ok now FM is mocking me...

Remember when i post about my team beating AC Milan 1-0 them loosing to the team in the last place of the league? Well now heres whats going on:

-I always lose to my rivals and technically ive got a better team (ok but this is minimal)

-My 5 star forward player is on a "goals strike." He doesn't score for more them 12 games now! Before he already had 14 goals. Another FM story on players not scoring.

-My GK, that i got for 12,000,000€ was supposed to be good, according to me and all my watch man. Now, he lets all goals win no mater what situation. This thing happens with the other goals keepers. Its like my defense doesn't exist. (doesn't matter which tactics i use it always get in)

-Despite of the good team, i let goals in in most matches, even if its with the crap teams i even let 2 in! In every god damn match i suffer goals. Beside that, most of the matches i start losing, even with the crap teams and its super rare to even draw.

-Despite this, i WIN against big teams like AC Milan, Werden Bremen, Galatasary etc... Over confidence? No, because i didnt congratulate the players on the end of match and did the "watch for mistakes" options and when i did that they start losing to.

-After losing the 2 national competitions to inferior teams and start losing and drawing in the final games of the league, in the uefa cup im on the semi finals.

REally cool. I want to smash my head against the wall right now

I really hate to say this but it sounds like your tactics.

I'd head over to the tactics forum and read some threads in there, theres a goldmine of infomation in there. Or try some of the more popular tactics and see where they are going right and your tactics are going wrong.

Remember when i post about my team beating AC Milan 1-0 them loosing to the team in the last place of the league? Well now heres whats going on:

-My 5 star forward player is on a "goals strike." He doesn't score for more them 12 games now! Before he already had 14 goals. Another FM story on players not scoring.

Drop him and play a youth striker for 1-2 games - if you keep playing him, even tho he's playing badly then he may think he doesn't have to bother. I had this with Ibrahimovic - he scored 2 in 12, i dropped him for 3 games and then he finished the season with 25 in 30.

-My GK, that i got for 12,000,000€ was supposed to be good, according to me and all my watch man. Now, he lets all goals win no mater what situation. This thing happens with the other goals keepers. Its like my defense doesn't exist. (doesn't matter which tactics i use it always get in)

Purely a tactical problem (unless your GK is really bad lol) - your tactic is either placing too much pressure on your GK, or allowing the op relatively easy challenges.

-Despite of the good team, i let goals in in most matches, even if its with the crap teams i even let 2 in! In every god damn match i suffer goals. Beside that, most of the matches i start losing, even with the crap teams and its super rare to even draw.

As above

-Despite this, i WIN against big teams like AC Milan, Werden Bremen, Galatasary etc... Over confidence? No, because i didnt congratulate the players on the end of match and did the "watch for mistakes" options and when i did that they start losing to.

What do think this means? A number of possibilities; your tactic is too offensive, your tactic is good going forward but is defensively flawed, your tactic is good against attacking teams but poor against lower opposition (a common problem) etc etc etc

-After losing the 2 national competitions to inferior teams and start losing and drawing in the final games of the league, in the uefa cup im on the semi finals.

As above

REally cool. I want to smash my head against the wall right now

Don't be silly

Some players just keep on going with Goals (like Carroll), however I've had plenty that have been one season wonders (Lupoli scored 47 in 50 in his first season for me, then it went 30, 21, 17, 15, 2, 11, 0 and sold!), and like he said above, some just need a kick in the arse!

You also have to be careful with media attention, one of my young regen strikers (at the age of 21) was on top of the World at one point (10 in 4), then the media latched on and he went on to only score a further 5 in 20. Others however are driven by media attention (my 67 in 64 regen, who is still only 23), it's just a case of knowing your players.

I had the same striker problem with Gila. He kept getting caught offside. So I benched him for around 1 month, and didnt even bother to put him in the game, instead subbing on Ronaldo(the horror!). Needless to say, he was back with a vengeance against Genoa, a whopping 4 goals. He scored another 1 against Palermo the next fixture, making it 5 in 2. Now my highest scorer due to that 5 goals.

i rotate strikers very often. get a good veteran, and a rising star youth as backup and replace your first teamer when he just isn't performing.

i hear you on your gk problem.

how many shots on your goal do you allow? are the goals scored on you opportunistic (the kiind i always concede) or does the opposition break your side down.

don't smash your head.

I have four strikers who can't help but score goals and I only have two available striker slots. It kinda breaks my heart. Can't believe my team is too good to fit Sergio Aguero in!

I have four strikers who can't help but score goals and I only have two available striker slots. It kinda breaks my heart. Can't believe my team is too good to fit Sergio Aguero in!

lol I have the exact same situation. Four strikers who score for fun but only two slots available. Can't play Aguero either

lol I have the exact same situation. Four strikers who score for fun but only two slots available. Can't play Aguero either

In my case, it's Tevez, Rooney and Saviola that are in Aguero's way. What about you?

I really hate to say this but it sounds like your tactics.

I'd head over to the tactics forum and read some threads in there, theres a goldmine of infomation in there. Or try some of the more popular tactics and see where they are going right and your tactics are going wrong.

The popular tactics seem to be just a mad mish-mash of bizarre formations, with arrows all over the place. Tactics seem to me to be all about finding an exploit to beat the game AI rather than building a good solid realistic formation.

The popular tactics seem to be just a mad mish-mash of bizarre formations, with arrows all over the place. Tactics seem to me to be all about finding an exploit to beat the game AI rather than building a good solid realistic formation.

But if it works for them then where's the harm in that?

People expect different things when playing the game. Some like the 'realistic approach', others just want to win. In the end it's their game and I don't think there's anything wrong with them playing it the way they feel like.

realisms better. exploiting bad AI to be able to win the game kills the game

realisms better. exploiting bad AI to be able to win the game kills the game

It would perhaps kill your game but not for the people who actually choose to do it.

That's the thing with single player gaming. There is no right way to play. Everyone is entitled to do whatever they feel will give them the most enjoyment out of the game.

The popular tactics seem to be just a mad mish-mash of bizarre formations, with arrows all over the place. Tactics seem to me to be all about finding an exploit to beat the game AI rather than building a good solid realistic formation.

I agree with Äktsjon Männ. As long as they serve the player well, it doesn't really matter what the tactics look like. You might like to find a weakness in the AI and then exploiting it, others might like building good realistic formations, but as long as they all serve their purpose (beating the other team) it doesn't really matter what they look like. I like to find a balance between a realistic formation and finding the opponents weakness and then slightly altering my tactics to exploit it.

In my case, it's Tevez, Rooney and Saviola that are in Aguero's way. What about you?

Its Villa, Cardozo and Guilherme that are in Aguero's way. Poor Aguero, I feel bad for him. He plays the least, scores the most, but still he can't find a place for himself in my team. He'll reach there one day when I have to sell Villa because of his age

realisms better. exploiting bad AI to be able to win the game kills the game

Bit over the top, no

I would actually argue the opposite though. I wouldn't be surprised if various issues with AI or loopholes due to poor player behaviour have been exposed by 'match engine breaking' tactics, which in turn is beneficial to the development of the match engine. The point of the game is simulation. If someone uses a crazy formation that in real life would never work and that the match engine designers never even conceived of happening, and then post it on the forum as the best tactic ever surely that is a good thing?

A developer/tester sees it and says 'This shouldn't work in real life and therefore shouldn't work in the match engine. Let's make it better'.

Take kimz tactic for example. Would you have ever even considered setting up farrows and barrows like that? I know I wouldn't and I doubt if I will ever see something like that happen on a football pitch in my lifetime.

If there's better player behaviour as the match engine evolves which is influenced even by a small part by the 'break the engine' tactic designers, then I'm all for it.

I would ask one simple question. Why do exploiting the AI and devising a sensible, realistic tactic to win matches have to be two different things?

Shouldn't they be one and the same? Surely "exploiting the AI" should be the in-game equivalent of sending your players out with a tactic that would have a chance of winning the match.

I would ask one simple question. Why do exploiting the AI and devising a sensible, realistic tactic to win matches have to be two different things?

Shouldn't they be one and the same? Surely "exploiting the AI" should be the in-game equivalent of sending your players out with a tactic that would have a chance of winning the match.

There is a difference though and if you've seen Kimz tactic you'll understand.

Example 1: Play an AMC and give him a farrow. Perfectly legitimate in footballing terms. Why wouldn't a manager tell his AM C to get in amongst the opposition CBs and try to distract them? That is using something that would be considered 'realistic' in terms of looking for a weakness in an opposition team but the problem is that a real life manager would adapt to this, and all future opponents would adapt. The AI doesn't really unless it happens to be playing defensively in which case the settings of the MC -> DMC player will typically lead to him picking up the farrowed AM C. But that is coincidence rather than intentional in my opinion (could be wrong though).

You are 'exploiting' the AI rather than 'footballing space' because the AI can not adapt to this. If it were FML against a human manager they would recognise this happening on the 2D and adjust.

Example 2: Curved farrows on an AML/AMR with a lone striker. AI has centre halfs set to man mark. The centre halfs are set to man mark but because of a 'glitch' the CBs run away from the lone striker to mark the AM L and AM R. Perfectly legitimate to tell your wingers to get into the box but in FM 08 the AI glitch means it is an 'exploit' under certain circumstances. Again if it were FML against a human manager they would recognise this happening on the 2D and adjust.

If the AI cannot react in a micro sense to an obvious problem then technically you are exploiting it. What you are doing may be grounded in real life footballing concepts but you are still using an exploit.

If the AI cannot react in a micro sense to an obvious problem then technically you are exploiting it. What you are doing may be grounded in real life footballing concepts but you are still using an exploit.

So, is everyone cheating that does these two things then?

At the end of the day, this is a game, and a game is there to be beaten. Sure, you don't want to do that by cheating but it isn't our fault if the AI doesn't respond to what we're doing. Am I supposed to stop using curved arrows for my wingers because the AI doesn't respond?

Should Ronaldo not be allowed to play the game? Afterall, he 'exploits' the opposition team by getting into good positions, and they don't seem to respond. Is he expoilting real life?

There is a difference though and if you've seen Kimz tactic you'll understand.

Example 1: Play an AMC and give him a farrow. Perfectly legitimate in footballing terms. Why wouldn't a manager tell his AM C to get in amongst the opposition CBs and try to distract them? That is using something that would be considered 'realistic' in terms of looking for a weakness in an opposition team but the problem is that a real life manager would adapt to this, and all future opponents would adapt. The AI doesn't really unless it happens to be playing defensively in which case the settings of the MC -> DMC player will typically lead to him picking up the farrowed AM C. But that is coincidence rather than intentional in my opinion (could be wrong though).

You are 'exploiting' the AI rather than 'footballing space' because the AI can not adapt to this. If it were FML against a human manager they would recognise this happening on the 2D and adjust.

Example 2: Curved farrows on an AML/AMR with a lone striker. AI has centre halfs set to man mark. The centre halfs are set to man mark but because of a 'glitch' the CBs run away from the lone striker to mark the AM L and AM R. Perfectly legitimate to tell your wingers to get into the box but in FM 08 the AI glitch means it is an 'exploit' under certain circumstances. Again if it were FML against a human manager they would recognise this happening on the 2D and adjust.

If the AI cannot react in a micro sense to an obvious problem then technically you are exploiting it. What you are doing may be grounded in real life footballing concepts but you are still using an exploit.

I wasn't arguing with the original point. I agree that they are two different things. They shouldn't be, though.

@Neji

I never mentioned cheating, I mentioned exploiting. I also gave reference to real life examples of what the arrows can be used to replicate from real life. An exploit is an exploit but it is very different to intentional attempts at 'breaking' the engine.

I used the word technically to clarify what I meant. You are taking advantage of the lack of intelligence in the AI which is essentially exploiting a flaw. It's not cheating but you're still getting away with something you wouldn't if you were playing against a human managed team in FM Live. I'm guessing it's the same as playing an FPS against other human players online. You can't apply the same methods because humans will learn from the patterns of your behaviour and recognise their own mistakes in relation to your strategy.

I thought I made my argument clear but obviously not . You give Ronaldo as the example and as I said real life managers would adjust. The problem with replicating this in game is currently the AI isn't at the level to adjust and also the deterministic nature of it. I would guess that in real life every single manager who faced Ronaldo had a plan. Whether or not the players at his disposal executed that plan consistently for 90 minutes without making a mistake is a different story. Whether or not the simple fact of Ronaldo's ability surpassing those of the defender(s) is what made the plan redundant rather than the players not executing is another.

Just to say again your post reads as quite defensive so I'm not saying using curved farrows as your tactic does is cheating, but it is exploiting poor player behaviour if said players are given a particular tactical setting (in this case man marking). If you use curved farrows plus a lone striker and play against a 'specific man marking' manager like Avram Grant you'll win handsomely. Not because you set up to use a 'natural footballing exploit' but because of robotic player behaviour which not even a 9 year old on a Sunday morning would replicate (even if he did the manager would correct it and he would learn, the AI doesn't).

In real life would the CB and FB mark the winger at the same time on both sides of the pitch while the lone striker remained unmarked? If this is how your curved arrows result in goals then you are exploiting a flaw in AI behaviour regardless of how realistic it is. But scoring from a curved arrow where the winger runs past the full back to draw the CB from where he was marking the striker then it's a 'footballing' exploit. In my opinion that's the difference.

No, not defensive. Im happy to play the game the way I want and I really don't see using curved farrows as an exploit

I see where you're coming from but if thats how it is, everything we do to score a goal is an exploit. I actually set up my own tactic as I did because I like my wingers to get into the box and score/or lay on an assist, not because it exploits an AI weakness. I actually play with two strikers and two wingers overloading the box. This has only worked for me by getting good players, when I had bad wingers, it didn't work. So I don't see how that could be an exploit.

An interesting debate here

An interesting debate here

Very interesting, indeed. I love good debates

That's basically what I mean. The curved farrows plus lone striker messes up the way specific man marking works (as far as I can tell from messing around with it myself). The two centre halfs ignore the striker and go out wide to mark the wingers. Just using curved farrows in themselves as you say to overload the box it's not an 'exploit'. But when defenders react to a particular tactic with behaviour like the above then it's an exploit. I'm sure this particular thing is a known issue and will get fixed for 09.

If you have 2 strikers and curved farrows then you get this. Carrick slips a ball for Ronaldo to run onto inside the box. No bug here, no exploit.

If however one of the 2 CBs had drifted out to mark Ronaldo at the same time leaving an unmarked striker behind them (when Ronaldo is not in possession and closing down settings don't come into effect), then it would be an exploit. An exploit of unrealistic player decision making generated by a particular manager's tactical setting or/and an exploit of the AI manager's inability to 'see' an obvious tactical issue like that.

I agree with what you say and hopefully those images will illustrate what I mean by an exploit.

Also I realise I used 'you' alot in the last post which was intended in the general term rather than you Neji specifically. Putting myself in your shoes it probably came across as quite aggressive so apologies for that.

But as you said we all 'exploit' the engine as we do as we would in football and try to create space and get numbers in the box. Unfortunately if you do that in an unexpected manner the AI of players in relation to defensive settings is unable to cope. It's one of the reasons Kimz tactic is so effective in that it forces many players to move into space when attacking and the generic AI defensive behaviour has difficulty coping.

I'm hoping 09 sees the same improvement in defensive positioning as 08 saw in offensive movement, but admittedly it's not the easiest thing to balance when the game has to 'create' chances without them looking horribly contrived.

Well there aren't going to be arrows in FM09 so a large proportion of these problems should vanish.

There aren't?

No arrows?

What will we have instead? Wibble-wobble? Not as sensative a wibble-wobble as before, but maybe a wibble formation and a wobble formation with players trying to get between them when they can?

Wil we have another way to tell a midfielder to play anywhere along the AM line, from AML to AMR and everything in between?

I'm actually a tad worried.

Well basically FWD runs replicate Farrows and to a lesser extent Barrows. My current FMT makes no use of arrows at all, so it is possible to get sensible, effectiva and attractice football without using them.

wwfan explained why they're gone and the limitations of arrows in this thread - about halfway down page 2.

So when the AI play 343 with 2 forwards sarrowed they are not exploiting ME or AMC barrowed to DMC or even 424 (or long farrowed 442) when a full back can play better and longer passes than Beckham. Curved barrow on MC, endless exploits by AI.

Kimz came up with an inspirational tactic "Dutch Total Footbal" and just out exploited the AI. Try Kimz as a normal tactic as it still works very well without the farrows.

So when the AI play 343 with 2 forwards sarrowed they are not exploiting ME or AMC barrowed to DMC or even 424 (or long farrowed 442) when a full back can play better and longer passes than Beckham. Curved barrow on MC, endless exploits by AI.

Kimz came up with an inspirational tactic "Dutch Total Footbal" and just out exploited the AI. Try Kimz as a normal tactic as it still works very well without the farrows.

You are completely missing the point.

The AI cannot exploit us, because we have the ability to change our tactics to an almost limitless degree. What we mean by an exploit is something to which the AI can't adapt - e.g. 2 Farrowed AMC leaving a cf unmarked.

Having just looked at Kimz tactics, having never heard of it until today, it is both exploitative and highly unrealistic. If it works without arrows then that is another point altogether, but even so, 2 amcs with FWD runs often will cause the same exploitation.

Playing with 3 strikers against 2CBs is an AI expoitation. I've not noticed AI not ever use a sweeper or 3 at back, so yes thay can a change tactics is same way as user.

I think you missed the point.

Playing with 3 strikers against 2CBs is an AI expoitation. I've not noticed AI not ever use a sweeper or 3 at back, so yes thay can a change tactics is same way as user.

I think you missed the point.

*sigh*

yes ok whatever you're right

Playing with 3 strikers against 2CBs is an AI expoitation. I've not noticed AI not ever use a sweeper or 3 at back, so yes thay can a change tactics is same way as user.

I think you missed the point.

I have seen AI use 3 at the back many times, I have played against a 3-5-2 a few times so I get the long ball system and put it out towards the wings, pulls 1 CB out to the wing and get my 2 strikers and other winger in against 2 CB's, goal almost every time

Removing arrows? I'm pretty disspointed by that.

No point in worrying about it until we see how they've been replaced.

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but removing arrows in my opinion is an appalling decision. It just seems like a very lazy move - we can't seem to make the arrows work properly, so let's remove them altogether? It was the same with wibble-wobble, which in itself was a totally realistic concept, because believe it or not - players do get different instructions for playing without the ball or with it. Removing of arrows means we'll now have no ways to apply this within our tactics.

As for the subject of exploits, I don't agree that AI tactics can't be exploitative. We as human beings do of course have the advantage of being able to observe and counter AI's way of playing but this doesn't mean its tactics aren't exploiting the flaws within the match engine. Let's have a look at the dreaded 4-2-4 for example - what does it do that makes it so effective against a normally balanced tactical set up? Well it simply drags your defenders all over the place making them lose all positional sense. Center backs get confused as to how they should be holding shape, getting dragged out of positions and running around like headless chicken. Can you counter it? Yes you can, but to do that you have to forget how real football works and resort to unrealistic solutions. It is in fact taking advantage of a flawed match engine that doesn't follow rational logic when it comes to defending against such a weird all out attack shape. In real life defenders would simply hold a tight line, play offside trap and completely nullify the threat of such a naive and unbelievably bold set up. Furthermore they would most likely use the huge space left in midfield and behind the defenders to their advantage making it impossible for the opponents to even think about lining up the way it's shown in FM. To put it simply, if the FM match engine worked exactly like real life football it would be impossible for the AI to line up with a frantically paced all out attack 4-2-4 and actually get any other result than conceding a couple of goals out of it. However, that's not how the engine works and the 4-2-4 tactic is trying to use the above-mentioned shortcomings to it's advantage which is in essence exploiting the flawed ME.

Now, whether people are actually entitled to exploit the match engine flaws with tactics of their own - I can't see anything wrong with it. If some people simply wish to beat the game without being interested in the realism aspect then that is their choice. Should these flaws be rectified - certainly, but as long as they are there to exploit there's no reason for us to be berating people for taking advantage of it.

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but removing arrows in my opinion is an appalling decision. It just seems like a very lazy move - we can't seem to make the arrows work properly, so let's remove them altogether?

Just what I was thinking.

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but removing arrows in my opinion is an appalling decision. It just seems like a very lazy move - we can't seem to make the arrows work properly, so let's remove them altogether?

Agree fully. I'd rather they fix things than remove them.

Let's have a look at the dreaded 4-2-4 for example - what does it do that makes it so effective against a normally balanced tactical set up? Well it simply drags your defenders all over the place making them lose all positional sense. Center backs get confused as to how they should be holding shape, getting dragged out of positions and running around like headless chicken. Can you counter it? Yes you can, but to do that you have to forget how real football works and resort to unrealistic solutions.

Unrealistic Solutions??? I set my fullbacks to "FWD runs = Rarely" and presto - 4-2-4 defeated. If they're still struggling i set my wingers to "FWD runs = rarely". Hardly unrealistic.

In real life defenders would simply hold a tight line, play offside trap and completely nullify the threat of such a naive and unbelievably bold set up. Furthermore they would most likely use the huge space left in midfield and behind the defenders to their advantage making it impossible for the opponents to even think about lining up the way it's shown in FM.

Exactly what any half decent anti-4-2-4 tactic does - the unrealistic part is that the AI only has this one way version of "all out attack" - when IRL i'm sure 3 up front would be a much more realistic attacking option.

To put it simply, if the FM match engine worked exactly like real life football it would be impossible for the AI to line up with a frantically paced all out attack 4-2-4 and actually get any other result than conceding a couple of goals out of it. However, that's not how the engine works and the 4-2-4 tactic is trying to use the above-mentioned shortcomings to it's advantage which is in essence exploiting the flawed ME.

The only thing the 4-2-4 "exploits" is the time it takes the human user to change his tactic. A 4-2-4 isn't that unrealistic, and it is easily beatable using a logical tactic. (ask wwfan if you want details - but i assure you, it's nothing daft )

Now, whether people are actually entitled to exploit the match engine flaws with tactics of their own - I can't see anything wrong with it. If some people simply wish to beat the game without being interested in the realism aspect then that is their choice. Should these flaws be rectified - certainly, but as long as they are there to exploit there's no reason for us to be berating people for taking advantage of it.

Fully agree. From what i've heard this is in essence the difference between some of the tactics gurus - some want to develop an all conquering tactic, regardless of exploits - infact some appear to AIM for those exploits, whilst others, appear to aim to play the game as realistically as possible. The advantage of those who exploit is that they provide SI with info on how they can improve the AI and ME.

Unrealistic Solutions??? I set my fullbacks to "FWD runs = Rarely" and presto - 4-2-4 defeated. If they're still struggling i set my wingers to "FWD runs = rarely". Hardly unrealistic.

By defeating it you mean preventing it from scoring I presume. The AI 4-2-4 will always create chances though. By unrealistic solution I mean the fact that you have to resort to sitting back and counter it through the flanks when in reality winning the ball and getting a few passes together is enough to defeat it entirely because the opposing team can't stay set up like they do in FM when they don't have possession - unless they're intentionally trying to concede more. Don't you agree that it is quite unintuitive to go ultra-def when you see all that space in midfield which should be easy to use to your advantage?

Exactly what any half decent anti-4-2-4 tactic does - the unrealistic part is that the AI only has this one way version of "all out attack" - when IRL i'm sure 3 up front would be a much more realistic attacking option.

I can't agree here. You can't set your back line to hold tight because the defenders always get dragged out. That's just how the game works, attacking player crosses a certain line and a defender will step out of the line to make a challenge. Attacking player enters a zone and the defender starts marking him, the attacker then drifts wide while the defender still marking him until he exits the zone. Suddenly the defender finds himself in the middle of nowhere marking no-one while another attacker is taking advantage of the space left open by the defender. Even worse with man marking as central defenders get completely dragged out wide. Full backs wont position themselves properly while wingers are marking the wide forwards leaving themselves too far away when the winger gets beaten. The trouble with 4-2-4 is that there are always players taking advantage of any of those weaknesses so it will always generate highlights and can't be beaten realistically by which I mean the AI can't be forced to drop it by keeping possession and exploiting the enormous space in midfield and behind the defense.

The only thing the 4-2-4 "exploits" is the time it takes the human user to change his tactic. A 4-2-4 isn't that unrealistic, and it is easily beatable using a logical tactic. (ask wwfan if you want details - but i assure you, it's nothing daft )

It can be beaten using a realistic tactic but it can't be beaten within a realistic scenario, imo. In real life a team employing it would need incredible concentration and technical ability to execute such a high tempo hard pressing game successfully and the prerequisite of doing that is to have possession, in FM every team can play it out naturally and hold the 4-2-4 shape when not in possession - and not get destroyed. This is not realistic for me.

Don't you agree that it is quite unintuitive to go ultra-def when you see all that space in midfield which should be easy to use to your advantage?

Yes i agree. I wasn't going into depth about my tactic - only outlining what i did to prevent it from conceding too many chances to the op. In more detail' date=' my tactic involves couter attacking down the flanks with my wingers - i very rarely tell them to stop FWRs - which, as you point out, means i score 1-2 times whenever the op goes 4-2-4.[/b']

The unrealistic part is that the OP KEEPS doing this regardless of how badly they keep getting mauled match after match. Although, the amount of "i cry about 4-2-4" threads we see, proves that against many tactics it is quite effective.

I can't agree here. You can't set your back line to hold tight because the defenders always get dragged out. That's just how the game works, attacking player crosses a certain line and a defender will step out of the line to make a challenge. Attacking player enters a zone and the defender starts marking him, the attacker then drifts wide while the defender still marking him until he exits the zone. Suddenly the defender finds himself in the middle of nowhere marking no-one while another attacker is taking advantage of the space left open by the defender. Even worse with man marking as central defenders get completely dragged out wide. Full backs wont position themselves properly while wingers are marking the wide forwards leaving themselves too far away when the winger gets beaten. The trouble with 4-2-4 is that there are always players taking advantage of any of those weaknesses so it will always generate highlights and can't be beaten realistically by which I mean the AI can't be forced to drop it by keeping possession and exploiting the enormous space in midfield and behind the defense.

I can't agree here. With specific man marking, the correct mentality, the correct closing down, and most of all the correct players, it is ENTIRELY possible to prevent the AI creating several chances. I'm talking from personal experience, i tend to switch to my "4-2-4 counter" after i'm a couple of goals up, this means that there is no waiting for my tactic to catch up with the OP, and in my 2030 game i have never suffered more than once a season to the 4-2-4 (the last i remember was a penalty).

I suspect this is just a case of different combinations of tactics and players producing different results, hence why you feel the defenders behave poorly. But please let me assure you, it IS possible to completely counter a 4-2-4.

Again i refer you to wwfan, who can no doubt speak at greater lengths about this. I happened upon my tactic by a fair proportion of luck, hence i don't lay any claim to being a guru

It can be beaten using a realistic tactic but it can't be beaten within a realistic scenario, imo. In real life a team employing it would need incredible concentration and technical ability to execute such a high tempo hard pressing game successfully and the prerequisite of doing that is to have possession, in FM every team can play it out naturally and hold the 4-2-4 shape when not in possession - and not get destroyed. This is not realistic for me.

Whilst i don't agree with the "and not get destroyed" bit, i agree with the rest - it would be FAR more realistic for teams to go 4-3-3 or 3-4-3 rather than 4-2-4, although the tempo and concentration is of limited importance imo, due to the fact i've only seen it employed for short stretches of time.