Tactical Attributes

I really don't understand this epic idea that comes from editor:

a "double" Tactical Attributes, one for the manager, one for the team.

Honestly this is inconceivable.

In my modest opinion only the manager has (relevant) Tactical Attributes ... ****.

Anyway, please SI, take care about "numbers" that u put into DB.

Recently I've spend more then 20hours to edit a database that is a shame, full of errors and random data.

And the possibility to import other tactics into database will be welcomed because it's sad to play against AI Team\Managers that can play with only 35 predefined tactics; with such a great community, I really don't understand why there is always a conservative approach on the development of FM.

... Regards,

The tactics for the team would surely show the teams familiarity levels with the tactic they are trying to play.

Actually, this is a positive step for SI. Teams should have their "own" way of preferred play style (such as an attacking 4-3-3) whereas coaches should have their own preferred style. Teams should naturally look for a coach that matches their philosophy...or else face the ire of fans if the results aren't there with a new coach and new style.

Take Barcelona, for example: would they go out and bring in a coach that prefers to play a 5-4-1? Unlikely...but if they did, he'd better win and win often!

Or yet another example: Klinsmann as coach of the United States. We've traditionally been a counterattacking team that lines up in a 4-4-2 to cover our lack of skill. Klinsmann is trying to change that to a possession-based, attacking 4-3-3. He was under some scrutiny as this new approach yielded 2 goals in his first 6 games and our Olympic qualifying debacle made matters worse. That said, you can see glimmers of hope that his system just might work in recent matches...

Actually, this is a positive step for SI. Teams should have their "own" way of preferred play style (such as an attacking 4-3-3) whereas coaches should have their own preferred style. Teams should naturally look for a coach that matches their philosophy...or else face the ire of fans if the results aren't there with a new coach and new style.

Take Barcelona, for example: would they go out and bring in a coach that prefers to play a 5-4-1? Unlikely...but if they did, he'd better win and win often!

Or yet another example: Klinsmann as coach of the United States. We've traditionally been a counterattacking team that lines up in a 4-4-2 to cover our lack of skill. Klinsmann is trying to change that to a possession-based, attacking 4-3-3. He was under some scrutiny as this new approach yielded 2 goals in his first 6 games and our Olympic qualifying debacle made matters worse. That said, you can see glimmers of hope that his system just might work in recent matches...

I agree in principle with what you are saying...but SI dont take a teams preferred formation into account when adding players.

I like to play lower league and use fictional players. My team plays a 4132 with 3 CM and no wingers or ML/MR. So what does the game do? Give me a load of ML/MR players. And a club should be mostly familiar with its preferred formation.

A club should be mostly familiar with manager plans \ skills \ preferred formations.

I accept exceptions on this argument if we talk about historic teams (the majority of them in europe... and anyway we are talking about max 15/20 teams in the world...), I really don't think that a normal club or a lower league club has strong "traditions" in tactical attributes.

Only the manager, the staff, and 20 players can write history;

Antonio Conte \ Juventus is the best example of this season.

Of course we could find in every country, in every nation great managers, with strong competences, able to reach incredible archievements, but honestly, I'm going too far;

because this is not a problem, the problem is basically the database and the AI of FM.

This game must be completely redesigned in some parts because there are some unsolved limits since many years; In the recent past I was critic (on this forum) with Match Engine but after what I saw in DB I really think that ME is one of the last issue ... ^^

Clubs in the majority of cases are in the hands of bad management and people that don't know anything about football.

Clubs in the majority of cases are in the hands of bad management and people that don't know anything about football.

Are you talking about real life or FM players?

Actually, this is a positive step for SI. Teams should have their "own" way of preferred play style (such as an attacking 4-3-3) whereas coaches should have their own preferred style. Teams should naturally look for a coach that matches their philosophy...or else face the ire of fans if the results aren't there with a new coach and new style.

But it's a loop...

We know a club has a "favourite style" because it's usually the one employed by a manager who brought success to the club. So it's not something set in stone, at all.

AC Milan played a traditional (albeit revolutionary in terms of marking/pressing) 4-4-2 under Sacchi and Capello, then won briefly again with Zaccheroni's 3-4-3 and finally reclaimed their spot among Europe's elite under Ancelotti, who played 4-4-2 Diamond or even the 4-3-2-1 Christmas Tree.

So which is AC Milan's "favourite" formation?

I think it makes little sense giving a club a favourite formation because it's usually down to the current manager who, in turns, must try to adapt his own tactical ideas to the players he has at the club.

Sure, Barça NOW play their trademark football, but it wouldn't and it won't work without the type of players they have NOW. So in a couple of years Barça could play a completely different formation and a different style.