper, but their impact on the game is minimal, at least to my knowledge.

I hesitate to do so, but I would have to question your knowledge here. Have you ever read some of the threads in the CSE forum. I am, in particular, thinking of the 'Bandits' threads that have run for a few versions.

I find personalities really do matter, on and off the pitch. The introduction of the in-game motivation widget (which came with FM09) added a new depth to the game in this respect. I see some of my younger players becoming 'nervous' when trying to hold on to a tight lead or some of the less professional individuals becoming 'complacent' when 1-0 up against inferior opposition. That's just a couple of examples. Studying this can tell you a lot about their different personalities for starters. That's not even going into the impact they have on a player's development too, for instance. So they certainly have quite a big impact and I think you are doing them an injustice.


Instead we have:

* Team Talks (cryptic and too generic)

Suggest a better system, which doesn't become a 'win' button or entirely pointless. Are they really that 'cryptic' as well?


* Form Praise/Criticism (public... often not a wise choice)

Plenty of managers use the media to praise or critcise players in real life. HOWEVER, this is one thing that I must agree on. As I said earlier in the thread, I would very much like the opportunity to communicate directly with a player instead of through the media all of the time. But such a feature is fraught with difficulties and open to abuse, so it would need to be carefully thought out.


* PPM (ok but we need more freedom)

Please elaborate.


* Squad/Transfer status (with NO explaination possible)

Players often do call you up on this. It is also especially common to find the press asking you questions about this as well.


* One-size-fits-all Training.

How is it 'one-size-fits-all? :confused:


Players must have preferred roles and duties, instead of soldiering on playing (even playing well) on secondary roles, on the wrong side of the pitch and in a way that doesn't suit them...

I would agree with this. It's something I haven't seen in the game.


after the 3rd game I had been playing him as Left Winger, despite him being a Right-footed Striker.

Do you mean as an 'inside forward' as is very common in modern football. ;)


A bunch of appearences and wins, and everything's fine again. Or at least it's not so bad.

Winning games of football is, and always will be, the most powerful way of increasing morale. Look at Liverpool. Last season they couldn't stop winning. Now they are losing and there is all kinds of rumours regarding the unhappiness of the players, many of which are said to have been present for a couple of seasons!


Speaking of real life events, wanna discuss about Adriano's alcoholism after his father's death? Or Cassano becoming fat like a blimp at Madrid? Or again Cassano threatening to leave Sampdoria because he got booed by a handful of people?
Or players being ambushed by hooligans after a string of poor performances? Or racist boos? Etc etc etc...

There really isn't a place for such tacky nonsense in Football Manager. The game will never include a player's parents dying, cases of alcoholism and so on and so forth, for legal reasons. Players do frequently have 'personal problems' and so on and so forth. Is this not enough? Do we lack such imagination that we have to have things like this spelled out to us?

tak
08-01-2010, 16:25
Thank you RBKalle. There is another good example called Ronaldinho which deteriorated after he decided not to care about much but parties. I realise that someone can say "that is reflected in the game by low professionalism". OK, let us look at that.

In FM a player has low professionalism. Somehow, after you spend three months in the forums, you might find out why a player of this calibre behaves poorly. And again you might not be sure. However, in real life you would know pretty well what's happening from day one.

Furthermore, if you are absolutely certain an FM player has low professionalism, there is nothing you can do in FM other than assign a mentor. However, in real life you could do a lot of things.

Let us take it one step further: We are in real life and you decide to go easy on Ronaldinho the first time he takes the jet to Rio. You take him into your office and you explain to him that you have seen a few people deciding to live the good life, who quickly went down.

The problems that we face now are: What is your perceived calibre? How does Ronaldinho see you? Are you friends? What common experiences you have? And a lot others.


Let us take it yet one more step further:


I have to catch a train so I will continue later.

PLEASE, if you want to disagree or you think I am ignorant or a lunatic or whatever PLEASE DO NOT POST. Your silence will serve as a confirmation that I am a thug. PLEASE MODERATORS PROTECT THIS THREAD. IT IS GOING SOMEWHERE INTERESTING.

daryn
08-01-2010, 16:25
RBKalle,

"Speaking of real life events, wanna discuss about Adriano's alcoholism after his father's death? Or Cassano becoming fat like a blimp at Madrid? Or again Cassano threatening to leave Sampdoria because he got booed by a handful of people?
Or players being ambushed by hooligans after a string of poor performances? Or racist boos? Etc etc etc..."

These are pretty non standard real life events that don't come around too often. You mention about more standard football events being included in the man management side of FM. I'd be keen to hear what standard events you feel should be in FM that aren't. Not saying that you do, but if you feel that there should also be many "non standard" events included in FM such as weight issues, drink problems and violence, does this not run the risk of weighting things too much away from tactics? Not sure violence or racist fans have any place in a football management game / sim......

Matt123456
08-01-2010, 16:41
I am disappointed that a good thread has been started by such an ignorant poster. I've tried to give tak time and be polite, but to be totally frank i have lost patience. If you read his whole argument, from the first post to the last, it is rambling, incorent and changes the subject whenever faced with an unaswerable question. Then he personally insults those who are trying help him (thank you WWFan by the way for showing simply unbelievable level of patience) and asks those who posts him unaswerable question to go away, so he doesn't have to wrack his brains for an answer. I'm sure I too am going to get insulted for this post, or maybe asked to keep my ideas to myself, but frankly I think there is the potential here for some very valuable feedback for SI.
Tak, you keep talking about this "leap of faith." Yet you have not put forward ANY ideas about what this leap of faith could be.
PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION. WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING FOR THIS LEAP OF FAITH. CAN WE HAVE SOME CONCRETE IDEAS PLEASE INSTEAD OF INTANGIBLE, UNQUANTIFIABLE THINGS.
I'll put some more forward for myself. I think it is too hard at the moment to understand the effects of man-management. There is no doubt it is in the game and it can be found, but i think most users just ignore it because of the risk it poses (e.g. one player interaction can cause your star player to hate you and once to move) which is too large for the limited amount of options given. It would be better if there were more options for player interactions. Team talks for example are hard to gauge the effect off. I also think that a very good idea would to be have player specific team talks. As in there are different options for each player depending on their personality, skill-level, attributes etc. I understand this may be difficult to implement, but just an idea. :)
And as for man-management being "just an add-on," there is a very good reason for that. The tactical ME is the core of Football Management, and has been around since the very first incarnation. Everything else has been "added-on" as it were. To make a "dynamic environment" the game would - at least to my knowledge - have to be completely redesigned. That would mean bugs and problems, in which the same people who are complaining about this would complain about. It would really be a "leap of faith," and a disasterous one for SI and those who love FM. I think that the game is very good already. It has its flaws, but to have a "leap of faith" and change it completely is a stupid idea. Why change an already good formula? Tweak it definitely. Perfect it. But there is no need to overhaul it.

tingting
08-01-2010, 16:42
I would disagree with that though. That's my point. And my other point would be that he has reached this conclusion without a basic knowledge of what is actually in the game (almost as if he hasn't really played it!)

I am not trying to start another argument in a thread which has more than its full but if you read a couple of posts from the start of page 2 he has clearly said tactics are not the only job of a manager...however it is open to different interpretations so....




I couldn't comment on that really as I don't play with big teams. But then again, I don't seem to have found it quite as easy as you have. I find there is a challenge in keeping my players motivated through press conferences, team talks and through other interaction. I work on instilling a culture in my side. A culture of highly ambitious, determined and professional players. The way I treat everything in the game is with a fair but firm approach. Getting the balance right between encouraging my players and being hard on them can actually be quite challenging. This existing complexity is entirely dismissed by the opening poster.

Firstly please dont club me with any other poster. The only point i agreed with the OP was regarding the focus on tactics. The "culture of highly ambitious, determined and professional players" deals with squad building which can easily be done by making a player search and the buying. Its not culture..its what type of squad you want to have. This can be influenced in the game by tutoring but i believe tutoring in the game is a bit unrealistic.

With regards to press conferences, i always choose the second best option from those 4-5 given and not once has a player moaned about it. The same goes for team talks, even if i say i am delighted when i beat chelsea 4-0 the response given is "nothing specific noted" or "did not seem to be listening".



Funnily enough, almost everything you mention there has been changed and added to in the last few versions, with the obvious exception of training.

Sorry but in what way? I am not speaking about FM 05 and FM 10. Manager contracts and player contracts are the same in the last 3 versions, ditto for team talks and board interaction (i dont remember when the pre-season expectations were introduced but again that is a bit unrealistic the only realistic thing about board interaction is the conversion of wage budget to transfer budget or vice versa)

And in what way has player management improved? In fact i have to say training has improved rather than player management. Tutoring and PPMs are not player management...they are training. You can hop the player all over the pitch, you can bring a player as a sub for the last 10-15 minutes and even though his status is key player, he continues to remain happy because his number says he has played 40 matches in a season even if 35 of them are as a sub.

If you are saying that tactics creator is an improvement in the tactics system, then again i will have to disagree. As i said before, tactics creator is a cosmetic feature that only helps us ignore the confusion of slider numbers and choose styles that have been selected/perfected by others. The basis of tactics is same for the last three versions. Apart from the "Wing Play" option, what has changed in the tactical system?


Edit: Just saw this reply from Crouch
What tactic is this? A so-called 'super' tactic? A creator tactic?

I simply don't find that to be the case in my games.

And it really brought a smile to my face. In the last page, everyone was praising dafuge (no disrespect...i agree that you have done a great job..only using your name to highlight my point) when he said that all you have to do is get them playing in a good way and then tweak just a bit depending on the performance and get better players...and now suddenly comes the issue of super tactics. Did i or RBKalle say anything about super tactics? Of course there is no such thing as super tactic and i do tweak it depending on my team's performance in that particular match.

What i was saying (and hopefully RBKalle too) was that once you put up a decent tactic, the game becomes really simple

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 16:46
TIn FM a player has low professionalism. Somehow, after you spend three months in the forums, you might find out why a player of this calibre behaves poorly. And again you might not be sure. However, in real life you would know pretty well what's happening from day one.

Would you though? Categorically no, you wouldn't! Life is not black and white like that. A player might be playing poorly for all kinds of reasons. He might just be young and inconsistent. He might be struggling with pressure. He might be lacking in ambition. He might be unprofessional. He might just have personal problems. There are hundreds of reasons why he might not be performing well. I can give you some real life examples of this if you want one?

Human character is not black and white. We cannot say for certain anything about the motivations of another human being. I don't see any reason why this should be explicit in Football Manager. It is up to you to test the waters with this player, to look at his motivation during matches, to judge how he reacts to your team talks, press conferences and so on and so forth.


Furthermore, if you are absolutely certain an FM player has low professionalism, there is nothing you can do in FM other than assign a mentor. However, in real life you could do a lot of things.

Well, you could also warn him or fine him. You could work on getting the best out of him by giving him his own talks during team talks. You could try to influence him by mentioning him in your press conferences. You could interact with him through the media and try to bring out a different side of him.

What can you do in real life that you cannot do in FM (aside from speaking directly to him, which I would also like to see in the game?)


Let us take it one step further: We are in real life and you decide to go easy on Ronaldinho the first time he takes the jet to Rio. You take him into your office and you explain to him that you have seen a few people deciding to live the good life, who quickly went down.

The problems that we face now are: What is your perceived calibre? How does Ronaldinho see you?

Manager reputation. Does he respect you? Will he 'lack the motivation to play for you'. Steven Gerrard didn't respect my authority when I took over as England manager in one of my saves. He was quickly dropped. :D

Will he accept his warning or not? That can tell you a lot about his character.

Will he feel that 'his mentor has abandoned him'? And so on and so forth.

Just a few of the things that are already in the game.


Are you friends?

Are you on his favourite personnel? Does he fall in line with what you say or does he get upset or angry about it?


What common experiences you have?

How do you see this being put into the game? In fact, how do you see any of this stuff going into the game?

Do you also realise that a lot of the stuff is already in the game to some extent? Do you realise the potential for it to become extremely boring and dull indeed? Getting the balance right is very important.

Finally, why does everything have to be so black and white with you. Do you lack imagination?

'Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass'. Some of this stuff would just be totally unnecessary detail. Finally, some of this stuff has to be hidden from the user because human character is complex and difficult to understand and you wouldn't find it easy to make such discoveries in real life either.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 16:49
Matt123456 - I think that is a very good post with some good, constructive points made.

Matt123456
08-01-2010, 16:51
Matt123456 - I think that is a very good post with some good, constructive points made.

Thank you. I was tired off him dodging points and rambling off track and want to get some serious, concrete answers that can be hopefully used to improve the game rather than arguments and theoretical "leaps of faith." And Tak, please put this thread back on track and put some ideas of your own forward.

Cydver
08-01-2010, 17:05
Human character is not black and white. We cannot say for certain anything about the motivations of another human being. I don't see any reason why this should be explicit in Football Manager. It is up to you to test the waters with this player, to look at his motivation during matches, to judge how he reacts to your team talks, press conferences and so on and so forth.


Hey, this is a fantastic point. It would be great to actually be able to do this right in Football Manager. I know you've talked about direct interaction, but looking at team talks and press conferences at the moment, from what you've said, they're nowhere near the desired level of substance. I don't think managers get multiple choice questions in real-life. And whilst I know it'll be hard to program for open-ended answers, conferences should have more diversity (more answers, more questions, and at least some phrase-checking with the severely underused open-ended blank). Same goes for team talks, I mean I'm now clicking the assistant's advice button and manually tweaking for just one or two players. It's also been reported often on the forums that people get better performances with their assistants in charge. To be fair managers in real life do that sometimes, but when it gets to a point where a manager does not simply have to take team talks yet coax wins out of his players, it just shows the half-boiled nature of this feature.

And once more, direct player interaction is a must.

In FM at the moment, players have the brains and personality of a rock. They often go back on what they say within a few days, they don't respond properly to certain decisions the manager makes etc. Their personalities as set by the game engine have to shine out more. I want to have headaches where someone with >18 Ambition and rather low Professionalism speak out about being played in the wrong positions. I'm not just talking Inside Forward, opposite flanks etc. I'm talking Nani, whom I've shunted to right-back (Wing-back role) because Neville's retired, Rafael's injured, O'Shea is injured, Hargreaves is injured, and Fletcher is injured. And any 1st team-ready reserve players are out on loan. Also, I think very highly of him in real life. He did well in his first game(7.4), but I've stuck with him after my choices return due to his superb performances. He won't be too happy about that in real life I would presume! I am also quite sure he has high ambition, middle-low Professionalism, and generally isn't going to sacrifice for the team.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 17:07
The "culture of highly ambitious, determined and professional players" deals with squad building which can easily be done by making a player search and the buying. Its not culture..its what type of squad you want to have.

It is culture. Culture defined as 'the predominating attitudes and behaviour that characterize the functioning of a group or organization'. I build a culture based on ambition and determination. It's not just squad building but also the methods of communication and man management I use when I'm playing the game. Every decision I make, I try to think about what my answer should be in terms of ambition and pressure. The culture at my club is always to reduce pressure and to promote ambition. If you want me to talk more about this, then I would be happy to do so.


And in what way has player management improved?

It is now far more complex and in depth. Motivational feedback during games allows you to better assess your players and their characters. Press conferences are far more in depth compared to what was offered in FM07.


In fact i have to say training has improved rather than player management. Tutoring and PPMs are not player management...they are training.

You are right. So training has improved as well then.


If you are saying that tactics creator is an improvement in the tactics system, then again i will have to disagree. As i said before, tactics creator is a cosmetic feature that only helps us ignore the confusion of slider numbers and choose styles that have been selected/perfected by others. The basis of tactics is same for the last three versions. Apart from the "Wing Play" option, what has changed in the tactical system?

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.

The new creator and shouts have changed the game for me. Now, the main effort you are required to put into the tactical side of the game is in working out how to build your tactic around the strengths of your team and how to outwit the opposition manager, which is exactly how it should be. It leads to more of a complete experience in my view. I feel that I can really role-play as a manager on the sideline communicating with my players and trying to influence the game. I love having tactical 'tussles' with other managers and when things go right, it can be very satisfying indeed. It has brought about a much needed change of emphasis to an already very good system in my opinion.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 17:10
Edit: Just saw this reply from Crouch

And it really brought a smile to my face. In the last page, everyone was praising dafuge (no disrespect...i agree that you have done a great job..only using your name to highlight my point) when he said that all you have to do is get them playing in a good way and then tweak just a bit depending on the performance and get better players...and now suddenly comes the issue of super tactics. Did i or RBKalle say anything about super tactics? Of course there is no such thing as super tactic and i do tweak it depending on my team's performance in that particular match.

What i was saying (and hopefully RBKalle too) was that once you put up a decent tactic, the game becomes really simple

Some people say that tactics are too important and that the game is too difficult and complex for them.

Some people say that team talks and man management make far too much difference to the performances and results of their team and that tactics and players are not important enough.

Others still say that players are way too important and that if you have a good team you can win everything without really trying at tactics and motivation.

So many different opinions. I've seen all of them made on this forum at some point since FM10 has come out.

Which one is true? Probably none of them and all of them! We all seem to find what we want in the game, which might actually suggest that it is getting things just about right. ;)

djwilko6
08-01-2010, 17:11
Slightly off-topic but since crouchy mentioned shouts :p I would love the option to have shouts saved for the next game, rather than having to pause the match in the first minute and set them then, because I usually forget lol

Not really a "leap of faith" just a small addition.

RBKalle
08-01-2010, 17:14
RBKalle, you make one or two good points, but I'm going to play devil's advocate with a few things that you have said.



What tactic is this? A so-called 'super' tactic? A creator tactic?

I simply don't find that to be the case in my games.

I rotate my own tactic, created with the wizard and slightly altered with sliders, and a downloaded tactic I've further elaborated to better fit my regulars.

Nothing too professional, at all.

What I mean is, once you have the upper hand on the transfer market (not that hard... AI is rather poor at it), you can get a massive advantage in terms of players.

Also, no matter WHO play in your system, it'll workd quite well, almost regardless of the players.


Rather than trying to avoid saying the wrong thing, do you ever try to say the right thing instead? That is, do you ever try to think about press conferences as a tool to motivate your players?

Of course I do!

But sometimes there doesn't seem to be the "right" thing... Eg when they ask you about your chances of keeping X at your club...



I hesitate to do so, but I would have to question your knowledge here. Have you ever read some of the threads in the CSE forum. I am, in particular, thinking of the 'Bandits' threads that have run for a few versions.

I find personalities really do matter, on and off the pitch. The introduction of the in-game motivation widget (which came with FM09) added a new depth to the game in this respect. I see some of my younger players becoming 'nervous' when trying to hold on to a tight lead or some of the less professional individuals becoming 'complacent' when 1-0 up against inferior opposition. That's just a couple of examples. Studying this can tell you a lot about their different personalities for starters. That's not even going into the impact they have on a player's development too, for instance. So they certainly have quite a big impact and I think you are doing them an injustice.


Let's say the Motivation Widget is the only one I always have on while watching...

I haven't read much, because quite frankly I don't feel like reading pages and pages of "literature" about a game (I've already enough mandatory reading for College... a game is just for relaxing, not for more reading).

But I did take a look to the descriptions of the various personalities and I've understood how they affect the players.

My beef with it is that there isn't a straightforward way to deal with the players according to their personality, except team talks.

It's as if the Manager just shows up on matchday for the motivational speech, and then disappears until the next one, leaving the players on their own with the coaches.


Suggest a better system, which doesn't become a 'win' button or entirely pointless. Are they really that 'cryptic' as well?

For starters: MORE choices.

And choices which doesn't need a "translation chart"... where "for the fans" can mean many different things depending on the situation.

A pre-match meeting where you set the "goals" for the match would be fine, with specific players expectations.

Currently the team talk is a good starting point, but I maintain it's a tad too generic and leaves too much to the "imagination" of the player.



Plenty of managers use the media to praise or critcise players in real life. HOWEVER, this is one thing that I must agree on. As I said earlier in the thread, I would very much like the opportunity to communicate directly with a player instead of through the media all of the time. But such a feature is fraught with difficulties and open to abuse, so it would need to be carefully thought out.

Of course it'd be open to abuse, like pretty much everything human-controlled in the game. But here we agree we need something, otherwise the manager-players interaction will always be shallow and quite pointless




Please elaborate.

A broader choice of PPMs, and the chance of asking for more complicated tasks/roles.

I don't know, like proposing a generic MC to adapt his game to Box-to-Box, or to serve as Playmaker.

This would be linked to the long overdue "specific roles and duties" feature I mentioned already. And to more specific (less convoluted) tactical instructions.

But for now, more PPM would be fine.



Players often do call you up on this. It is also especially common to find the press asking you questions about this as well.

True, but all we get is a small set of preset answers.

When they ask me about X player feeling underappreciated, I want to explain "he's a good all-around player and a valuable rotation/backup" or "he's the backup of our star goalie, if he does want to play regularly, I'll loan him out/sell him." etc.

It's always down to MORE and BETTER face-to-face dressing room interaction, before going to whine on TV ['cept the token troublemakers]




How is it 'one-size-fits-all? :confused:

FB trains on "set pieces" for crossing, but gets points in throw ins and free kicks... and similar absurdities.

Also, it's hard to create a specific schedule for similar roles but different duties.

In general, it feels too random in the way it develops a player's skills.


I would agree with this. It's something I haven't seen in the game.

In my opinion, this should be the MOST PRESSING ISSUE of the whole tactical side of the game.

What's the point in having 20 different sub-roles, if anyone can play decently everywhere?

Diego's abysmal season at Juventus is a prime example of such inability of covering whatever role as long as it's on the "known" area of the pitch.


Do you mean as an 'inside forward' as is very common in modern football. ;)

Call it Inside Forward or Winger, but a native Striker playing very wide, and on the wrong side, should complain and/or perform below average. Especially if not a model professional.



Winning games of football is, and always will be, the most powerful way of increasing morale. Look at Liverpool. Last season they couldn't stop winning. Now they are losing and there is all kinds of rumours regarding the unhappiness of the players, many of which are said to have been present for a couple of seasons!

I know that.

Nonetheless, if a player wants out to further his career [and for me I'm speaking of international players wanting to leave Norway, not top-level EPL...], he wants out no matter how many "useless" championships he may win.

Some of my players have been "unhappy" on-and-off for like three years... The only ones who left were those for whom the board accepted an offer on my behalf... all the others are still there. And playing well.




There really isn't a place for such tacky nonsense in Football Manager. The game will never include player's parents dying, cases of alcholism and so on and so forth, for legal reasons. Players do frequently have 'personal problems' and so on and so forth. Is this not enough? Do we lack such imagination that we have to have the things like this spelled out to us?

I agree thare isn't a place for that, but it was a direct reply to the "what are those outside factors" objections someone did some posts ago.

I don't say I want them or we need them. It was just for the sake of argument

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 17:15
Hey, this is a fantastic point. It would be great to actually be able to do this right in Football Manager.

Well you can. ;)


I know you've talked about direct interaction, but looking at team talks and press conferences at the moment, from what you've said, they're nowhere near the desired level of substance.

There is definitely room for improvement but you have to remember that this is only the second outing for press conferences and I think they have improved quite a bit since FM09.


Same goes for team talks, I mean I'm now clicking the assistant's advice button and manually tweaking for just one or two players. It's also been reported often on the forums that people get better performances with their assistants in charge.

That's because they aren't very good managers then. ;) :D

Matt123456
08-01-2010, 17:23
For starters: MORE choices.

And choices which doesn't need a "translation chart"... where "for the fans" can mean many different things depending on the situation.


A broader choice of PPMs, and the chance of asking for more complicated tasks/roles.

I don't know, like proposing a generic MC to adapt his game to Box-to-Box, or to serve as Playmaker.

This would be linked to the long overdue "specific roles and duties" feature I mentioned already. And to more specific (less convoluted) tactical instructions.

But for now, more PPM would be fine.


FB trains on "set pieces" for crossing, but gets points in throw ins and free kicks... and similar absurdities.

Also, it's hard to create a specific schedule for similar roles but different duties.

In general, it feels too random in the way it develops a player's skills.

These points highlighted I think are brilliant. :thup::thup: The first and last definitely need to be looked at to take the game from good to great I think.

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 17:30
I don't have time to respond to absolutely everything you've said RBKalle but I actually think we're working on the same wavelength anyway so I don't have a lot to disagree with you about! ;)


What I mean is, once you have the upper hand on the transfer market (not that hard... AI is rather poor at it), you can get a massive advantage in terms of players.

The transfer AI does need improving and I think SI are well aware of it. This is really a fault of the transfer AI rather than anything to do with the tactical or man management side of the game though.


Also, no matter WHO play in your system, it'll workd quite well, almost regardless of the players.

I don't tend to find that. If I put a crap player in my deep-lying playmaker position, for instance, my team lose more often than they win, which was a problem for me last season when my most creative DM got injured and, in the end, I had to switch to 4-4-1-1 and play two normal CMs. I simply don't see this point in my game to be honest.


But sometimes there doesn't seem to be the "right" thing... Eg when they ask you about your chances of keeping X at your club...

Sometimes there isn't a right answer in real life either. You can't please all of the people all of the time. ;)


Let's say the Motivation Widget is the only one I always have on while watching...

My beef with it is that there isn't a straightforward way to deal with the players according to their personality, except team talks.

It's as if the Manager just shows up on matchday for the motivational speech, and then disappears until the next one, leaving the players on their own with the coaches.

It's a good point and I wouldn't disagree. I'd like to see some direct interaction in there. At the same time, I'd be wary about introducing too much, because so many people find the current interaction to be too much for them already!


For starters: MORE choices.

Not going to disagree with this. :thup:


And choices which doesn't need a "translation chart"... where "for the fans" can mean many different things depending on the situation.

I actually happen to agree that team talks could be made a little clearer and perhaps better defined. However, with team talks, you could argue for ambiguity in real life, couldn't you? Take the team talk 'none' as an example. If I am a real football manager, do I know what saying nothing motivational to my players will mean to them or result in? I don't. There may be some instances where me saying nothing actually has significance for the players, such as when they are under-performing and expecting to get the hair-dryer treatment. In that scenario, if I say nothing about it to them, that will have a significance. The likelihood is that it will show them that I am actually too angry to even speak to them about their performance. However, saying nothing motivational (or using 'none') takes on an entirely different meaning if it is a match that the team are expected to win and they are doing their job well but don't deserve any specific praise. In this case, the meaning has changed and my silence in terms of motivational matters actually has little or no significance. Do you see what I am trying to say?

The argument could be that it is up to the FM player to find out how using 'none' (or any other team talk) will work, just as it is up to a manager in real life to find out how his players will react to him saying nothing motivational in the dressing room at half-time. What am I trying to say is that this communication has an ambiguity to its meaning in real life. Wouldn't it therefore be unrealistic for us to know exactly what it means or is meant to mean in every case? Hope you understand the point I am making.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I personally would like to see some improvement to team talks with more options built into the current system. I'm sure SI are aware that it can be improved and perhaps it is something for FM11. However, I believe that any system is likely to have some ambiguity built into it, for the reasons outlined above.


Currently the team talk is a good starting point, but I maintain it's a tad too generic and leaves too much to the "imagination" of the player.

Perhaps this is where I am different to everyone else on here. I like using my imagination and I cannot think of anything duller than having everything spelled out for me and made abundantly clear all of the time.

tingting
08-01-2010, 17:56
It is culture. Culture defined as 'the predominating attitudes and behaviour that characterize the functioning of a group or organization'. I build a culture based on ambition and determination. It's not just squad building but also the methods of communication and man management I use when I'm playing the game. Every decision I make, I try to think about what my answer should be in terms of ambition and pressure. The culture at my club is always to reduce pressure and to promote ambition. If you want me to talk more about this, then I would be happy to do so.

Yes i would like to please. So tell me how do you increase the ambition, the determination and professionalism in your squad??




It is now far more complex and in depth. Motivational feedback during games allows you to better assess your players and their characters. Press conferences are far more in depth compared to what was offered in FM07.

So you mean to say that team talks were just a gimmick before the motivation feedback widget was introduced? Am i wrong to think that the motivation widget displays what is the effect on your player's morale during the game? I have seen my players play very well even when complacent or nervous (in fact drogba scored a hat trick for my Ivory Coast team when the widget listed him as nervous) and play poorly even when their motivation is listed as looking fired up.

Players' performance can be assessed even without the motivation widget as to whether they are playing well not while personality could have been known by looking at the effects of team talk which we were able to find out in the team feedback screen




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.

The new creator and shouts have changed the game for me. Now, the main effort you are required to put into the tactical side of the game is in working out how to build your tactic around the strengths of your team and how to outwit the opposition manager, which is exactly how it should be. It leads to more of a complete experience in my view. I feel that I can really role-play as a manager on the sideline communicating with my players and trying to influence the game. I love having tactical 'tussles' with other managers and when things go right, it can be very satisfying indeed. It has brought about a much needed change of emphasis to an already very good system in my opinion.

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.

RBKalle
08-01-2010, 18:01
I see the point of the "imagination" theory, and also how the same thing (be it silence or "for the fans!") might take different meaning to different players under different circumstances.

However I do feel we are currently lacking a major tool to actually understand what we are saying to our team. (It's the missing link if you wish).

That's where my Pre-match meeting" comes into play.

Just like our backroom staff gives us informations and advice, a Manager ought to do the same with players.

Currently we just have Morale and eventual sparse PR feedbacks to understand what our players think/feel. I'd like to, and I think we need to, know what's on their mind BEFORE THE GAME, if we have to give them a good speech.

It's like going at your girlfriend's without knowing which mood she's in, and saying something... The same line might get you laid today or a black eye and no sex for weeks tomorrow. ;)


Same with our players... "For the fans" might lead to a goal fest, or to a boring 0-0 with plenty of wasted chances, but why?

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 18:09
Yes i would like to please. So tell me how do you increase the ambition, the determination and professionalism in your squad??

By buying new players, by tutoring, through disciplinary procedures. But I also create a culture. Let me explain.

This comes from a book by Sven Goran Eriksson. In the book, four personality types A, B, C, D are identified, as below.

A - high ambition & high performance anxiety.
B - high ambition but not afraid of failing.
C - little ambition & afraid of making mistakes
D - little ambition but not bothered about failing.

D achieves least. He has little ambition and low performance anxiety and is therefore not going to generate any kind of energy.

C is next. He will mainly use his energy to avoid making mistakes.

The footballers we are most interested in are the ones with ambition.

A has great ambition which gives him drive but his performance anxiety pulls him in the opposite direction.

However, B makes the most of himself. He is a winner and dares to excel when it really matters.

Erikkson says that only around 20% of players he has worked with are B types.

So my idea is to create a B culture around my team. That is, to stimulate ambition and to reduce fear.

I think about this when I am giving team talks. Am I being ambitious enough and challenging my players (team talks like 'expect a win', 'expect a performance' etc.) or do I need to reduce fear (team talks like 'we can win this' or other encouraging and supportive team talks)?

Getting the balance right is what makes a great football manager in my opinion. That is the culture I try to bring to the club that I am managing.


So you mean to say that team talks were just a gimmick before the motivation feedback widget was introduced? Am i wrong to think that the motivation widget displays what is the effect on your player's morale during the game? I have seen my players play very well even when complacent or nervous (in fact drogba scored a hat trick for my Ivory Coast team when the widget listed him as nervous) and play poorly even when their motivation is listed as looking fired up.

Think you have missed the point. Players will react in various ways depending upon the circumstances of the game. A nervous player might lose his nerves once you go 2-0 up and get that all important second goal, for instance. It is up to you to judge the situation. Should I take off a nervous player or do I think he should stay on because he has something to offer and his nerves might go if we get a second goal. Are his nerves having a major effect on his performance? So on and so forth!


I have nothing against the tactics creator...in fact i believe it is the best feature added in recent years.

Totally agree. :thup:

Squirmy Rooter 2.0
08-01-2010, 18:27
I actually happen to agree that team talks could be made a little clearer and perhaps better defined. However, with team talks, you could argue for ambiguity in real life, couldn't you? ...<snip>

Oh man, not this old chestnut again.... ;)

Rather than me spend ages venting my feelings on this matter for the umpteenth time, I'm just going to link to another thread where I reacted to those paragraphs that you cut and pasted into this thread...

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?p=4446426#post4446426

Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this. :)




The likelihood is that it will show them that I am actually too angry to even speak to them about their performance. However, saying nothing motivational (or using 'none') takes on an entirely different meaning if it is a match that the team are expected to win and they are doing their job well but don't deserve any specific praise.

...

The argument could be that it is up to the FM player to find out how using 'none' (or any other team talk) will work, just as it is up to a manager in real life to find out how his players will react to him saying nothing motivational in the dressing room at half-time.


Yes you're right that it should be up to the FM player to find out how saying nothing motivational in the dressing room at half-time will work...

BUT it should NOT (in my very strong opinion!) be up to the FM player to figure out whether that button labelled "none" means they are saying "nothing motivational" or whether it means that you are "too angry to even speak to them".

I hope you understand the difference...

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 18:35
Squirmy Rooter 2.0 - I'm aware we've been through it before. I do tend to repeat myself somewhat. ;)

Hopefully you get the fact that I am playing devil's advocate and that I am making a point about ambiguity rather than talking about anything particularly specific. :)

tingting
08-01-2010, 18:36
By buying new players, by tutoring, through disciplinary procedures. But I also create a culture. Let me explain.

This comes from a book by Sven Goran Eriksson. In the book, four personality types A, B, C, D are identified, as below.

A - high ambition & high performance anxiety.
B - high ambition but not afraid of failing.
C - little ambition & afraid of making mistakes
D - little ambition but not bothered about failing.

D achieves least. He has little ambition and low performance anxiety and is therefore not going to generate any kind of energy.

C is next. He will mainly use his energy to avoid making mistakes.

The footballers we are most interested in are the ones with ambition.

A has great ambition which gives him drive but his performance anxiety pulls him in the opposite direction.

However, B makes the most of himself. He is a winner and dares to excel when it really matters.

Erikkson says that only around 20% of players he has worked with are B types.

So my idea is to create a B culture around my team. That is, to stimulate ambition and to reduce fear.

I think about this when I am giving team talks. Am I being ambitious enough and challenging my players (team talks like 'expect a win', 'expect a performance' etc.) or do I need to reduce fear (team talks like 'we can win this' or other encouraging and supportive team talks)?

Getting the balance right is what makes a great football manager in my opinion. That is the culture I try to bring to the club that I am managing.

Ok..let me say first of all that i am not arguing...i want to understand your stance on this subject more...it is very easy to misunderstand what i want to say by just looking at the text so again let me say that i am not arguing even if what i have written appears sarcastic/abusive etc etc :)

Team Talks: Do you mean to say that team talks have long term effect on a player? So if you continue to make one type of comment (not the same choice of comment) a player's personality changes?

Tutoring: Am i correct in thinking that tutoring raises a non-training mental attribute by just a couple of points? If yes...then you would have to have a player with decent attributes (if you want him to become good) or good attributes (if you want him to become very good) in those particular areas (Aggression, Bravery, Determination and Flair and hidden attributes like pressure etc)

Also would you agree that tutoring is a bit unrealistic in the game? A player who is past a particular age (say 18-19) does not improve on his determination or bravery just because he is being tutored by a person who is more determined or more ambitious. These "attributes" can indeed be influenced in their formative years (early teens) but once they go past a particular age, it will not increase. However i am finding players such as Jonny Evans' aggression, determination ratings increase once he completes a successful tutelage by someone like Vidic.



Think you have missed the point. Players will react in various ways depending upon the circumstances of the game. A nervous player might lose his nerves once you go 2-0 up and get that all important second goal, for instance. It is up to you to judge the situation. Should I take off a nervous player or do I think he should stay on because he has something to offer and his nerves might go if we get a second goal. Are his nerves having a major effect on his performance? So on and so forth!

But we were able to do this even without the widget. You can clearly see if a player is nervous or not or fired up or not by watching the game. Or is it that motivation were introduced with the widget (making team talks useless before)

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 18:42
Team Talks: Do you mean to say that team talks have long term effect on a player? So if you continue to make one type of comment (not the same choice of comment) a player's personality changes?

No, I am not saying that, and I'm pretty sure that it isn't the case.


Tutoring: Am i correct in thinking that tutoring raises a non-training mental attribute by just a couple of points?

Not exactly. Basically, tutoring can influence a player's personality and characteristics by bringing them more in line with the tutor.


If yes...then you would have to have a player with decent attributes (if you want him to become good) or good attributes (if you want him to become very good) in those particular areas (Aggression, Bravery, Determination and Flair and hidden attributes like pressure etc)

Not sure I understand what you are driving at?


Also would you agree that tutoring is a bit unrealistic in the game? A player who is past a particular age (say 18-19) does not improve on his determination or bravery just because he is being tutored by a person who is more determined or more ambitious. These "attributes" can indeed be influenced in their formative years (early teens) but once they go past a particular age, it will not increase. However i am finding players such as Jonny Evans' aggression, determination ratings increase once he completes a successful tutelage by someone like Vidic.

Again, not sure what you are driving at here. It's not really unrealistic to ask a young player to be tutored by an experienced professional is it? Some players don't react well, others do. The best way to keep a culture of ambition, professionalism and positive traits in your squad is to bring in the right kind of players, and to tutor youth players to fit in with the culture of your squad.

Chelsea football club
08-01-2010, 18:46
Leap of faith on assiasns creed are good so it must be on fm to.

tak
08-01-2010, 18:51
Thank you RBKalle. There is another good example called Ronaldinho which deteriorated after he decided not to care about much but parties. I realise that someone can say "that is reflected in the game by low professionalism". OK, let us look at that.

In FM a player has low professionalism. Somehow, after you spend three months in the forums, you might find out why a player of this calibre behaves poorly. And again you might not be sure. However, in real life you would know pretty well what's happening from day one.

Furthermore, if you are absolutely certain an FM player has low professionalism, there is nothing you can do in FM other than assign a mentor. However, in real life you could do a lot of things.

Let us take it one step further: We are in real life and you decide to go easy on Ronaldinho the first time he takes the jet to Rio. You take him into your office and you explain to him that you have seen a few people deciding to live the good life, who quickly went down.

The problems that we face now are: What is your perceived calibre? How does Ronaldinho see you? Are you friends? What common experiences you have? And a lot others.


Let us take it yet one more step further:


I have to catch a train so I will continue later.

PLEASE, if you want to disagree or you think I am ignorant or a lunatic or whatever PLEASE DO NOT POST. Your silence will serve as a confirmation that I am a thug. PLEASE MODERATORS PROTECT THIS THREAD. IT IS GOING SOMEWHERE INTERESTING.

This is the situation with this talented boy so far. You were informed that he took the plane to Brazil where he had a wonderful time, he then played poorly and in two months he did it again. Immediately you know what is wrong, however in FM it might take you two years of trial and error. Furthermore once you discovered his professionalism in FM is low, some people mentioned fines and tell the press etc. which are not what a real manager would do at this stage, so they do not reflect reality.

During your first meeting there are many factors that play certain roles. Your reputation in FM does not reflect how the player sees you or what your calibre is (especially your powers and weaknesses in one to one meetings). Also, if you are his favourite personel does not mean you are friends on a personal level. Etc.

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.

These are the initial stages as I say. You had a meeting and explained to him that his behaviour can hurt him professionaly. Do you add something? This is tricky because you need know (and I am only mentioning very few things, there are a lot more) if he is generaly unhappy with football and does not care, if he is preparing a career change, if he is in love with a Brazilian model, if he is addicted to cocaine, if his manager has prepared a secret agreement with another team etc. Also, what stage of the campaign are you at? Can you afford to lose him? Also, does Adidas force you to play him? Is there a same clause in his contract? These are things I came up with in ten seconds. Imagine how many there actually are.

His manager meets later that day with the parents (but not him) and tells them that Gillete will pull out if he doesn't conquer the Champions league this year. His mother, who is a devout Christian, is doubly shocked and gives him a good bollocking. Rony is afarid of his mother but doesn't give an F about you. He decides to get serious. Unfortunately, Nike wants Kaka to conquer it, and they contact the Brazilian model to make sure he stays a party animal.

Back in you, the manager. Do you tell Ronaldinho that if he continues he will be dropped? Let us say you don't. Gabriel Rodriguez (a regen I got recently), who plays for your team and will compete with Argentina against Ronaldinho later in the year, is not particularly happy. He can't do much though because he is also an Adidas face and their cooperation in the field is the theme of a clip Adidas prepares for worldwide advertising. So Gabriel thinks you are a chicken but for the moment he has to play with Ronaldinho and create some magical moments. Matter of fact, he has to do all the work because Rony is tired from drinking. Gabriel excells in training, as per your assistant's report. You say "well done, Gabriel", he is thinking "yeah, right, after this year I am saying good bye"

As you design detailed tactical plans and some really innovative formations, the model rings Rony and tells him that the greatest party in history is next weekend and that if he attents, a special surprise awaits him that involves two of her colleagues. The Champions League final is in Wednesday but he goes. You, a very knowledgable manager when it comes to inverting the Pyramid decide that he will not play in the Final and to hell with him.

Too bad your boss tells you to shove your decision up yours and go draw some tactics on the drawing board. You decide to take revenge and play Ronaldinho as left hand, semi-attacking, one and a half notches creative Trequartista, a position he hates from school and is notoriously bad at.

At the morning after the party, Ronaldinho has behaved especially badly, and as he sits at the beach, hangover, he remembers his mother, feels guilty and cries. In a while he swears he will change.

When he comes back, you the invertor of pyramids, in front of the whole team, give a brilliant speech about professionalism and a, rather cautious, bollocking to Ronaldinho. You say that if he doesn't perform well in the Final you will make sure he is finished as a fooballer. (Secretely, you hope he doesn't and you know he will be playing his worse position anyway)

The day before the Final you announce the positions and player roles. You look at Ronaldinho who doesn't notice a word you say but looks serene and happy, with an inner glow. Gabriel meets Rony afterwards for a pint and explain to him that they have a chance to make some nice stuff for the Adidas add and devise a plan of action.

The great day comes and to make a long game short, Rony and Gabriel triumph.

The media immediately write how you a) motivated Rony and saved him from alcoholism and b) how you re-introduced him into an old position he always loved from school.

You become a legend.

Matt123456
08-01-2010, 19:01
This is the situation with this talented boy so far.....

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.

tingting
08-01-2010, 19:20
Not sure I understand what you are driving at?


Again, not sure what you are driving at here. It's not really unrealistic to ask a young player to be tutored by an experienced professional is it? Some players don't react well, others do. The best way to keep a culture of ambition, professionalism and positive traits in your squad is to bring in the right kind of players, and to tutor youth players to fit in with the culture of your squad.

With regards to your first question...Assuming characteristics like bravery, determination, ambition and aggression can only be influenced slightly (for example a person who is timid might become brave enough to jump from a rooftop to another which is near but not brave enough to go bungee jumping) just because he is with a very brave person...ie in FM terms that particular attribute rating increases slightly in his career....you need to get a player who already has some of the best attributes in those areas in his age group (hope you understood what i am trying to say) So this is more of a squad building than man management?

As for your second question/comment. No..it is not unrealistic of asking older players to tutor younger players. However what exactly gets influenced there?? Creativity yes...decision making yes...composure yes...however seeing that the main attributes of the B type player (bravery, determination, ambition and aggression) are most often than not pretty much shaped up by the time a player reaches say 18 years of age...these attributes wont change if he is being tutored by a more aggressive player...

for example if ferguson gets keane to tutor say gibson...he might very well get gibson to anticipate the opposition players' moves, decide when is the best time to make his tackle...but he will not influence how aggressively he should tackle or get a player to run all over the pitch right?? But here i have got a 20 year old Evans' aggression and determination ratings increase by two points after he was successfully tutored by Vidic....Also turning an unambitious person into an ambitious person??? ....is this not unrealistic...

tak
08-01-2010, 19:26
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.

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?

Matt123456
08-01-2010, 19:29
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?

Actually I think it was Crouchaldinho who first said that it was black and white, not you. And if so, what was the point of that? Again can I ask you to put some ideas foward instead of preaching.

tak
08-01-2010, 19:36
Actually I think it was Crouchaldinho who first said that it was black and white, not you. And if so, what was the point of that? Again can I ask you to put some ideas foward instead of preaching.

I am sorry if you can't see a point, but patience my friend. There is more to come...

edgar555
08-01-2010, 19:41
Thank you RBKalle. There is another good example called Ronaldinho which deteriorated after he decided not to care about much but parties. I realise that someone can say "that is reflected in the game by low professionalism". OK, let us look at that.

In FM a player has low professionalism. Somehow, after you spend three months in the forums, you might find out why a player of this calibre behaves poorly. And again you might not be sure. However, in real life you would know pretty well what's happening from day one.

Furthermore, if you are absolutely certain an FM player has low professionalism, there is nothing you can do in FM other than assign a mentor. However, in real life you could do a lot of things.

Let us take it one step further: We are in real life and you decide to go easy on Ronaldinho the first time he takes the jet to Rio. You take him into your office and you explain to him that you have seen a few people deciding to live the good life, who quickly went down.

The problems that we face now are: What is your perceived calibre? How does Ronaldinho see you? Are you friends? What common experiences you have? And a lot others.


Let us take it yet one more step further:


I have to catch a train so I will continue later.

PLEASE, if you want to disagree or you think I am ignorant or a lunatic or whatever PLEASE DO NOT POST. Your silence will serve as a confirmation that I am a thug. PLEASE MODERATORS PROTECT THIS THREAD. IT IS GOING SOMEWHERE INTERESTING.

If I want to disagree I can't post?? Are we under a tak lead dictatorship? Please, intelligent discussion should be encouraged to broaden all our horizons and attitudes.
To be honest a lot of intelligent discussion was had while you were on the train, maybe you should think about not posting.


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.

What he said, basically.

As for putting you on ignore, no chance sunshine, you can put me on your ignore list if you like but there is no way that your lunacy should be allowed to run unchecked.

As pointed out by many you have some interesting ideas but fail to elaborate on any and are then rude to anyone who disagrees with you.

Blaupunkt
08-01-2010, 19:51
This is the situation with this talented boy so far. You were informed that he took the plane to Brazil where he had a wonderful time, he then played poorly and in two months he did it again. Immediately you know what is wrong, however in FM it might take you two years of trial and error. Furthermore once you discovered his professionalism in FM is low, some people mentioned fines and tell the press etc. which are not what a real manager would do at this stage, so they do not reflect reality.

During your first meeting there are many factors that play certain roles. Your reputation in FM does not reflect how the player sees you or what your calibre is (especially your powers and weaknesses in one to one meetings). Also, if you are his favourite personel does not mean you are friends on a personal level. Etc.

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.

These are the initial stages as I say. You had a meeting and explained to him that his behaviour can hurt him professionaly. Do you add something? This is tricky because you need know (and I am only mentioning very few things, there are a lot more) if he is generaly unhappy with football and does not care, if he is preparing a career change, if he is in love with a Brazilian model, if he is addicted to cocaine, if his manager has prepared a secret agreement with another team etc. Also, what stage of the campaign are you at? Can you afford to lose him? Also, does Adidas force you to play him? Is there a same clause in his contract? These are things I came up with in ten seconds. Imagine how many there actually are.

His manager meets later that day with the parents (but not him) and tells them that Gillete will pull out if he doesn't conquer the Champions league this year. His mother, who is a devout Christian, is doubly shocked and gives him a good bollocking. Rony is afarid of his mother but doesn't give an F about you. He decides to get serious. Unfortunately, Nike wants Kaka to conquer it, and they contact the Brazilian model to make sure he stays a party animal.

Back in you, the manager. Do you tell Ronaldinho that if he continues he will be dropped? Let us say you don't. Gabriel Rodriguez (a regen I got recently), who plays for your team and will compete with Argentina against Ronaldinho later in the year, is not particularly happy. He can't do much though because he is also an Adidas face and their cooperation in the field is the theme of a clip Adidas prepares for worldwide advertising. So Gabriel thinks you are a chicken but for the moment he has to play with Ronaldinho and create some magical moments. Matter of fact, he has to do all the work because Rony is tired from drinking. Gabriel excells in training, as per your assistant's report. You say "well done, Gabriel", he is thinking "yeah, right, after this year I am saying good bye"

As you design detailed tactical plans and some really innovative formations, the model rings Rony and tells him that the greatest party in history is next weekend and that if he attents, a special surprise awaits him that involves two of her colleagues. The Champions League final is in Wednesday but he goes. You, a very knowledgable manager when it comes to inverting the Pyramid decide that he will not play in the Final and to hell with him.

Too bad your boss tells you to shove your decision up yours and go draw some tactics on the drawing board. You decide to take revenge and play Ronaldinho as left hand, semi-attacking, one and a half notches creative Trequartista, a position he hates from school and is notoriously bad at.

At the morning after the party, Ronaldinho has behaved especially badly, and as he sits at the beach, hangover, he remembers his mother, feels guilty and cries. In a while he swears he will change.

When he comes back, you the invertor of pyramids, in front of the whole team, give a brilliant speech about professionalism and a, rather cautious, bollocking to Ronaldinho. You say that if he doesn't perform well in the Final you will make sure he is finished as a fooballer. (Secretely, you hope he doesn't and you know he will be playing his worse position anyway)

The day before the Final you announce the positions and player roles. You look at Ronaldinho who doesn't notice a word you say but looks serene and happy, with an inner glow. Gabriel meets Rony afterwards for a pint and explain to him that they have a chance to make some nice stuff for the Adidas add and devise a plan of action.

The great day comes and to make a long game short, Rony and Gabriel triumph.

The media immediately write how you a) motivated Rony and saved him from alcoholism and b) how you re-introduced him into an old position he always loved from school.

You become a legend.

are you seriously suggesting thing this type of thing should be added to a football management game ? i dont want to play "scenario manager 20xx", when you get x amount of players with these "scenario's" popping up X number of times a season. the example you use is also quite poor as you could not add in REAL LIFE PLAYERS who suddenly be come cocaine addicts, alcoholics, etc the legal implications SI would get into for suggesting player X takes cocaine for example when he has no history of doing this would mean they get sued.

yes i can totally agree that some aspects of FM need to be expanded and improved up on, but adding things like you have put here would become tedious and and tiresome very quickly IMHO.

tak
08-01-2010, 20:11
are you seriously suggesting thing this type of thing should be added to a football management game ? i dont want to play "scenario manager 20xx", when you get x amount of players with these "scenario's" popping up X number of times a season. the example you use is also quite poor as you could not add in REAL LIFE PLAYERS who suddenly be come cocaine addicts, alcoholics, etc the legal implications SI would get into for suggesting player X takes cocaine for example when he has no history of doing this would mean they get sued.

yes i can totally agree that some aspects of FM need to be expanded and improved up on, but adding things like you have put here would become tedious and and tiresome very quickly IMHO.

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.