Let your players choose your tactic - a theoretical discussion

Disclaimer

This reads in a very similar light to SFraser's Meet The System, this is not intentional and only became apparent to me as I was writing this. That said I feel there are some key differences in the discussion that merit this post having its own life.

Read SFraser's post first, then read this, if you feel this adds nothing, ignore it and it will go away, but I hope there is enough original content or at least a different enough view on this topic to make a new discussion worthy of discussion.

With that said:

A matter of introduction

Making a tactic that suits your players is, in my opinion, the key to being a successful FM manager. Thus the successful manager doesn't ask Hernandez to play as a target man, or even a deep lying forward, he maximises the value from the player by getting the player to play in a way that best suits his attributes in this case as a Poacher playing off the last man.

In FM we achieve this using the Player Instructions, we set Hernandez to Run From Deep and Run With Ball, at the same time we tell him not to take Long Shots nor do we ask him to play Through Balls. These are the Player Instructions we get from setting the player to the Poacher setting.

But what about those players that fit into the gaps, that aren't perfect at any of the standard FM roles, or who are capable of fulfilling more than one role at a time. These could be seen as the Wing Back that can't dribble or the playmaker with high Long Shots. There are many minor variations to each player, strengths and weakness and that always fully encapsulated in the standard player roles.

Each player in the game has his own strengths and weaknesses, Ferguson uses the Work Rate of Ji Sung Park in the big games where he needs to play more defensively while Nani is used in situations where he wants to break open defences. This is one of the greatest managers of all time, selecting players in specific roles in specific situations - there is no one size fits all tactic being used.

Clearly the manager provides some insight to the players as to what he expects; Passing Style, Creative Freedom, Marking etc. These are the Team Instructions - the global settings that effect the entire team. In the last minutes of a game when holding a lead, even Nani is sitting back in his own half - because he is able to restrain his natural tendencies to the global 'drop deep and defend' call he has received from his manager. But he will still receive the ball and run with it, and try dribble it past too many defenders - because this is who he is. We see these as Preferred Moves in FM.

Ferguson doesn't need to ask Nani to do these things, these are in the make-up of the player. Luckily for Nani - he is a capable dribbler, he has the ability to work with his natural tendencies. Now which comes first, the PM or the attribute? This is an open debate, but I will suggest we add PM's to our young players before they make into our first team based on their key attributes, thus we train our tricky Wingers to 'Runs with Ball Often' and allow him to override our natural urges to control the player.

We play the Harry Redknapp arm-around-the-shoulder style - go out there and do what you do best. We aren't trying to fit our players into predefined roles, rather we are getting our players to determine what they are best at, and picking and choosing those parts that best work with them. The players Mental Attributes become the key to all this, they may have contradictory PM's (Breaks Offside Trap, Tries Long Shots) - but we understand that these are only contradictory if he plays these at the same time. Rather our player is able to perform both these tasks at different times depending on the situation that unfolds.

So what does this mean in FM terms?

The FM manager that wants his tactics to be consistent with the skills of his players uses Role Calculators and Assistant Reports to determine the role the player best suits, usually forgoing some strengths and/or playing to weaknesses. Without going to each player and adjusting his instructions individually we are left with a default tactic that at times plays well with certain players and not as well with others.

But what if we play with a blank canvas? We maintain default settings where possible, we take advantage of the PMs, we train players to override our instructions with ones that take advantage of player strengths and avoid their own weaknesses. We take a young player and we train him the PPM's that are best suited to his role and attributes, we train tricky wingers to Run with Ball Often - and those with high Crossing we say Hug Touchline, while those with a good shot we train to Cut Inside.

By the time the player leaves our academy he is an independent being, able to determine his own future and roles - the bane of Mourinho's existence.

But what must we do? We must ensure we select and train the player correctly, we are trusting this player with the decision making. We teach him to make decisions, to anticipate, move with and with out the ball, he is his own man free from the shackles of his manager's preferences.

Our tactic reflects this, but not by selecting a Fluid philosophy, no the shoulder on the arm manager still has influence - he still wants the team to play in a way that overall reflects his philosophy but the individual pieces move on their own within this. He plays anything from Very Rigid to Very Fluid because this determines the overall shape and style of the team and these are the pieces he controls. We want to still maintain control of how attacking or defensive our players are and where they stand on the field.

We are able to use any formation we choose, any philosophy and any strategy. In fact we don't even have to provide players with the ability to roam or give them too much freedom - because we still want them to be a team. What we don't do is overly instruct the players on their individual instructions, thus we have two options

1, select roles for the players that are as bland as possible:

DR/L: Fullback (S)

DC: Central Defender (D)

DM: Defensive Midfielder (S)

MC: Box to Box Midfielder

MR/L: Wide Midfielder (S)

AMC: Attacking Midfielder (S)

AMR/L: Defensive Winger (S)

FC: Deep Lying Forward (S)

(You may decide that others work better, but these are the ones that have the majority of the offensive instructions set to middle)

2, manually check the the player instructions to Sometimes.

The advantage of the second option is that you have given the players PMs complete control and you are also able to select differing mentalities easily by adjusting to defend/support/attack.

The first option places the players all on support duty as this is the most neutral setting, but each of these has some non-default instructions (e.g. Run With Ball is set to Often on the Defensive Winger) - nothing is foolproof. The advantage though is that you are able to adjust these up and down on a general basis by using the shouts. You can adjust the instructions to take advantage of the game situation. The player's PMs then become relative adjustments (on the basis that PMs adjust the sliders by one click in the relevant direction).

But why?

We do this so that we are able to allow each player to play to his strengths each and every time regardless of our settings. We don't have to manually adjust and set each parameter every time we make a substitution or switch the formation because our player instructions are determined by the PMs not by our dictatorial nature. We can make adjustments to the overall style of the team but we never restrain our players completely, we allow them to continue to play to their strengths.

In FM terms this allows us to focus on the team dynamic and style rather than individual player instructions and roles. We become man managers and strategists rather than puppet masters taking control of tiny details of our players movements.

Conclusion

I have not play tested this theory, it is merely an idea a concept that may or may not work. This may be a purely theoretical exercise in that finding the players to perform this may be impossible or the cost of training PMs too high.

[saved for later use]

I would use option 1 because it eliminates the one and only "flaw" for me in SFrasers "Meet the system", you couldn't adapt everything that easely. By using the first option you can still have some control, while also giving the players the option to express themselves on the pitch. Great post, by the way, wich defenitely earns a discussion, from my point of view.

Great Post!

Back in FM11, after a few seasons or so I was managing Arsenal with the best squad in the world at the time.

I decided that I wanted to manage in a style, where I picked the players and mentality, but the players decided how to play. This was easy for me because most players had good composure and decision skills, plus great technical skills.

I gave all players (except DC's) high creative freedom and put most sliders indeed in the middle. (Some exceptions were players in the middle of pitch with no crossing and no long shots for deeper players.)

This worked out very good, they would play really really nice at times because they weren't "forced" to do a certain action. They would cross the ball in when it was a good option, or dribble around the defender the next time and place nice pack pass to an onstorming midfielder.

Same for my creative "playmaking" players (note I never assigned anyone playmaker) who were excellent at determing when the through ball was necessary or when an extra turn and pivot was the better option and playing another forward in his feet for an easy chance.

However, with lower quality players I feel they sometimes do to many dumb things, because they lack anticipation, composure and decision making, thus doing something like a square pass to someone who expected a though ball (or vice versa) etc. and losing to many balls.

So to them, I say, play easy, limit their options, and I tell you how to play.

But certainly, with quality teams, even from mid-table Premier League upwards, it is a viable tactic. But it puts more stress on the manager really, for choosing the right players any given sunday.

As of lately, I select my players different, I used to select the one with the highest CA usually for each match. Now I won't hesitate to put in a slightly weaker player who for example has greater positioning and teamwork (but perhaps weaker technical) stats in a match I think will be more of a battle.

Thanks for the responses.

Jazperdeman - I think we can all see how this works in Fluid, high Creative Freedom tactics. But I suggest this could work in a more Rigid formation with low Creativity. In this situation, I'm not giving the player freedom to do what he wishes - rather I'm allowing his PMs to determine his instructions and the overall philosophies determine his adherence to these instructions.

I enjoyed that LlamaZA, though I have to admit I did get lost from: "We are able to use any formation we choose. . ."

If I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that a DR/L: Fullback (S) with player instructions checked to Sometimes, the player himself then chooses how to play within that role. So if he needed to be more of a wingback he would do so and he if needed a sustained period of being defensive he would then change accordingly.

I enjoyed that LlamaZA, though I have to admit I did get lost from: "We are able to use any formation we choose. . ."

If I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that a DR/L: Fullback (S) with player instructions checked to Sometimes, the player himself then chooses how to play within that role. So if he needed to be more of a wingback he would do so and he if needed a sustained period of being defensive he would then change accordingly.

Mentality determines positioning so you'd have to base any positional play you wanted to see on mentality.

I enjoyed that LlamaZA, though I have to admit I did get lost from: "We are able to use any formation we choose. . ."

If I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that a DR/L: Fullback (S) with player instructions checked to Sometimes, the player himself then chooses how to play within that role. So if he needed to be more of a wingback he would do so and he if needed a sustained period of being defensive he would then change accordingly.

What I'm saying is that this philosophy can be applied independently of formation i.e. we can apply this to 442, 433, 4231, 352 formations. It's not about the formation - it's about the players.

On the second bit, the player doesn't decide on his role so much as PMs do. Thus if you view PMs as the player's choices then yes he decides what to do, but its not the same as the player using his Creativity, Flair and Decision making ability to make decisions on the fly. So if a player has the PM "Runs With Ball Often" his Run With Ball instruction will be set to often, thus he will now decide to run with the ball more often than our tactical setting would have it. Then when you replace the player with one that isn't as good at dribbling and thus doesn't have the PM he wouldn't have the higher setting and wouldn't dribble with the ball as often.

As Cleon said Mentality affects how attacking the player is, so you would use your team Strategy and Philosophy settings to increase/decrease his Mentality. You could also do this manuall, but the idea here is to limit player specific instructions.

Also go check for yourself, but the mentality setting for Full Backs and Wing Backs is the same, only the Role (defend/support/attack) will change the Mentality. So to make a Full Back a Wing Back we use the PMs to increase Run With Ball and Hug Touchline naturally without having to make the adjustment to our tactics when the player comes on the pitch.

Right I think I understand you, and I think I agree with you.

A Part of what you're saying here is that you are introducing the idea of creating tactics (maybe not so much creating) based PPM's.

That is, training players to have certain PPM's, rather then telling them do certain things through Tactical Instructions.

I have never tried that in such extend you are saying here, and I think it is in fact a Very interesting idea.

I am very interested in seeing statistics and images of players who have a certain PPM and no specific Tactical Instruction (TI) compared with a player without that PPM but with that relative TI.

So for example, how do two (indentical) CM's play, but one with PPM "Likes to play through balls often" and TI set to Through Balls Sometimes, and a CM without the PPM but with TI Through Balls set to Often.

My guess is, that your theory might lead to better football, i.e. more quality through balls rather then a lot of wasted though balls.

Are you willing to experiment on this?

Right I think I understand you, and I think I agree with you.

A Part of what you're saying here is that you are introducing the idea of creating tactics (maybe not so much creating) based PPM's.

That is, training players to have certain PPM's, rather then telling them do certain things through Tactical Instructions.

I have never tried that in such extend you are saying here, and I think it is in fact a Very interesting idea.

I am very interested in seeing statistics and images of players who have a certain PPM and no specific Tactical Instruction (TI) compared with a player without that PPM but with that relative TI.

So for example, how do two (indentical) CM's play, but one with PPM "Likes to play through balls often" and TI set to Through Balls Sometimes, and a CM without the PPM but with TI Through Balls set to Often.

My guess is, that your theory might lead to better football, i.e. more quality through balls rather then a lot of wasted though balls.

Are you willing to experiment on this?

It's not about PPM's only but rather about complete player's profile - his attributes, PPM's, even footedness.

Intelligent players may tend to utilize their strength rather than showing their weakness.

So, yes setting player instructions to sometimes may be beneficial for them.

However for players who are not intelligent, they need concise instructions.

Otherwise they may not know what to do.

Reading this made me think of another thread (too lazy to look it up atm) about the default formations, and their effectiveness. Most of them use pretty bland, default settings, but can be quite effective. I do tend to agree with the premise though, I try to fit the formation to the players, and eventually this leads to one of two things : multiple tactics for different "teams" within the club (a la fergie), or I just wind up with one main tactic and multiple players to slot into it (the plug n play theory).

I think it's part the reason Mourinho likes to have a few ultra-flexible players in his teams, so he can change tac on the fly.

However for players who are not intelligent, they need concise instructions.

Otherwise they may not know what to do.

I follow a similar theory, the lower down the leagues you get the more instruction the players need. Im sure i picked that up from an SFraser thread.

So I think what your saying in the thread would work, providing you have a relatively highg standard of players

I follow a similar theory, the lower down the leagues you get the more instruction the players need. Im sure i picked that up from an SFraser thread.

So I think what your saying in the thread would work, providing you have a relatively highg standard of players

Not necessarily.

What you're referring to is Creative Freedom, the ability of the player to make up his own mind on the field. This obviously requires higher Decision making ability.

What I'm suggesting is that you train a player who is good at dribbling to 'Run with Ball Often' so that his effective Run With Ball setting is Often. Thus when he is playing in a Rigid formation he'll look to run with the ball often. He isn't choosing to break away from tactical settings, rather we're training him to make this his tactical setting.

So the players are being given concise instructions, just not in the same way as before.

Not necessarily.

What you're referring to is Creative Freedom, the ability of the player to make up his own mind on the field. This obviously requires higher Decision making ability.

What I'm suggesting is that you train a player who is good at dribbling to 'Run with Ball Often' so that his effective Run With Ball setting is Often. Thus when he is playing in a Rigid formation he'll look to run with the ball often. He isn't choosing to break away from tactical settings, rather we're training him to make this his tactical setting.

So the players are being given concise instructions, just not in the same way as before.

I see what your getting at, using the PPM's could be a very good way to do it actually. Making them do things you want, without narrowing there decisions by playing exactly how you like. Interesting

Remember though that PPM's only encourage a player to do the PPM more and doesn't mean he'll do it constant.

I used to play this way, but really, the inflexibility of it can be a big problem.

Really, what you are doing when shaping the players through ppms is making them less of an all-round player. If you, for example, have a winger with "runs with ball down left" and you're up against a team where the right back is defensive and really hard to get past, or you want the winger to start tucking in, or the crosses are not connecting well, or... You get the picture.

It's better to have him do what you want using instructions, that way he can actually perform something else if you really need him to.

Imagine your deep-lying playmaker seriously injured and the best player to step in has "gets forward whenever possible", or "runs with ball through the middle", or "doesn't play through-balls", or some other nonsense. Suddenly you can't use him, eventhough the attributes are a good match for the role.

That is exactly my problem with PPMS. I like to play this way, I like rounded footballers who choose when to do what, if they have PPMs which shape their decisions too much, they become one-trick-ponies to a certain extent, or you have to alter their individual instructions to negate their PPMs.

I used to play this way, but really, the inflexibility of it can be a big problem.

Really, what you are doing when shaping the players through ppms is making them less of an all-round player. If you, for example, have a winger with "runs with ball down left" and you're up against a team where the right back is defensive and really hard to get past, or you want the winger to start tucking in, or the crosses are not connecting well, or... You get the picture.

It's better to have him do what you want using instructions, that way he can actually perform something else if you really need him to.

Imagine your deep-lying playmaker seriously injured and the best player to step in has "gets forward whenever possible", or "runs with ball through the middle", or "doesn't play through-balls", or some other nonsense. Suddenly you can't use him, eventhough the attributes are a good match for the role.

Going to say that this misses the point of the system completely. You don't want tactical flexibility, you want players doing what they are best at. Now if you are a Mourinho type manager this isn't for you.

I didn't want to create 'all-round' players - I want to create players that do what they are able to do and avoid what they can't. This system would be designed to ensure players are doing what they do best at all times and not constraining them with instructions. The PM's aren't arbitrarily taught, you teach the player the PM's that best suit his attributes, thus if you a player as the attributes to Cut Inside or Hug Touchline then he'd be taught those PM's - there's no point asking a player to do something that he's not capable of e.g. Hug Touchline if he can't cross. If you read my creating tactics thread you'll see I subscribe to the round pegs round holes theory of tactic design (i.e. your players determine how you play).

My question to you regarding the DLP - if a player had 'gets forward whenever possible' why would he be a DLP? He's not one, he has the attributes that make him something else so forcing him to play as a DLP is against his strengths and you constrain the player avoiding getting the best out of him. So you could have two defensive type midfielders - one playing like a Ball Winning Midfielder and the other like a Central Midfielder (D), notice I say 'like' because we never actually set the player like this - his PM's determine how he plays (he could end up being a hybrid of two roles).

Now I'm not saying that this is a better way of playing (hell, it may even be completely useless), but you can't dismiss a player-orientated system because its too player-centric rather explain why a player-centric model can't work.

Going to say that this misses the point of the system completely. You don't want tactical flexibility, you want players doing what they are best at. Now if you are a Mourinho type manager this isn't for you.

I didn't want to create 'all-round' players - I want to create players that do what they are able to do and avoid what they can't. This system would be designed to ensure players are doing what they do best at all times and not constraining them with instructions. The PM's aren't arbitrarily taught, you teach the player the PM's that best suit his attributes, thus if you a player as the attributes to Cut Inside or Hug Touchline then he'd be taught those PM's - there's no point asking a player to do something that he's not capable of e.g. Hug Touchline if he can't cross. If you read my creating tactics thread you'll see I subscribe to the round pegs round holes theory of tactic design (i.e. your players determine how you play).

My question to you regarding the DLP - if a player had 'gets forward whenever possible' why would he be a DLP? He's not one, he has the attributes that make him something else so forcing him to play as a DLP is against his strengths and you constrain the player avoiding getting the best out of him. So you could have two defensive type midfielders - one playing like a Ball Winning Midfielder and the other like a Central Midfielder (D), notice I say 'like' because we never actually set the player like this - his PM's determine how he plays (he could end up being a hybrid of two roles).

Now I'm not saying that this is a better way of playing (hell, it may even be completely useless), but you can't dismiss a player-orientated system because its too player-centric rather explain why a player-centric model can't work.

You don't get him doing what he wants all the time though. All you're doing is encouraging him to do what his PPM is more often. It doesn't mean that's all he does. He will still do all the other instructions as well, but he'll try and use his PPM more, not all the time likes been suggested in this thread.

Going to say that this misses the point of the system completely. You don't want tactical flexibility, you want players doing what they are best at. Now if you are a Mourinho type manager this isn't for you.

I didn't want to create 'all-round' players - I want to create players that do what they are able to do and avoid what they can't. This system would be designed to ensure players are doing what they do best at all times and not constraining them with instructions. The PM's aren't arbitrarily taught, you teach the player the PM's that best suit his attributes, thus if you a player as the attributes to Cut Inside or Hug Touchline then he'd be taught those PM's - there's no point asking a player to do something that he's not capable of e.g. Hug Touchline if he can't cross. If you read my creating tactics thread you'll see I subscribe to the round pegs round holes theory of tactic design (i.e. your players determine how you play).

My question to you regarding the DLP - if a player had 'gets forward whenever possible' why would he be a DLP? He's not one, he has the attributes that make him something else so forcing him to play as a DLP is against his strengths and you constrain the player avoiding getting the best out of him. So you could have two defensive type midfielders - one playing like a Ball Winning Midfielder and the other like a Central Midfielder (D), notice I say 'like' because we never actually set the player like this - his PM's determine how he plays (he could end up being a hybrid of two roles).

Now I'm not saying that this is a better way of playing (hell, it may even be completely useless), but you can't dismiss a player-orientated system because its too player-centric rather explain why a player-centric model can't work.

I didn't miss the point. The point I was trying to make is that I found it to be too inflexible. I don't like to have huge sqauds with a bunch of back-ups in every position. Therefore it is important for me to have players that are capable of playing in many positions. Therefore it is bad for me to teach them a bunch of ppms that restrict the usability of said players.

I'm saying that the playstyle you suggest, although a legitimate way of playing the game, is inefficient in its use of the players. That's all.

Edit: You're claiming that a smallish team could use this model: you have to take squad sizes into account, and in some cases that you only have 5 named substitutes in leauge games...

You don't get him doing what he wants all the time though. All you're doing is encouraging him to do what his PPM is more often. It doesn't mean that's all he does. He will still do all the other instructions as well, but he'll try and use his PPM more, not all the time likes been suggested in this thread.

Let's take the "Runs with Ball Often" PM, as we currently understand it, there is no difference between setting a player to Run With Ball Often in the player instructions and a player with the PM Runs with Ball Often with the same instruction set to Sometimes.

So when you train the PM, you aren't saying - oh he'll always run with the ball, no more than when you push his instruction to often that you're expecting him to run with the ball every time he gets the ball. Now I can't turn 'off' the PM like I can for the instructions, but it was never my intention to prevent the player from doing what he is good at.

Let's say I have a player that I think would be a great Inside Forward (s), except he's not that great at Long Shots (so I'd want him to play like an Inside Forward but rather than shoot I'd want him to either carry on dribbling or pass the ball). The standard method would be to manually take Long Shots down.

This method would entail training the player with the following PMs: Cut Inside, Tries Killer Ball Often, Runs with Ball Often (or through Centre), Gets into Opposition Area and Looks for Pass instead of Shooting. Two methods of creating the same instructions. But the difference is with one substitution I put in a new player who is good (or not horrible at Long Shots) so he doesn't have the Looks for Pass PM, and if he's good he'll have Shoots from distance otherwise he'll have neither and the new player plays the IF role as he is best suited.

I didn't miss the point. The point I was trying to make is that I found it to be too inflexible. I don't like to have huge sqauds with a bunch of back-ups in every position. Therefore it is important for me to have players that are capable of playing in many positions. Therefore it is bad for me to teach them a bunch of ppms that restrict the usability of said players.

I'm saying that the playstyle you suggest, although a legitimate way of playing the game, is inefficient in its use of the players. That's all.

Fair point.

I definitely agree that you create inflexible players (since you can't have the same player being a wing and an inside forward), but I would then suggest you only train those players who have clear strengths and/or weaknesses you want to play to/avoid. So someone who is average at an instruction (or equally good at competing instructions) would have no PM and the relevant sliders would act as if set to Sometimes/Normal, at this stage you let his personality and his mental attributes (Decisions, Work Rate, Teamwork) define how he plays the role.

Some players are naturally very all-round, good at playing in many positions and can fullfill many roles. Sqaud players. Would you still give them ppms?

Let's take the "Runs with Ball Often" PM, as we currently understand it, there is no difference between setting a player to Run With Ball Often in the player instructions and a player with the PM Runs with Ball Often with the same instruction set to Sometimes.

There is a difference though. A PPM is only a player trait and something he will look to do more of in certain situations. Tactical instructions are something you want the player to do all the time, whether it be rare of often.

I get what you are saying but PPM's don't work the way you think they do. PPM's are not slider adjustments. There an extention of a players personality.

Some players are naturally very all-round, good at playing in many positions and can fullfill many roles. Sqaud players. Would you still give them ppms?

Only to remove weaknesses (like long shots, crossing etc) and as long as he doesn't have any major strengths that I'd want him to play to.

There is a difference though. A PPM is only a player trait and something he will look to do more of in certain situations. Tactical instructions are something you want the player to do all the time, whether it be rare of often.

I get what you are saying but PPM's don't work the way you think they do. PPM's are not slider adjustments. There an extention of a players personality.

PM's as I understand them are effectively dealt with by having adjusting the sliders behind the scenes - so that the input in the match engine in the two scenarios is the same - obviously assuming all other things equal (there was an official quote that I can't find now, which confirms this view)

PM's as I understand them are effectively dealt with by having adjusting the sliders behind the scenes - so that the input in the match engine in the two scenarios is the same - obviously assuming all other things equal (there was an official quote that I can't find now, which confirms this view)

That's how I understood it too. And that's exactly why I don't like them. They only effectively remove options for the manager. Yes, it sounds like a fun, perhaps even more natural way of playing the game. You change roles automatically when changing players. But it only works well within a given framework. What about that game against that really tough opponent that always beat you. Midway through the game you realize that it would be better for the side if the inside forward stopped running with the ball so much. He won't. Ever. Your only option is to sub him.

I don't know about you, but my first instinct IRL would be to shout to him "stop running with the ball so often"...

PM's as I understand them are effectively dealt with by having adjusting the sliders behind the scenes - so that the input in the match engine in the two scenarios is the same - obviously assuming all other things equal (there was an official quote that I can't find now, which confirms this view)

No it isn't though. Hence why a lot of the PPM's have nothing to do with sliders and are to do with 'attributes'. For example overhead kicks, likes to round keeper, lobs keeper, plays with back to goal, avoids using weaker foot etc can't be influenced by sliders. You might comeback and say 'creative freedom' does but not really as that would just make the player more creative and he'd use his own mind to decide what type of attempt to use. But the fact that you can specify which moves he tries to attempt the most proves the point that it's not a slider influence.

No it isn't though. Hence why a lot of the PPM's have nothing to do with sliders and are to do with 'attributes'. For example overhead kicks, likes to round keeper, lobs keeper, plays with back to goal, avoids using weaker foot etc can't be influenced by sliders. You might comeback and say 'creative freedom' does but not really as that would just make the player more creative and he'd use his own mind to decide what type of attempt to use. But the fact that you can specify which moves he tries to attempt the most proves the point that it's not a slider influence.

This was my argument against the person that first brought it up to me (ham_aka_stam), but I was shown to be wrong (for those PPM's that do have instruction counterparts)

Link: http://www.fmscout.com/i-631-Miles-interviews-game-guru-Paul-C.html

Quote:

Paul Collyer: A player preferred move is an action that the player tends towards in the match. That could be 'likes to try long shots', or 'likes to run with the ball'. Where possible we have linked these to their tactical instruction counterparts, so if you have a player who 'likes to try long shots' then you need to set his 'try long shots' instruction with reference to that. In other words, to make him try them less make sure you set them to the lowest setting possible. It works the other way for negative PPMs like 'runs with the ball rarely'. Not all of the PPM's have instructions that match, of course, there are stuff like 'tries long range freekicks' which simply shape the kind of player you have regardless of tactics . Anyway, new ones added for this year include 'has flat hard throw' (Rory Delap ) and 'looks for pass not shot'.

This was my argument against the person that first brought it up to me (ham_aka_stam), but I was shown to be wrong (for those PPM's that do have instruction counterparts)

Link: http://www.fmscout.com/i-631-Miles-interviews-game-guru-Paul-C.html

Quote:

That's from 2009, PPM's have changed quite a lot over the last few yearsand redesigned kind of from inside. I even think they were not in one version if I remember correctly, was it FM08 or FM09? I remember they were removed for a year.

That quote does nothing to disprove what I wrote. Increasing the relevant slider (when one is apllicable) will just make him try it more often. But even without the sliders set, they still do it regardless. For example the 'runs with ball' PPM will be applied by the player regardless based on his decision attribute. But if you instruct him not to do forward runs via sliders he'lls till do it. But if you instruct him to do it often, he'll do it more frequent if his decision making alows him.

Ultimatley there still an extension of a players personality.

But I'm arguing against you can't make a player 'do the ppm' constant. It still comes down to the decision of the player as to when he uses it.

But I'm arguing against you can't make a player 'do the ppm' constant. It still comes down to the decision of the player as to when he uses it.

So if the player had a lowed decision rating, he would probs do it more?

So if the player had a lowed decision rating, he would probs do it more?

He'd choose the wrong times to do it.