Realism - Are We Kidding Ourselves?

This is a question I have asked myself a number of occasions. Do we actually want realism. Just looking at some of the major areas.

• Training
  
• Tactics
  

Training

With this aspect of the game we should be able to achieve player improvement through specific training techniques. For instance, I've seen Ashley Young at Bodymoor Heath training ground be put through his paces in the dribbling cones to hone/keep sharp that part of his game whilst others are performing other tasks such as fitness routines and set pieces.

Can we achieve this in FM? We can create a new schedule based on ball control for instance and assign said player to it. What tends to happen then is that enough time is not spent on some of the other basics such as tactics and set pieces for instance. Does this happen in real life? What about players putting in more training time for specifics? This can't happen in FM - would we want it?

Tactics

I personally was an advocate of the wibble/wobble system of the earlier FM/CM incarnations. I loved being able to effectively tell my players how to react. Granted this isn't necessarily realistic, but relying on a set of sliders to tell players how to react based such as "I want you to be 80% creative son!" and "Please can you press 60% of the pitch".

Now this thread wasn't here to bash the game - far from it. I posted this out of frustration in attempting to create a team of players capable of winning the Bundesliga with my career at Bochum.

Tactics

I personally was an advocate of the wibble/wobble system of the earlier FM/CM incarnations. I loved being able to effectively tell my players how to react. Granted this isn't necessarily realistic, but relying on a set of sliders to tell players how to react based such as "I want you to be 80% creative son!" and "Please can you press 60% of the pitch".

If you are referring to the with/without ball system I agree with you! Id love to see an improved updated version of that re-introduced to FM. It is by far the most realistic system if it's implemented correctly.

I think the game has been moving to address both of these issues, although neither is going to be an easy one to crack.

It has been announced that FM2011 will feature '14 different individual skill areas that you can focus your players on', which I think is a great ddition that will hopefully allow us to train players in the way you suggest.

As for the tactics, FM2010 introduced the tactic creator will allows us to create a sensible tactic using footballing phrases rather than sliders. It certainly doesn't give us total control of our players on the pitch but it does introduce a more 'common sense' approach to designing tactics.

daf....yes I agree it goes some way to making a change. What I find often however is the people who have the most successful careers either human or AI are the ones who have random and incredibly strange tactical approaches such as 3-2-4-1. I know 4-4-2 is an outdated formation that lends itself to a slower tempo in reality, but I'm not sure the AI should be able to crack the tactic using beyond base rules. I know it's a game, but if we want to maintain the element of simulation I think we need to take a more rounded approach to the football tactical approach.

However as you said, it has made strides. The ability to say to a player to close down a particular player more and play him on his weaker foot is a major leap forward in this design. I suppose I'm after the same as SI - a more simplistic approach to training and tactics which yield closer to real world scenarios. Easier said than done eh?

Agreed; the opposition instructions do go some way to dictating what is done off the ball.

Perhaps this will be improved upon soon, as a footballer will spend roughly only 2(ish) minutes in actual possession of the football out of the 60(ish) minutes the ball is in-play.

If you are referring to the with/without ball system I agree with you! Id love to see an improved updated version of that re-introduced to FM. It is by far the most realistic system if it's implemented correctly.

I disagree strongly with that.

daf....yes I agree it goes some way to making a change. What I find often however is the people who have the most successful careers either human or AI are the ones who have random and incredibly strange tactical approaches such as 3-2-4-1. I know 4-4-2 is an outdated formation that lends itself to a slower tempo in reality,

Where did you get that from? :confused:

but I'm not sure the AI should be able to crack the tactic using beyond base rules.

What you're saying isn't at all true. First of all, the AI doesn't crack tactics. Secondly, 4-4-2 is actually an extremely strong formation on FM10 (perhaps too strong?) Finally, I've used normal, orthodox formations throughout my careers and not had any problems.

The ability to say to a player to close down a particular player more and play him on his weaker foot is a major leap forward in this design. I

That has been in there since at least FM07 and possibly earlier than that (but my memory isn't very good on this one).

suppose I'm after the same as SI - a more simplistic approach to training and tactics which yield closer to real world scenarios. Easier said than done eh?

Isn't that what the tactics creator has basically given us, as Dafuge said. :confused:

I disagree strongly with that.

Why? Being able to show a player on a tactics board what area of the pitch you would like him to be during certain plays, particularly when defending, seems quite realistic to me. Say you play a team that uses a different formation to you, man to man may not be suitable in all areas of the pitch, so getting players into 'zones' could be very important.

Im not saying it should be the sole tactical instrument, but would be a nice supplement. Obviously though it was not deemed succesful as it was removed from the game, but if it could be reintroduced with improvements then id give it my vote

The 'with ball, without ball' screens were really unrealistic in my opinion. Picking exactly where you want your player to stand at certain points of the game doesn't seem remotely realistic to me - not in the 'wibble, wobble' way anyway. It led to lots of exploits and cheat tactics at the time, where users were asking their players to cover unrealistic ground and things like that. I've no idea how it would work in the 2D/3D engine we have now. I think it would look pretty awful to be honest. It's a no go, really, I would have thought.

I don't want to go backwards towards something like that. How well a player positions himself should be a matter involving his mental attributes and not based on robotic instructions like wibble/wobble offered.

The only thing that I personally would support in this sort of direction is the return of the arrows, although probably just the smaller ones, to give some instruction regarding off the ball and on the ball movement.

AI does not crack tactics there are lots of examples of people have huge success that keep the same tactic for season after season. If you can set up a formation right then any reasonable formation can bring success not just the strange ones you talk about. The trouble with FM10 is that narrow tactics seem to get better results than tactics involving wingers.

The with/without ball diagrams just show an idealistic representation of where players would be/go.

No one says they will follow the lines just you want them to be it that sort of area. Depending on the skills of the player they might do the opposite any way

That's all true AB.

Tactics

relying on a set of sliders to tell players how to react based such as "I want you to be 80% creative son!" and "Please can you press 60% of the pitch".

You have never been telling them that at all. The sliders are divided into broad areas. For example, on "passing", you could choose "short", "mixed", "direct" or "long".

I don't want to go backwards towards something like that. How well a player positions himself should be a matter involving his mental attributes and not based on robotic instructions like wibble/wobble offered.

I agree with the deterministic/robotic aspect but what about

- defensive patterns of positioning and pressing based on where the opposition have possession

So in a 442 I might want to squeeze up and press on the strong side when the opposition full back has possession deep in his own half (for example when possession is lost in an attack or when they try to counter from the back quickly after a keeper makes a save or claims a cross). But when things are steady I might want that 442 to be much more defensive with the the front two dropping back deeper and leaving their CBs free (not completely unpressured but a greater focus for the front two on denying the holding midfielders the simple lay off from a CB) which would be the 'chalkboard' opposite to the high pressue scenario.

Wibble wobble lets me do that.

The slider system says I can have one or the other but I can't have both because it is apparently illogical for a team to be both 'attacking' and 'defensive' (according to the whole TC philosophy perspective of football) virtually simultaneously. It does not account for phases of play and different shapes based on context. You either play 'attacking' and press high up the pitch while the sliders are set like that or you play 'defensively' and drop off when the sliders are set like that.

Playing Millwall in 2020, and just won EPL one more time (5th in a row), 3 times a row CL, 80+ matches unbeaten record etc. I am having a world domination really. With 442

All you need to do is customize your player behaviors individually.

Right, apologies for my original post. I've read it back and it was the beginning of the day and I'd has a shocking night hence why it might not make much sense.

Let me put the record straight. I'm not saying FM is "bad" at dealing with Tactics and Training, just that I'd like to see improvements. Again, I'm not saying I have the answers to what those improvements should be either.

After thinking about what I was trying to say a little more I think I can safely say that as a starter for ten, I'd perhaps like each player in the database (again a huge job I know!) to have their own default "Player instructions". The default way that player acts when on the field in their favoured position. Examples of this are:

* David Bentley - Plays from in to out when played on the right. Doesn't press too much. Hugs the touchline on counter attacks. Cuts Inside. Zonal marks etc..

* Thierry Henry - Always moves into channels. Plays short passes. Rarely presses. Plays advanced often.

I know some of these can be set using the PPM as well as the play instructions but I'm hoping you see the subtlety that I'm after here. I'm after the players having their own characteristics that a team would look for when dealing with transfers. It's pointless getting a Theirry Henry (taking the above example) if your team plays an aggressive defensive formation.

I think AI managers could be geared towards certain types of players too. For instance, Martin O'Neill evidentally likes his Big Man-Little Man combos. At Villa he used Carew/Heskey and Gabby, at Celtic he used big men up front with a little guy running off, same as he did with Leicester (I want to say Hartson/Viduka and Miller.....and Heskey and Dichov at Leicester)

The point I'm making is that not all managers or players are adaptive beasts. Not only when it comes to tactics, but also when it comes to mindset.

Why? Being able to show a player on a tactics board what area of the pitch you would like him to be during certain plays, particularly when defending, seems quite realistic to me. Say you play a team that uses a different formation to you, man to man may not be suitable in all areas of the pitch, so getting players into 'zones' could be very important.

Im not saying it should be the sole tactical instrument, but would be a nice supplement. Obviously though it was not deemed succesful as it was removed from the game, but if it could be reintroduced with improvements then id give it my vote

I requested this some time ago ..........even being able to run training drills/mini games in 3d situation ...stopping play showing players where to run /pass to play crosses/corners to etc etc

what a refreshing well thought out o.p.

I don't want to go backwards towards something like that. How well a player positions himself should be a matter involving his mental attributes and not based on robotic instructions like wibble/wobble offered.

Players are not born with natural tactical instincts. They need to be coached tactically as much as technically. I coach an U9's team and I use a tactics board with the group and with each individual before a game showing them where I expect them to be on the pitch. It works great as kids understand visual instructions much better. Those with higher 'mental attributes' such as work rate etc are far better at getting back into position then the lazy lads! Mental attributes are very important of course, but without tactical instruction, players at any age/level would run around like headless chickens!

Why not have a system in FM where instead of just slotting players into a position on our formation screen and them automatically knowing what to do, we could give specific tactical instructions of where to position themselves? It gives the human manager more power and input with tactics. Then the mental attributes kick in and we can see which players are not working hard enough.

Why not have a system in FM where instead of just slotting players into a position on our formation screen and them automatically knowing what to do, we could give specific tactical instructions of where to position themselves? It gives the human manager more power and input with tactics. Then the mental attributes kick in and we can see which players are not working hard enough.

You don't tell players in real life to "stand there" and they refuse to move and just stand there, nor do you take players in detail through every conceivable position based on every conceivable permutation of play. The Mentality slider and the Positioning attribute abstract knowledge of where to position yourself and where you are asked to carry out this inherant positional ability relative to the rest of the team.

When it comes to defensive positioning of players in FM, it is an ongoing move-by-move calculation based on tactical instructions and attributes. You give a player a general position, you tweak this position via mentality, and the player then uses his Positioning attribute to define where he is as moves unfold. I see nothing wrong with how Positioning currently works, I do not see how defensive positioning could be improved with additional instructions although enhanced versions of what exists combined to superior ME logic would help. However giving the user direct responsibility over move-by-move positioning would be an utter disaster.

I don't see how it is broken so I don't see why a fix is necessary. This does not mean that ME logic itself is not weak, but the fundamental mechanics of defining a relative starting position and then the player himself positioning himself precisely according to his positioning attribute from this relative starting position just seems fine to me. Currently you can tell a player to play in the DM spot, then tell him to play a more defensive DM positioning game, and then his ability at positioning himself well according to the instructions to remain deep defines where he is actually positioned. Where is the problem?

You don't tell players in real life to "stand there" and they refuse to move and just stand there, nor do you take players in detail through every conceivable position based on every conceivable permutation of play. The Mentality slider and the Positioning attribute abstract knowledge of where to position yourself and where you are asked to carry out this inherant positional ability relative to the rest of the team.

When it comes to defensive positioning of players in FM, it is an ongoing move-by-move calculation based on tactical instructions and attributes. You give a player a general position, you tweak this position via mentality, and the player then uses his Positioning attribute to define where he is as moves unfold. I see nothing wrong with how Positioning currently works, I do not see how defensive positioning could be improved with additional instructions although enhanced versions of what exists combined to superior ME logic would help. However giving the user direct responsibility over move-by-move positioning would be an utter disaster.

I don't see how it is broken so I don't see why a fix is necessary. This does not mean that ME logic itself is not weak, but the fundamental mechanics of defining a relative starting position and then the player himself positioning himself precisely according to his positioning attribute from this relative starting position just seems fine to me. Currently you can tell a player to play in the DM spot, then tell him to play a more defensive DM positioning game, and then his ability at positioning himself well according to the instructions to remain deep defines where he is actually positioned. Where is the problem?

The problem is in exactly what you have said. I agree with your first few points. Managers don't tell players exactly what to do at every stage of a match.

My issue, and the answer to your "Where is the problem" question is this. How on earth do I know WHERE a player is being told to "stand" by using the sliders? Therefore I cannot accurately say that he will roam from that position in specific transitions from Def to Att and vice versa. Do you get where I am coming from? I'd like to know what 3-4 different status' of "Normal" in the guy's mentality settings relates to where he hangs his hat on the pitch. If you are going to introduce something, such as stats like positioning, that allow said player to wander off or stick rigidly to a spot, please tell me where said SPOT is in the first place?

We currently have no idea where our players will position themselves based on the mentality (a brash statement I know but the subtlety of the point is made hopefully)

I find this subject fascinating and would like to share some thoughts.

If we put ourselves into the position of a single player involved in a football match what variables would influence where we position ourselves on the pitch at any moment in the game?

Here are a few suggestions:-

• Time left
  
• Score line
  
• Team in possession - The phase of play (Offensive, Defensive, Transition)
  
• Area of the pitch the ball is in
  
• Position and movement of team mates
  
• Position and movement of opposition players
  
• Communication - how other teammates can influence position relay what they can see that we might not due to our position.
  
• Organisation - How well the team is collectively organised
  
• Physical Condition
  
• Morale
  
• Awareness - Knowing the best place to position oneself based on the situation.
  
• Decisions - being able to make the right decision (individually and collectively) - related to organisation and training (both can result in better decisions)
  

I am sure there are many more

My point is that, as I think most people agree, it is not realistic to be able to control the exact positioning of a player on the pitch - unless you happen to have a team of robots.

However the tactical expression specifically Mentality in its current form is not enough especially when considering some of the items in the list above.

As the match engine matures, the positional behaviour of players will continue to improve and then hopefully following this the level of tactical expression that it is being requested will be feasible.

Good post Leroy1883.

To add another perspective, I also think it's downright boring to go through a 'wibble, wobble' screen making players stand here or there at different phases of play!

I'm still not sure what the 'mentality' slider does. My experience so far is that once I set the team's tactic and players' roles from the tactic creator, if I afterwards tweak the mentality of my players it doesn't produce good results. For example let's say I'm playing with a 4-1-2(CM)-2(Wing)-1. I set my philosophy to 'standard' and my two CM's (CM, Attack both) have their mentality at 11. If I switch to 'control' from 'standard' their mentality goes to 13. Likewise all of the team members have their mentality 2 notches up. If I go back to 'standard', and only tweak the mentality of those CM's from 11 to 13 (so nobody else is touched) in my experience they start playing worse. What I'm trying to say is, that we need to use more coherent 'team instructions' rather than 'individual instructions'. This tells me that the 'mentality' is not just simply the decision maker for where on the field the players will stand. I just wish that we have more control over it.

I just want to be able to tell my 2 CM's to play closer to my striker when we are attacking, and drop back to help my DMC when we're defending. How can we do that in FM 2010?

My post was a little confusing, I'm sure, but I'm confused myself here too. Can somebody explain what 'mentality' slider really does?

Thanks.

I'm replying to my own post here :

Quote: I just want to be able to tell my 2 CM's to play closer to my striker when we are attacking, and drop back to help my DMC when we're defending. How can we do that in FM 2010?

I guess I can maybe do it by assigning them box-to-box midfielder role. But what happens if I tweak my box-to-box midfielders' mentality to 20? Or to 1?

FM is at a point where we definitely need a manual to explain each one of those sliders.

I find this subject fascinating and would like to share some thoughts.

If we put ourselves into the position of a single player involved in a football match what variables would influence where we position ourselves on the pitch at any moment in the game?

Here are a few suggestions:-

• Time left
  
• Score line
  
• Team in possession - The phase of play (Offensive, Defensive, Transition)
  
• Area of the pitch the ball is in
  
• Position and movement of team mates
  
• Position and movement of opposition players
  
• Communication - how other teammates can influence position relay what they can see that we might not due to our position.
  
• Organisation - How well the team is collectively organised
  
• Physical Condition
  
• Morale
  
• Awareness - Knowing the best place to position oneself based on the situation.
  
• Decisions - being able to make the right decision (individually and collectively) - related to organisation and training (both can result in better decisions)
  

I am sure there are many more

My point is that, as I think most people agree, it is not realistic to be able to control the exact positioning of a player on the pitch - unless you happen to have a team of robots.

However the tactical expression specifically Mentality in its current form is not enough especially when considering some of the items in the list above.

As the match engine matures, the positional behaviour of players will continue to improve and then hopefully following this the level of tactical expression that it is being requested will be feasible.

I totally agree. I certainly don't want to be able to control where the players are every second of the game. That would not be realistic as previously mentioned. My only gripe is that I don't believe, and cannot prove that the position on the tactics board is their "starting position" and I'm not aware of the variations that mentality sliders cause as such.

Perhaps it's my own fault for not watching a full 90min game and analysing....quite frankly that doesn't appeal but if others suggest that's the way to do it at least I'll have my answer then.

I agree with both points. I'm not a fan of the sliders.

And that with or without ball tactics is interesting too. It seems when you lose the ball they completly ignore all orders and everyone except the strikers charge into your own box. And theres nothing you can do about it.

Corner tactics need work too. I think it's impossible to position your players where you want them, those little orders arent good enough. For example, I want my AMC to stand further forward so when we get the ball back there is somebody there but all I can seem do is for him to stand on the edge of the half way line.

I'm replying to my own post here :

Quote: I just want to be able to tell my 2 CM's to play closer to my striker when we are attacking, and drop back to help my DMC when we're defending. How can we do that in FM 2010?

I guess I can maybe do it by assigning them box-to-box midfielder role. But what happens if I tweak my box-to-box midfielders' mentality to 20? Or to 1?

FM is at a point where we definitely need a manual to explain each one of those sliders.

I find that my midfielders get up a lot and also defend when I set their roles to fairly defensive ones (support CM and defensive ball winning midfielder), while at the same time giving them high creativity and roaming. Obviously you need good high stamina players to pull this off.

I'm replying to my own post here :

Quote: I just want to be able to tell my 2 CM's to play closer to my striker when we are attacking, and drop back to help my DMC when we're defending. How can we do that in FM 2010?

I guess I can maybe do it by assigning them box-to-box midfielder role. But what happens if I tweak my box-to-box midfielders' mentality to 20? Or to 1?

FM is at a point where we definitely need a manual to explain each one of those sliders.

Spot on for me. Just what I was getting at. I know exactly what a Box-to-Box Midfielder does in footballing terms, but in terms of the slider spectrum, I'm not sure anymore. Does he get box-to-box less with a defensive mentality? If so why have a box-to-box option.....this is where some explanation of the game's interpretation is needed.

My original point was, can we start to look at a feature set in the game that doesn't rely on the "games interpretation" but instead sticks to some rather well observed rules regarding tactics and positions? What they are is open for debate I suppose.

Spot on for me. Just what I was getting at. I know exactly what a Box-to-Box Midfielder does in footballing terms, but in terms of the slider spectrum, I'm not sure anymore. Does he get box-to-box less with a defensive mentality? If so why have a box-to-box option.....this is where some explanation of the game's interpretation is needed.

My original point was, can we start to look at a feature set in the game that doesn't rely on the "games interpretation" but instead sticks to some rather well observed rules regarding tactics and positions? What they are is open for debate I suppose.

You can't have a "Box to Box" midfielder on defensive, its always support.

Spot on for me. Just what I was getting at. I know exactly what a Box-to-Box Midfielder does in footballing terms, but in terms of the slider spectrum, I'm not sure anymore. Does he get box-to-box less with a defensive mentality? If so why have a box-to-box option.....this is where some explanation of the game's interpretation is needed.

Once you tick one of the boxes and override the default instructions, he won't necessarily play like a player with his role would be expected to.

Spot on for me. Just what I was getting at. I know exactly what a Box-to-Box Midfielder does in footballing terms, but in terms of the slider spectrum, I'm not sure anymore. Does he get box-to-box less with a defensive mentality? If so why have a box-to-box option.....this is where some explanation of the game's interpretation is needed.

My original point was, can we start to look at a feature set in the game that doesn't rely on the "games interpretation" but instead sticks to some rather well observed rules regarding tactics and positions? What they are is open for debate I suppose.

Alternatively you could stop trying to over-elaborate and confuse the issue and just listen to people when they say that Mentality tells a player to play higher or deeper by small incremental degrees, with an equivelant effect on how likely a player is to opt for an attacking pass.

There is nothing more to it. If you set up a 4-4-2 with players with identical mentalities and then reduce the mentality of one striker he will play ever increasingly deeper and opt for ever increasingly less risky passes.

The only thing difficult to understand about mentality is that it works in a moving and fluid environment of a football match. You are influencing a rough trend, a positional preference, a player is not going to spend 90 minutes making sure he never ever gets beyond this "12 mentality" position relative to the rest of the team. He will just try to base his game around that relative position.