Styles of play - the next challenge?

At the moment most transfers in FM world work, in that players meet expectation in performance on the pitch.

In fact the transfer market and player performance is so easy to predict, that FMers will regularly buy the same players each career and take the same career path.

i.e. buying player X, so that in a couple of years they will perform, then go up in value, then be sold off for better player Y.

Its way too easy and formulaic at the moment.

Also, players settle either straight away or after a few months (say, when a foreign player has learned the language).

It's all too rare to regularly perform poorly in the transfer market in FM.

Players and coaches are pretty much comfortable with almost all types of play in FM world regardless of high/slow tempo, formations and types of marking.

I think those 3 things more than anything really affect how a player settles into a team and play to his potential. Players should the ability to adapt to certain styles and formations, but it takes time if its not something they are familiar with.

At the moment in the match engine, you can slow and quicken tempo at the drop of a hat. In reality, its not so easy. Players need to be of a certain frame of mind to do this.

Players ought to have preferred formation, tempo, and, perhaps, type of marking as having been learned and that they are comfortable with.

When it comes to signing assistant coach (and tactical coach), it ought to be more important that they are more in your mould when it comes to tactics and formations. This way it would make more sense to try and take your assistant and staff with you when you go to another club.

This way, signing players and coaches is much more about buying ones to suit your style of team play, and not just about ones with high stats per se.

Of course, this shouldn't be overbalanced. Style of play preference should only have a bearing on performance and not be the overwhelming factor.

I agree to a certain extent. I was thinking about this early this morning, that I couldn't remember the last time I bought a 'dud'. I also think there should be a little bit more emphasis on getting a group of players together and building team spirit, and getting a similar bunch of players together (personality wise).

I agree to a certain extent. I was thinking about this early this morning, that I couldn't remember the last time I bought a 'dud'.

Yeah, Bergkamp is a good exmple. He was always a class player, but really struggled in Italy. He was not happy playing a pretty isolated role where the tempo was slower, and the play more defensive. There may be other factors of course...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2008/07/13/dennis-bergkamp-inter-milan-stay-was-hell-115875-20642164/

Yes, I also agree

I agree with the original point. Another useful example is Chris Sutton's infamous season at Chelsea, who thought signing a guy whose one skill was heading the ball when you run a tactic that de-emphasises crossing was a good idea.

I also think there should be a little bit more emphasis on getting a group of players together and building team spirit, and getting a similar bunch of players together (personality wise).

I disagree here. My view is that this is very much implemented in the game. The player is simply kept in the dark about it so as to maintain some mystery as to why things happen the way they do. The little clues that team cohesion is a factor come from things like 'Feels he works well with X'. It's preferable to have these things hinted at rather than quantified.

I've bought plenty of players who haven't performed. The game shouldn't be changed to try to help out those people who are too weak or lazy to not buy the same players every game. I know that was only a part of the point you were making, but that is entirely down to the player - if you choose to buy the same players every game then you are likely to get the same formula every game. Obviously people who do that are happy enough with that being the outcoome, otherwise they would try signing different players instead.

Players' reaction to the tempo of the game is already in place also in that some players make a lot more mistakes if they are expected to pass the ball faster or whatever or their stamina causes them to tire too fast.

I don't mind players having more preferences so long as they are visible, but there are already a huge number of things to balance to get tactics right already for those who are developing their own tactics based on real football and not match-engine busting tactics.

I agree with the original point. Another useful example is Chris Sutton's infamous season at Chelsea, who thought signing a guy whose one skill was heading the ball when you run a tactic that de-emphasises crossing was a good idea.

I disagree here. My view is that this is very much implemented in the game. The player is simply kept in the dark about it so as to maintain some mystery as to why things happen the way they do. The little clues that team cohesion is a factor come from things like 'Feels he works well with X'. It's preferable to have these things hinted at rather than quantified.

I know it's already in the game, I didn't make my point clear. What I meant to more emphasis from the media, you regularly hear about the great team spirit at Arsenal and you hear stuff about pranks etc going on. I'm not saying pranks should be included but I'd like some more comments on it.

If you're worried about always buying the same players, why not play with names masked? Or holiday 20 years into the game so they're all new?

The only things I can remember hearing about Arsenal team spirit last year were Bendtner and Adebayor having a barny and Gallas being very uninspiring as a captain as he sat and cried on the pitch at Birmingham.

Media interaction in-game is already bad enough without adding more examples of it!

The only things I can remember hearing about Arsenal team spirit last year were Bendtner and Adebayor having a barny and Gallas being very uninspiring as a captain as he sat and cried on the pitch at Birmingham.

Media interaction in-game is already bad enough without adding more examples of it!

One thing that would make media more interesting IS adding more to it.

Also, if you recall Arsenal when they were doing well - commentators always mentioned team spirit, it's mentioned alot about Chelsea too.

One thing that would make media more interesting IS adding more to it.

That's true if it is the right stuff that gets added. Team talks were a nice, but fairly irrelevant novelty in FM06. They got added to and now in FM08 they are a total joke and can render tactics, substitutions, player ability and everything else meaningless for 45 minutes if you screw up on the Russian roulette team talk!

I've bought plenty of players who haven't performed. The game shouldn't be changed to try to help out those people who are too weak or lazy to not buy the same players every game. I know that was only a part of the point you were making, but that is entirely down to the player - if you choose to buy the same players every game then you are likely to get the same formula every game. Obviously people who do that are happy enough with that being the outcoome, otherwise they would try signing different players instead.

I accept that you acknowledge part of my point, but this is not to stop people buying the same players every career.

Currently if you sign different players, you will still end up doing well eventually. This is the point. You can sign virtually anyone with good stats and do well. The only thing in your way is this adaptability stat. That is more to do with just settling into the new club rather than anything else.

A famous manager once said (wish I could remember who!) that only 50% of transfers actually work i.e. the player meets expectation.

This is certainly not the case in FM. If a player has the stats, he will pretty much do it for your club most of the time.

Players' reaction to the tempo of the game is already in place also in that some players make a lot more mistakes if they are expected to pass the ball faster or whatever or their stamina causes them to tire too fast.

Its not in in the way I describe. Players not able to play a faster tempo is more due to their ability to do so, rather than their preference at the moment.

I don't mind players having more preferences so long as they are visible, but there are already a huge number of things to balance to get tactics right already for those who are developing their own tactics based on real football and not match-engine busting tactics.

Sorry, but I am not quite sure what you mean by this. "Match-engine busting tactics"?

If you're worried about always buying the same players, why not play with names masked? Or holiday 20 years into the game so they're all new?

Sorry, I shouldn't have made a point about this.

This is not really what this post is about.

Its about how players adapt too easily to whatever tactic, formation etc.

That's true if it is the right stuff that gets added. Team talks were a nice, but fairly irrelevant novelty in FM06. They got added to and now in FM08 they are a total joke and can render tactics, substitutions, player ability and everything else meaningless for 45 minutes if you screw up on the Russian roulette team talk!

A part of the problem is people are not sure how messages are being conveyed within the code. Also, messages are too stereotyped.

Their is no weight of comment. It would be nice to implement weight of comment to a player at half-time (or even almost any interaction). This would then give more subtle variations for giving different messages to players and vary the effects more.

Please can we get off the topic of half time team talks and talk about the original topic now?

i.e. styles of play.

A famous manager once said (wish I could remember who!) that only 50% of transfers actually work i.e. the player meets expectation.

This is certainly not the case in FM. If a player has the stats, he will pretty much do it for your club most of the time.

Again, I have had plenty of players who haven't done the job, but had good attributes. I've put Werder Bremen well and truly up the creek financially by paying too much money for players who looked good, but didn't perform.

Different players (as in human game players) have different levels of ability. Some use what I call "match-engine busting tactics" and predictably do well whoever they sign. Others try to play as realistically as possible and make loads of mistakes. It's always very difficult to judge if some part of the game is "too easy" without taking a very wide canvas of opinions. One person finding it all too easy isn't indicitave of the game being too easy in general. If you could never end up doing well without taking a very specific path combining all the plethora of variables in the game then no-one would want to play. It's that carrot of being able to take some tiny club up the leagues and on to European glory eventually that keeps a lot of people wanting to play even though it is utterly unrealistic in real life that e.g. Whitley Bay will ever win the Champions League.

Its not in in the way I describe. Players not able to play a faster tempo is more due to their ability to do so, rather than their preference at the moment.

I'm not sure how that would add much positive to game play though. There are already far too many occasions where players just blatantly don't do what they are instructed to do which seems to be what you are meaning by a preference - that a player either just completely ignores your instruction to play fast tempo because he doesn't want to or he does it grudgingly and plays crap because he really can't be bothered. I don't always see a vast difference in play when I switch between faster and slower tempos anyway - obviously sometimes I do, but not always and not a very obvious change so again maybe that is down to whatever tactics are used - some show more of a difference when tempo is changed than do others.

Sorry, but I am not quite sure what you mean by this. "Match-engine busting tactics"?

I mean people developping tactics (like the kind that are two a penny in the Tactics forum) specifically to exploit flaws in the match engine (of which we all know there will always be plenty, of varying degrees, simply because it is so complicated) rather than tactics based on what they percieve to be real football tactics. I personally develop my tactics based on my knowledge of football which is decent, but far from brilliant so my tactics bear numerous flaws of that. If I wanted to I could go to the Tactics forum and no doubt find solutions to my various problems, many of which will bear no relation to real football and will be there purely because they work in the match engine. People using tactics like that will always find the game easy - changes to the match engine or any other aspect of the game should not be made just to counteract these people finding it all too easy.

You could just play with fictional players. The best way to play IMHO.

You could just play with fictional players. The best way to play IMHO.

This is missing the point of the thread. I shouldn't have mentioned anything about buying the same players.

Its about how players adapt.

Again, I have had plenty of players who haven't done the job, but had good attributes. I've put Werder Bremen well and truly up the creek financially by paying too much money for players who looked good, but didn't perform.

Yes, but generally, for most others the transfer market is pretty simple to follow. Its not nearly as much of a gamble as in real life.

Different players (as in human game players) have different levels of ability. Some use what I call "match-engine busting tactics" and predictably do well whoever they sign. Others try to play as realistically as possible and make loads of mistakes. It's always very difficult to judge if some part of the game is "too easy" without taking a very wide canvas of opinions. One person finding it all too easy isn't indicitave of the game being too easy in general. If you could never end up doing well without taking a very specific path combining all the plethora of variables in the game then no-one would want to play. It's that carrot of being able to take some tiny club up the leagues and on to European glory eventually that keeps a lot of people wanting to play even though it is utterly unrealistic in real life that e.g. Whitley Bay will ever win the Champions League.

Again, I think I think people are missing the point. I really ought to edit my original post. Its not about the game being too easy. Its about the game being unrealistic. SIs stance with FM is that it will always try and make the game more realistic with each incarnation. Whether or not that is as fun to play, we shall see.

I'm not sure how that would add much positive to game play though. There are already far too many occasions where players just blatantly don't do what they are instructed to do which seems to be what you are meaning by a preference - that a player either just completely ignores your instruction to play fast tempo because he doesn't want to or he does it grudgingly and plays crap because he really can't be bothered. I don't always see a vast difference in play when I switch between faster and slower tempos anyway - obviously sometimes I do, but not always and not a very obvious change so again maybe that is down to whatever tactics are used - some show more of a difference when tempo is changed than do others.

The players ignoring instruction is more to do with the limitation of the match engine in some quarters and also preference in others.

Tempo is not easy to be turned on and off like a tap. Generally its the team that is on top that is able to dictate tempo. Whether a player is able to play at that tempo is to do with how he actually plays the game. Tempo is generally about possession-risk. Playing the high percentage ball (in all areas of the pitch) and keeping good possession. Not all players are able to see the next pass of this type and prefer to bang it forward.

Its cultural in many ways. This is why England don't play a slow-tempo game. Its also why many English players don't adapt well in other leagues.

I mean people developping tactics (like the kind that are two a penny in the Tactics forum) specifically to exploit flaws in the match engine (of which we all know there will always be plenty, of varying degrees, simply because it is so complicated) rather than tactics based on what they percieve to be real football tactics. I personally develop my tactics based on my knowledge of football which is decent, but far from brilliant so my tactics bear numerous flaws of that. If I wanted to I could go to the Tactics forum and no doubt find solutions to my various problems, many of which will bear no relation to real football and will be there purely because they work in the match engine. People using tactics like that will always find the game easy - changes to the match engine or any other aspect of the game should not be made just to counteract these people finding it all too easy.

Again, the changes I am proposing is not to do with the game being easy or not. Its supposed to be about adding an extra dimension of realism to FM.

I agree with you Ranjith. However, I think this is already implement to some extent. Try changing from a successful formation to a strange one halfway through a season. It doesn't have to be paticuarly strange, just one that you've never used before (could be as simple as 4-5-1).

Yes, but generally, for most others the transfer market is pretty simple to follow. Its not nearly as much of a gamble as in real life.

I think it is what you make of it really - I find it simple to follow, but that doesn't always mean the players I buy work out in my tactic. I sold a brilliant striker from Werder Bremen to Roma after he scored 43 goals in a season. I replaced him with another who looked equally good, but turned out to be absolutely hopeless. I have no doubt he is a good player - his attributes bear testiment to that, but for whatever reason he just didn't fit in at Bremen. Maybe I didn't give him long enough, but that implies that players don't just instantly fit in as you seem to be saying - he may have fitted in after a year or two, he may not - as it was I was so angry at him that I sold him within a year for half what I paid for him. I replaced him with a striker who cost a third as much and banged in almost a goal a game despite being less obviously talented.

Again, I think I think people are missing the point. I really ought to edit my original post. Its not about the game being too easy. Its about the game being unrealistic. SIs stance with FM is that it will always try and make the game more realistic with each incarnation. Whether or not that is as fun to play, we shall see.

I agree there are plenty of aspects of FM that are unrealistic, but I only want them improved if the new implementation is not even more unrealistic. Team talks are a perfect example. It was unrealistic that you couldn't talk to your players at half time so now we have team talks that are supposedly more realistic except that they aren't because you get a one line or even one word sound bite and that is it and that has a huge effect on the rest of the match. Team talks are just one of a number of things that in real life are far too complex to ever be added to FM in an acceptable manner. So yes, I'm all in favour of extra realism so long as it is actually more realistic and doesn't just destroy gameplay without really adding realism. The game already has such a complex interplay of variables for a human player to understand that adding more is something that should be done with extreme caution not to upset a balance that gets ever more difficult to maintain. Players having preferences as to what style they play is one such addition in my opinion.

The players ignoring instruction is more to do with the limitation of the match engine in some quarters and also preference in others.

Precisely so there is clear already some kind of player decision making going on when I give a tactical instruction and my players just don't do it. I name a targetman - something that should be 100% simple to understand, both for me as a user and for the players, no ambiguity, just a simple instruction - and yet my players still keep lumping the ball up to my other striker who is hopeless in the air and who I deliberately put up against my opponent's biggest defender. That is another example of something that is already in the game, but is not implemented properly. If things like that (and the imbecilic offside module which includes so many wrong decisions that it has gone way past realism and out the other side to an unrealistic implementation that also tee's off gamers) get fixed and everything balanced then I'm happy enough for new things like player preferences on style of play to be lightly implemented (i.e. a small effect while they are being tested), but until existing game features that are supposed to add realism, but don't are fixed I'd prefer not to have yet more "unrealistic realism" added!

Tempo is not easy to be turned on and off like a tap. Generally its the team that is on top that is able to dictate tempo. Whether a player is able to play at that tempo is to do with how he actually plays the game. Tempo is generally about possession-risk. Playing the high percentage ball (in all areas of the pitch) and keeping good possession. Not all players are able to see the next pass of this type and prefer to bang it forward.

Tempo is dictated by the team who are in control in the game already - if my team doesn't have the ball then obviously they can't dictate the tempo. I've had plenty of games in which the opposing team has 65% possession and dominates play whatever I set my tempo at - again that is another existing implementation that isn't working correctly when a vastly inferior team can dominate possession by just passing the ball around its midfield and defence all the time - it very very rarely happens in real life.

Again, the changes I am proposing is not to do with the game being easy or not. Its supposed to be about adding an extra dimension of realism to FM.

The two are linked in most cases. Extra realism generally adds new layers of difficulty unless it is simplifying tactics so that they reflect real football more. As I've said above, I'm in favour of realism in small doses at a time, but only if existing features that are there purely to add realism do their job properly - since they don't I can do without yet more of them! That is just my opinion though - not a criticism of the idea per se, just a debate.

I agree with you Ranjith. However, I think this is already implement to some extent. Try changing from a successful formation to a strange one halfway through a season. It doesn't have to be paticuarly strange, just one that you've never used before (could be as simple as 4-5-1).

Yes, you're right. This is to do with a team adaptability setting though. Its not really anything to do with whether any of your players are already comfortable in playing that way already. It just uses adaptability stats and has no history of their experience/preferenec of different tactics/styles of play.

I don't think it is too easy to do well in the transfer market - when I got MK Dons into the premiership, I completley misjudged my player signings like signing Dorian Dervite for silly money, then he performed poorly all season.

This isn't a problem, people who want a superteam would get it not matter what you put in their way, the rest of us can just play the game. I sometimes buy the same player/s in different saves and they don't always achieve the same standard of play (in similar standard league).

I agree with quite a few things in here.

When talking about 'Duds', I signed quite a few over the years. Players who have incredible stats for being in the position they were supposed to play in. Yet, my 1.90 striker with an 18 for jumping, a 17 for strength and a 19 for heading doesn't win any header. And if he does, it goes straight to the opposition, making this awesome striker simply useless as a target man.

This is just one of the examples where I previously scolded the game for not taking any stats into consideration.

Now I believe he simply didn't fit in my system, or tactics. He was happy to be here, but his play was awful. He ended up playing nearly all games and scored about 5. Of which none were headers, by the way.

So yeah, I beg to differ when you say that transfers are generally good.

Now, coming back to your original idea of having particular plays play a part, I say: 'Yes'. I do believe that players, managers and coaches prefer a particular style of play. Yes, I also believe that it should be applied to the game, by e.g. a hidden stat, or perhaps incorporating it in a sort of adaptability for a player/coach.

I don't think that it should have too much impact on the game. While it may have some impact on players, it shouldn't completely waste your tactics, as it is a team sport.

This is what currently happens, due to the lack of transparancy we have in the game. As long as we don't know why players don't listen, there is little use in applying another variable which can make players ignore us, or our tactics.

Tempo is dictated by the team who are in control in the game already - if my team doesn't have the ball then obviously they can't dictate the tempo. I've had plenty of games in which the opposing team has 65% possession and dominates play whatever I set my tempo at - again that is another existing implementation that isn't working correctly when a vastly inferior team can dominate possession by just passing the ball around its midfield and defence all the time - it very very rarely happens in real life.

Sure you can apply a different style of play at times, but generally that's something you either train on (which has very few effect in the game, imho) and generally you only apply it when your current tactics don't work. For instance, you get overrun and don't have any ball possession. You should be able to switch back to a slower, short passing system without your team unable to grasp whatever you want them to do. It's not like they shouldn't be able to play it, it is just that it is not their preferably style.

I don't believe there are players who simply can't adapt to a particular passing style. I believe if a player doesn't adapt, it is due to the tactics; the passing style, the amount of runs, the formation - everything combined - which doesn't fit their play. Some players simply take more or less time to adapt, but I doubt anyone would simply be unable to play in a particular system.

There is, however, a factor in the real world where players seem to play much, much better than in others. But you only find that through experimenting, or by pure coincidence. And of course, there should be 'Duds'.

This isn't a problem, people who want a superteam would get it not matter what you put in their way, the rest of us can just play the game. I sometimes buy the same player/s in different saves and they don't always achieve the same standard of play (in similar standard league).

Again, this isn't really the point of the post.

What I am saying is that players nearly always adapt regardless of style of play.

The type of football played doesn't always suit the player/coaching staff.

This doesn't need to be an overwhelming factor in the game, but it really ought to be a factor.

What I am saying is that players nearly always adapt regardless of style of play.

Well, that's the whole crux of the argument. I disagree completely with that point and it's hard to know how you can possibly state that players nearly always adapt without a very wide ranging experiment or whatever.

Maybe you are just good at picking the players who can adapt well or maybe your tactical changes are not so big that a major adaptation is required?

There are already a whole host of behind the scenes factors contributing to this and how well it works comes down to how good a manager you are, like a lot of things. Maybe you are just a very good manager! I can guarantee 100% that Mario Gomez did not, in any way shape or form, adapt to fit into my Werder Bremen tactics as a lone frontman. Ciprian Marica had previously fed perfectly off the creative force of my pair of AMCs to score a goal a game, Gomez just didn't. Maybe the AMCs were less creative or better marked that second season, maybe he needed more time to develop an understanding with them, etc, etc, there are lots of potential reasons, but they mostly come down to the player adapting to my tactics and to his team-mates and also his team-mates adapting to him. Diego and Marica had a seemingly telepathic link when it came to the latter knowing exactly where to run and when and the former knowing exactly when and where to ping his through balls to, Diego and Gomez never came close to that level of understanding - i.e. neither adapted too well to the change (Diego to the change of the man he was looking to set free with his through balls, Gomez to a total change of club, team and tactics from his previous season). That is just one example - there are plenty of others at Fiorentina and Bremen who I have been managing - esp Berbatov at Fiorentina who has just never managed to fit in neatly after 2½ years...other people say he is a brilliant striker so clearly he doesn't suit my style of play even though he has generally netted ~15-20 goals per season.

Well, that's the whole crux of the argument. I disagree completely with that point and it's hard to know how you can possibly state that players nearly always adapt without a very wide ranging experiment or whatever.

Maybe you are just good at picking the players who can adapt well or maybe your tactical changes are not so big that a major adaptation is required?

There are already a whole host of behind the scenes factors contributing to this and how well it works comes down to how good a manager you are, like a lot of things. Maybe you are just a very good manager! I can guarantee 100% that Mario Gomez did not, in any way shape or form, adapt to fit into my Werder Bremen tactics as a lone frontman. Ciprian Marica had previously fed perfectly off the creative force of my pair of AMCs to score a goal a game, Gomez just didn't. Maybe the AMCs were less creative or better marked that second season, maybe he needed more time to develop an understanding with them, etc, etc, there are lots of potential reasons, but they mostly come down to the player adapting to my tactics and to his team-mates and also his team-mates adapting to him. Diego and Marica had a seemingly telepathic link when it came to the latter knowing exactly where to run and when and the former knowing exactly when and where to ping his through balls to, Diego and Gomez never came close to that level of understanding - i.e. neither adapted too well to the change (Diego to the change of the man he was looking to set free with his through balls, Gomez to a total change of club, team and tactics from his previous season). That is just one example - there are plenty of others at Fiorentina and Bremen who I have been managing - esp Berbatov at Fiorentina who has just never managed to fit in neatly after 2½ years...other people say he is a brilliant striker so clearly he doesn't suit my style of play even though he has generally netted ~15-20 goals per season.

Hi Glamdring. There is a difference here that needs to be cleared up.

Players not being able to adapt because they are not physically or technically up to it (or if they haven't settled into the club) is different to what I am talking about.

It for players who need to change their mentality. Understanding the pattern of play expected by the manager and fitting in.

Knowing how to mark zonally or man to man takes a lot of experience. Its also a mentality thing.

Playing a certain tempo is also a cultural thing. Players from different coutries like to play the game slightly differently.

Of course this is subtle and it should be represented into the game as a subtlety.

Also crowds don't expect teams in the Premier League to play a slow tempo. They want the team to push on up the field and have things happen quickly. Its a cultural thing and many players who have come here have struggled to adapt.

I can see how our points are getting slightly muddled, but we need to extricate the point I am making about styles of play that are preferred.

We haven't even gotten into the fact that it doesn't seem to matter what coach you get for coaching tactics - just as long as he has high attributes regardless of mentality.

Hi Glamdring. There is a difference here that needs to be cleared up.

Players not being able to adapt because they are not physically or technically up to it (or if they haven't settled into the club) is different to what I am talking about.

That is the point though - I trawled the world looking for a striker to replace Marica during the 2 weeks that I stalled his sale. Gomez appeared to have exactly the mix of physical and technical attributes I was looking for and his mental attributes looked fine too. Putting aside his real life horror show at Euro 2008 there can be no doubt he is a talented player, it just didn't happen for him at Bremen.

It for players who need to change their mentality. Understanding the pattern of play expected by the manager and fitting in.

Knowing how to mark zonally or man to man takes a lot of experience. Its also a mentality thing.

Playing a certain tempo is also a cultural thing. Players from different coutries like to play the game slightly differently.

Of course this is subtle and it should be represented into the game as a subtlety.

Also crowds don't expect teams in the Premier League to play a slow tempo. They want the team to push on up the field and have things happen quickly. Its a cultural thing and many players who have come here have struggled to adapt.

I can certainly agree with a lot of that, but I think the training module of the game is appalling now for lots of reasons. Putting aside the fact that I hardly ever see any nice green arrows next to my players' attributes like I used to in FM07 (esp. for the players who are said to have trained best at the end of the month) so that attribute increases seem to happen much more under the radar than previously, I maybe don't understand the training module that well, but it seems very simplistic.

If I have strikers who are misfiring then I would like to give them extra shooting practice, but I'm not convinced that cranking up their level of Attacking/Shooting training will do much good if that purely affects the players' attributes - the players in question have perfectly good Finishing and other attributes, they are just in a barren spell. Same is true of other areas like you are talking about. The training module of a few versions back was a minefield of complications, but I liked the way to could mix and match trainig modules that covered different aspects, including team work and other aspects that were geared towards getting the team ready as a unit for the weekend's match - that would involve getting the team into whatever style of marking was required etc, etc. Now training appears to just be about modules that affect the players' attributes and you can't choose to work on team work or learniing a style of play or anything like that.

On that point I totally agree, but I think the attributes are mostly already there to handle most of these things if implemented correctly (e.g. adaptability and versitility, club tactic preferences - should include tempo which would be based mostly on what country you play in). A player being able to fit into a different tempo of game (e.g. an English player moving to Italy or vice-versa) would then just become part of him training to become part of a cohesive unit with his team-mates. Maybe a single hidden attribute for each player concerning how well he fits into the team's current tactics (which would vary as the tactics vary or depending how much training is focused on team moulding/tactics or how long a player has been at a club or in the given league) would be good, but that is probably already covered by existing things.

That is the point though - I trawled the world looking for a striker to replace Marica during the 2 weeks that I stalled his sale. Gomez appeared to have exactly the mix of physical and technical attributes I was looking for and his mental attributes looked fine too. Putting aside his real life horror show at Euro 2008 there can be no doubt he is a talented player, it just didn't happen for him at Bremen.

OK, so he has the attributes. So what is the problem with him?

It is most likely that there may be a consistency problem or it may just be he didn't adapt to that country.

However, at the moment, its certainly not because he isn't used to the style of play used.

That is another factor that is needed. It will also explain more why a player isn't adapting.

At the moment a player doesn't adapt and we don't know why.

Of course, sometimes its not easy to put your finger on, sometimes you can. Sometimes its to do with his role in the team, the settling into the country factor. It also depends on how the team plays and how well he can cope with this change in style.

Well, yes, sometimes players just don't work in a team and the reason is a total mystery. In the case of Gomez he is German, was signed from a German club and obviously Bremen are also a German club who I signed him for. It was all set up to be a perfect match made in heaven. In the end he just didn't score enough goals, whatever the reason. That is what I mean about at the moment though it isn't guaranteed that you can get the players you sign to automatically fit into whatever tactics you are using. He's now happily scoring goals for Real Betis having signed for Bremen for £17.5 million and left for Betis for £8 million less than a year later (and with me having signed him on a pay over 24 months deal so I am now paying another £8 million out this season for a player I sold for the ~£8 milion I have already paid ). Mebee I'm just a pleb of a manager though who really shouldn't be let loose with a transfer kitty!

Well, yes, sometimes players just don't work in a team and the reason is a total mystery. In the case of Gomez he is German, was signed from a German club and obviously Bremen are also a German club who I signed him for. It was all set up to be a perfect match made in heaven. In the end he just didn't score enough goals, whatever the reason. That is what I mean about at the moment though it isn't guaranteed that you can get the players you sign to automatically fit into whatever tactics you are using. He's now happily scoring goals for Real Betis having signed for Bremen for £17.5 million and left for Betis for £8 million less than a year later (and with me having signed him on a pay over 24 months deal so I am now paying another £8 million out this season for a player I sold for the ~£8 milion I have already paid ). Mebee I'm just a pleb of a manager though who really shouldn't be let loose with a transfer kitty!

Don't belittle yourself!

I've bought my share of duffers too.

However, its that in FM you don't sign quite as many as perhaps reflects real life, and the factor that I'm suggesting should help assuage that discrepancy.

That we don't sign as many as in real life is, I would say, entirely down to the fact that we get nice numerical attributes covering all the key areas so we can judge a player on a huge amount of information. Maybe scouts in real life at some clubs have a big table of attributes that they fill in with a score out of 20 or 100 or whatever too, but even if they do it would be an estimate/opinion whereas in FM what we see as an attribute value is what it actually is.

If the attributes that we see for a player who is not a member of our own squad were all approximate and based on the skill of a scout then we'd all sign a lot more duffers (except those who use 3rd party scout programs of course), although I wouldn't enjoy the game if it was like that!

Saw a tutuorial tip pop up

It said something about players who come from leagues with different stlye of play will not so easily adapt to the new league.

However, what if your team is playing a style more consistent with the player native league already? Is there some hidden stat to say he is adapting to different styles of play? Is this info stored in his history? I am not so sure.