Stopping the CCC rot

I'm pretty sure I'm experiencing a fairly common problem but I'm struggling to solve it. After a good few years I've bullied my way into the Champions League which is going well but my league form is slipping, I have a particular problem scoring goals. Now, I kind of anticipated that this would happen at some point as I relied heavily upon 2 players to score goals and I knew that if they were struggling then I'd struggle. They are struggling...

I'd like to offer a solution of my own to discuss but I've not really had any success so far and a nasty trend is emerging. Now, since hitting a CL spot last year I'm now a top team and expected lower teams to really start parking the bus and frustrating us. I countered this by increasing my firepower up front and bringing in another creative midfielder to unlock particularly stingy defences. I also started to play more offensively and push higher up, control possession and attempt to really strangle teams - and I'm succeeding but I'm just not really scoring. These 2 games went particularly badly:

Both these games ended in defeat. Forest pipped me near the end of the game whilst Birmingham were 1 up all game before nipping a 2nd as I pushed hard for a late goal. These next 2 games weren't really any better:

The Leicester game was a bore draw whilst AZ was a win but only by a fluke winner late in the game.

As you can see, I was dominant in all the games whilst my CCC conversion rate is 3 from 18!!! In fact, I don't think all 3 goals I scored came from CCC's so the conversion rate is even lower. That's 79 shots (with an OK 40% on target) so there were a number of half-chances in that too. I've just lost to Tottenham (maybe deserved that one) whilst Man City had to rely on a fluke 89 minute winner after being spanked for 88 minutes. I recorded a couple of wins in this run, beat Liverpool comfortably but only just pipped Newcastle (who are struggling). My first 6 games of the season went well but I still struggled to score goals despite a huge number of shots on target and CCC's.

My players are generally a little tired from mid-week games but I use a decent squad rotation system. I've recently started a new training schedule at the start of the season but I can't see how that would really produce a terrible scoring rate. The new players who have joined the squad have bedded in well whilst those who have left were only fringe players. I've had bad runs before but this has been due to poor player form or motivation and so is clear to solve. This run has seen us play well, have plenty of decent shots, a high level of CCC's, decent motivation and dominate games but I'm just not scoring.

Any ideas on how to insert the proverbial rocket into my strike players?

In the last 3 years my main 2 goal-scoring threats have scored a goal every 1.5 games but nobody much is scoring from open play this term. Anyone else experienced this and how did you get out of it? Particularly against weaker teams.

EDIT: Forgot to add that in all 4 games above (plus others) the opponents have worked harder (ie run further) than my boys. This stat is a key indicator for me, as I have an extremely physical squad with a high work rate I normally move around more than other teams. I'm assuming as I'm dominating possession that this dominance will drop slightly but are there any other reasons? Motivation is generally good.

I feel your frustration...

I have my two strikers set to cross ball and try through balls both on maximum and I get a healthy amount of goals where the player that is most likely to shoot gives a side pass for the easy tap in, I believe this is why I have a good conversion rate of ccc's some games I will get 7 out of 7

In previous versions of FM I always favoured fast attacking football, but I am dropping the tempo right down in this present version and to great success. Now, I am not sure of your tactical philosophy but judging by your lofty position and the clear evidence in the screen shots you are one of the better managers that live on these forums. So with that in mind, you must only be a few adjustment here and there from busting the net. As I stated above, those things have worked very well for me, the drop in tempo seems to relax the players and the options of crossing and through balls further opens up their choices, I do have long shots on the lowest setting as a long shot can ruin a potential good move and when teams do park the bus I do not want them to try the spectacular instead of grinding the defence down.

EDIT to your EDIT... Higher possession does usually mean you run less, I will often turn to my super slow possession tactic when the game is in my favour to tire and frustrate the opposition. You ain't done nothing wrong there.

PS, What is your tempo and average attacking mentality?

My team also has sometimes tendency to miss an incredible amount of CCC. But I always believe, there has to be a reason.

Let's assume you have good strikers. So it can be just bad luck. But when it repeats too often it surely isn't bad luck. It can be over motivation (motivation is connected with pressure, so motivated players with poor mentals can be quite nervous in matches e.g. missing CCC, even when it is not reported in motivation screen). You can try slighty less demanding team talks but not much or your players will be complacent/demotivated.

I've been scoring less and less as the season wears on. It's November and I'm drawing with the likes of Stoke and Wolves (as Liverpool).

It doesn't help that there's two matches a week not counting EL. My players have no time to rest at all.

Think I'll try lowering the tempo (this will help with their fitness after a mid-week game too) and try to go a little easier on them during this difficult run of form. I had overlooked that a poor CCC conversion rate is often linked to the pressure on a player - stupid mistake! I've had my match prep on attacking movement but think I'll up the work-rate in this area to try and give them a performance boost. I've got some tougher games coming up and my guys have always played better against stronger opposition (hence why the CL is going well for me despite poor league form) so hopefully things will pick up soon - it's a bit disconcerting when all of my strikers have hit a poor goal-scoring run all at the same time (I play a 451/433 so the front 3 are the goal threat in my team).

I changed my Capt from an old warhorse with 20 determination and 15 influence for a younger model with 17 det and 16 inf. I've often thought that the personality of a captain can affect the whole team, do others agree with the importance of a good captain? And by good captain I mean one who has a great personality, good reputation and squad perception as well as decent influence. If my new captain doesn't handle pressure particularly well then maybe this could also be a factor in my poor run of form?

Also, do you think that the Capt absolutely has to be a regular starter? Giggs isn't at Utd and I think most consider him a good captain.

Are most of your chances coming from through balls the FC runs onto? That is the common issue regarding missed CCCs, with the shooter actually being at a poor angle and having very little time in such situations. If so, I'd look at how to fashion other chance types above worrying about the FCs pressure levels, although that can help too.

Things I'd think about:

1: Is either FC dropping deep enough to pull DCs out of position and open holes around the d-line?

2: Are you getting enough supporting players forward during attacking moves, which will open up passing angles and produce a plethora of chance types?

3: Are you adapting to weather / pitch conditions and increasing / reducing tempo / pass lengths accordingly? If you are not, play can get bogged down in heavy conditions and players get exhausted in hot ones, resulting in lots of snatched chances.

4: Are you playing a direct game that suits an aggressive team with advanced wingers and 2 FCs, or are you trying to play possession football, which suits a team that sits deep and counters? Although it is possible to play an aggressive short-passing game, it can be relatively easily combatted by a team sitting deep and packing their defence. If you are playing narrow, then this is even more likely to be a problem.

What exactly constitutes a Clear Cut Chance?

I think what constitutes a CCC is part of the problem, most of them are 1v1s where either a) the FC is clear through after being played on by 1 of the MC's or b) either AMR/AML is clear through after being played on by the FC or possibly an MC. In these chances there is a lot of pressure as the defence are tracking back hard, and, as they are defending deeper against me this year there is less time than last year when they were regularly slotting home such chances.

I think WWFan has hit the nail on the head. To be fair I knew my team were quite 1-dimensional and relied upon playing balls over or through defences for my very quick and strong front 3 (AML/FC/AMR) to run on to and slot home 1st time - I knew teams would shut-up-shop far more against me this year so countered by push higher up the pitch, often looking for the overlap and often passing into space. What I've actually done by pushing higher up the pitch and attempting to strangle teams by playing with the ball just outside their penalty box is destroy my main goalscoring avenue which has left me with a splattering of headed goals from set pieces and the odd rarity from an MC who has got bored of sitting back and decided to head forward.

Thanks for the points WWFan, 1 & 2 aren't too bad for me but I haven't really considered 3 or 4. It's the start of the season so good (but sometimes hot) playing conditions in England are compounded by tougher midweek games and by me opting for more attacking strategies which require a higher tempo and thus tire my guys out so they are susceptible to a soft late goal from a conservative team. Regarding 4, I have frequently played with narrow and look for overlap to try and get my quick attacking FBs into play more which looks good but maybe strings my team out a bit, making us susceptible to a late, soft counter attack. I'll address both and I've also upped match prep until out of this slump.

Given that I'm not afraid to 'hump one long' over an advancing defence from time to time, would anyone recommend a control strategy whilst dropping deeper? I've been playing a more creative guy at DCl so that should further benefit him. Would this be a good way to entice a conservative team forward to allow more room for my destructive front 3? I'll add that my front 3 are gung-ho - i.e. extremely physical finishers rather than expressive players with guile.

Fury, You could try the obvious before making wholesale changes, simply playing deeper might provide some space for your strikers.

Does anyone know if SI have ever defined what a CCC is?

Dropping deep and ticking the counter attack can give you great results when faced with a negative opponent and with your three forwards being biased towards pure goal scoring rather than trying to be clever, it remains an option for you to test. One of my three tactics is based on the counter attack but still maintaining a medium tempo and an attacking philosophy that is not higher than 15 for the most advanced players. You can sometimes get an assist from a DC, not often but it makes you actually jump out of you chair when it happens.

What exactly constitutes a Clear Cut Chance?

SI apply it far too liberally if you compare it with real life statistics. An SI CCC is pretty much any chance in which the player finds himself in space in or around the fringes of the area. As a result, a tap in with the keeper out of position, and a burst past a defender on the edge of the area, with a defender aggressively chasing back, the keeper well positioned and the attacker having to take a shot on the wrong foot are both regarded as CCCs. The argument is that a CC is any chance when, if the player kept his composure, he should have scored. However, I think that falls down when confronted with real world research.

Real world statistics suggest that a good chance requires the following:

1: The shooter must have at least a yard of space in front of him

2: The ball must be within 12 yards of the goal

3: The angle of the shot must be between lines radiating out from the post through the corners of the 6-yard box

4: The shooter must be shooting with his first or second touch

Even with all these elements in favour of the attacker, at the most he has a 50% chance of converting the vast majority of such chances. The further out it is, the closer the conversion ratio will be to 25%, the closer in the closer to 100%. In comparison, a penalty has an 82% chance of being converted, all things being equal. However, penalties at different times in a game are converted at far different rates, with pressure playing a big part. For example, a high pressure penalty to save/win a game late in the match has about a 10% more chance of being missed than a first half penalty.

Any shot a player takes from outside 12 yards has at most a 20% chance of conversion, with it quickly dropping to 11% as the shot gets closer to the edge of the area. I think SI actually has these percentages quite well modelled. However, they actually display some of these circa 11% chances as CCCs, which is not helpful to the user. Further, every touch a player takes before shooting after his 2nd touch massively reduces the chance of his scoring, as the keeper and defenders will tend to be getting into better defensive positions. Again, I think SI has this pretty well modelled, with the keeper nearly always being in an excellent position and defenders heavily pressurising any player who has dribbled from deep into the area, forcing him to take a quicker shot than he'd like, which is often missed / saved.

I suggest you employ your own subjective judgement as to whether the chance is a genuine CCC or not.

SI apply it far too liberally if you compare it with real life statistics. An SI CCC is pretty much any chance in which the player finds himself in space in or around the fringes of the area. As a result, a tap in with the keeper out of position, and a burst past a defender on the edge of the area, with a defender aggressively chasing back, the keeper well positioned and the attacker having to take a shot on the wrong foot are both regarded as CCCs. The argument is that a CC is any chance when, if the player kept his composure, he should have scored. However, I think that falls down when confronted with real world research.

Thanks wwfan, is this info sourced directly from SI?

I take more notice of Shots On Target/Goals ratio. Never been hung up on CCCs but I do like to learn as much as I can about the game.

Cheers

xxx

Thanks for the info WWFan, it's certainly highlighted that I've been far too hung up on the stats as an indicator for where my errors are. I've also been too hung up on trying to dominate teams in terms of territory and possession. Now things have picked up with a mid-week victory against Roma. As I said in the OP, my 1st foray into the CL is going well but the players were starting to *play* better in this game rather than just get a win (a skinny 1-0). As an example of the danger of statistical analysis, try and guess the scoreline in my next Prem game away vs Bolton (incidentally, I would normally be favourite as Bolton are an average team but my poor form of late saw me as underdogs), I should also note that they got a red card quite late in the game so it didn't have a big impact on proceedings:

No points for guessing that I won as I'd already said things were picking up but this rather average set of statistics provided me with a 4-0 victory. I'm interested in what people thought the score might be, I'd probably have guessed a 2-1, 2-0 or 1-0 (possibly a draw) as my boys were clearly slightly in the ascendency but certainly not as dominant as the stats in the OP (where I lost).

Tactically for this game I followed advice given and played to my strengths by dropping deeper, playing slightly longer and limiting long shots. By contrast, in the OP I attempted to strangle teams by pushing higher up and putting more bodies around the opponents penalty box and but succeeded in negating the pace and power of my striker force. Whilst this resulted in the statistics levelling themselves out, the chances screen provides a much clearer picture of how the game was won:

The 4th CCC for us (Southampton) is hidden by a flurry of half-chances to the right of the penalty spot. That's 9 half-chances and 4 CCC's by the games reckoning so scoring 4 is hardly surprising. My subjective appraisal was also that the chances were far better than the OP with the strikers having more time and less pressure.

However, whilst tactical decisions were clearly important in ensuring that I gave the guys the best chance of performing I think the real victory here was that I made better motivational decisions. As WWFan CCC's aren't always CCC's and as Los_Culacs pointed out well motivated players sometimes aren't well motivated. I have a highly determined and professional bunch but I think their handling of pressure maybe needs better managing and that I had been using the stick rather than the carrot too much.

Before the game I praised the players in the media and told the press that my boys would turn around this bad run. My pre-game talk mirrored this stance and I used the seldom used 'wish luck' in conjunction with heavily favoring the 'have faith', here are the reported results:

A pretty good pre-match report but the 'wish luck' seemingly had no effect at all. The in-game motivation showed better results and the performance showed even more clearly that this approach was the correct one. At half-time I was 2-0 and decided that I was tempted to praise the guys but thought this would be FAR too risky so used a rather neutral encouraging talk which, as shown, was a great choice. Another 2 second-half goals showed that this worked well.

Sorry for the long reply but I know this sort of problem affects a lot of us at some point and I wanted to thank guys for their advice and to show how I'm trying to overcome this challenge. After 2 games I can't call the problem solved but the guys have started to get back to their old ways which is encouraging. I've got Middlesbrough at home next where I'll be heavy favourites so I'll see if a more encouraging teamtalk and dropping deeper works against a team which will definitely be parking the bus. I might well try a control strategy as well as that alters the passing style to encourage my defenders to attempt to draw their attackers out.

I don't think "CCC rot" can simply be attributed to how the ME defines CCC. If that were the case, the problem would be consistent. Instead, the problem tends to emerge when you hit the top of the table and/or get deep into a winning streak. I use a slow, probing tactic that doesn't generate a whole lot of CCC's in normal circumstances, so I don't see the "too many CCC's" thing. I do, however, see edgy or lazy strikers blowing a lot of sitters in the aforementioned circumstances.

This tells me that "CCC rot" is the result of the game uses pressure and complacency as a way to model form and ensure a realistic number of upsets. To mitigate those effects, you need a good mix of man management as well as players with high professionalism, determination and pressure-handling. If you don't have players with great mental stats, the man management can be especially tricky since you may get to a point where "Expecting a Performance" will make your players nervous but anything else will make them complacent.

Rather than CCCs, look in the Team and Player Stats pages to check on how well your side is converting chances. It is a far better indicator of whether you have problems or not.

My current chance conversion across the team is 129 goals from 919 shots, which means I score once in roughly every 7 shots taken. In comparison, other teams in my league range from 1 goal in every 8 shots to 1 goal in every 11 shots.

Individually, I expect players in four positions to weigh in with the vast majority of open play goals (the FC, AMR, AMC, AML in a deep 4-2-3-1). Their conversion rates are thus:

FC: 23%

AMR: 18%

AMC: 9% (clouded by being the direct free kick taker)

AML: 18%

My cover players in these positions also do OK:

AMC: 9% (also takes direct free kicks)

FC/AMR: 18%

AMC/AML: 13%

Supporting them are the DMCs, who rarely shoot. My 1st choice DLP has only shot 5 times in 39 appearances (PPM: Looks of Pass Rather Than Attempting To Score). In comparison, his cover, who I'm training to be a threat from range, has shot 24 times in 38 appearances (50% as a sub), scoring twice. My other two DMs both average a shot every 3.5 games and have yet to find the net. These players rarely waste possession and recycle the ball to enable the team to probe for better chances / win corners rather than blast long shots in frustration.

My other goals come from set pieces. Working through the stats suggests the team has scored about 30 goals from circa 250 successful set piece deliveries (about 1 in 8.3, which, although still good, is a significantly worse conversion ratio than my open play conversion).

These kind of stats are the key to working out if you are making the right tactical decisions on a regular basis. Anything below 1 in 9 is excellent, anything above means you need to work at things.

If the problem were a matter of the game being too generous assigning CCC status, it would affect AI teams as much as player teams.

If the problem were tactical, it would be consistent at all times instead of occurring under specific circumstances (after a lengthy unbeaten run, during February/March slumps after dominating the league for the first half of the season).

If the problem were tactical, it would be unique to specific kinds of tactics as opposed to being common to any sort of offensive tactic necessary to win as a top flight team.

If the problem were tactical, all the advice provided by the people who insist its just tactical would work. It doesn't.

The CCC issue is just part of the game and the way it regulates team performance to stop undefeated, high morale juggernauts from dominating every season. The best way to deal with it is having players with good mental stats, using media mind games against your opponents and carefully using team talks... but this only reduces the effect, it doesn't eliminate it.

FM11 is a game. It uses methods that almost all games use to impose a challenge due to the limits of modern AI development. There's not really any point pretending there's a tactical solution. If there was a tactical solution, the community would have already figured it out and people wouldn't complain about blown CCCs all the time.

If the problem were a matter of the game being too generous assigning CCC status, it would affect AI teams as much as player teams.

If the problem were tactical, it would be consistent at all times instead of occurring under specific circumstances (after a lengthy unbeaten run, during February/March slumps after dominating the league for the first half of the season).

If the problem were tactical, it would be unique to specific kinds of tactics as opposed to being common to any sort of offensive tactic necessary to win as a top flight team.

If the problem were tactical, all the advice provided by the people who insist its just tactical would work. It doesn't.

The CCC issue is just part of the game and the way it regulates team performance to stop undefeated, high morale juggernauts from dominating every season. The best way to deal with it is having players with good mental stats, using media mind games against your opponents and carefully using team talks... but this only reduces the effect, it doesn't eliminate it.

FM11 is a game. It uses methods that almost all games use to impose a challenge due to the limits of modern AI development. There's not really any point pretending there's a tactical solution. If there was a tactical solution, the community would have already figured it out and people wouldn't complain about blown CCCs all the time.

Great post. Totally agree. Man management is a very very important part of the game and many players neglect it.

Great post. Totally agree. Man management is a very very important part of the game and many players neglect it.

Absolutely agree, but...

There are some tactical approaches that lend themselves to non-converted CCCs and some that don't. The most common tactical type that results in multiple missed CCCs is the aggressive mentality, short-passing, narrower tactic, especially in heavy conditions or on small pitches. AS FML illustrated, a massive majority of users play this way. Given that many of them used the FM tactics upload/download forum for their tactics, it wouldn't be that surprising to learn that FMers have a similar tendency.

The best tactical way to avoid missed CCCs is to play a more controlled game that uses a lot of the pitch and draws the opposition out. It stops the AI from being able to pack its defence with masses of bodies and congest the middle. It has pretty much been that way since at least FM08, if not FM07, and there have been a few threads about it in the past. Does it totally negate it? No, but it does minimise it. Add in a good squad management strategy and you will hardly ever suffer it.

My 1st choice DLP has only shot 5 times in 39 appearances (PPM: Looks of Pass Rather Than Attempting To Score).

He finished the season with 1 goal, which he scored at 0-0 in the 119th minute of the Champions League Final.

He finished the season with 1 goal, which he scored at 0-0 in the 119th minute of the Champions League Final.

I like this

Well, since the Bolton game my team has continued to improve on the pitch with a good 2-2 away draw against At.Madrid in my final CL group game and a disappointing 2-2 home draw against a poor Middlesbrough side.

To chip in with the discussion I'd add that I did approach this problem from a motivational AND a tactical angle and think both have been instrumental in my team starting to claw their way out of this slump (despite the home draw the team played much better and a slightly more cautious approach whilst leading probably would have allowed my guys to see the game out).

As WWFan stated this common problem of unconverted CCC's are most prevalent with aggressive, short-passing and narrow formations which mirrors pretty accurately how I adapted my tactics to try and dominate teams whilst being heavy favourites. Motivationally I put more pressure on the team, which, given that they are determined and professional shouldn't have been too bad a decision before the slump began which means that the tactical element of this problem was very much important.

I think the crucial thing for anyone in a similar situation to me is not to get bogged down with the statistics and to really take a step back and decide where you are going wrong. For me it was mainly tactical although changing my motivational strategy clearly helped (as shown by the motivational stats for the Bolton game). Don't negate your qualitative assessment of how your players are playing - I watch the game on Extended so I miss a fair chunk of the game but this replay mode gives me enough. If my players are carelessly giving the ball away or snatching at chances then I know there are some problems which are probably motivational in nature - if they are doing everything right but not winning then for me its probably tactical.

After reading the thread, I didn't notice anyone mentioning the possibility that CCC's might have a connection with Strategies. My own experience is that when you make a good assumption in regards to Strategy for your next fixture then you convert your chances a lot better...

After reading the thread, I didn't notice anyone mentioning the possibility that CCC's might have a connection with Strategies. My own experience is that when you make a good assumption in regards to Strategy for your next fixture then you convert your chances a lot better...

I hadn't really given this much thought as I rarely alter from a Standard strategy before the game begins. I'll make some shouts at the beginning of the game based on selection, opposition & conditions (in that order) but generally let the game play out for a while to see what alterations I should make.

I tend to favour maximising the potential of my team rather than minimising the threat from the opposition as I often find doing the former successfully will make the latter occur anyway. I've often found the AI make some 'curious' choices regarding selection and strategy anyway - At.Madrid haven't put Aguero out against me in either game despite him being 100% fit and in form and my team are hardly considered mugs, if they had they would of topped the group ahead of me.

I hadn't really given this much thought as I rarely alter from a Standard strategy before the game begins. I'll make some shouts at the beginning of the game based on selection, opposition & conditions (in that order) but generally let the game play out for a while to see what alterations I should make.

For me, this would be the main cause for the dilemma that you are experiencing. Now, I am well aware that many won't share my point of view and this assumption I have brought forth must not be interpreted in a way that it is "set in stone" (quoting Cleon). I feel I have played the game long enough to have an idea how the mechanics in the game work and in the long run following these concepts has worked better than worse.

In my book, Standard Strategy works best when you are a larger favorite away from home or large underdogs on home field - meaning that Standard Strategy won't suit every 'scenario' you will encounter in the game as you won't be in this type of scenario every game of the season. Being favorite at home or being underdog away from home will/could demand other strategies to get the most out of results, so I am pretty sure that chosing the (more or less) correct Strategy should get you better than worse results in the long run...

After reading the thread, I didn't notice anyone mentioning the possibility that CCC's might have a connection with Strategies. My own experience is that when you make a good assumption in regards to Strategy for your next fixture then you convert your chances a lot better...

I certainly used to use the paper, scissors, stone approach, with it being an early driver for the development of TT&F and the TC. However, I've been focusing a bit more on different playing styles in recent months to see whether it was possible to do extremely well with a specific style rather than strategic switching. I've been focussing on developing a Counter based tactic that uses the technical excellence my players have to their best advantage. I've been basing it on the tactical theory that technically excellent European sides traditionally beat direct British teams by sitting deep, holding possession and countering at pace when the opposition has over-commited. It has proved to be a very successful way of playing and rarely needs a strategic shift.

In the future I also want to look at how a British direct ball style game might do well and work on a Milan/Barca possession/pressing system, although I don't think the pressing in the ME works quite well enough to allow that just yet. If the ME is perfectly balanced, which I think it is, then each system should work equally well as long as the user is making correct assumptions about what to shout (which is the user's main advantage over the AI, which is very limited in this area). If it works, then longer term, I'd like to see a TC setup that explicitly reflects these different playing styles and aids the user in understanding what he is trying to do and how to achieve it From my experience in FML and in these forums, too many users expect to win just through playing an aggressive tactic and buying good players. I'd like to see a far greater appreciation of different traditions of play and a TC that enables this. Whereas some managers could still use the paper, scissors, stone approach, which will still be hugely valid, others could focus on perfecting a system. Currently, you still need a lot of personal knowledge to do that as the game doesn't help enough.

I'm certainly a fan of 'perfecting' a tactic, its taken me 4 game years with a semi-consistent set-up and I'm still learning about my team and my preferred tactic. Periodically I'll tweak or work on a 2nd tactic - it depends what the game throws at me. It's a marvel of FM that it's really quite a dynamic beast. Another success of the game is that many different playing styles can all work.

My main problem with choosing a more attacking strategy is that there are certain tactical decisions which my team are deficient at - one of them I've learnt recently is that they don't like pushing too far up the pitch. I've got pace all over the park so defensively it's fine but my team don't like to be cramped - they need breathing room as my strike players are really quite 1-dimensional. This doesn't happen with the TC defaults for attacking or control strategy and simply shouting to play deeper doesn't really cut it for my team - I'll strangle teams as the stats in the OP show but I won't win so starting with these strategies is dangerous for my team. I'll switch to them depending on conditions during the match however.

I'd agree that players often get confused in their playing style (it certainly was a facet in my current problem) and that some outside knowledge is necessary. Playing the game in a 'realistic' manner is normally a good way to go and as the FM series progresses the loop-holes in its coding are becoming increasingly well hidden.

As players develop and you bring new players into your team or retire older players you'll need to adapt your tactic. If your team always struggle against a specific formation the you'll need to adapt your tactic. I don't believe in whole-sale changes but a simple change to passing length or pressing strategy can wildly alter the specific threats your team creates - it is in this area that the ME has really improved in the last few years. I'm starting to see a 'flavour' for each team, or opposing manager, far more in FM11 than previous FM's and I sincerely hope that the series continues to grow in this fashion.

I certainly used to use the paper, scissors, stone approach

Well, I wouldn't exactly call it that because it is more or less a guessing game - in my experience FM is not. Football is a game of attacking and defending - so ingame teams that are favorite to win at home will play attacking strategies and underdogs away from home will play defensive strategies. The degree of attacking/defending can be interpreted by the pre-match odds so you get a pattern in what type of strategies work best.

I feel the problem with being too one-sided in terms of tactical approaches is that it won't compliment your team in the long run. The reason I say this is that at one point the AI will play very defensive against you (especially if you create good result form), if you don't press these type of opponents enough then when looking at full matches you notice the AI team passing the ball around behind your line of Closing Down. When this happens you conceed a lot of possession and resultwise my experience is that results will not be that kind to your team in these situations.

I am not sure exactly what you meant when you said that each system should work equally well, but I can't imagine that a team that will be mostly large underdogs away from home will succeed by playing Attacking Strategies. There is a connection between your teams' overall capability in comparison to your opponents' capability, this gives a certain limit to what type of strategies would work best (for your next opponent) - also how much your team is 'allowed' to pressure your opponent without them evading it and punishing your team...

but I can't imagine that a team that will be mostly large underdogs away from home will succeed by playing Attacking Strategies.

Let your imagination run wild because this is possible(well in FM10 anyway). I employed it often and won many games.

My best ever result under these circumstances was beating Real Madrid 3-0 away(Ronaldo out injured luckily), starting with Standard until the team motivation showed up, and with no one playing nervously I switched to Overload for the rest of the game, 55% possession, 15 shots, 5 on target and, for CCC buffs, 3xCCC's. Maybe they were stunned that I had the cheek to attack them, but not as stunned as I was by the result.

It's always nice to see that post match comment though "didn't know what hit them" (or something like that)

Let your imagination run wild because this is possible(well in FM10 anyway). I employed it often and won many games.

My best ever result under these circumstances was beating Real Madrid 3-0 away(Ronaldo out injured luckily), starting with Standard until the team motivation showed up, and with no one playing nervously I switched to Overload for the rest of the game, 55% possession, 15 shots, 5 on target and, for CCC buffs, 3xCCC's. Maybe they were stunned that I had the cheek to attack them, but not as stunned as I was by the result.

It's always nice to see that post match comment though "didn't know what hit them" (or something like that)

I often threw caution to the wind whilst massive underdogs and went out with an attacking strategy (like pigface I also switch after the game starts to check motivation etc) and frequently got favourable results. Even if I didn't win then the team generally played well.

I think it's to do with the flexibility and adaptability of the ME - your tactics give your team a distinct 'flavour' but its the players that make your team. This is especially true if you use a lot of Creative Freedom.

Actually, while I think of it, loversleaper, what is your philosophy on CF?

A high CF leads to players with more inclination to disregard tactical instructions so it seems logical that high CF don't have to worry about starting strategy too much as it will have less of an effect. It also seems logical that conversely low CF, rigid teams would really benefit from a strong strategic approach.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call it that because it is more or less a guessing game - in my experience FM is not. Football is a game of attacking and defending - so ingame teams that are favorite to win at home will play attacking strategies and underdogs away from home will play defensive strategies. The degree of attacking/defending can be interpreted by the pre-match odds so you get a pattern in what type of strategies work best.

Paper, scissors, stone is perhaps not the best analogy as decisions are clearly far more educated than that. However, the approach of 'I think they will attack x much, so I will choose strategy Y' certainly is along similar lines. I have nothing against it as it is exactly how I used to play and it is undoubtedly the most pragmatic flexible form of management. If done well, the user will be extremely successful.

I feel the problem with being too one-sided in terms of tactical approaches is that it won't compliment your team in the long run. The reason I say this is that at one point the AI will play very defensive against you (especially if you create good result form), if you don't press these type of opponents enough then when looking at full matches you notice the AI team passing the ball around behind your line of Closing Down. When this happens you conceed a lot of possession and resultwise my experience is that results will not be that kind to your team in these situations

Not in my experience. I currently play at least 75% of match time with a Counter Strategy, and regularly get 60-70% possession. Once I get the ball, I don't lose it. The team plays the ball around the back, draws the opposition out, and then slices them open. If I find I do need to be more aggressive, I play Control and lengthen my passing. As my earlier post indicated, my chance conversion ratio is phenomenal. I might not create the 25+ chances that a more aggressive approach does, but I convert 1 in every 6-7 open play opportunities I fashion. If I can create 12-18 chances, I will invariably win 2 or 3 nil. In slightly over two seasons of trying this, I have conceded 24 and scored 205 goals in 81 league matches.

I am not sure exactly what you meant when you said that each system should work equally well, but I can't imagine that a team that will be mostly large underdogs away from home will succeed by playing Attacking Strategies. There is a connection between your teams' overall capability in comparison to your opponents' capability, this gives a certain limit to what type of strategies would work best (for your next opponent) - also how much your team is 'allowed' to pressure your opponent without them evading it and punishing your team..

I'm looking at real life tactical theory when discussing this. One long-standing theory is direct ball pragmatism, which argues that if you are aggressive and get the ball forward quickly, you will do well. Although much of the statistical element is discredited (as Charles Reep was an awful analyst), many Scandinavian and British teams have successfully employed such an approach. Basically, keep your wingers, forwards and defensive line high, press heavily and play attacking passes as soon as you get the ball.

A balanced ME should allow multiple tactical approaches. Possession based counter attacking, high intensity pressure tactics, anti-football, and strategic shifts should all have a chance of being successful as long as the manager has a clear idea of what he is trying to do. There should be no right and wrong way to do things, just different ways. The challenge is developing a system that helps users understand what these ways might be.