Playing against 10 men

Quick question - surely if you're playing against 10 men they should tire more then your side ?

Depends. If they're not doing a lot of runnning, and making the ball do the work, then they could just rally together and get the extra motivation because of their man being sent off.

It depends on what style of football they play.

High attacking, high tempo, loads of closing down.

And they scored twice - as did I.

Then, if they weren't as tired as your team after the match, I suspect you were more tired than them to begin with.

They played 78 minutes with 10 men.

it's only a matter of time before someone's posts....."it's your tactics....."

it's only a matter of time before someone's posts....."it's your tactics....."

Damn, you beat me to it.

They played 78 minutes with 10 men.

Then I'd say their team had players with better natural fitness, stamina, stength, etc, etc.

I'm surprised no-one has.

I don't think I've ever beaten 10 men on FM10. When the opposition gets a man sent off, I know I'm not going to win. It makes them play better or something

I did actually win 4-3 in the end - but they played like gods.

They normally adapt their style so similarly i think its sensible to assume tht you wil have to make adjustments.

It was more the fact that BSP players were killing 3-50 yard passes stone dead, not bad as most of them had an awful first touch.

I usually go on winning matches where I'm a man down.

It was more the fact that BSP players were killing 3-50 yard passes stone dead, not bad as most of them had an awful first touch.

But the players will only be playing against those of similar ability - put any professional /semi professional into a space with limited pressure and they are easily going to take down a long ball, regardless of their "first touch" ability.

Put them in league of higher standard,where the defences are going to be better, then they will struggle as they wont have the same time on the ball.

In summation, its all comparative.

I tend to do quite well when down to 10 men too, perhaps it needs looking at.

I tend to do quite well when down to 10 men too, perhaps it needs looking at.

No no no! I like it I'm more often one man down than one man up

Usually when a team goes down to 10 men they try to work harder to make up for losing a man.

Therefore they should tire faster.

Therefore they should tire faster.

Copying what I said above:

I'd say their team had players with better natural fitness, stamina, stength, etc, etc.

Just checked - on stamina, strength and natural fitness we were even.

I give up...

Why the reply - as I've said I checked back on the fixture, man for man we were equal on the attributes mentioned and we started at the same level of fitness.

All logic states that they should tire faster the 11 men.

I know... I've tried to come up with ways explaining it, and you've disproved them. It was a reply in jest.

May I fall back on the best argument for occasions when something in the ME cannot be explained, and scream "BUG"?

That made me laugh - I think that the 10 v 11 is slightly skewed as I find that down to 10 men I do quite well.

Well... as has been said above, a team having a man sent off can make them pull together and go harder for the win.

Translated, they can get a motivation boost. And we all know motivation is one of the most important things in the ME.

haha well your hal of shame is proberly why mate! 101 goals scored and STILL got relegated? i can score less and win the league! al jokes aside this drives me insane they seem to hit me on 6-7 attacks before my 11 men actually create a chance and more often than not its a draw after the red card as in wed score 1 theyd score 1 and 2.0 has done its job

The shout-outs are very useful playing against ten men. My most common general shout-out is to "work ball into the box" because my player all have good passing. But against 10 men, this tends to stop working because a) they are moving less, so just putting up a barrier, b) defending deeper, and c) closing the ball down more. So changing my shout-outs to "pass ball into space" and "hassle" opponants seems to work more often than it fails.

No need to increase your attacking or closing down. More attacking means they just keep that defence as solid as possible, and more closing down means nothing since they rarely attack anyway (if anything you should close down more when you are DOWN to 10 men).

Just think about how you would defend and what tactics you would hate to face. In other words, drag you men all over the place, keep the ball, be patient, use that extra man. I often use a target man to hold up the ball too, since that gives your players a chance to overwhelm the opposition.

It's hard, but it's hard in real life too.

The shout-outs are very useful playing against ten men. My most common general shout-out is to "work ball into the box" because my player all have good passing. But against 10 men, this tends to stop working because a) they are moving less, so just putting up a barrier, b) defending deeper, and c) closing the ball down more. So changing my shout-outs to "pass ball into space" and "hassle" opponants seems to work more often than it fails.

No need to increase your attacking or closing down. More attacking means they just keep that defence as solid as possible, and more closing down means nothing since they rarely attack anyway (if anything you should close down more when you are DOWN to 10 men).

Just think about how you would defend and what tactics you would hate to face. In other words, drag you men all over the place, keep the ball, be patient, use that extra man. I often use a target man to hold up the ball too, since that gives your players a chance to overwhelm the opposition.

It's hard, but it's hard in real life too.

Forgive me if I'm talking rubbish, but doesn't 'hassle opponents' mean 'close down more'. :confused:

Did they sit all ten man back and try and soak up the pressure? If they did, I would imagine they did less running and so tired less? Maybe?

Oh. Maybe. I thought it meant "stick with them, get into them" as in "if their winger has the ball, don't just wait for him to cross or give you an opening to tackle; lever him off the ball." in other words be more aggressive. I could be wrong, of course. But it looks different on the pitch. The closing down tactic seems to see my players get skinned more often than on "hassle".

I find high closing down and attacking against 10 men leaves you open to a counter attack.

Oh. Maybe. I thought it meant "stick with them, get into them" as in "if their winger has the ball, don't just wait for him to cross or give you an opening to tackle; lever him off the ball." in other words be more aggressive. I could be wrong, of course. But it looks different on the pitch. The closing down tactic seems to see my players get skinned more often than on "hassle".

I find high closing down and attacking against 10 men leaves you open to a counter attack.

YOu just described closing down an opponent

Huh. When it's written down like that you're probably correct.

Maybe I've been thinking about it all wrong. When I set my tactics to "close down often" I think of it as "close down AND put in a tackle". , whereas "hassle opponents" is more about using strength to win the ball.

Is there a definitive answer in the manual? I've not downloaded it.

Hassling isjust another way of closing down. There's probably a little difference in real life, but it seem that for the Match Engine it's the same. It's giving opponents little time on the ball, make sure they can't go forward, can't pick out that good pass or get a cross in. It'll probably come with more tackling as well.