Please do not make FM10 using TT & F, or follow FMLive.

The game risks death in my opinion.

FM Live should be renamed "Preset Manager 09", with it's touchline "shouting" or, basically, "resetting of your tactics to a TT&F model". TT&F was useful in understanding a game engine that had gone wrong, that nobody understood but that people made sense of and were finally able to play ways they wanted by doing counter intuitive things with the sliders.

TT & F is in my view, a work around for a dodgy engine. A new method needs to be worked out, one more akin to FM05 or the earlier ones before mentality became a coal pit.

The first step is to seperate mentality and positioning, do not rely on one slider to sort them both out, because they are independant of each other.

yours faithfully,

p!

Mentality and positioning (do you mean forward runs?) are linked and should remain so.

But you're right, TT&F was way too complicated. SI have said they are constantly working on the ME, but going back to previous versions where a single tactic could be used all season so you could go unbeaten is just an awful thought. It should be more intuitive, but there needs to be a degree of complexity. Just a matter of striking the right balance.

... and were finally able to play ways they wanted by doing counter intuitive things with the sliders.

The only reason the new UI might feel un-intuitive or preset is because it is impossible to let go of slider-think, or, more specifically, personal interpretations of the sliders. There are still millions of possible interpretations of how football should be played available. The new system has been designed to make thinking in sliders a thing of the past, and thinking in 'football' the future.

However, for those that don't like it, the old slider system is still available. If you don't like how the mentality slider works, you never have to look at it again. If you do, you can tweak it to your heart's content. A win-win scenario, surely?

Your solution seems to be creating even more layers of obfuscation to the system by adding even more sliders. Given that the new UI focuses on going in the opposite direction, I can understand why you don't like it. It has never been the ME that has been dodgy or broken. Illogical and poor play has always been caused by personal interpretations of poorly explained sliders. All the new system does is stop that from happening, basically removing 'poor translations' from the equation.

However, for those that don't like it, the old slider system is still available. If you don't like how the mentality slider works, you never have to look at it again. If you do, you can tweak it to your heart's content. A win-win scenario, surely?

WWFan - I have a few concerns about this wizard that I will detail below.

Please don't misunderstand this is an attempt to belittle your achievements with TT&F, without which I will be the first to admit that I would be tactically inept! I've been reading your guides since FM07 and I enjoy and respect your thorough work in elucidating the tactical side of the game for other (many ungrateful!) users. However, currently in FM09 I am able to play the game in a way that seems logical to me. I do use TT&F mentality systems and a lot of the ideas from your documents but I am also highly successful by applying my own ideas about real life football tactics to the game.

To give some examples of this, I use global passing systems and global marking systems, sometimes giving individuals specialist instructions, but never making my tactics too complicated. I vary my player instructions depending upon their abilities and the nature of the tactic I am creating (i.e. how attacking it is). In my average tactic, I play zonal marking, there is only one or two players taking long shots, only the wide players and perhaps one of the forwards run with the ball and so on. I guess you could say that I am a naturally cautious manager and I'm conservative with my instructions.

This approach works well in the current game (and in FM08 & FM07) and it makes logical sense to me. It is also currently pretty much how the AI works tactically from what I understand of the match engine.

I might be wrong, and I hope that I am, but for FM10 it seems to me that there is a likelihood that I will now be at a disadvantage due to playing my own custom tactic against an AI employing the wizard. I like to understand the tactics interface and apply real life ideas to it, that's the point of the game for me. If I have to go down the route of using the wizard to achieve a successful tactic, I will be really disappointed and probably give FM10 a miss.

I actually think the wizard is a great idea in principal and I like to idea of it helping the user to set up the various frameworks that a real life manager would have in mind (i.e. defend, counter, balanced, attack and so on). What really concerns me about it (and this is from what I have seen of it so far) is that the manager does not make choices for individual player instructions through the wizard. When I have seen tactics made by the wizard, they normally involve a large number of players running with the ball, taking long shots and so on and so forth. Not only do I see this as slightly unrealistic but I also believe that these are choices that the user should be making (or the AI manager should be making!) and not defaults that the wizards give you.

At the same time, yes the user decision may well be there if the user can access the sliders. But what happens if I make changes to the settings that make what I would deem logical sense (e.g. reduce long shots, run with the ball and free roles for my Blue Square South side) but am then put at a disadvantage against the AI who is deploying such extremes?

It is my opinion that the wizard should throw some light on the tactical frameworks and help with logical team settings, but there should be more questions there and more control for the user. Personally, I think that it all seems very superficial at the moment. I know you say that the slider mechanism will still be there below the wizard but you've also said, in a few threads, that the sliders will, in effect, become obsolete. But I say that it is not Football Manager if I'm just clicking a few options and accepting defaults. It should be up to the manager to decide whether Steven Gerrard will be on a free role and take long shots, for instance.

It also worries me that the AI opposition will all be employing similar systems. Whether you are facing Arsenal, or St. Albans City, the same numbers of players will be taking long shots and running with the ball. I'm sure you appreciate that Arsene Wenger's instructions to his players are quite different to Steve Castle's at the mighty Saints! My point is that the user ought to be making this kind of decision. Furthermore, the AI manager ought to have the basic 'intelligence' to make this kind of decision.

By your own admission in some of your TT&F documents, unless I am misunderstanding you, the most successful tactics stretch beyond the AI capabilities, while mimicking them enough so that the AI doesn't have an advantage itself. Right now the AI isn't very clever and I'm sure you agree. I'm not saying that I don't want it to become more intelligent because obviously I do, however right now a wide variety of approaches to tactics can work in the game. My biggest concern is that this will be lost with the implementation of the new wizard. Furthermore, changes to the match engine will be inevitable as a result of its inclusion in the game (as PaulC said, TT&F has inspired him to make changes). And so I ask myself, is this wizard the right step for the game?

To further my point, below is something you regularly say and it is something that I take issue with:

it is impossible to let go of slider-think

The wizard effectively ends 'slider-think' for the user. It takes the actual mechanics of the tactical side of the game away from the user. It's a point that I know SFraser has made several times and I echo it. Users like us, who enjoy 'slider-think' and placing our own interpretations on the sliders are at a disadvantage. Since FM07, I've been employing the same kind of tactics for each edition based roughly around the same principles. With each edition, I seem to learn something new and my tactics evolve slightly. However, the principles are the same. If, for FM10, I have to use a wizard instead of my own tactical principles, philosophies and ideas, I will be very disillusioned and disappointed with the game.

Finally, and I apologise for this very long post, I see that by introducing this wizard, SI are attempting to reduce ambiguity by creating labels for the user. However, it is my belief that these labels are actually restrictive and some of them introduce their own ambiguity. I believe that SI are setting themselves up for a fall here. Those struggling with the game, I would say 90% of the time, are failing to read the match engine. This wizard will not help them. Furthermore, those struggling to make tactics are looking for a wizard that will allow them to make a solid and successful tactic in a few clicks, which the new wizard will not necessarily do. Such users will gain little benefit and will probably understand the tactical system even less than they do now.

I very much hope I am proved wrong in the end and I will be the first to admit that I am wrong if I enjoy using the new tactics system.

Sincerely yours,

C.

It's not a wizard. It has a wizard section, but that is an extremely minor part of it. It is a high end interface with dynamic in-match controls. The version in FML 1.2 is about 50% of it.

To give some examples of this, I use global passing systems and global marking systems, sometimes giving individuals specialist instructions, but never making my tactics too complicated. I vary my player instructions depending upon their abilities and the nature of the tactic I am creating (i.e. how attacking it is). In my average tactic, I play zonal marking, there is only one or two players taking long shots, only the wide players and perhaps one of the forwards run with the ball and so on. I guess you could say that I am a naturally cautious manager and I'm conservative with my instructions.

When I have seen tactics made by the wizard, they normally involve a large number of players running with the ball, taking long shots and so on and so forth. Not only do I see this as slightly unrealistic but I also believe that these are choices that the user should be making (or the AI manager should be making!) and not defaults that the wizards give you.

At the same time, yes the user decision may well be there if the user can access the sliders. But what happens if I make changes to the settings that make what I would deem logical sense (e.g. reduce long shots, run with the ball and free roles for my Blue Square South side) but am then put at a disadvantage against the AI who is deploying such extremes?

It is my opinion that the wizard should throw some light on the tactical frameworks and help with logical team settings, but there should be more questions there and more control for the user. Personally, I think that it all seems very superficial at the moment. I know you say that the slider mechanism will still be there below the wizard but you've also said, in a few threads, that the sliders will, in effect, become obsolete. But I say that it is not Football Manager if I'm just clicking a few options and accepting defaults. It should be up to the manager to decide whether Steven Gerrard will be on a free role and take long shots, for instance.

It also worries me that the AI opposition will all be employing similar systems. Whether you are facing Arsenal, or St. Albans City, the same numbers of players will be taking long shots and running with the ball. I'm sure you appreciate that Arsene Wenger's instructions to his players are quite different to Steve Castle's at the mighty Saints! My point is that the user ought to be making this kind of decision. Furthermore, the AI manager ought to have the basic 'intelligence' to make this kind of decision.

The wizard effectively ends 'slider-think' for the user. It takes the actual mechanics of the tactical side of the game away from the user. It's a point that I know SFraser has made several times and I echo it.

Just wanted to say that I took advantage of the 21 day free trial of FML to check out the Tactical Wizard and basically I am very impressed.

The dynamism it adds to a football match takes the game to a new level. Tactics no longer feel "mine" but the job that has been done with the settings and the in match changes making a tactic much more adaptable and functional on-the-fly means that mid-match the changes and alterations and adaptions are very much more "mine" and very much more effective and logical.

It is definitely a great piece of work although after only a day I can see some limitations in flexibility and philosophy of roles. I find that it is also necessary to forget that the sliders and tactical options exist to make maximum use of this feature, although given enough time I am sure it is possible to come to a synthesis of the two. Hopefully this is a feature that can be expanded upon in the future, but none the less it is a definitive feature imo for bringing strategy and tactics into the heart of an ongoing match. Very good job.

I hope SFraser doesn't mind me posting this as it was a private PM. IF you do, PM me and I'll happily remove it.

Finally, and I apologise for this very long post, I see that by introducing this wizard, SI are attempting to reduce ambiguity by creating labels for the user. However, it is my belief that these labels are actually restrictive and some of them introduce their own ambiguity. I believe that SI are setting themselves up for a fall here. Those struggling with the game, I would say 90% of the time, are failing to read the match engine. This wizard will not help them. Furthermore, those struggling to make tactics are looking for a wizard that will allow them to make a solid and successful tactic in a few clicks, which the new wizard will not necessarily do. Such users will gain little benefit and will probably understand the tactical system even less than they do now.

I very much hope I am proved wrong in the end and I will be the first to admit that I am wrong if I enjoy using the new tactics system.

I like FMLive's tactic engine, it's refreshing to assign players all these different roles and have them auto configured, they all seem to work well together aswelll.

I just think the role thing is pretty nice, we could do with it being an upgrade to the current "set to [insert position here]" system. It would also be nice to create our own pre-sets. Like if I wanted my strongest team, I'd configure Riquelme his own role, where he's got free role, creative freedom, etc. But when he's injured.. it'd be nice to set a replacement as something else really quickly without having to tweak it all manually each time.

Am I right in thinking this new system means it's much more about choosing your style of play in a way that is easier to understand, rather than having to move sliders around in the hope that they 'fit' each other? You choose a role for a player using football terms, the overall style of player, not setting several sliders that everyone has their own idea of what they mean.

It shouldn't be a wizard to pick a good tactic for you, I do get the feeling that's what some people are worrying it is. It should feel like you're telling each player what their role is, and choosing your teams overall style of play, and the new system should balance everything so you don't end up with what are actually completely unbalanced and unrealistic sliders. It's up to you to pick the right types of roles for a player, the certain roles needed for your style of play. You now make mistakes by choosing the wrong roles, style of play, overall mentality, rather than watching stupid mistakes because players have unbalanced instructions.

From the screenshots I've seen (I'm not interested in FML) it looks like that's how it'll work so I'm looking forward to trying it out.

Am I right in thinking this new system means it's much more about choosing your style of play in a way that is easier to understand, rather than having to move sliders around in the hope that they 'fit' each other? You choose a role for a player using football terms, the overall style of player, not setting several sliders that everyone has their own idea of what they mean.

It shouldn't be a wizard to pick a good tactic for you, I do get the feeling that's what some people are worrying it is. It should feel like you're telling each player what their role is, and choosing your teams overall style of play, and the new system should balance everything so you don't end up with what are actually completely unbalanced and unrealistic sliders. It's up to you to pick the right types of roles for a player, the certain roles needed for your style of play. You now make mistakes by choosing the wrong roles, style of play, overall mentality, rather than watching stupid mistakes because players have unbalanced instructions.

From the screenshots I've seen (I'm not interested in FML) it looks like that's how it'll work so I'm looking forward to trying it out.

That's pretty much exactly it. The wizard section helps you get to a point from which you can experiment with playing styles and player roles and duties, but is absolutely the least important element of the whole system. Working out how to best interlink playing strategy, style with the players you possess is of fundamental importance, as is learning how to react to what is happening on the pitch.

My main objection with the wizard is that I'll have to play wwfan (I hesitate to say "you" in case somebody else reads this first ) 38 times a season. Previously one of the things I enjoyed most was the variety I got. One match you'd play against Bolton and have to stop Sam Allerdyce's long ball game, with the lone striker trying to evade both centre backs. Next you'd have Blackburn, but instead of Sam Allerdyce's long ball game, you'd get Mark Hughes' "hit it to the wingers" game. The difference between the two in FM terms is where the passes are focused and maybe two clicks on the "passing" slider.

I'm really struggling to put what I mean into words, but from what I've seen, the new system offers no way of differentiating between Kevin Nolan's box to box support role and Steven Reid's. That's just an example of course, because both managers and I think both players (I can't remember about Reid) have moved on since.

I share C's worries on the system assuming that all players of the same role at any level have the same ability. He has shown that even rigid frameworks throw up several free roles. That is really stupid, I'm sorry. A free role is "tendency to abandon defensive and positional duties and roam". There are maybe 10 clubs in the world where three midfield players have little defensive resposiblity- in fact, at the most successful lower league clubs, all eleven do defensive work. Furthermore, there's the "long shots" issue. You may say that it only happens if you choose certain roles, but I want a playmaker or a box to box midfielder who doesn't take long shots. If the AI is getting their playmakers to take long shots even though they can't shoot for toffee, something is fundementally wrong. And t isn't the AI choosing that player as a playmaker.

Another thing I see and I've long wondered about is TTF's advice on strikers. IRL, very few teams use a FCd/FCa system as per the guide's instructions. Now I'm guessing they'll all use that system. That really detracts from the realism IMO. It won't help when you don't see the FCa doing his traditional role of bursting through the back line onto through balls because it's been deemed that the Match Engine favours him rarely going forward. That strikes me as what you ache to see exadicated- ME exploits- being used by the AI. Thing of the AMC/FC or FCd/FCa partnerships of modern times. The Gerrard/Torres partnership, the Hughes/Forster partnership, Rooney/RVN, Rooney/Owen, Berkamp/Henry, Deco/Eto'o, Kaka/Shevchenko- all relied on the FC/FCa making runs behind the defence and the AMC/FCd playing loads of through balls for him to run onto. The only one I can think of which didn't work like that was the Gudjohnsen/Drogba pairing, and that was more of a front three with Eidur behind. If the FCa having forward runs result in him being off side too often in FM, then there's something wrong with the ME- and stopping him making those forward runs is a ME exploit.

Please don't take this as an attack on the guide, which has helped hundreds get to grips with FM. I've always done fine reading the manual and in-game hints and tips (shock horror!) so it hasn't helped me personally. My objection is to having it placed blindly on the AI, and disadvantaging those who want to use the sliders.

I've had a pop at the guide before now, but I've meant it constructively. I only have one thing to add - I believe that TT&F isn't the way forward for an FM game engine because by its very nature it is static, robotic and flawed. It needs to be abandoned quickly; albeit with recognition for the well-meaning intent of the authors.

My main objection with the wizard is that I'll have to play wwfan (I hesitate to say "you" in case somebody else reads this first ) 38 times a season.

Uh..why?

Please don't take this as an attack on the guide, which has helped hundreds get to grips with FM. I've always done fine reading the manual and in-game hints and tips (shock horror!) so it hasn't helped me personally. My objection is to having it placed blindly on the AI, and disadvantaging those who want to use the sliders.

This is an interface feature that uses the current slider mechanic as backend for people who don't want to fiddle with the sliders. It has nothing to do with what the AI chooses to use or not. What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't even make any sense.

How about you read wwfan or SI staff or whoever posts explaining what the new tactical interface is about and stop making stuff up?

I believe that TT&F isn't the way forward for an FM game engine because by its very nature it is static, robotic and flawed.

Read my post above. TT&F isn't a game engine. It's just a guide on how you can try setup players and teams in an attempt to create realistic instructions with the current FM Engine.

I do agree that that the way it is explained does seem robotic. I'm guessing that's because whenever someone(wwfan and/or millie in this case) tries to explain how to setup players without using slider-speak, the replies will be : "so what mentality do i use? and cf? and fwr? etc".

Uh..why?

This is an interface feature that uses the current slider mechanic as backend for people who don't want to fiddle with the sliders. It has nothing to do with what the AI chooses to use or not. What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't even make any sense.

How about you read wwfan or SI staff or whoever posts explaining what the new tactical interface is about and stop making stuff up?

I'm not making a thing up. The AI will use the settings pre-defined in the wizard. This has been said several times by wwfan. It isn't a back end. The sliders are the back end now. When the AI is used on FML (often, because most users don't bother any more), it uses wizard settings.

Read my post above. TT&F isn't a game engine. It's just a guide on how you can try setup players and teams in an attempt to create realistic instructions with the current FM Engine.

But now it's being used by SI, and forced upon the poor AI managers. That makes it a "game engine" (your words, not mine) of sorts now.

Do I understand it right that the tactics wizard will basically be an interface to give a 'human face' to the sliders?

If so then I'm of two minds to be honest. I like the idea of there actually being a system that understands the sliders and will allow users to assign roles and general guidelines to the team instead of trying to figure out whether to move a slider two notches up or another slider one notch down.

What I hate is that it means we will be stuck with a very limited number of options and a narrow view of tactics and player roles, should we opt to use the tactics wizard. Or be forced to fiddle around with sliders anyway if we want to fine tune the instructions.

And what I hate even more is that we will be stuck with the same engine/system. The one which right now doesn't allow for much flexibility in terms of positioning, behaviour on and off the ball, things like that.

Ov, the problem isn't how many options it allows, but the fact it doesn't allow for individual counter-tactics and the use of attributes. For example, the likes of Steven Gerrard are impossible to configure to perform like he does in reality - absolutely impossible. This is because the system as it is is so bloody static!

Honestly, you have to "crack" the match engine to get results at the moment. It's like the opposition has a set rating, and you have to exceed that rating to win.

FM players would prefer a system where you can place a player in an area of the pitch (let's say AMC), then give him instructions that doesn't just make him move backward and forward like a robot, but actually makes him intelligently play the way you'd expect or wish your new star player to do.

TT&F tries to make sense of a bad match engine. To actually model a match engine on TT&F is basically not changing a thing! TT&F says FWa and FWd - which essentially means "one forward robotically drops back 5 yards, the other robotically moves forward 5 yards". I'm sure I'll have a TT&F advocate reply and state "no it doesn't it does this etc. etc." but I know what I'm playing ffs!

That isn't what we want. We don't want to play the game like a complicated mathematical formula. We want to drop Gerrard in a midfield and give him the freedom to make incisive runs, intelligent distant shots and generally grab the game by the scruff of the neck - instead of just winning the ball, spinning around aimlessly and offloading to a winger.

It's really, really hard to explain exactly what sucks about FM09, but for me there's no denying the match engine is... well... "not great"; even if it is the best out there.

In short, you're capable of a lot, lot more.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents here.

I personally think that if in the future there exists the ability for each user to specify the in-depth particular details of things like match philosophy and individual roles according to his own wishes for his own team and his own players, then we will have an absolute winner on our hands here from all points of view. If for example in FM11 I have the ability to say "right great system, brilliantly thought out and worked, but here is what I need and mean for my particular team and my particular set of players to play such-and-such a position and role" then I think we will have functionality perfection.

Don't get me wrong here, the system covers a vast multitude of logical settings and variation in tactics and there may be an arguement that settings outside of what is determined by this system are pointless micro-details or highly illogical and do not work as intended or indeed work less effectively than they should and would under the logic of this system, but personally I think the case for combining the true extent of the freedom allowed by the sliders to the functionality of this system is self evident by the very nature of the tactical game mechanics. Perhaps for me an integral difference between Support and Attack roles for my Winger is whether or not he has a Free Role at different Width settings and whether or not my Midfielder is bombing forward at every available opportunity.

My simple point is that perhaps this system does not have the ability to produce the specific details of my Attack and Support playstyles involving the particular attributes and PPM's of my particular players, without becoming counter-intuitive or requiring translating the roles back into sliders for critical and time consuming particular tweaks to unlocked settings. Maybe it does and I have just failed to delve deeply enough into all the options, but the point remains that if I could combine the functionality of this system to my own particular tactical outlook and requirements, there would be absolutely no point of contention anywhere for me in what has been produced.

With that out of the way then the system itself is functionally brilliant, is tactically informative and this was a major issue I raised a while back, and is going to make figuring tactical issues out so much more rewarding and far less time consuming. The ability to radically adapt your tactics in multiple ways in the blink of an eye means that the time taken previously to test out one role solution to a particular problem will now allow multiple different attempts with multiple different player roles and teamwide concerns, but perhaps most impressive is that it is going to encourage players to adapt and change rather than avoid complexity and frustration. Users are going to see a multitude of possible options on the pitch as they look at the differences in roles for each player and will no doubt experiment with a much wider variety of behaviours than they might otherwise have done.

It is going to make a great difference to the experience of newcomers, a great difference to the experience of the perpetually frustrated, a great different to the experience of those whose game has gone stale, a great difference to those that have wanted to try out a vast library of formations and styles and roles but perhaps lacked the knowledge to construct them or the patients to develop and strengthen those systems, and the mechanics of alteration and adaption of tactics of this feature is going to make a great difference to the experience and challenge of the match itself. Players are going to find it much easier to battle with the opponent on tactical and adaptive terms and perhaps be far more likely to actually involve themselves in lengthy match replays and the wonderful Match Engine.

It is a huge feature, the most important one added to the game in years. The concerns that tactics will become "TT&F" tactics is an interesting problem because on the one hand the tactical options are almost like a manual of tactical concepts that are significant blocks in every tactical system and a comprehensive basis of solidity that is going to revolutionise the experience of the newcomer and greatly enhance the experience and understanding of probably everyone, but at the same time there is obviously not that same sheer depth and wealth of possibilities that the slider system provides, and perhaps those really finely tuned custom holistic tactics of ingenuity and attention to detail will simply not be possible. On the other hand I am sure it is quite possible to figure out the implications of unlocked sliders across all possible combinations and therefore construct a highly detailed and fine tuned tactic combined to keeping the functionality of the system, and certainly if my suggestion at the top of this post is looked at then the issue will be rendered entireally moot.

This is all somewhat dwarfed by the functionality added by this system to the game and it's future potential. Again I will point to the suggestion I made at the top of this post and state that if it somehow implimented in the future then this system will be the biggest and most important development I have seen in Football Manager since the addition of match replays and the tactics sliders. A huge step forward for FM10 so long as it works effectively with the AI and everyone gets use of it. It is the touchline management everyone has been demanding, it is the on-the-fly real-time-tactics battle between managers that could take the game to a new level.

Let me one final time point to my suggestion at the top of the post. Even if the development team at SI do not think it will technically add any more tactical options than what already exists, even if the development team think that all possible logical options already exist in this system, the addition of customisable pre-sets would quieten every voice of complaint, remove a great deal of "learning" the system itself for those that grown up with the sliders so to speak, and perhaps even add even more tactical depth to the game, both FM10+ and FML. It would grant players the functionality of the system without them having to leave their "comfort zone" or staunchly defended tactical principles and demand for "individuality". Just have a think about it.

What I hate is that it means we will be stuck with a very limited number of options and a narrow view of tactics and player roles, should we opt to use the tactics wizard.

5 philosophies (breakdown of mentalities across the team)

7 strategies (contain, defensive, counter, etc)

20+ formations

5 philosophies * 7 strategies * 20+ formations = 700 basic tactics without any individual or extra team tailoring

for each position between 1-6 roles (box-to-box midfielder, trequartista, etc)

for each role between 1-3 duties (defend, support, attack)

Lets call that an average of 3 roles and 2 duties for sake of argument and ignore the keeper, so that's 30 different roles * 2 = 60

3-way adjustments for a further 6 or areas of your tactics (for example the marking adjustments allows you to switch between zonal, automatic or man if you want control over that)

So that's a further 18 variations

during the match over 20 touchline instructions (retain possession, get ball forward, pass into space, pass to feet, pump ball into box, clear ball to flanks, shoot on sight, work ball into box, exploit the flanks, exploit the middle, look for overlap, take a breather, play wider, play narrower, push higher up, drop deeper, hassle opponents, stand off opponents, get stuck in, stay on feet, play even safe, take more risks....each of which override specific instructions for certain groups of players).

I don't know how many combinations that makes, so just for illustrative purposes we'll multiply by the 20. I know it's wrong, but it will do.

20 formations * 60 roles/duties * 18 tactical variations * 20 touchline shouts = 432,000 different combinations if you set players individually and adjust the basic tactics.

I have no doubt the maths is completely off, but you get the idea. I don't think people need to worry about this one.

I like the idea of there actually being a system that understands the sliders and will allow users to assign roles and general guidelines to the team instead of trying to figure out whether to move a slider two notches up or another slider one notch down..

whs

What's the difference between three bumps in, say, direct passing. One is a little more long-ball than the other?

"All right boys, I want you to play a direct style, but similar to a long hoof up the park. But you, Smithy, I want your direct passes to be shorter."

I don't know how many combinations that makes, so just for illustrative purposes we'll multiply by the 20. I know it's wrong, but it will do.

20 formations * 60 roles/duties * 18 tactical variations * 20 touchline shouts = 432,000 different combinations if you set players individually and adjust the basic tactics.

I have no doubt the maths is completely off, but you get the idea. I don't think people need to worry about this one.

As soon as people see something unfamiliar they are going to worry. They are going to worry that they have no control, worry that the system is doing something they do not intend, worry that they are no longer playing the game.

The average user probably does not have 400,000 combinations of functional tactical options in their arsenal, but giving them this does not inherently mean they are more comfortable. If anything they are probably less comfortable as their previous understanding of the options is rendered moot as they try to figure out why these settings correspond to the behaviour they are seeing. While their choice of deep-lying playmaker is making more of an impact on the actual game, they are busy checking through the slider settings for that role and seeing options they think are weak while trying to figure out other options that make the system strong, and they arrive at the conclusion that while this system is working, they do not know how.

Given that we have all been using the sliders for many years now, this may actually prove to be quite a profound problem in the short term.

Compound this issue with the fact the system is loudly explained as being based on TT&F, a guide that has in the past received as much criticism as praise in general discussion, then we have a recipe for significant outright rejection, refusal to critique the system on its own merit, and a lot of annoyed customers.

The implimentation of this system has to be understood for what it is. Some users are going to have their hackles raised simply by seeing this system impliment a particular role in a different way to their conceptions. Some users will have their hackles raised because it is based on TT&F. Some will have their hackles raised because it works better than their current tactics. Some will have their hackles raised because the system does not allow their preferences to function in the same way as those involved in defining the settings of the roles.

A lot of people are going to be upset because this system does not function in the same way they play the game. Add to that the fact that this system was implimented to make the game easier and tactics more understandable and you have a recipe for indignation.

It is simple stuff that explains everything I have read regarding this feature across all these particular boards. I personally see the merits of the system on multiple levels and recognise it's ability to revolutionise the game, but I also enjoy the way I play FM and do not want to compromise it to make use of the features offered by the new system, while at the same time wishing to make use of those new features.

That I think is a key point in this debate. People are more willing to adjust their tactics when they fail than when told they fail despite achieving a modicum of success. People don't want to be told "this is better" when the previous achieves acceptable results and "belongs" to them.

It is a highly interesting issue and an issue I would not be so quick to dismiss as you are. I understand your point, I understand my point, I understand the points of others and I understand the premise and practical implimentation of this feature.

Sorry, what does TT and F stand for?

Cheers

My main objection with the wizard is that I'll have to play wwfan (I hesitate to say "you" in case somebody else reads this first ) 38 times a season. Previously one of the things I enjoyed most was the variety I got. One match you'd play against Bolton and have to stop Sam Allerdyce's long ball game, with the lone striker trying to evade both centre backs. Next you'd have Blackburn, but instead of Sam Allerdyce's long ball game, you'd get Mark Hughes' "hit it to the wingers" game. The difference between the two in FM terms is where the passes are focused and maybe two clicks on the "passing" slider.[/Quote]

I think you'll find that the difference between tactics in the new system will be more extreme and more obvious. That is certainly the intention anyway. The new system gives the AI far more options to choose from when setting up its own tactics.

I'm really struggling to put what I mean into words, but from what I've seen, the new system offers no way of differentiating between Kevin Nolan's box to box support role and Steven Reid's. That's just an example of course, because both managers and I think both players (I can't remember about Reid) have moved on since.

From memory, the MC position has at least ten possible role/duty combinations, all of which have circa 16 further modification possibilities. If you don't like any of the combinations and want to force change a 'no long shots' setting, that is perfectly possible.

I share C's worries on the system assuming that all players of the same role at any level have the same ability. He has shown that even rigid frameworks throw up several free roles. That is really stupid, I'm sorry. A free role is "tendency to abandon defensive and positional duties and roam". There are maybe 10 clubs in the world where three midfield players have little defensive resposiblity- in fact, at the most successful lower league clubs, all eleven do defensive work.

I've mentioned this before, but the philosophy setting is not the determiner for free roles, but mentality structure and creative freedom. The determiner for free roles is roaming. If you don't like free roles, you just adjust it downwards. If, like SFraser, you want more, you adjust it upwards. IF you want still more or less, you can 'force change' the settings.

Furthermore, there's the "long shots" issue. You may say that it only happens if you choose certain roles, but I want a playmaker or a box to box midfielder who doesn't take long shots. If the AI is getting their playmakers to take long shots even though they can't shoot for toffee, something is fundementally wrong. And t isn't the AI choosing that player as a playmaker.

I believe the B2B role has long shots high to default, but other than that, I am not sure if any MC role/duty does. Maybe one at most. The main reason being that we regard good long shots to be a fundamental attribute of a B2B midfielder. Gerrard and Lampard, for instance. Again, you have the option to reduce this via the dynamic options, force change it via the advanced interface, or pick a different role/duty for the player in question.

Another thing I see and I've long wondered about is TTF's advice on strikers. IRL, very few teams use a FCd/FCa system as per the guide's instructions. Now I'm guessing they'll all use that system. That really detracts from the realism IMO. It won't help when you don't see the FCa doing his traditional role of bursting through the back line onto through balls because it's been deemed that the Match Engine favours him rarely going forward. That strikes me as what you ache to see exadicated- ME exploits- being used by the AI. Thing of the AMC/FC or FCd/FCa partnerships of modern times. The Gerrard/Torres partnership, the Hughes/Forster partnership, Rooney/RVN, Rooney/Owen, Berkamp/Henry, Deco/Eto'o, Kaka/Shevchenko- all relied on the FC/FCa making runs behind the defence and the AMC/FCd playing loads of through balls for him to run onto. The only one I can think of which didn't work like that was the Gudjohnsen/Drogba pairing, and that was more of a front three with Eidur behind. If the FCa having forward runs result in him being off side too often in FM, then there's something wrong with the ME- and stopping him making those forward runs is a ME exploit.

One FC stays high on the defenders shoulder and then breaks onto through balls. The other drops into space and then moves up with play as it advances. That's what the FWR settings mean. The problem you have is in the translation of the sliders. No FWRs does not not, and has never meant, that the FCa does not run onto through balls. It just means he won't continuously advance from his starting position, rather he'll wait and hold until there is something to move onto, making lateral movements to lose his marker, but nor forward ones to put him offside. However, if you believe your translation is better, you can force change FWRs. Furthermore, FWRs for the FCa/d do not remain constant throughout the strategies.

Please don't take this as an attack on the guide, which has helped hundreds get to grips with FM. I've always done fine reading the manual and in-game hints and tips (shock horror!) so it hasn't helped me personally. My objection is to having it placed blindly on the AI, and disadvantaging those who want to use the sliders.

It makes the AI far more sophisticated as it has far more tools at its fingertips. Some AI teams will play almost exactly as they did in FM09. Others will be noticeably different. If you want to use the sliders, nothing will have changed, as the classic interface is still available. You can totally ignore the new UI.

As for all AI managers playing like me, even I don't play like me anymore, as the new options have pushed me into new directions and methods of play that the old system didn't allow. I certainly didn't have 400k plus (more like 2m plus) tactics at my disposal, which is roughly what AI teams will have. TT&F is simply the conceptual starting point for the new system, not the be all and end all. All that has happened is the starting point has shifted between its previous form, which was extremely simplistic, and embraced a more sophisticated vision, which has been influenced by many forum contributions from many quarters over the last four years.

I think the key thing is that FM10 should be a simulation of football, not a simulation of FM09.

If we use the interface to attempt to recreate what we did before, using the sliders, then the result is always going to be disappointing. What we need to do is look at each of the options presented and think, is this how the team or player plays in real life, is this how I want to play.

Don't get me wrong, I have my fears for the system that I won't be able to do certain things the way I want, but I think being willing to start at the beginning, rather than use my knowledge of FM will reap the rewards in terms of enjoyment in the long run.

This is just my approach - others will use the new system and immediately check what it has done to the sliders and if that helps them then why not. I will probably take a sneaky peak at some point.

I see it as a step forward in treating me like a real manager, though I never really had too much against the old system. I suspect it won't be perfect - like FM09 changing the arrows, the hope is that the overall benefit outweighs any new flaws. I'm optimistic that will be the case, but I am also realistic that not everything will be to my liking.

Ah, playmaker, you are of course right in that by combining the various aspects one can arrive at a large number of options, but they will still come from a very limited original number if I choose to use the wizard – in order to leave the sliders setting in the hands of an interface that understands how they work. Your maths are right I suppose, but I don't believe their application is.

A defensive 4–4–2, an offensive one, a balanced one are all very nice, but in the end they will all behave like a 4–4–2 would with varying degrees of care and risk taking. Which is ultimately what you expect them to do but it's not great, interesting variety.

Or players, an attacking midfielder will have what, two or three useful roles to him, and either the support or attack role? The numbers you mentioned are impressive but the useful amount of tactical approaches won't be – or at least I think so. Yeah I might be able to customize the instructions further, but then I pretty much negate the usefulness of the new features.

Again let me say I appreciate what the tactics wizard is supposed to do but I also agree with the poster who mentioned it's not the way to go. As it seems to only hide the unintuitive sliders behind a decent interface, and when that interface is not customizable enough for a player, he will have to delve into Slider Manager 2010 once again.

Which I suppose would be acceptable enough if some progress and changes were made in the game engine and slider management. However from what I can tell the focus is not on improving those core mechanics, but on giving them a nicer face (and as I explained above, possibly useful for beginners or with basic tactics, but losing its appeal if more detail is needed).

Now let me go out on a limb here, I think that purely for the sake of progress and advancing the game further, a tactics wizard might be a good thing if the sliders were actually abandoned (or simply changed for the better). If the said wizard took that into account and allowed for extremely great freedom and had a very high number of new options. New being the key word.

Basically a variation of the dropdown menu idea that has been talked about on these forums. Instead of only setting someone to 'playmaker', or having to go the trial and error way with strange sliders, specific and detailed options would be presented to the player. How to behave in attack, without the ball, when defending, things like that. Simple yet powerful; specific, not counterintuitive; offering a large number of options and not having to accept only a given narrow definition.

Good read this, will be keeping an eye out for more

I think the key thing is that FM10 should be a simulation of football, not a simulation of FM09.

This is literally "it" in a nutshell! Bravo ^^

The numbers you mentioned are impressive but the useful amount of tactical approaches won't be – or at least I think so.

I do understand your fears and it is not unreasonable to think that some things will not be possible that we would like to do, have done in the past and are logical choices regardless of interface. On the other hand I suspect that we will try some things we wouldn't have before.

Does one balance the other out? I guess the answer to that will be personal.

Which I suppose would be acceptable enough if some progress and changes were made in the game engine and slider management. However from what I can tell the focus is not on improving those core mechanics, but on giving them a nicer face (and as I explained above, possibly useful for beginners or with basic tactics, but losing its appeal if more detail is needed).

In fairness, there have been hints that the tactics wizard is only a small part of the changes. I think it will be more than just a nicer face - how much more is anybodies guess.

Now let me go out on a limb here, I think that purely for the sake of progress and advancing the game further, a tactics wizard might be a good thing if the sliders were actually abandoned (or simply changed for the better). If the said wizard took that into account and allowed for extremely great freedom and had a very high number of new options. New being the key word.

I'm not sure it is actually possible to abandon the slider system completely. In terms of interface, then yes it could happen. In terms of providing a way to translate football speak into computer speak (i.e. numerical values) then it has to exist in some form. We have been used to making that translation ourselves and that will be hard to let go of. I completely agree on new options - the more the merrier.

Last point - It's good to see a reasonable debate covering different points of view and that people are trying to look beyond their initial impressions, rather than just dividing up into different camps - challenging a point rather than dismissing it, if that makes sense.

hassle opponents

Automatic win button.

during the match over 20 touchline instructions (retain possession, get ball forward, pass into space, pass to feet, pump ball into box, clear ball to flanks, shoot on sight, work ball into box, exploit the flanks, exploit the middle, look for overlap, take a breather, play wider, play narrower, push higher up, drop deeper, hassle opponents, stand off opponents, get stuck in, stay on feet, play even safe, take more risks....each of which override specific instructions for certain groups of players).

these instructions I can say them to a single player?

for example: giggs->play wider

if no, in fm2010?

Nothing is different in FMLive- you merely have the option to preset the sliders to the recommended settings in a WWfan tactical system. The "sideline shouting" is merely a resetting of configurations to get the player to do what you want in the old mentality/slider system- it's all still exactly the same: you can either preset it and use WWfan's clarification of the sliders, or you can attempt to work out the dodgy system for yourself.

In my opinion it is woeful and I won't be buying the game. The idea of these TT&F presets is mind numbing: "advanced playmaker" still having low attacking mentality, deep playmaker having a defensive mentality when it's not at all what you want... What needed to happen was a move away from the problem and confusion riddled FM09 and a move back in the direction of football not sliders management seen in FM05 and earlier.. as it is, it has gone from "slider/click manager 2009" to "preset manager 2010".

All they have done, repeat, the only thing: is to incorporate TT&F "positions and players" into the engine in the form of a simple one click wizard. You still have the counter intuitive, contradictory, conflicting slider names and meanings that made FM09 impossible to understand, and when you finally did it gave you an overwhelming sense of the stupidity of the way it was configured.

Thanks for proving my point about still trying to think in sliders, not football.

yeah... yeah... you seem to be mistaking this "human face" of touchline shouting, with the actual abiltiy to intuit the sliders and do what you want with them.

The latter is impossible, and in fact the human facing is just realisation that they've kept exactly the same dodgy tactical engine as 09 and put working presets into it to get the players to behave in a certain way. What was good about FM was that you used to be able to create your own tactic- the engine was fluid for the user and so many different interpretations were possible. Now, if i don't do what you do, if i don't have my box to box midfielder set up like this and doing that, or it i don't have my playmaker set like this while doing that, it will simply crash.

That is why these "tactical presets" have been included and that is why it is not a football simulation anymore- because the slider interpretation is not as fluid as it used to be. It is more of a "pick these settings and you'll be ok simulation"- it has become depersonalised because they engine is dodgy and it is simply not fun any more. It's lost it's depth and it's individuality because it's your way or the highway. I will rot in the cold cold earth before I give my AMC 10/20 for mentality if I want him to shoot. I refuse to choose between him taking shots and being close to my strikers- it is absurd.

I believe we've had this discussion before, when I tried to explain to you why an AMC with high mentality and high forward runs wouldn't be in the right position to make long shots. Looks like you are still failing to understand what I was talking about and how everything works.

An AMC with a high mentality will take long shots a lot if he has no FWRs (pretty much how we are setting up the advanced playmaker/support role). If he has FWRS, he can't take long shots, because he wil always be running ahead of the ball. You are still translating this as 'I can't have a high mentality AMC who will take long shots'. That is not the case. You can't have a high mentality player positioned in the AM strata with high forward runs taking long shots, because he will always be looking to get ahead of the ball, and thus never in the position to make the long shot in the first place.

And, as stated many times, if you don't like the system, either override it or go back to the classic sliders. It is optional, not forced.

Steven Gerrard.

(1) Plays right up close to the strikers, next to them.

(2) Makes runs in behind them very often, and I also believe,

(3) he takes the occasional long shot.

He does this, because he has an attacking mentality - he sees the best attacking option (run behind the strikers, OR sit back for a long shot, OR simply link up close to them with 1-2's, and he picks it.

He does not think: oh: I have an attacking mentality and forward runs so I stand here and run there. Or oh! I have a defensive mentality so I stand here, and then I make runs from deeper and far away from the strikers!

It is fluid- he has---- a brain. Mentality and positioning cannot be combined to simulate a real footballer.

Mentality cannot have anything to do with positioning- they must be separate. Why do you have to make Stevie a r.etard? can't he have a brain rather than a "start at point A and run to point B with XYZ settings or fail"??

And lastly, how can I "override it"? If I want my Sweeper to play deep, behind the defense (Ie. low mentality setting) but I want him to be attacking and join the attack in any way he can at any moment (not just start a ridiculous forward run at a certain inopportune time intuited by his mentality setting which will stop somewhere ridiculous in midfield also dependent on his mentality setting? Where do I put it? It's bizarre and absurd- mentality is still not mentality- it is positioning. CHANGE THE NAME AT LEAST.

I think that is actually my favorite part of the game now: When I watch my "attacking sweeper" when we have the ball, and it goes forward and he keeps in line with the team and runs forward- totally disregarding the play, to about 10 meters inside my half, then just stops relative to the position of the midfield and sits around looking stupid. oh he's so "attacking"! his mentality is super super attacking! He runs from point a to point b in such an "attacking!" way:>:> and then of course he gets caught out 15 yards too far forward when i want him in his defensive position. Gold. pure gold

I believe we've had this discussion before, when I tried to explain to you why an AMC with high mentality and high forward runs wouldn't be in the right position to make long shots. Looks like you are still failing to understand what I was talking about and how everything works.

An AMC with a high mentality will take long shots a lot if he has no FWRs (pretty much how we are setting up the advanced playmaker/support role). If he has FWRS, he can't take long shots, because he wil always be running ahead of the ball. You are still translating this as 'I can't have a high mentality AMC who will take long shots'. That is not the case. You can't have a high mentality player positioned in the AM strata with high forward runs taking long shots, because he will always be looking to get ahead of the ball, and thus never in the position to make the long shot in the first place.

And you don't think that is a fundamental flaw. Problem is we are looking at this from two totally separate angles. One (myself, Pauly) that wants SI to live up to their promise that this is actually a simulation, and the other (wwfan) that tackles it with complete video game logic which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how it happens in reality.

And, as stated many times, if you don't like the system, either override it or go back to the classic sliders. It is optional, not forced.

So is buying the game.

6 months on and it's still the same argument. It doesn't work like you think it does.

If you cared to look through the strategies in FML, you'd notice that the player's mentality would change depending on the match strategy. Sometimes it would be low, sometimes high. However, his movement instructions would stay the same. His mentality instuctions would just influence his judgement of risk and reward.

And you don't think that is a fundamental flaw. Problem is we are looking at this from two totally separate angles. One (myself, Pauly) that wants SI to live up to their promise that this is actually a simulation, and the other (wwfan) that tackles it with complete video game logic which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how it happens in reality. [/Quote]

Worst argument I've ever read. How the new system is set up has nothing to do with video game logic. It is completely related to do with understanding how real football and the sliders work, and making sure people have access to good, realistic settings. Pauly5's problem is, and always will be, a mis-translation of sliders. He thinks it should work one way, and that any other translation is wrong. If he were a little more open to his own method being flawed, he might see that what he wants to achieve is perfectly possible.

So is buying the game.

Very true.

Were you a turtle in a past life?

You always hide behind this "risk and reward" business: you try to cloud the issue by attributing mentality to what suits you. The simple fact remains that I cannot set a player to be attacking or defensive: I cannot set Bergkamp, or gerrard to just be attacking and PICK THE BEST ATTACKING OPTION, for example: drop 5 meters back if space opens for a shot, or push higher into the space behind the defense if that option is available. I can only set them to START FROM A POSITION, END IN A POSITION, DO A CERTAIN THING. There is absolutely NOTHING "mental" about it- there is no decision from the player about how to be "attacking" it is just: start from here, run to here, do this. Like a robot. Just face it: mentality is an absolutely stupid word for what is happening, it is so robotic and that is why your settings work so well.

they can't be combined- it's just laziness.

Worst argument I've ever read. How the new system is set up has nothing to do with video game logic. It is completely related to do with understanding how real football and the sliders work, and making sure people have access to good, realistic settings. Pauly5's problem is, and always will be, a mis-translation of sliders. He thinks it should work one way, and that any other translation is wrong. If he were a little more open to his own method being flawed, he might see that what he wants to achieve is perfectly possible.

The sliders are a convoluted and inane solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place. I have "mistranslated" the sliders too. My mistake was applying real world logic. This "simulation of a simulation" requires a complete mindset change, that tells you someone with an attacking mentality cannot possibly play deep, and that an attacker "dropping deep" merely means standing still while the rest of the team run past him. The one thing that is clear, is that they have NOTHING to do with how real football works.

Have you heard of free roles?

I don't want him to go wide. ever. Can't use free roles oops!

I've got flu and have a splitting headache. I cannot be bothered to go through all this rubbish again.

You don't like the sliders and you don't like the new system. The only thing you'd like is a system that completely maps your vision of how football is played and how football games should be made. Anything else is de facto 'useless'. Makes trying to debate and/or help you a pointless exercise.

Rubbish- once again you've ignored what I've said and the problem with mentality I've raised. Enjoy the turtledom.

Steven Gerrard.

(1) Plays right up close to the strikers, next to them.

(2) Makes runs in behind them very often, and I also believe,

(3) he takes the occasional long shot.

He does this, because he has an attacking mentality - he sees the best attacking option (run behind the strikers, OR sit back for a long shot, OR simply link up close to them with 1-2's, and he picks it.

Steven Gerrard's Preferred Moves:

Gets Forward Whenever Possible

Shoots From Distance

You don't need to set an attacking mentality and forward runs often as it is already covered by 'Gets Forward Whenever Possible'.

You always hide behind this "risk and reward" business: you try to cloud the issue by attributing mentality to what suits you. The simple fact remains that I cannot set a player to be attacking or defensive: I cannot set Bergkamp, or gerrard to just be attacking and PICK THE BEST ATTACKING OPTION, for example: drop 5 meters back if space opens for a shot, or push higher into the space behind the defense if that option is available. I can only set them to START FROM A POSITION, END IN A POSITION, DO A CERTAIN THING. There is absolutely NOTHING "mental" about it- there is no decision from the player about how to be "attacking" it is just: start from here, run to here, do this. Like a robot. Just face it: mentality is an absolutely stupid word for what is happening, it is so robotic and that is why your settings work so well.

Utter rubbish to be fair and WWFan nails it with the Free Roles. I just spent 20 minutes writing a post about how Flair, Anticipation, Composure, Decisions and Teamwork relate to Creative Freedom and you reckon their are no mental attributes or player decision making involved in FM09? How did you come to that conclusion?

Your post is quite daft for the simple reason that the very stuff you point is very much determined by mental attributes yet you deny their effect.

It looks like you are still playing FM08 to be honest. Your point about the lack of determination by mental attributes is worth pointing out for its utter lack of being remotely accurate, but arguing against all that junk requires more patients than I have.

No way in hell can you define behaviour like you claim in FM09 and no way in hell are players completely governed by deterministic instructions at the expense of the effect of mental attributes. It's a totally rediculous point that means either you do not actually play the game very much or you are simply bleating out of frustration. Likely both.

wwfan, honestly, you're not "getting" it. You're explaining something that simply isn't there! What Pauly (in an albeit unfortunate way) is trying to explain is the fact the sliders just make the players move from Point A to Point B, with little to nothing else allowed to happen. I honestly think that is undeniable. When was the last time you saw a player do something unexpected on FM09 - even with free role ticked and high creative freedom allowed?

To me, the FM09 doesn't feel like it is simulating football, but feels like it's running a series of programmed moves. I feel like I'm at NASA simulating a shuttle flight at times - it's that technical and static. The game doesn't relate to actual football.

You said this;

The only thing you'd like is a system that completely maps your vision of how football is played and how football games should be made. Anything else is de facto 'useless'. Makes trying to debate and/or help you a pointless exercise.

That's a fair comment - as it IS a computer game and will never reflect football in its entirity. However, in TT&F you have a lengthy explanation about how FM09 DOES reflect football almost in its technical entirity! You can't have both sides of the argument. Either you accept the game is flawed and the match engine can only be explained using mathematical knowledge, or you think the ME is a fair reflection of actual football and can be explained using footballing knowledge.

I've played all SI games since CM97/98 and love the series - but as Ov suggests, I do find the current tactical system "fiddly and unintuitive", as I feel more of a maths professor than a football manager when I play it.