Farrows, Barrows, Sarrows &etc.

Hello all,

Essentially, it is my understanding that arrows were removed from FM09 for the following reasons:

1) Misunderstandings – people didn’t know what they did and how they worked.

2) Exploits and cheats – people liked to use ridiculous arrows to beat the match engine and then became frustrated when they didn’t win games with their incredible match breaking tactic that resulted in unusual match statistics. Thus, they made unfair accusations of a unsophisticated, cheating AI.

3) Unrealistic football – people argued that it didn’t look realistic and made the players act like robots.

Reason 1 indicates that there was a need for a clearer system to achieve the same ends and, as I will argue, one with more possibilities for instructing a player to take up a position with or without the ball.

Reason 2 hasn’t been solved by the demise of the arrows. There are still plenty of exploitative and ‘cheating’ tactics on the forums, particularly using unusual formations or by using overloading instructions.

Reason 3 may have a truth, but it could be countered that we now have an unrealistic lack of tactical choices and/or that we have a very complicated and unsatisfactory method of achieving such tactical choices.

The big tactical problem I see on FM09 at the moment is the lack of ability to reflect real life team shape. When I say shape, that is distinct from formation. One team’s 4-4-2 is very different to another team’s 4-4-2 and so on.

I want to take an example from my local non-League side, St. Albans City. This example is from this season just gone and I use it to demonstrate how difficult it can be to translate real life ‘shape’ into FM terms.

This is the team that St. Albans were fielding in the last quarter of the season.

		Butcher

[b]Sulaiman	[/b]Martin		Quilter		Bailey

[b]Hunt		[/b]Shields		Fisher		[b]Mackie[/b]

	Hakim		Cohen

Prior to this, St. Albans were flirting with the lower half of the table having been on a long run without a win. It was clear relegation form.

The manager effectively had two problems as I see it and I have put those players who are involved in a bold font above.

The first problem was:

1) How to deploy an aging ex-Premiership journeyman right-sided midfielder, i.e. Jonathan Hunt. Hunt is technically the best player in the team but his legs have gone after several serious injuries and the physical side of his game is poor. He provides the ability to do something special, a lot of creativity and the odd goal. However, what he does not provide is pace and strength. What St. Albans really needed on the flank was someone who could run at their fullback and make the oppositions life difficult and Hunty wasn’t going to provide that.

The answer was to deploy Hassan Sulaiman, a quick attacking fullback/wide player, at fullback behind Hunt. Hunt could then start in his favourite wide position, drift and generally cause danger without ever getting forward. Meanwhile, Sulaiman could get forward and overlap Hunt, making dangerous runs, picking up the ball and genuinely challenging the opposition fullback. Hunt, meanwhile, would tuck in behind him and offer cover. It was a tactical solution that brought the best out of both players and used their combined abilities to cover for Hunt’s physical weaknesses. Hunt was free to drift and use his abilities to play killer passes or crosses from deep.

In FM09 terms, this solution is fairly translatable into ‘sliderology’.

This is what I want to see:

			Butcher

		Martin		Quilter		Bailey
[b]Sulaiman[/b]
 |
 |	 [b]Hunt		[/b]
		Shields		Fisher		Mackie
 x
		Hakim		Cohen

What I propose to do in FM language is the following:

a) Sulaiman to have highish mentality, forward runs often, creative freedom high, run with ball high, cross from by-line.

b) Hunt to have a lower mentality, forward runs mixed, creative freedom high, through balls often, free role, cross from deep.

In principle, this should work fairly well.

It doesn’t necessarily quite achieve what I want it to though. Hunt’s mentality (mindset) has now been reduced and his overall play will now be more cautious, which is not particularly what I wanted to happen. Also, I wanted him to perhaps play a little more narrowly and to come inside more often. But I haven’t achieved that either. He will drift due to his free role but I feel that I don’t have enough control. In real life, I would say, ‘Hunty, come inside a little bit, play narrow and cover for Sulaiman but still be ambitious and attacking with your overall mindset’. I’m not sure that is achievable in sliderology.

This issue of translation becomes more apparent when I consider the second problem at St. Albans:

2) St. Albans lacked a natural wide player for the left flank. Hunt had been filling in there most of the season with Sulaiman on the right but this hadn’t had the desired effect as per the problem above.

The answer to this problem was to use another player in this position, Hector Mackie. Mackie is a striker by trade and certainly not a natural left-sided midfielder. What the St. Albans manager did was to ask him compromise his usual game by playing out of position but also he encouraged him to take up attacking positions and push into a forward position in which he would no doubt be more comfortable. One of the strikers, Paul Hakim, would push into the channels, again to make up for the lack of width provided by Hunt, but also to offer space on the left to Mackie. What we have now, approximately, is this:

			Butcher

		Martin		Quilter		Bailey
[b]Sulaiman[/b]
 |
 |	 [b]Hunt [/b]- - - x		
	     	    Shields	    Fisher
 x
						[b]Mackie[/b]
						/
					       /
   x - - - Hakim		Cohen         x  

So it’s almost like a 4-3-3 shape in attack from the 4-4-2 formation, with Mackie pushing to join the attack and Hunt playing narrowly and covering for Sulaiman. Hakim, also, comes to play in the channel to provide further width on the right and either cuts inside or gets to the byline for the cross.

Is this achievable in FM terms? I guess I could give Hakim high creative freedom, mixed runs, run with ball, cross from byline and a free role. But would he push into the channel to receive the ball and play slightly wider?

And Mackie? Well, I could play him as a winger, but then he did track back and play in the wide midfield slot when without the ball. I could try him on forward runs often and a high mentality but how could I get him to push forward and come inside?

The point is that, at present, I don’t have the tools available to make this real life example work in FM09. If you think otherwise, then I would like to hear how you would achieve this.

In my mind, the closest I could have been to making it work was in FM08 when there were Farrows, Sarrows and Barrows. In my mind, it was perfectly reasonable to ask a player to take up a secondary position when attacking or when defending. Using this tool, I could get Sulaiman to push into a wing back role as soon as the team received possession and then make further runs from there. I could get Hakim to play wider and Mackie to push into a more attacking position. I could get Hunt to play narrower but crucially, I couldn’t instruct him to cover for Sulaiman and I couldn’t ask him to drop deep when in possession (barrows only worked when defending). So the farrows, barrows and sarrows were flawed in this way too.

Personally, I would like to see a return to this kind of system though but there would need to be more options and less ability for exploit. That's tough to achieve, I would guess. But using mentality to achieve such effects can be totally counterproductive and, in some cases, impossible. It is also too complicated and, although I think the tactical wizard will be of some help, I can’t see a way forward under the current tactical system. Bill Shankly said ‘football is a simple game made complicated by people who should know better’ and that seems to be what we have at the moment. Covering up the flaws with a wizard does not seem to be the answer for me.

As a general comment, I would also argue that it is difficult to translate some real life formations into FM, such as a 4-1-2-1-2 such as that played by Mourinho at Inter that has hybrid central/wide players. Or the highly fashionable 4-2-3-1, which in FM terms is currently just a 4-4-1-1 with the wide players pushed up to the wings. These two examples seem to require something extra in order to be able to reflect the shape of the formation and the way that it works in real life. Current versions in FM do not seem to be true to real life in my eyes but that is perhaps a subject for another thread.

So this thread is for some discussion about the capabilities or inadequacies of the current tactical interface and associated options. These are just my ideas about how tactical shape works in real life and what I'd like to see in the game and you might entirely disagree. I’d be interested to read ideas about how I could achieve the examples in FM09 (if you feel it is possible) or, alternatively, suggestions as to ways forward. I hope for some interesting discussion.

C.

wowow, once again quality post!!

One solution is to (re-?)introduce the grid system so that tactics can further be micromanaged for 'with ball' and 'without the ball' instructions.

Currently there is no control over lateral movement and positioning of players without it also having an impact on the 'vertical' movement (eg pressing) or being grossly inappropriate (eg PPMs and OI) in many circumstances. Without more precise control of the lateral movement it renders a whole branch (perhaps the most innovative of the modern game?) of footballing philosophy impossible to implement properly into the game - that of 'total football' leading to Sacchi etc. If one plays with width, then one cannot then 'control' space as you are then stuck either being too narrow when attacking or too wide when defending.

It is partly implemented within the game as a 'standard' part of how players respond without the ball but without being able to take it to the 'extreme' of Sacchi's Milan or even Guardiola's Barca or Benitez' Liverpool (even Hiddink's Chelsea) as they control space through the lateral movement of the entire team in unison with players moving to the correct position laterally.

It's something I try to achieve with every incarnation of CM/FM I have ever played. It's credit to the Collyers that I'm even tempted to try - so many other football management sims I wouldn't even bother trying to recreate it in as they just aren't as pleasingly 'deep'. But at the moment, the lack of lateral control is frustrating my tactical tinkerings

We need the arrows back, and on and off the ball instructions.

We also need far more details descriptions of what the sliders do.

We need the arrows back, and on and off the ball instructions.

We also need far more details descriptions of what the sliders do.

We don't need the arrows back. Arrows would just implement more confusion to a game already confusing without the need to be it.

I think the with ball and without ball positioning/instructions would suffice. And maybe a more detailed formation screen.

As for the sliders, they are just stupid to the extreme and not very flexible. For example, they say that a player's positioning can be adjusted be his mentality; the problem is that mentality also seems to affect the player's behaviour. So, if I want a midfielder to play more up the pitch but still having a defensive mentality, i can't do that...

Forward runs seems to me, since the early CMs, the most unreal instruction of the game. What is it for?! Mentality should be about behavior and should affect the forward runs so there was no need for them. They are useless and still they are confusing. I don't think forward runs really mean forward runs because if I have, for example, a fullback making rare forward runs he just stays close to the defensive line. If that same fullback has often forward runs he will be almost always upfront. So far so good, but when the same fullback has forwards runs ticked to sometimes, he just positions himself between the too later positions. Which isn't correct!

Time wasting is just another weird slider. Because its designation isn't correct. It would be more correct to call it "build up" and have an extreme of "cautious" and another of "risky". FC Barcelona would have an cautious build up for instance. At the moment one can only mimic Barcelona's way of play with a lot of time wasting, which isn't true.

Width, for reasons already mentioned in this topic is another useless slider as it is, because it's too limited. And is another slider easely corrected with the wibble wobble instructions.

Closing down is another slider I don't get. It says all pitch, own half and own area but it just seems to strict or enlarge the radius of a player's pressing.

With the current system I'm still no able to mimic a 442 diamond formation. I don't want my players to position them selfs as wingers or as center midfielders. I want a middle term. Ok, lets say I have the width slider to adjust it but still affects other areas of the formation, which is unacceptable.

Ok, all for now My major criticism of FM is about the tactics and formations. It just seems SI has forgotten about them. I, to me, that's the must fun part of the game

Arrows were not confusing. With/without ball is a more complicated way of implementing arrows.

We had a similar situation to the one Crouchy describes at Reading last season. Our first choice right winger at the start of the season was Jimmy Kebe. Kebe is incredibly quick, but lacks the ability to keep control of a football for more than four consecutive touches. He'd drop deep to help Liam Rosenior, our right back, defend, but then as soon as we won the ball back, he had to get up the pitch as quickly as possible and take up a position in line with Doyle and Noel Hunt. He'd then have the ball passed to him, he'd turn the defender and make about twenty yards with three touches, before knocking a ball into the path of one of the strikers. If he wasn't in the advanced position to begin with, he'd lose control of the ball before he got to a position where he could produce an end product. In FM terms, you could recreate this by playing him as a MR with a farrow to FR,RWB and FR "often", crossing set to "byline", and crossing+through balls "often". If you remove the farrow, he'd hang around in his default position until play moved up, and would be pretty useless.

In January, we got Glen Little back on loan. Little is the complete opposite to Kebe- extremely gifted, but slow. To make us for his lack of pace, he would come inside, and Rosenior would bust a gut to get forward and Doyle or Long would come wide into the channel. In fact, he was basically playing the same role John Hunt was at Saints. Like Crouchy, I don't see that being replicated in FM, unless you use a sarrow.

Unfortunately, with this matter everybody who has a voice is against the arrows being back in, as they were deemed unrealistic, and the sides here are like atheists and theists, neither can change the other's mind a jot

I'm not too fussed about the farrows/barrows. But I feel that sarrows should make a return.

On FM08, with my Spurs side, I played a narrow 4-2-2-2. I wanted my AMs, the second '2', obviously, to push out wide every now and again, to try and prevent their fullbacks from surging down the wing. But, now, I simply can't do that.

I don't feel that farrows/barrows are that important. But I think sarrows are.

The simplest solution for this is to re-introduce sarrows but limiting them to only the next position, for example from MR to RCM and not all the way to ML, for example. Could result in a few exploiting tactics though.

Crouchaldinho, you opening post hit the nail right on the head how I feel about FM at the moment.

arrows just made it easier to exploit the ME.wouldnt it be easier to have more instructions for each position ie wingers-hug the touchline/cut inside at every opportunity.

I feel that this thread relates long-term FM gamers disappointment with the removal of the f/b/s arrows into a real-life context. My main issue with the removal of f/b/s arrows is the inability to create a true 'cutting-in' winger. And how teams adjust to the situation with/without the ball. I suggest you edit your OP with your alternative system and a 'petition' style list of all those that want to see the f/b/s arrows system return or a change to your suggested system. Great thread C.

EDIT:

wouldnt it be easier to have more instructions for each position ie wingers-hug the touchline/cut inside at every opportunity.

I have had the idea before of a 'cuts inside' tick box, similar to that of the 'free role' tick box. However, this wouldn't fully tell your player what you were instructing him to do, although it would be an improvement. I'd also like to see the inclusion of player specific widths and tempos as you can quite clearly see in real life that some 'right midfielders' don't play like a 'right winger' and also some players tend to pick their passes more methodically rather than trying to get the ball into an attacking position as fast as possible.

I'm not a fan of bringing the wib-wob screens back (with ball/without ball) as I agree with SI that this too unrealistic. I don't believe that the f/b/s arrows system was unrealistic as it is very feasible for a manager to instruct a player to move in a certain way when you have the ball and it certainly wasn't hard to understand.

A possible idea to remove exploits from the f/b/s arrows system is to limit how many positions a player can move. For example, this would allow a side midfielder or a winger to cut in to a striker position and allow a fullback to get into a winger position. This 'limit' would cover everything in C's OP and would be fairly realistic in terms of real-life movement with the ball. (I wrote this before looking at your post el sid. Similar ideas - great minds think alike .)

I don't think that this is about reinstating the old system, just a more mature critique of the system we have now - and they types of tactical system we would like to employ based on real football.

At a fundamental level football has 2 key phases determined by which team has possession of the ball. (It has 3 phases if you count the transition between them)

The current tactical interface does not cater for this.

Of course that is the easy bit. The hard bit is coming up with a workable alternative.

Very good point. Simply put, SI won't change the current system unless there is a feasible, realistic alternative. I think we need to come up with a working idea that the majority of FM users agree with that caters for all real life tactical possibilities.

Just a quick post because I'm short of time but I'm thinking Farrows, Barrows, Sarrows limited to adjacent positions and configurable on a 'with ball' and a 'without ball' screen (i.e. two separate screens) and limited to one per player (i.e. you can't ask a player to do two things). So you have formation screen, 'with ball' screen for arrows and 'without ball' screen for arrows.

Of course there are issues of exploit but people are always going to try to cheat the game through other means anyway (unusual formations, overloading, exploiting marking weaknesses of the AI). Let them exploit if they want, I don't care! I'm suspicious that this sudden panic about exploits has more to do with FM Live than FM anyway. As for realism, see my argument in the opening post. And clarity and understanding? Well, it would be much clearer in my opinion.

Just an idea. Isn't this what manager's do in real life with their tactics boards and pointy arrows anyway?

C.

Just a quick post because I'm short of time but I'm thinking Farrows, Barrows, Sarrows limited to adjacent positions and configurable on a 'with ball' and a 'without ball' screen (i.e. two separate screens) and limited to one per player (i.e. you can't ask a player to do two things).

Of course there are issues of exploit but people are always going to try to cheat the game through other means anyway (usual formations, overloading, exploiting marking weaknesses of the AI). Let them exploit if they want, I don't care! I'm suspicious that this sudden panic about exploits has more to do with FM Live than FM anyway. As for realism, see my argument in the opening post. And clarity and understanding? Well, it would be much clearer in my opinion.

Just an idea. Isn't this what manager's do in real life with their tactics boards and pointy arrows anyway?

C.

Yes. Yesterday, the Scottish Cup Final took place. Rangers Vs. Falkirk. Falkirk was 'dominating' possession, and Rangers were barely seeing any of it. Walter Smith, the manager, wrote on a notepad, and gave it to Ally McCoist, the Assistant. The cameraman managed to get a shot of the notepad, and what was on it.

The FBs had forward arrows, and one of the strikers had a side arrow.

So, unless that was a one off, then they do give instructions to players in that sense. Whether they use tactics boards and pointy arrows or not, I don't know. But mid-game they do tend to use arrows, and have their players push up/go out wide/etc. by using pointy arrows.

Doesn't FM and FML use two different tactical systems anyway? If so, they should continue doing so to prevent exploits in FM and there's no reason why FM gamers should suffer because FML doesn't have f/b/s arrows.

EDIT: If SI feel the need to keep the tactical systems identical for both games, they could make the f/b/s arrows visible in FML. This could enable people to set up to defend against the arrows or report those using exploiting tactics.

Addition to the above post. Formation screen could show 'without ball' and 'with ball' movement by the use of both different types of arrows and/or different colours too.

Without ball barrow:

|
|
x

With ball barrow:

|
|
V

One could be red, the other blue or any other colours that can easily be distinguished. This is how it would show on the formation screen.

C.

I think that's a very good idea C. This would allow those that utilize tireless players with extended arrows or both arrows (with and without ball). I think this is good as it enables use to make use of the stamina attribute and set up box-to-box midfielders and pacey, bombing wingers which is hard to implement currently.

With ball and without ball arrows! This seems like a better idea the more I think about it. Not three screens:

1. With ball screen
2. Without ball screen
3. Player positions

but simply one screen including with ball and without ball arrows. Genius C. Now it's time for you to make another 'CAMRAD' style group .

Thanks to crouchaldinho for an excellent post.

Removed arrows are major reason I do not play FM 09. Without arrows it is impossible to make formations you really want. Game developers say that arrows make game "unrealistic". If they are reallu concerned about realism, they should add more player personalities and dosomething to CA/PA system. Something I do not want is "put players on field, watch realistic 3D-animation and prey that your side wins". FM series should be GAME. If we really want realism. OK, any other team than Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea cannot win Premiership. That's realism. Fun? No.

Also, arrows allow you to maintain same player positions, just modify arrows. I have used following tactics with just modified arrows and player/team instructions on (England) Blue Square North, Blue Square Premier, League 2, League 1, Championship and now on Premiership.

My current tactic is something you cannot do with FM 09, just because it is missing arrows.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3175/tactics3.jpg

So what is the point? On FM 08 this tactics can be used and explained pretty good.

When my team have ball on my own area, RB and LB leave their postions and create "3 player DM line" to improve short passing possibilites (if my opposition is strong, I put Barrow to DM player, otherwise no). MC player moves forward to support attack. Because FCL is tall target striker, who are supplied to head, AML tries to get to byline to give good cross ball. FCR is "fast" striker and he is supposed to move more towards centre to get flick ons from FCL. AMR cuts inside to get threat from right side also because FCR is moving towards centre.

On FM 09, how this kind of tactics can be used? Well, AMR should cut inside to either shoot or give cross ball not so far from goal. Impossible. FCR should get closer to FCL to get flick ons. Impossible. DL and DR shoud get to "DML" and "DMR" positions when team has ball. Yeah, pretty much impossible.

On FM 09 using these player positions is pretty much like "put players on field and pray".

Arrows allow you to get more out from different type of players. I do not give a s... if arrow system is unrealistic, cheating (even asking for good players is that, I do not do it because it is useless in my game, no real players) or gives too good results. That is samothing that makes FM 08 GAME.

Special thanks to Sigames for making FM 09 less game and more TV-show.

To be fair, even with the old arrow system from FM08 is was just as impossible - one thing that convinced me of that was a combination of learning more about real football tactics and then the removal of arrows.

Even if we reverted back to the '08 system we would be in no better place than we currently are. There is a very good case to say we are in a better place with '09.

Biggest issue is that your intepretation of what your tactic does is not actually what it does in FM '08. You are unable to specify these settings in '09, but you are unable to implement this strategy adequatly in either version.

I think it is important for us not to look backwards in regards to the tactical interface, but forwards.

I feel that's a bit of a naïve approach. JAT seems to know what his 08 tactic is doing perfectly and works as he wants it to. If you want a good old cliché then sometimes you do have to go backwards in order to go forwards as is shown in football. You'd rather keep possession than go on attack that will result in nothing.

Biggest issue is that you intepretation of what you tactic does is not actually what it does in FM '08. You are unable to specify these settings in '09, but you are unable to implement this strategy adequatly in either version.

My tactics works on Match Engine very much like it should work if I watch tactics screen. Players also seem to react wisely.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9321/pitch.jpg

So, DC (30 and 3) are on DC positions, very defensively. DR (2) has taken his place with 16 (DM) and 28 (DL) on DM-line. MC (11) is standing right in the middle of the field this time. I also have ball for a few moments by now and MC still has not taken his Farrow instructions. Pretty wise. AML and AMR are still playing wide, good. FCR (14) plays far more middle than FCL (27).

So, defensive players do exactly what I instruct them to do. Attacking players are wise enough not to use their arrows just yet, except FCR, who plays more middle,

Another example from same game. Goal Kick, MC-dude is number 11, with Forward Arrow, he is on his position now.

http://img269.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pitch2.jpg

Target man (that is good reason why he is way out of his position) is trying to win header. MC dude has already moved forward.

http://img199.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pitch3.jpg

Farrow works.

http://img200.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pitch4.jpg

Also notice how good DM line works. I play width: Normal this time, because my wingers are no so good.

So saying that "players do not do what you say in tactics" is total bs. Of bourse, there are some random factors, but arrows work very well in general. Maybe this "arrows do not work" is just a propaganda so that removing arrows is considered as an improvement.

Considering how many are serious bugs there are on Match engine, saying that arrows do not work is really (add some hard words here).

I was just trying to keep the ball

So saying that "players do not do what you say in tactics" is total bs. Of course, there are some random factors, but arrows work very well in general.

Really glad that you are getting what you want out of the arrows in '08. However as mentioned in the OP they misunderstood by the majority and over-effective.

If I was making the decisons going into '09 I would not have removed arrows - but adjusted their effectiveness by ensuring condition levels were decreased at a greater rate when using arrows.

However this would really have been a sticking plaster measure.

Maybe this "arrows do not work" is just a propaganda so that removing arrows is considered as an improvement.

I don't work for SI, and I call it as I see it. Your are entitled to your view as I am to mine

Considering how many are serious bugs there are on Match engine, saying that arrows do not work is really (add some hard words here).

I believe the removal of arrows came about specifically in response to the beta development of FML. This highlighted to SI that arrows were an issue due to teams employing them in totally unrealistic configurations to deadly effect.

JAT I have no beef with you or the way you play the game, and have no agenda other than offering a critique of the current tactical interface and exploring way in which it can be improved.

Very good opening post there.

By the way... This argument, that the arrows were confusing and some idiots couldn't understand them is just ridicolous... You all know it.

People still can't figure out what exactly it is that mentality and creative freedom does, what kind of effect free role has, how does closing down works, but yeah, surely the arrows were too confusing...

Come on now, don't insult us by thinking that we'll just believe this utter bs... Please... Don't insult our intelligence like that...

And the other stuff, that they were over-effective... You don't have to use them. Simple as that.

Or did it hurt SI that x player was finally getting some enjoyment out of the game by using the arrows? Is that the case?

		Butcher

[b]Sulaiman	[/b]Martin		Quilter		Bailey

[b]Hunt		[/b]Shields		Fisher		[b]Mackie[/b]

	Hakim		Cohen

Prior to this, St. Albans were flirting with the lower half of the table having been on a long run without a win. It was clear relegation form.

The manager effectively had two problems as I see it and I have put those players who are involved in a bold font above.

The first problem was:

1) How to deploy an aging ex-Premiership journeyman right-sided midfielder, i.e. Jonathan Hunt. Hunt is technically the best player in the team but his legs have gone after several serious injuries and the physical side of his game is poor. He provides the ability to do something special, a lot of creativity and the odd goal. However, what he does not provide is pace and strength. What St. Albans really needed on the flank was someone who could run at their fullback and make the oppositions life difficult and Hunty wasn’t going to provide that.

The answer was to deploy Hassan Sulaiman, a quick attacking fullback/wide player, at fullback behind Hunt. Hunt could then start in his favourite wide position, drift and generally cause danger without ever getting forward. Meanwhile, Sulaiman could get forward and overlap Hunt, making dangerous runs, picking up the ball and genuinely challenging the opposition fullback. Hunt, meanwhile, would tuck in behind him and offer cover. It was a tactical solution that brought the best out of both players and used their combined abilities to cover for Hunt’s physical weaknesses. Hunt was free to drift and use his abilities to play killer passes or crosses from deep.

In FM09 terms, this solution is fairly translatable into ‘sliderology’.

This is what I want to see:

			Butcher

		Martin		Quilter		Bailey
[b]Sulaiman[/b]
 |
 |	 [b]Hunt		[/b]
		Shields		Fisher		Mackie
 x
		Hakim		Cohen

What I propose to do in FM language is the following:

a) Sulaiman to have highish mentality, forward runs often, creative freedom high, run with ball high, cross from by-line.

b) Hunt to have a lower mentality, forward runs mixed, creative freedom high, through balls often, free role, cross from deep.

In principle, this should work fairly well.

It doesn’t necessarily quite achieve what I want it to though. Hunt’s mentality (mindset) has now been reduced and his overall play will now be more cautious, which is not particularly what I wanted to happen. Also, I wanted him to perhaps play a little more narrowly and to come inside more often. But I haven’t achieved that either. He will drift due to his free role but I feel that I don’t have enough control. In real life, I would say, ‘Hunty, come inside a little bit, play narrow and cover for Sulaiman but still be ambitious and attacking with your overall mindset’. I’m not sure that is achievable in sliderology.

This issue of translation becomes more apparent when I consider the second problem at St. Albans:

2) St. Albans lacked a natural wide player for the left flank. Hunt had been filling in there most of the season with Sulaiman on the right but this hadn’t had the desired effect as per the problem above.

The answer to this problem was to use another player in this position, Hector Mackie. Mackie is a striker by trade and certainly not a natural left-sided midfielder. What the St. Albans manager did was to ask him compromise his usual game by playing out of position but also he encouraged him to take up attacking positions and push into a forward position in which he would no doubt be more comfortable. One of the strikers, Paul Hakim, would push into the channels, again to make up for the lack of width provided by Hunt, but also to offer space on the left to Mackie. What we have now, approximately, is this:

			Butcher

		Martin		Quilter		Bailey
[b]Sulaiman[/b]
 |
 |	 [b]Hunt [/b]- - - x		
	     	    Shields	    Fisher
 x
						[b]Mackie[/b]
						/
					       /
   x - - - Hakim		Cohen         x  

So it’s almost like a 4-3-3 shape in attack from the 4-4-2 formation, with Mackie pushing to join the attack and Hunt playing narrowly and covering for Sulaiman. Hakim, also, comes to play in the channel to provide further width on the right and either cuts inside or gets to the byline for the cross.

Is this achievable in FM terms? I guess I could give Hakim high creative freedom, mixed runs, run with ball, cross from byline and a free role. But would he push into the channel to receive the ball and play slightly wider?

And Mackie? Well, I could play him as a winger, but then he did track back and play in the wide midfield slot when without the ball. I could try him on forward runs often and a high mentality but how could I get him to push forward and come inside?

The point is that, at present, I don’t have the tools available to make this real life example work in FM09. If you think otherwise, then I would like to hear how you would achieve this.

I understand your point but I do not agree with the post. While yes easy and direct control over lateral and vertical movement has been lost, it is not because the arrows have been removed but because the entire function of motion both vertical and lateral has been completely altered to a player and context dependant result rather than a tactical absolute. In short direct control of lateral and vertical movement no longer exists, but lateral and vertical movement does exist. Rather than being able to directly control lateral and vertical movement, the manager must now control how a player responds to space.

There are no sarrows, farrows, barrows any more because instructions and attributes relative to team mates and opponents now define formations, tactics and behaviour. Even if barrows, sarrows and farrows were implimented the current match engine would swiftly negate their influence and the player would return to a more cohesive team position and playstyle based upon his other instructions and his attributes.

Let me give you an example to illustrate my point:

In your final diagram you wish Hunt to move infield so you give him a Free Role which will encourage him to move into space. However because Shields and Fisher do not have free roles and have FWR Mixed, both those players will maintain a central position so that the space for hunt to move into will be on the flank.

Because Mackie is making Forward Runs and linking up with the strikers, the space in midfield is on the opposite flank. You wish your entire remaining midfielders to take up that space as a midfield trio, so you need to instruct Fisher to move into the space on his flank, then Shields to move into the space in the Centre, then Hunt to either maintain his position or move into a central position within the space left near him.

What you need to do is give all 3 midfielders Free Roles in conjuction with conservative forward run instructions and equivelant mentalities. This will instruct them to take up the space in midfield as a midfield trio with the same focus on attacking and defending. As their vertical positional preference is identical but because their lateral movement has been freed through Free Roles they will operate as a Unit on the same vertical level, instructed to exploit the space left on that vertical level.

What you need to keep in mind is that Free Roles will not destroy your formation if you use plenty of them, they will infact maintain your formation for the vast majority of the game, but allow flexibility at key moments. Where Free Roles will alter your formation is if you have key positions lacking Free Roles, staggered mentalities and varied FWR as this will dramaticly influence the available space around the pitch.

Try to think of instructions in relation to Free Roles as means of "pushing" players into more natural formations depending upon the context than barrows, sarrows or farrows etc. A sarrow for Hunt would push him infield into an "unnatural" 3 man midfield, whereas FWR Often for Mackie and 3 Free Roles for your remaining midfielders will encourage them to take up a far more "natural" 3 man midfield.

The exact same principle governs your strikers, and defenders to an extent. Use mentality and FWR to govern Vertical motion and use Free Roles to govern lateral "natural" positioning. Remember that in FM09 you no longer directly control the formation, you control the players behaviour and they take up positions according to starting position, instructions, attributes and the game around them.

Really glad that you are getting what you want out of the arrows in '08. However as mentioned in the OP they misunderstood by the majority and over-effective.

If I was making the decisons going into '09 I would not have removed arrows - but adjusted their effectiveness by ensuring condition levels were decreased at a greater rate when using arrows.

However this would really have been a sticking plaster measure.

I don't work for SI, and I call it as I see it. Your are entitled to your view as I am to mine

I believe the removal of arrows came about specifically in response to the beta development of FML. This highlighted to SI that arrows were an issue due to teams employing them in totally unrealistic configurations to deadly effect.

JAT I have no beef with you or the way you play the game, and have no agenda other than offering a critique of the current tactical interface and exploring way in which it can be improved.

Well, if we have, let's call it, "perfect match engine", then we can say that removing arrows adds more realism. But when we have many serious bugs in ME, it is not so wise to remove arrows and try to add more realism. Because we cannot get it without fixing all serious ME bugs.

And it may be that removing arrows now results in better game experience later, FM 2012? But 4 years is long time. Still, removing arrows and not to give any replacement, like player movements with and without the ball, it is not so good. Right now, removing arrows cripples tactics so much that compared to FM 08, FM 09 have no tactics at all.

And yes, removing these arrows and giving FM 2010 something to replace them, may be good idea, but in that case FM 09 should not have been released at full price. We will see...

I understand your point but I do not agree with the post. While yes easy and direct control over lateral and vertical movement has been lost, it is not because the arrows have been removed but because the entire function of motion both vertical and lateral has been completely altered to a player and context dependant result rather than a tactical absolute. In short direct control of lateral and vertical movement no longer exists, but lateral and vertical movement does exist. Rather than being able to directly control lateral and vertical movement, the manager must now control how a player responds to space.

There are no sarrows, farrows, barrows any more because instructions and attributes relative to team mates and opponents now define formations, tactics and behaviour. Even if barrows, sarrows and farrows were implimented the current match engine would swiftly negate their influence and the player would return to a more cohesive team position and playstyle based upon his other instructions and his attributes.

Let me give you an example to illustrate my point:

In your final diagram you wish Hunt to move infield so you give him a Free Role which will encourage him to move into space. However because Shields and Fisher do not have free roles and have FWR Mixed, both those players will maintain a central position so that the space for hunt to move into will be on the flank.

Because Mackie is making Forward Runs and linking up with the strikers, the space in midfield is on the opposite flank. You wish your entire remaining midfielders to take up that space as a midfield trio, so you need to instruct Fisher to move into the space on his flank, then Shields to move into the space in the Centre, then Hunt to either maintain his position or move into a central position within the space left near him.

What you need to do is give all 3 midfielders Free Roles in conjuction with conservative forward run instructions and equivelant mentalities. This will instruct them to take up the space in midfield as a midfield trio with the same focus on attacking and defending. As their vertical positional preference is identical but because their lateral movement has been freed through Free Roles they will operate as a Unit on the same vertical level, instructed to exploit the space left on that vertical level.

What you need to keep in mind is that Free Roles will not destroy your formation if you use plenty of them, they will infact maintain your formation for the vast majority of the game, but allow flexibility at key moments. Where Free Roles will alter your formation is if you have key positions lacking Free Roles, staggered mentalities and varied FWR as this will dramaticly influence the available space around the pitch.

Try to think of instructions in relation to Free Roles as means of "pushing" players into more natural formations depending upon the context than barrows, sarrows or farrows etc. A sarrow for Hunt would push him infield into an "unnatural" 3 man midfield, whereas FWR Often for Mackie and 3 Free Roles for your remaining midfielders will encourage them to take up a far more "natural" 3 man midfield.

The exact same principle governs your strikers, and defenders to an extent. Use mentality and FWR to govern Vertical motion and use Free Roles to govern lateral "natural" positioning. Remember that in FM09 you no longer directly control the formation, you control the players behaviour and they take up positions according to starting position, instructions, attributes and the game around them.

Wait a second. You say that "What you need to do is give all 3 midfielders Free Roles". Here are at least three problems.

1. Have all three midfielders high Free role -attribute? And if they have, how you actually know it? OK, FC with 14 FR = FC, under is ST, but on midfielders...

2. Does all three players have necessary attributes for free role?

3. Giving Free role, well, usually it is recommended that no one has free role or at most one has.

I also ask something. You have 4-4-2 formation. You have two good centre backs, opponent has 2 strikers, one awesome striker and one reserve striker. How do you can deploy tactics so that centre back, who is zonal marking on reserve striker's side, gives reserver striker some more space and helps other centre back with awesome striker. So like mark awesome stirker with 2 players and give more space to reserve striker. And at same time, full back on poor striker's side goes to centre so there should not be so much space with this poor striker's position.

And for other points, I understand them but still there are many things you cannot do without arrows. Cutting inside, getting to more defensive position without changing mentality, running straight to byline to give good cross, removing space between defensive line and midfield without changing mentality and so on...

Football tactics are not allways easy, but if we cannot give movement instructions to player without altering attacking or defensive mentalitys, something is very wrong.

Wait a second. You say that "What you need to do is give all 3 midfielders Free Roles". Here are at least three problems.

1. Have all three midfielders high Free role -attribute? And if they have, how you actually know it? OK, FC with 14 FR = FC, under is ST, but on midfielders...

2. Does all three players have necessary attributes for free role?

I do not expect the players in question to have high positioning values either, but they are still used in central midfield. The Free Role will remove them from being constrained to a single position at which point their instructions and attributes will govern their judgement of the midfield shape. If their Free Role attribute is low then they will have a poor appreciation of space, but it will not be non-existant and it will be governed by where the space exists.

3. Giving Free role, well, usually it is recommended that no one has free role or at most one has.

I use six and my entire tactical history with FM09 is based around exploiting Free Roles and appreciating their effect. You can read about my experiences here.

I also ask something. You have 4-4-2 formation. You have two good centre backs, opponent has 2 strikers, one awesome striker and one reserve striker. How do you can deploy tactics so that centre back, who is zonal marking on reserve striker's side, gives reserver striker some more space and helps other centre back with awesome striker. So like mark awesome stirker with 2 players and give more space to reserve striker. And at same time, full back on poor striker's side goes to centre so there should not be so much space with this poor striker's position.

I would lower the mentality, closing down and tackling of the Centre Back on the Reserve Strikers side, play both fullbacks and the other Centre Back at the same or similar mentality with similar closing down instructions and similar tackling levels and attempt to present a shield of 3 defenders ahead of a sweeper. This would require tweaking of mentalities to get the positioning right and tweaking of closing down to get the pressure right.

And for other points, I understand them but still there are many things you cannot do without arrows. Cutting inside, getting to more defensive position without changing mentality, running straight to byline to give good cross, removing space between defensive line and midfield without changing mentality and so on...

Cutting Inside.

1. Play a Left Footer on the Right Wing with RWB instructions.

2. Push fullbacks up to overlap winger and give Winger a Free Role.

3. Play Narrow.

Defensive Position Without Altering Mentality.

FWR Rare.

Running to Byline.

1. Play a Right Footer on the Right Wing.

2. Play Wide.

3. Push Fullbacks up behind Winger and give Winger no Free Role.

Removing Space Without Altering Mentalities.

High D-Line with FWR Rare for CM's. You may want an off-side trap here.

Football tactics are not allways easy, but if we cannot give movement instructions to player without altering attacking or defensive mentalitys, something is very wrong.

Movement is governed by space in FM09. The reaction of players to the evolving shape of their own team and the opponent is dramaticly improved since FM08. In order to force specific movement instructions upon a player you are now forced to take into consideration the shape of your team.

You have to realise that the Match Engine is much more fluid this time around. Formations and tactics are much fluid and players no longer adhere to movement instructions without considering the shape and balance of the team. This can be exploited.

In real life football arrows are used to show players where they have to go, when in formation. Managers use them to explain the tactic inside the formation. They also use crosse, and circles and other symbols. I'm not saying arrows should be back, but at least they should create instructions panels and sliders that everyone understands. I don't even f****ing know what free roles do. I have the game since it came out and I'm still figuring it out. In previous versions I didn't need this much time. They should make next version a little more intuitive. Not eay to play, but easy to work with. Explain what each slider is for (really for and not only a little clue), introduce "off ball" instructions, and maybe side arrows. That is just my humble opinion.

"Cutting Inside.

1. Play a Left Footer on the Right Wing with RWB instructions.

2. Push fullbacks up to overlap winger and give Winger a Free Role.

3. Play Narrow."

Ugh... Not this again... please... Why in the world one should play narrow to get their wingers cut inside?

Do you see Man United play narrow? Do you see Barcelona play narrow?

These teams in particular use the full width of the pitch, yet their wingers cut inside.

The ME is poor... no, not only poor, but TERRIBLE if playing narrow is the only solution to get wingers cut in.

"Cutting Inside.

1. Play a Left Footer on the Right Wing with RWB instructions.

2. Push fullbacks up to overlap winger and give Winger a Free Role.

3. Play Narrow."

Ugh... Not this again... please... Why in the world one should play narrow to get their wingers cut inside?

Do you see Man United play narrow? Do you see Barcelona play narrow?

These teams in particular use the full width of the pitch, yet their wingers cut inside.

The ME is poor... no, not only poor, but TERRIBLE if playing narrow is the only solution to get wingers cut in.

I gave 3 solutions. Playing on the opposite wing as the players preferred foot is by far the best however.

Well yeah, your first solution is okay but it still nowhere near effective as it should be.

It's only a half-solution. I'm quite fed up with half-solutions actually... Because of SI's inability to create a more or less bug-free, well written ME, to create good (not decent, and not okay, but good) tactical options, we always have to assume this, assume that, x slider not only does thing a, but it does thing b as well and craps like that.

At the end of the day we are trying to find out what the idiot sliders and tickboxes do, and not actually trying to create tactics and philosophies based on our footballing knowledge.

I do not expect the players in question to have high positioning values either, but they are still used in central midfield. The Free Role will remove them from being constrained to a single position at which point their instructions and attributes will govern their judgement of the midfield shape. If their Free Role attribute is low then they will have a poor appreciation of space, but it will not be non-existant and it will be governed by where the space exists.

In effect, the benefits of free roles are in direct relation to a player's attributes (seen and unseen) and impact upon both lateral and vertical movement, in possession and out of it.

Top players will of course be able to 'exploit' free roles as they have the attributes to do so - that does not mean that it can be used as a substitute at lower levels for control along the lateral axis. Surely your advice has to be seen in that context and represents a 'cross your fingers and hope for the best' approach as a result when what is being asked for is explicit control to minimise the players' weaknesses?

In effect, the benefits of free roles are in direct relation to a player's attributes (seen and unseen) and impact upon both lateral and vertical movement, in possession and out of it.

Top players will of course be able to 'exploit' free roles as they have the attributes to do so - that does not mean that it can be used as a substitute at lower levels for control along the lateral axis. Surely your advice has to be seen in that context and represents a 'cross your fingers and hope for the best' approach as a result when what is being asked for is explicit control to minimise the players' weaknesses?

My point is that the capability exists.

A further point is that such explicit control in the context of player versus opponent under match conditions does not exist anyway. No player is going to stick to a precisely assigned position at any point throughout the match whether real life or virtual. At all times lateral motion and positioning is a matter of player intelligence, and this Match Engine represents that. To give lateral control that actually functions as desired in this thread is to grant a level of control that does not exist in football.

Very good opening post there.

By the way... This argument, that the arrows were confusing and some idiots couldn't understand them is just ridicolous... You all know it.

People still can't figure out what exactly it is that mentality and creative freedom does, what kind of effect free role has, how does closing down works, but yeah, surely the arrows were too confusing...

Come on now, don't insult us by thinking that we'll just believe this utter bs... Please... Don't insult our intelligence like that...

And the other stuff, that they were over-effective... You don't have to use them. Simple as that.

Or did it hurt SI that x player was finally getting some enjoyment out of the game by using the arrows? Is that the case?

Tell me how they worked then. I've thus far only spoken to three or four people who understood exactly how they worked. You might well be the fifth, but you need to prove it if you are going to make such a claim.

As for some other arguments:

1: SFraser's arguments about how to work good player movement into your team are excellent. However, he only manages at the top level. For lower quality teams, off the ball and free role related movement will be poorer, which means you will need a more disciplined approach. This is covalent with real life and an ME strength, not weakness. At the top level you need high quality movement to unlock class defences. At lower levels, you just need to do the basics well and eventually you will unlock the defensive door.

2: FM development is driven by the desire to make the managerial/match simulation as realistic to life as possible. Arrows were removed because they interfered with that process. The argument that the game was more fun with them is relativist and irrelevant.

3: Drawing an arrow on a sheet of paper is totally different than how arrows were deployed in FM08-05. The former is an instruction to look for opportunities in a certain area, the latter deterministic movement, which has no place in any simulation of sport.

4: Asking for arrows to come back, or wibble-wobble, is wasting pixels. They won't. However, discussing what other off the ball related instructions you'd like to see would be extremely useful. Think 'real world' instructions rather than sliders and which ones are missing from the game. From the arguments thus far, these seem to be missing:

• Move to flank (without ball)
  
• Cut inside (without ball)
  
• Cut inside (with ball .i.e. run at centre of defence)
  
• Overlap
  
• Drop deep
  

My point is that the capability exists.

A further point is that such explicit control in the context of player versus opponent under match conditions does not exist anyway. No player is going to stick to a precisely assigned position at any point throughout the match whether real life or virtual. At all times lateral motion and positioning is a matter of player intelligence, and this Match Engine represents that. To give lateral control that actually functions as desired in this thread is to grant a level of control that does not exist in football.

It exists within very narrow boundaries as an occasional feature when such tactics are obviously being used by clubs with players who do not match the criterion which would be needed within game currently and as common practice.

The level of control being asked for has been and is present in real world tactics but I'd definitely agree that how effective it becomes needs to be governed by players' abilities. Yet this does not negate the argument that you currently cannot even attempt to govern movement along the lateral axis when it has played a key role in tactics since at least the 30s when Italian teams discovered the function of the 'defensive midfielder' who could double cover down both flanks - purely through lateral movement.

One might as well say that one should remove the impact of mentality on the vertical axis if one wants to reduce the debate to fundamental terms of 'it all depends on the players' abilities - give them a free role and see what happens'.

Sacchi: "Football has a script. The actors, if they're great actors, can interpret the script and their lines according to their creativity, but they still have to follow the script". Your argument is that, because I can't tell the actors to move a little bit left or right on the stage when giving their lines, I should let them ad-lib instead as they might move a bit to the left or the right while ad-libbing. The whole point is that I know my actors can't ad-lib, which is why I want to be able to direct them firmly.

Tracking back would be very useful on attacking players. Their teamwork, work-rate stats would determine how effective it is.

An example: Park would do it really well, while Ronaldo would just half-heartedly jog back to offer defensive support. He'd be ***** at closing down players, chasing them but he'd still come back into more defensive positions.

4: Asking for arrows to come back, or wibble-wobble, is wasting pixels. They won't. However, discussing what other off the ball related instructions you'd like to see would be extremely useful. Think 'real world' instructions rather than sliders and which ones are missing from the game. From the arguments thus far, these seem to be missing:

• Move to flank (without ball)
  
• Cut inside (without ball)
  
• Cut inside (with ball .i.e. run at centre of defence)
  
• Overlap
  
• Drop deep
  

• 
  Press nearest passing option (centre/wide) [dependant on pressing level set]
  Provide doublecover [player specific as man-marking instruction is currently?]
  

It exists within very narrow boundaries as an occasional feature when such tactics are obviously being used by clubs with players who do not match the criterion which would be needed within game currently and as common practice.

The level of control being asked for has been and is present in real world tactics but I'd definitely agree that how effective it becomes needs to be governed by players' abilities. Yet this does not negate the argument that you currently cannot even attempt to govern movement along the lateral axis when it has played a key role in tactics since at least the 30s when Italian teams discovered the function of the 'defensive midfielder' who could double cover down both flanks - purely through lateral movement.

One might as well say that one should remove the impact of mentality on the vertical axis if one wants to reduce the debate to fundamental terms of 'it all depends on the players' abilities - give them a free role and see what happens'.

Sacchi: "Football has a script. The actors, if they're great actors, can interpret the script and their lines according to their creativity, but they still have to follow the script". Your argument is that, because I can't tell the actors to move a little bit left or right on the stage when giving their lines, I should let them ad-lib instead as they might move a bit to the left or the right while ad-libbing. The whole point is that I know my actors can't ad-lib, which is why I want to be able to direct them firmly.

The point here is that the part of the script you are talking about is not a side arrow, it is the tactical compression and expansion of play under certain circumstances. This may have been possible to recreate to a certain extent in previous versions of the game, but I suspect that was luck rather than design.

The problem with the arrows is that the Match Engine itself has evolved to place far greater weight upon attributes, instructions and match conditions than formations and pre-set positions. Positioning and movement and even formations are now entireally dependant upon match conditions, player behaviour and player intelligence. In order to achieve fluidity of movement and play it is necessary for positioning and formation to be dependant upon the unfolding game. This is where the arrows break down in function because positioning is relative to the scenario on the pitch. The player would either ignore the arrow or follow the instruction and then revert back to his preferred position.

2: FM development is driven by the desire to make the managerial/match simulation as realistic to life as possible. Arrows were removed because they interfered with that process. The argument that the game was more fun with them is relativist and irrelevant.

3: Drawing an arrow on a sheet of paper is totally different than how arrows were deployed in FM08-05. The former is an instruction to look for opportunities in a certain area, the latter deterministic movement, which has no place in any simulation of sport.

These are very good points. The current ME is an altogether different beast in its appreciation of space, play and the adaptability of formations. The importance of players maintaining shape at all points during play and adapting their positioning relative to the movements of teammates and opponents is something that cannot be ignored and is far and away the most impressive aspect of FM09 in my opinion. While we have lost arrows, we have gained something far closer to real football in my opinion.

The point here is that the part of the script you are talking about is not a side arrow, it is the tactical compression and expansion of play under certain circumstances. This may have been possible to recreate to a certain extent in previous versions of the game, but I suspect that was luck rather than design.

The problem with the arrows is that the Match Engine itself has evolved to place far greater weight upon attributes, instructions and match conditions than formations and pre-set positions. Positioning and movement and even formations are now entireally dependant upon match conditions, player behaviour and player intelligence. In order to achieve fluidity of movement and play it is necessary for positioning and formation to be dependant upon the unfolding game. This is where the arrows break down in function because positioning is relative to the scenario on the pitch. The player would either ignore the arrow or follow the instruction and then revert back to his preferred position.

I've got to say that I've never asked for a return to sarrows - never did like predetermined instructions which ignored match circumstances and I've never knocked the match engine - 9.3 is wonderful if slightly too generous to short passing approaches. I just would like more control of lateral movement - preferably in the same way I can currently affect vertical movement. It hasn't been possible in any incarnation of the game. It has never really worked in CM/FM - British footballing philosophies seem to work far better than ones influenced by Continental ideas (eg you'll have no problem playing like Taylor's Watford or Ferguson's Manchester United, but Benitez' Liverpool or Sacchi's Milan are nigh impossible to replicate with success in detail).

The 'script' I'm talking about isn't solely compression and expansion in specific circumstances but also about how the team functions when seeking to regain possession and how it functions when in possession. Aggressive pressing is impossible to achieve because players do not close down passing options on the lateral axis. One can't with regularity and with lesser players achieve players moving inside or outside to find space without also allowing them to move forward - which may negate the whole reason for wanting them to just move inside or outside to find space.

At the moment the game is very 'up/down' in how things work - perhaps a reflection of years of Reep and English football? I'd like the laterals and, through harmony with the vertical instructions, the diagonals to work too.

In my job we use a technique called user stories to allow our customers to describe their needs.

1. As a football manager, I can easily co-ordinate my teams shifting movements in the defensive phase in relation to the ball.

In my job we use a technique called user stories to allow our customers to describe their needs.

1. As a football manager, I can easily co-ordinate my teams shifting movements in the defensive phase in relation to the ball.

Given what your job is, surely there would be the tiniest degree of end-user--->expert translation involved in the analysis of these stories?

Perhaps FM development needs a data-dump of expected real world tactical instructions that could then be translated into slider-speak and transmitted back to the end-users via a third-way interface?

I do not expect the players in question to have high positioning values either, but they are still used in central midfield. The Free Role will remove them from being constrained to a single position at which point their instructions and attributes will govern their judgement of the midfield shape. If their Free Role attribute is low then they will have a poor appreciation of space, but it will not be non-existant and it will be governed by where the space exists.

I use six and my entire tactical history with FM09 is based around exploiting Free Roles and appreciating their effect. You can read about my experiences here.

OK, using six players on free role, that is against all normal tactical theorems. If we talk about realism and use six free role dudes, that is gone.

I would lower the mentality, closing down and tackling of the Centre Back on the Reserve Strikers side, play both fullbacks and the other Centre Back at the same or similar mentality with similar closing down instructions and similar tackling levels and attempt to present a shield of 3 defenders ahead of a sweeper. This would require tweaking of mentalities to get the positioning right and tweaking of closing down to get the pressure right.

But sill I want that full back on "awesome striker side" is playing with attacking mentality.

Cutting Inside.

1. Play a Left Footer on the Right Wing with RWB instructions.

2. Push fullbacks up to overlap winger and give Winger a Free Role.

3. Play Narrow.

Defensive Position Without Altering Mentality.

FWR Rare.

Running to Byline.

1. Play a Right Footer on the Right Wing.

2. Play Wide.

3. Push Fullbacks up behind Winger and give Winger no Free Role.

Removing Space Without Altering Mentalities.

High D-Line with FWR Rare for CM's. You may want an off-side trap here.

Still, I cannot give individual instructions to players. For example AML:

- Skilly winger with weak right foot -> Cut inside and cross from byline

- Not so skilly winger with strong right foot -> Cut inside and cross deep/mixed

- Skilly winger with strong right foot -> Cut inside AND cross from byline if allowed space

- Strong winger with weak right foot -> Run straight to byline and cross.

Setting width to narrow or wide just destroys all other tactics. Of course, I may have different type of Winger on AMR...

Movement is governed by space in FM09. The reaction of players to the evolving shape of their own team and the opponent is dramaticly improved since FM08. In order to force specific movement instructions upon a player you are now forced to take into consideration the shape of your team.

You have to realise that the Match Engine is much more fluid this time around. Formations and tactics are much fluid and players no longer adhere to movement instructions without considering the shape and balance of the team. This can be exploited.

Still, I except that arrows will return on some way. If this happens, people will surely ask, how this game was playable without them.

I gave 3 solutions. Playing on the opposite wing as the players preferred foot is by far the best however.

My point exactly. And solution have one weakness. What if player cannot play opposite wing (opposite to his preferred foot), ie have position 1? Not all players learn new positions.

It seems hat if you do not have just suitable players for your tactic, you are in big trouble.

I also do not agree with this "ME should to be as realistic as possible" -thing. If we take realism. OK, manager selects players, put them on field and then what? Pray that they do as you instructed them to do. With only three possibly substitutes, you cannot replace whole team. So realistic Me would mean that only thing manager can do, is to put players on field and then pray that they...

1. play (or at least try to) as you instructed

2. play as good as they can considering their skills

3. play better than your opponents' players

As I already said, realism would mean that Chelsea, ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal are always top four teams on Premiership. That is realism. But I want GAME with challenge. And crippling tactics makes this game far more "arcade", you cannot overplay your opponent with good tactics. On FM 08 that is often possible.

Given what your job is, surely there would be the tiniest degree of end-user--->expert translation involved in the analysis of these stories?

Perhaps FM development needs a data-dump of expected real world tactical instructions that could then be translated into slider-speak and transmitted back to the end-users via a third-way interface?

Absolutely, the user story acts as the hub around which further detailed analysis of what is required with reference to domain experts and the level of abstraction required.

I certainly think it would be a good idea to brainstorm these needs from a real world perspective without worrying to much about the current solution.

Then an evolutionary approach to developing these needs could be explored.

I am not so sure that sliders are an expressive or rich enough low level tactics language to communicate all the concepts, although it is certainly a starting point.

Would the 3rd interface be a read-only view of the translation in graphical terms?

3: Drawing an arrow on a sheet of paper is totally different than how arrows were deployed in FM08-05. The former is an instruction to look for opportunities in a certain area, the latter deterministic movement, which has no place in any simulation of sport.

What if you want to say, "Jimmy, get straight up there as fast as your legs will carry you, only look for a pass once you are up there". Straight from the horse's mouth, that's what a farrow did in old FMs- it moved the player into that role instantly. Unless, of course, you have changed your mind?

That's Jimmy Kebe September-December for Reading.

4: Asking for arrows to come back, or wibble-wobble, is wasting pixels. They won't. However, discussing what other off the ball related instructions you'd like to see would be extremely useful. Think 'real world' instructions rather than sliders and which ones are missing from the game. From the arguments thus far, these seem to be missing:

• Move to flank (without ball)
  
• Cut inside (without ball)
  
• Cut inside (with ball .i.e. run at centre of defence)
  
• Overlap
  
• Drop deep
  

I would love those things, but how far away are they from being implemented properly? "Use target man" is arguably not working at present. The "ends" of the arrows were that you could achieve those things, if you forget the means- you are wrong if you tell me I am wrong, I know what I have seen! I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but I am at the end of the tether. Being told point blank that that isn't what happened (as the ends, not the means), when I know it is, is very, very frustrating. The cuts inside ones wouldn't let you dictate with/without ball, other than that, they were in using arrows, one way or another.

I can make full backs overlap, I can make Joe Cole cut inside, I can make my DM drop deep (though this was more effective using mentality, I could have done it with a barrow ). I personally never used sarrows to get a striker wide, but I know others did with success.

SCIAG

As I said somewhere else before, being able to train one off PPMs for specific matches would make a vast difference to the game.

Imagine you are Manchester United playing away to Arsenal and you decide to stick Ronaldo upfront. You set his "Next Match PPM" training option to "Likes to beat off-side trap" and after one week it becomes a PPM. As soon as you change his "Next Match PPM" training option to something else he loses it. If he trains it for whatever time current PPMs take then he keeps it forever.

Or some other reasonably similar system.

I also think another set of positional discs between the winger and central midfield positions is required. There is enough room. I find 4-3-3 is very tough to implement because if you play a tight midfield 3 it's too narrow but if you play one central midfielder and two wide men it becomes to far apart.

I think there are too many ideas in FM these days that you need to link for it to work. Like the old adage that tempo and passing are linked, which we still see on the advice screen. Yet I would say an Arsenal or Barcelona play a normal tempo with short passing then speed up as they get closer to goal, you can't do that in FM, it's too one paced for one tactic.

The same as giving a winger a free role for him to cut in. Does that mean he must have high creative freedom also to do that? If so what if his creativity and decision stats are poor, does that then mean he won't cut in? In real life a manager won't think "well I can't ask him to cut inside because his decision stats are low!"

It would be interesting if FM incorporated something like the tactical pictures in the Sunday newspapers. You know the ones that show the average position in a game for each player. The formation says 4-4-2 yet the average positions don't look like a 4-4-2. You have a left winger tucking in, a central midfielder playing far forward, one full back higher than the other etc. Now yes I guess you could incorporate that with individual mentalities but only going one way. The best solution and way forward is surely two screens, with the ball and without the ball.

Great OP. I think that is doable, but it is true that it takes a lot more effort to figure out how to do it than before when the sarrows were in play. It deserves a ponder, so I'll post when I've had a think.

Thanks to crouchaldinho for an excellent post.

Removed arrows are major reason I do not play FM 09. Without arrows it is impossible to make formations you really want. Game developers say that arrows make game "unrealistic". If they are reallu concerned about realism, they should add more player personalities and dosomething to CA/PA system. Something I do not want is "put players on field, watch realistic 3D-animation and prey that your side wins". FM series should be GAME. If we really want realism. OK, any other team than Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea cannot win Premiership. That's realism. Fun? No.

Also, arrows allow you to maintain same player positions, just modify arrows. I have used following tactics with just modified arrows and player/team instructions on (England) Blue Square North, Blue Square Premier, League 2, League 1, Championship and now on Premiership.

My current tactic is something you cannot do with FM 09, just because it is missing arrows.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3175/tactics3.jpg

So what is the point? On FM 08 this tactics can be used and explained pretty good.

When my team have ball on my own area, RB and LB leave their postions and create "3 player DM line" to improve short passing possibilites (if my opposition is strong, I put Barrow to DM player, otherwise no). MC player moves forward to support attack. Because FCL is tall target striker, who are supplied to head, AML tries to get to byline to give good cross ball. FCR is "fast" striker and he is supposed to move more towards centre to get flick ons from FCL. AMR cuts inside to get threat from right side also because FCR is moving towards centre.

On FM 09, how this kind of tactics can be used? Well, AMR should cut inside to either shoot or give cross ball not so far from goal. Impossible. FCR should get closer to FCL to get flick ons. Impossible. DL and DR shoud get to "DML" and "DMR" positions when team has ball. Yeah, pretty much impossible.

On FM 09 using these player positions is pretty much like "put players on field and pray".

Arrows allow you to get more out from different type of players. I do not give a s... if arrow system is unrealistic, cheating (even asking for good players is that, I do not do it because it is useless in my game, no real players) or gives too good results. That is samothing that makes FM 08 GAME.

Special thanks to Sigames for making FM 09 less game and more TV-show.

It is doable. Here's what I came up with in 1 minute. It would need some tweaking, of course - I'm no expert.

Put your formation pretty narrow: this will bring your FRC in closer to his partner for flick-ons.

Set the AMR to cross never, set his crossing to deep (that way he won't keep running down the side channel, realising he doesn't want to cross, and dribbling it out for a goal kick - most annoying FM09 feature)

Because your formation is narrow, he won't head for the touchline unless he's been told to get out there and put in crosses.

Set him to through-balls often, (+long shots often, if he's good enough) and RWB

In my tactic, the left and right backs come forward and pass with the DM, that's not hard to do at all. If they're on 11 mentality and mixed FWR, with never through-ball and short-passing then they'll pretty much do that: you can just tweak their mentality up if they're not coming far forward enough, and if you set them to deep crossing, or RWB never, then they'll never go down to the bylines, they'll just stay back and pass.

Think that's pretty much everything you were on about.

FWRs haven't gone, so you can still get your AML to the byline, and your CM to push up. Though if you don't want him getting in the box, then it's probably best just raise his mentality.

One other thing. Sometimes you just have to adjust your perception a little. I have a player playing at FRC, next to a FC because he's a left-footed AMC who I want in the gap between the opposition DMC, LB and LCB so that he can take long shots and do through-balls. Originally, thinking of people like Messi who get into such spaces, I had him at AMR but couldn't get him in the right positions, so I improvised. And it worked.

It's less obvious how to bring your thoughts to fruition in 09, but it's not impossible.