ME is too sensitive to formations and roles

This is just my observation after playing the game for 3.5 seasons.

I started a new game, managing a small 2nd div club in Turkish league. In my first season, the media prediction was mid-table finish, but I lead the division for most of the year, and managed to finish 2nd and moved up to Turkish super league. I used a pretty regular, perfectly symmetric 4-4-1-1 formation (I really like to play with symmetric formations/roles, partially because of the rubbish rating system favoring players with more active roles. I like giving my players playing in same position equal chance to perform well - only way for the game to fairly decide who is the better player in that tactic).

I used control/fluid and standard/fluid strategies all season, with push higher up TI. Nothing else.

GK

FB(S)

CD(D)

CD(D)

FB(S)

W(A)

BBM(S)

BBM(S)

W(A)

AMC(A)

CF(S)

With this very basic formation and instructions, I had an easy ride where my defense was stellar (conceeded like 0.7 goals per game) and my CF and AMC scored majority of my goals.

I wasn't very happy with this tactic though, because I could never get my BBM's get involved in my attacking moves. Even the W(A) players did not contribute much.

(Note: I think a major problem in the ME is that once a player has another player in front of him, he ever tries to get ahead of his teammate. I always hoped that the increased fluidity will do that, but it doesn't. Players in FM are almost like the Foosball players, not leaving their designated spots. I think maybe if you play with attack or overload mentality this will happen, but I would like to see a BBM moving ahead of the AMC when the opportunity arises, even in a defending mentality)

So, next year the media prediction was relegation from the super league. I wanted to switch to a more elegant formation, hoping that more of my players will be involved in the attacking moves, so I chose a modern 4-3-3, with AM L/R's supporting the lone striker from the wings. I also strengthened my squad with better players (gradually, within the next two seasons).

This tactic never worked well. I won't go into details here because I did that in the 'modern 4-3-3' thread.

Now, here is my concern. After struggling really bad for two seasons, I finally gave up and switched to a 4-1-3-2, with basic/minimal instructions and symmetric formation/roles:

GK

WB(S)

CD(D)

CD(D)

WB(S)

RGST (S)

BBM(S)

CM(A)

BBM(S)

CF(S)

CF(S)

I have added only 1 new player to my starting 11, and all of a sudden that struggling team that was battling relegation, conceding 2 goals per game was gone, and at the end of the first half of the season I find myself comfortably in 5th spot, only behind the biggest teams in the league.

I really like the idea of so many tactics, so many options available to us in the game - it just makes it so much more fun. I don't however like that a switch in the tactic can have a massive impact on the results - not just for a few games throughout the season, but the whole season. With the same group of players, a team shouldn't be battling relegation using one tactic, and finishing in top-5 with another tactic.

It is like there is no flexibility in the ME. Players act like robots, even with the very fluid mentality. Just an example: If I tell my GK to distribute the ball to the defenders (because I aim to keep the possession longer), he starts doing that. But if the opponent AI adjusts by putting pressure on the defenders, why does the GK still continue passing the ball to a defender that is under pressure? Just because the current instruction is so? Very robotic. The instruction should tell the GK that it is preferred to pass the ball to the defenders, BUT NOT ALWAYS, not when they are under pressure. Another example is the BBM's never moving ahead of the AMC's in a defending strategy, even when the perfect opportunity arises.

Since everything is so robotic, since players can't make small adjustments on the field themselves, without me clicking a few buttons to change the instructions, the results become extremely sensitive to the tactics being used.

I really like the idea of so many tactics, so many options available to us in the game - it just makes it so much more fun. I don't however like that a switch in the tactic can have a massive impact on the results - not just for a few games throughout the season, but the whole season. With the same group of players, a team shouldn't be battling relegation using one tactic, and finishing in top-5 with another tactic.

This is demonstrably false:

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/05/16/wigan-stay-up-after-a-switch-to-3-4-3/

There are so many factors to consider, so you can't just boil it down to "Tactic A always works" and "Tactic B doesn't." The players available, the way your opposition plays against you, the weather and pitch quality in your league... all of these things will certainly and realistically narrow what may be a viable option for you in a particular situation. With that said, it may not have just been tactics as other factors can certainly affect how your team performs over a specific stretch of games.

The AI uses the same tactical approach in every save, and from save to save, club performances can vary wildly (far too much so in my opinion). To me, this suggests that tactics aren't the be-all/end-all or AI performances would be extremely consistent from save to save.

There are so many factors to consider, so you can't just boil it down to "Tactic A always works" and "Tactic B doesn't." The players available, the way your opposition plays against you, the weather and pitch quality in your league... all of these things will certainly and realistically narrow what may be a viable option for you in a particular situation. With that said, it may not have just been tactics as other factors can certainly affect how your team performs over a specific stretch of games.

The AI uses the same tactical approach in every save, and from save to save, club performances can vary wildly (far too much so in my opinion). To me, this suggests that tactics aren't the be-all/end-all or AI performances would be extremely consistent from save to save.

I have to say that's good point. Maybe it was just a coincidence that I did well so far this season with this new tactic, and maybe I would've still done very good if I decided to stick with the 4-3-3, we don't know that. But

1- the change in performance was so drastic that it made me believe that it was all caused by switching to the new tactics.

2- the robotic behavior of players is still annoying, no flexibility whatsoever. If a real life WB realizes that he is giving too much space every time the opponent winger gets the ball, he will start closing him down faster, without the manager necessarily telling him do to so, whereas in the game we are constantly trying to adjust instructions to find that sweet spot that works best. And now that the sliders are gone, it is sometimes not possible to find that sweet spot (this is not saying that I prefer the slider system - imo it was even more unrealistic). What I want is more flexibility, especially if I select a fluid tactic. Any real life keeper will know not to throw the ball to a DC that is under pressure, even if the game plan is to distribute the ball to the defenders, for god's sake.

Edit: Item #2 is related to my original topic, because if there will be more flexibility, the massive changes in performances under different tactics will reduce. During a match, players should be able to do small adjustments themselves, depending on the opponents, even though the formation, roles, and team instructions are still the same (at least when we play with fluid mentality).