Opposition Scout Reports

There has been an interesting discussion on the tactics forum about starting strategies and how to look for clues about how the opposition are playing. To see this thread click here. During this discussion, it emerged that nobody really seems to have an understanding of the nature of scout reports and the way that they are supposed to work.

I realise that this is a tactical point of discussion but I thought that it might be better served if it was discussed in the general forum, as it is not so much a question of tactics but instead of how a feature of the game works (and perhaps, indeed, how it should work).

So, to begin with, how useful does everyone find the opposition scout reports in their current format?

Personally, I find that there can be some useful clues in each scout report. Rightly or wrongly, I use the information from the scout report as an indication of how the opposition would usually approach the game. I believe that this is what it is supposed to be telling you when it says that they play a defensive or an attacking tactic, for instance. Naturally, I stand to be corrected but this is my interpretation. However, my experience is that the opposition can often approach a game differently to the way indicated in the scout report especially when they are at home. That's my experience anyway.

My observation on scout reports is that the better I am doing, the bigger the club I am managing, and so on, the more likely I am going to be told that the opposition are playing a 'defensive 4-4-2', for instance. The smaller my club, or if my form is dodgy, the more likely it seems that I will see an 'attacking 4-4-2' in the scout report, for example. So I have often taken match reports as being an indication of the general approach the opposition is likely to take against me.

The language used in the scout report is such to suggest that this is the normal approach of the club in question. It doesn't say, 'this is what they played in that particular game' but instead something like 'assistant manager xyz noticed that they play a defensive 4-4-2' etc. So that has led me to believe that this is meant to indicate what would be their normal approach to the game. However, others have suggested that the scout report merely indicates how the opposition team played in the particular fixture that has been watched by your scout. It seems a little ambiguous to me in its current format, to be honest.

So how useful do you find scout reports and what are your thoughts on the information presented?

What improvements would you like to see in terms of the way that opposition scout reports work and the information that they present?

Let me know your thoughts .

To be honest, I ignore them.

I see that I haven't managed to capture the imagination of GD with this thread.

Well, let me add a little to get the debate under way.

First of all, regarding the current format of scout reports. They strike me as being rather ambiguous at present.

The format is usually - 'scout xyz watched Team B's 2-1 win against Team A and noted that Team play a defensive 442 and look to draw....'?

To me, this suggests that the scout watched a match and is telling you how Team B normally play. It is present tense and suggests a state of being (i.e. that is what they normally play) rather than a past tense occurrence.

If the scout was just describing what happened in one match, the sentence would have to be past tense.

E.g. 'scout xyz watched Team B's 2-1 win against Team A and noted that Team played a defensive 442 and looked to draw....'?

I would add to this that often, when I look at the match the scout watched, it makes no logical sense for the team in question to have played, for instance, a defensive 4-4-2. For example, my last scout report watched a game between Eastleigh (a team who are gunning for promotion in my game) and Gloucester City (a team who are at the bottom of the league and are struggling against relegation). Eastleigh were at home. You would expect Eastleigh to have played an attacking game and yet my scout report suggested that 'Eastleigh play a defensive 4-4-2....'

I watched the game in question and Eastleigh didn't look like they were playing particularly defensively. They weren't wasting time, they were playing at a decent tempo with quite a few forward passes, they were keeping the ball well with defenders looking for possession-based passes, their fullbacks were supporting and their defensive line was pushing up and pressing into the opposition half. Therefore, I cannot personally believe that the scout report is just reporting on one match.

Another thing I would add as a possibility for discussion is that it seems that the level of 'tactical knowledge' makes no difference to the detail or the accuracy of the scout reports. I tried an experiment with two scouts with very different levels of tactical understanding reporting on the next opposition. The reports have been absolutely identical so far, so it seems that this idea is a myth.

Also, I would add to this that I should like scout reports to be more varied and less generic in an ideal world. I'd really like to see improvements with the ambiguity currently present removed.

So perhaps these points might get us started off.

I thought that I would update here with my latest experiment findings.

I undertook an experiment in which I decided to manage two teams who were to play each other in their next but one match, therefore giving me the chance to manage each of them for one game and then compare reports. The two teams I decided to take over were Liverpool and Wolves.

For both of their games prior to their meeting, I played an attacking 4-4-2 formation. I also selected short passing for both sides. (Liverpool's match was away to Everton, by the way, where I oversaw an amazing 5-4 win at Goodison Park!)

When it came to the next match, that is the Liverpool v Wolves match, an easy win was predicted for Liverpool.

I awaited the scout reports for the next opposition and found the following.

With me still as both managers:

Liverpool's report suggested that Wolves were playing a high tempo, attacking 4-4-2. The other comments were general again (they like to mix it up a bit). The report for Wolves report was exactly the same.

With me as just Liverpool manager (having sacked off the Wolves manager):

Wolves are likely to field a 4-4-2 formation. No other info.

I didn't test with me as Wolves manager because I figured that the same would happen. The game obviously sends a neutral report when the manager leaves.

Anyway, so I decided to repeat the experiment but with different inputs in the match prior to the meeting of the two sides. This time I played a defensive 4-4-2 formation. I also selected direct passing for both sides.

When it came to the next match, that is the Liverpool v Wolves match, an easy win was predicted for Liverpool again.

I awaited the scout reports for the next opposition and found the following. The results were more interesting this time.

With me still as both managers:

Liverpool's report suggested that Wolves were playing a defensive 4-4-2. The other comments were general again (they like to mix it up a bit).

The report for Wolves, however, suggested that Liverpool were just playing a 4-4-2 and made no mention of whether it was defensive, attacking or otherwise.

I'll leave you guys to form your own conclusions, and I'd be interested to hear them, but it immediately strikes me that 1) Clearly I was wrong with my assertion that scout reports do not just offer an analysis of one game only; and 2) Scout reports don''t particularly appear to be very reliable or useful anyway.

Any thoughts on this?

It does beg the question as to why 90% of teams appear to play a 'defensive' tactic according to most of my scout reports!

Looks like you are talking to yourself on this one!!!

I do find that nearly all of my scout reports report back the same standard findings. I now dont even take any notice of them anymore. I have often looked at the last couple of matches that my opposition have played and the report never reflects what happened. Needs a lot of improvement for the next version of the game.

It does seem that way TPH. Thanks for putting me out of my misery!

I agree that there needs to be a lot of improvement. I'd really like to know what the current reports are supposed to achieve though and why so many of the reports come back exactly the same. :confused:

It is kind of like the prefered formation on the manager profile stats, very limited and not accurate (I haven't checked on the this years game, but was a problem on previous versions).

Have you noticed that sometimes a scout will say "although Liverpool played 4-4-2 against Everton, they normally play a 4-2-3-1" or words to that effect?

That implies to me that it will be based on both the match, and the actual attributes of the manager, at least.

For a human manager, all attributes are set to 10 (which, as I'm sure you'll know through your research capacity, Crouchy, is usually "neutral" for managers), so there's no manager attributes to go on, nor will there be a preferred formation after such a short time.

I do think this is an area where more detail would be greatly appreciated. I often think that some of the stuff I'm told is pretty useless, like the alleged aerial threat posed by a striker with 9 heading and 13 jumping, for example.

Im managing at Macclesfield Town and lets say that the pre match advice is pretty pointless. For example, heres what ive been given for my up coming game against Grimsby Town....

1. Gary Simpson has noticed that Grimsby Town struggle to play against teams who play a 4-4-2 formation.

2. Gary Simpson has noticed that Grimsby Town score most of their goals between the 46th and 60th minute of a game.

3. Gary Simpson's analysis (check him out!!) has shown Grimsby Town concede most of their goals between the 76th and 90th minute of a game

4. Gary Simpson has noticed that Grimsby Town have a tendency to struggle against teams with a reputation similar to ours.

Now my point is what on earth can do i do with advice 2,3,4? Does it mean go all out attack only during minutes 76-90 and defend 46-60? Point 4 i cant even think of anything i can do with that and finally point 1. Do i just ditch everything i train my team for because this one team cant play against 4-4-2. What if they played and beat a 4-4-2 formation team next week?

So i agree with the scout reports, some stuff is just a bit pointless i think

Blurg its complecated

I was hoping that scouting the opposition before a match would give a better indication of recommended Opposition Instructions given by both the Assistant Manager and Backroom Staff - I haven't checked to see whether this has any influence at all, but I presume that it doesn't.

I do agree that the majority of information displayed I ignore, mainly due to the fact that teams will change their own tactics when playing against your team, whether they they think they are stronger or weaker than you. I mainly just look for any individual players that are singled out, as well as looking at the injured players list to see if I can adjust my own tactics in light of that information.

As for the 'score most of their goals' and 'concede most of their goals' - I tend to use this as an indication of when to change from more attacking play to more defensive one, or vice versa - again, I haven't a clue if it actually has any impact at all on the outcome!

I guess it's difficult to say how a team will perform on any given day, regardless of their previous form / tactics etc. I have usually been of the mindset that FM gives you all the information you need, you just have to know how/where to find it, and how to implement it to get the best for your team, but again, I don't know how much influence the Scouting reports are when it comes to opposition..

Have you noticed that sometimes a scout will say "although Liverpool played 4-4-2 against Everton, they normally play a 4-2-3-1" or words to that effect?

That implies to me that it will be based on both the match, and the actual attributes of the manager, at least.

For a human manager, all attributes are set to 10 (which, as I'm sure you'll know through your research capacity, Crouchy, is usually "neutral" for managers), so there's no manager attributes to go on, nor will there be a preferred formation after such a short time.

That's true actually SCIAG. I didn't think of that.

It's a shame that I can't get FMRTE to work (I downloaded it earlier but it crashes when I go to 'load save') otherwise I could experiment with manager attributes and see how they influence the reports.

The next opposition report seems to be rather crap. It always seems to be the same thing. Plays a defensive formation, like to get the ball down and play it etc. I also did the test with two different scouts, the only difference between their report was who they fought the main threat was.

The same with the backround info for the next match. Rather useless and "gamey" information on so detached things it's no point taking it all in. Whats the point of knowing that my team has better dribblers on the ball, better first touch then the other team?

I'm sure if you take all the information in you might come to some knowledge that is going to help you in the next match. But i just feels so "gamey".

Perhaps i should be a little contructive with my post and give my view on what i want my backround team to inform me on.

Personally i think they should scrap the referee and scouting report and just go with an invitation to a backround meeting.

overview

When i enter the meeting i want to see a summation like the old scouting report.

Give me info on the formation that the opposition has used most this season. How is their form for the last month or so. How have they fared against teams who are in a similar league position to my own and/or similar reputation to my own. How they have scored recently as well as how they have conceded recently. Tell me of what type of goal they have scored/conceded the most.

Next up the pitch. Give me info on the size (also type out the dimensions) and the condition of the grass as well as the for-casted weather.

Danger men. Tell me who the most dangerous players on the other team are. Highlight 2-3 players who are likely to pose the biggest threat. Could be a player on good form, a fantastic player with bags of skill. Take into consideration both form and current ability.

Give me some info on the upcoming ref. does he tend to dish out cards or is he more flexible in his approach.

List unavailable, injured players.

When i have read the overview there should be buttons, tabs etc. to give me more in depth information of what i want to see.

Formation - Average position. I want a screen where i can see the average position of my opponent in their last match. Take a look the zonalmarking website for examples of how i want it to be viewed.

I should be able to quickly bring up their average position for their last 5 matches and quickly flick through them, to get a good understanding on how offensive or defensive the team is likely to be. This will also tell me the likely duty the players have had for the matches.

As with the zonalmarking website i also want to be able to overlay my own teams average position to see how we are likely to line up. Useful to see what players on both teams who are likely to be in allot of space and that i would have to deal with through opposition instructions or exploit if it's my own players who are likely to be in allot of space.

Team form. A screen were i can see the combined, home and away form of both my team and the opposition. Useful if a team might appear to have a bad or good run of form and i want to take a closer look at what type of opposition they have played against.

Also results versus teams with similar reputation as my own. Useful to see if the opposition seems to be stealing allot of points by drawing against similar teams. Or if they tend to win, loose etc.

Goals for and against. I want to know what i I'm likely to be coming up against here. How have they scored in their last 5 matches and overall for the hole season.

Give me a breakdown on how they have scored. Show it by percentage and display it as bars. Are most of their goals set pieces, corners, free kicks, Do they score mostly from wide crosses or do they tend to score on the counter.

The same with goals against. break it down by type for the last 5 matches and i should also be able to see the season totals.

This would be very useful for when choosing my lineup for the next match. Do i need to play with airily dominant defenders and a goalkeeper that likes to come out to claim crosses to be able to cope with the opposition? The same at the other end could i take advantage by playing my quick little striker considering most of the goal they have let in comes from counter attacking moves.

The pitch. Give me tips on what i am playing on. Is the pitch narrow? would it suit a certain style of play?

Condition wise, if the pitch is in bad shape give me some tips on how to best combat it.

Weather. If the weather is going to have some impact on the match tell me it's likely effects and perhaps some tips on how i might turn it into my favor.

Danger men - Goals, assists and individual form. Being able to see a top 3 of who on the other team that has scored the most, assisted the most and having the best form in the last 5 matches and overall over the season.

Good to see if a certain striker is in good form. It will also alert me to who on the other team that will pose a big threat with his play making skill making decisive passes. Is a certain player having excellent form? Perhaps i shouldn't give my starter a rest because my backup is most likely going to be completely destroyed.

Referee. Show the stats for the referee.

Good post shakeable. Some good ideas there.

Have you noticed that sometimes a scout will say "although Liverpool played 4-4-2 against Everton, they normally play a 4-2-3-1" or words to that effect?

That implies to me that it will be based on both the match, and the actual attributes of the manager, at least.

For a human manager, all attributes are set to 10 (which, as I'm sure you'll know through your research capacity, Crouchy, is usually "neutral" for managers), so there's no manager attributes to go on, nor will there be a preferred formation after such a short time.

Having finally got FMRTE working, I can reveal that human managers don't appear to have any attributes relating to tactical choices, so there is nothing for me to manipulate for testing purposes.

I decided to test SCIAG's theory that manager attributes might have something to do with the information presented in a scout report. I looked at 10 games to see the feedback I received on various opponents. This is continued on the Liverpool test save game.

Manchester City

- Attacking, high tempo 4-4-2.

- The scouted game was versus Fulham who are currently bottom of the league.

- Mancini's playing mentality is adventurous.

- Mancini has high tactical attributes.

Chelsea

- Neutral 4-1-3-2

- The scouted game was away to Aston Villa.

- Ancelotti's playing mentality is balanced.

- Ancelotti has excellent tactical knowledge.

Stoke City

- Defensive 4-4-2

- The scouted game was at home to Bolton.

- Tony Pulis has a playing style of very cautious.

- His tactical knowledge is 10.

Hull City

- Defensive 4-4-2

- The scouted game was away to Villa.

- Dave Jones playing mentality is very cautious.

- His tactical knowledge is 9.

Burnley

- Neutral 4-4-2.

- The scouted game was away to Man City.

- Brian Laws has a cautious playing mentality.

- His tactical knowledge is 12.

Anyone else see a pattern emerging?

Bar the last one (and you could possibly make an argument for a cautious playing style resulting in a neutral tactic) each scout report indicates the manager's playing mentality.

Looking at the attributes on FMRTE now, I was curious to see which tactical attributes affected each manager's playing style.

I was looking mainly at the attacking tactical attribute (hidden) which gives a value to how attacking that manager likes to be.

Mancini - Adventurous playing mentality. Attacking 14.

Ancelotti - Balanced playing mentality. Attacking 8.

Pulis - Very cautious. Attacking 7.

Jones - Very cautious. Attacking 13.

Laws - Neutral. Attacking 14. He appears to be the one anomaly so far. However, his coaching style is defensive, so perhaps that explains it?

Looking at some more attributes:

Mancini - Adventurous playing mentality.

Attacking (how attacking he likes to be) 14

Depth (how deep he likes to play) 8

Flamboyancy (how much creative freedom) 14

Width (how wide he likes to play) 15

Ancelotti - Balanced playing mentality.

Attacking (how attacking he likes to be) 8

Depth (how deep he likes to play) 10

Flamboyancy (how much creative freedom) 9

Width (how wide he likes to play) 13

Pulis - Very cautious.

Attacking (how attacking he likes to be) 7

Depth (how deep he likes to play) 9

Flamboyancy (how much creative freedom) 4

Width (how wide he likes to play) 8

Jones - Very cautious.

Attacking (how attacking he likes to be) 13

Depth (how deep he likes to play) 10

Flamboyancy (how much creative freedom) 9

Width (how wide he likes to play) 13

Laws - Neutral.

Attacking (how attacking he likes to be) 14

Depth (how deep he likes to play) 8

Flamboyancy (how much creative freedom) 10

Width (how wide he likes to play) 16

Wigan

- Defensive 4-2-3-1.

- The scouted game was versus Ipswich in the FA Cup.

- Martinez is cautious.

Spurs

- Defensive 4-4-2.

- The scouted game was away to Villa.

- Redknapp has a balanced playing mentality.

QPR

- 4-4-2 - no indication.

- No scouted game.

- Mick Harford is very cautious.

Bolton

- Defensive 4-4-2.

- Home to Stockport.

- Owen Coyle is balanced.

Sunderland

- Defensive 4-4-2.

- Home to Aston Villa.

- Steve Bruce is balanced.

Crouchy, you are on a mission. I have nothing else to add, just wanted to show my moral support! I'll be checking back to see if you get to the bottom of this mystery!

So 5 out of 10 scout reports match with the manager playing mentality, which actually doesn't seem to prove anything.

Brian Laws had nothing assigned to his formation. His playing mentality is cautious. He was playing Manchester City away, so you would surely think a defensive system was probably in order.

Harry Redknapp was defensive in the game away to Villa, which makes a great deal of sense. It's likely that he would switch from his usual balanced mentality to a defensive system against Villa, so I have no real issue with this.

Mick Harford had nothing assigned to his formation but there was no scouted game for him, so this could possibly be disregarded.

Owen Coyle was defensive at home to Stockport in the cup, which makes no real sense to me at all. His playing mentality is balanced, so I'm not sure how the game has ended up indicating that his team is going to play defensively. This one is the real mystery. Could it be something to do with the fact that they had to go to a defensive system to kill the match in the scouted game?

Steve Bruce was defensive at home to Villa, which I guess isn't entirely beyond the realms of possibility. He also had to go defensive to see out the scouted game.

Crouchy, you are on a mission. I have nothing else to add, just wanted to show my moral support! I'll be checking back to see if you get to the bottom of this mystery!

I am on a mission!

My hypothesis at the moment is that each manager has a preferred playing mentality, which he will use unless the game scenario (either from the very beginning or during the game) changes. For example, if he is a clear favourite he may change his tactic to an attacking one, and if he is a clear underdog, he may go more defensive. But his 'usual style' is linked to the playing mentality indicated in his profile. This may be utter rubbish but I am determined to find out if that is the case!

It is worth noting that in all of the three cases where a defensive approach was indicated for a 'balanced' mentality manager, the end of the game was a tight affair in which a defensive tactic would likely have been employed to see out the game.

In nearly every other case, the playing mentality matched the scout report.

So I decided to watch some of the games where the scout report didn't match with the manager playing mentality.

Brian Laws had nothing assigned to his formation. His playing mentality is cautious. He was playing Manchester City away, so you would surely think a defensive system was probably in order.

I can no longer view this game.

Harry Redknapp was defensive in the game away to Villa, which makes a great deal of sense. It's likely that he would switch from his usual balanced mentality to a defensive system against Villa, so I have no real issue with this.

I can see Tottenham at the beginning of this game playing quite defensively. Their shape was very narrow and they weren't closing down high up the pitch, with the defenders sitting quite deep.

Owen Coyle was defensive at home to Stockport in the cup, which makes no real sense to me at all. His playing mentality is balanced, so I'm not sure how the game has ended up indicating that his team is going to play defensively.

Much to my surprise, Stockport were playing quick tempo, attacking football in this match from the start. Forward passes, fullbacks getting forward, defensive line pushing up.

Bolton looked like they were playing defensively to me. They weren't very adventurous with their passing, their tempo was slow, their fullbacks were mostly staying back and passes were long from the back rather than possession based.

Steve Bruce was defensive at home to Villa, which I guess isn't entirely beyond the realms of possibility. He also had to go defensive to see out the scouted game.

Watched the match and Steve Bruce's Sunderland did look to be playing a defensive system. Sitting fairly deep, not pressing high up, defenders looking to play it long from the back and break quickly.

So, right now, I'm out of ideas. Mission over?

I'd really love it if someone from SI would come in here and tell me how it works.

*Calls out for PaulC *

Thanks for reading anyway folks.

So, right now, I'm out of ideas. Mission over?

I'd really love it if someone from SI would come in here and tell me how it works.

*Calls out for PaulC *

Thanks for reading anyway folks.

They should come and pay their respects

Good work, its a shame its still all a mystery.

Thanks for your support Edgar55.

I decided to try changing some values in FMRTE for each manager.

So far, I've been able to change just about everything in their profile apart from their 'playing mentality'. I can only assume that this value has the potential to change over time, much like the value does for the human player.

I made Martin O'Neill into the most attack-minded manager in the world, yet his playing mentality remained at 'balanced' and when it came to the scout report it still reported that Villa were playing a defensive 4-4-2. :confused:

It seems that my instinct is kind of correct on that.

I started a new game and edited Arsene Wenger to be the most defensive manager in the game and O'Neill the most attacking. This time, their playing mentalities changed immediately.

Now to see if it changes the scout reports I receive from these teams over time.

This might actually be worth moving to the Challenges, Sign-ups and Experiments forum now, as I have gone well beyond the scope of the opening post.

Anyway, after setting O'Neill to be the most attacking manager in the world, and seeing that his playing mentality changed to 'attacking', I decided to holiday for six months. When the holiday came to a stop, the playing mentality for Martin O'Neill had changed to 'very cautious' while the hidden attributes remained the same.

The question is, how and why this label changes, because it has nothing to do with his hidden attributes. Villa have kept a number of clean sheets and their defensive record in the league is equal with Arsenal's.

Arsene Wenger is still 'very cautious' according to his playing mentality.

I took over as the team who were next due to play Villa to see their scout report. Sure enough, 'a defensive 4-4-2'.

None the wiser.

If anyone can think of any other ways of testing/experimenting with this, then please speak up!

I only tend to look at information regarding to opponents defensive line depth, suggestions for my own, or about key players. Otherwise, I go with my own instincts.