Matapatos
30-04-2011, 23:57
Why do I have to adapt my tactic according to my opponent all the time?
To be fair I find this unrealistic. I read in plenty of places that you should micro manage to the point of making changes to your tactic according to your opponent. But truth is, between two teams of equal strength, you rarely see this. Its not realistic to change tactic all the freaking time to adjust it to your opponent. What happens most of the time is that managers will stick to a system and keep to it all the time. They don't adjust to other teams, rather they strength their own through repetition.
Also, managers don't get into away matches expecting the home team to play faster and attacking. You never know what it will be like. You only change into slower paced football IF the other team is controlling the match, to kill their momentum. You don't automatically assume they'll be stronger because they're playing at home.
There is a flow to the game and tactics should be changed according to that flow, not so much according to your opponent. Ofcourse if you're bottom of the league in La Liga you know you don't stand a chance against Barcelona so you play defensively expecting to get a draw. And you'll do this both at home and away. What annoys me is that I can be Valencia and yet if I get into an away match at the ground of a near bottom league team, and I play like if I was playing at home, I feel like I'm at disadvantage. It's like the game wants to force me into a different game plan just because I'm playing away, never mind I'm a much better side and their support is laughable and shouldn't cause any issues to the morale of my players.
Away matches are weird. It should feel relevant between teams like Real Madrid-Barcelona, due to the quality of both, giving an edge of one over the other, but in the real world I don't think it is as important as the game seems to make it.
More important than adapting to other teams is to stick to a tactical plan through out the season. With time the players adjust to it. Unless the tactic is simply bad and won't ever work consistently.
I think its unrealistic for a team who usually plays 4-3-3 to change to a 4-4-2 against a particular team, for instance. One of the most common changes to a plan that you see many times at half-time, is the layout at the midfield. Between equally strong teams, they might push further up the terrain, with another player closer to the striker, and the defensive line goes up aswell. But even this is many times not certain. You see how often commentators criticize managers for not changing anything at half-time, that's because sticking to the basic framework worked over and over again during training is many times a better decision than changing to plan B. Truth is the tactical frameworks of a team don't change that much apart from this because players many times feel at a loss when faced with new tactical plans. So what usually changes is the strategy.
Basically I don't like how the game still treats Away matches. It's like we're into a totally different universe.
Also, how important are changes to the strategy and tactic during the course of the match? They should be seriously halved. Sometimes it feels like you and opponent managers can just change their team at any time... like a computer game. But in reality the defining moment is half-time. That's your best chance. During the game the "shouts" will have some influence, but not even as nearly as the detailed explanations that the manager can give to players at half time. They should limit the influence of ANY change during the course of the game. I'm not sure if they do at the moment, but it doesn't feel like that.
To be fair I find this unrealistic. I read in plenty of places that you should micro manage to the point of making changes to your tactic according to your opponent. But truth is, between two teams of equal strength, you rarely see this. Its not realistic to change tactic all the freaking time to adjust it to your opponent. What happens most of the time is that managers will stick to a system and keep to it all the time. They don't adjust to other teams, rather they strength their own through repetition.
Also, managers don't get into away matches expecting the home team to play faster and attacking. You never know what it will be like. You only change into slower paced football IF the other team is controlling the match, to kill their momentum. You don't automatically assume they'll be stronger because they're playing at home.
There is a flow to the game and tactics should be changed according to that flow, not so much according to your opponent. Ofcourse if you're bottom of the league in La Liga you know you don't stand a chance against Barcelona so you play defensively expecting to get a draw. And you'll do this both at home and away. What annoys me is that I can be Valencia and yet if I get into an away match at the ground of a near bottom league team, and I play like if I was playing at home, I feel like I'm at disadvantage. It's like the game wants to force me into a different game plan just because I'm playing away, never mind I'm a much better side and their support is laughable and shouldn't cause any issues to the morale of my players.
Away matches are weird. It should feel relevant between teams like Real Madrid-Barcelona, due to the quality of both, giving an edge of one over the other, but in the real world I don't think it is as important as the game seems to make it.
More important than adapting to other teams is to stick to a tactical plan through out the season. With time the players adjust to it. Unless the tactic is simply bad and won't ever work consistently.
I think its unrealistic for a team who usually plays 4-3-3 to change to a 4-4-2 against a particular team, for instance. One of the most common changes to a plan that you see many times at half-time, is the layout at the midfield. Between equally strong teams, they might push further up the terrain, with another player closer to the striker, and the defensive line goes up aswell. But even this is many times not certain. You see how often commentators criticize managers for not changing anything at half-time, that's because sticking to the basic framework worked over and over again during training is many times a better decision than changing to plan B. Truth is the tactical frameworks of a team don't change that much apart from this because players many times feel at a loss when faced with new tactical plans. So what usually changes is the strategy.
Basically I don't like how the game still treats Away matches. It's like we're into a totally different universe.
Also, how important are changes to the strategy and tactic during the course of the match? They should be seriously halved. Sometimes it feels like you and opponent managers can just change their team at any time... like a computer game. But in reality the defining moment is half-time. That's your best chance. During the game the "shouts" will have some influence, but not even as nearly as the detailed explanations that the manager can give to players at half time. They should limit the influence of ANY change during the course of the game. I'm not sure if they do at the moment, but it doesn't feel like that.