Should SI Bring the Arrows Back?

[crouchaldinho]

However, I'm talking about the observed effect of free roles in the actual game. You keep telling me that all it does is move players into space, but IN GAME I can see that it has an effect for my team very similar to what you're after.

I can't keep going through the same thing over and over. Free roles may well give me some of the effects I want but they do not achieve exactly what it is I want to be able to do. Furthermore, such settings would have undesired concomitant effects.

and the longer they play with free role, the higher their free role rating goes.

Do you have any information regarding this because I feel quite sure that this isn't the case? I stand corrected if you do.

Moreover, someone played out of position who has the right attributes will play just as well as someone who actually is trained in that position.

What you are saying is specious in the context that I am talking about it in.

An individual played in his 'natural' position will be more likely to play to his full ability in that position than if that same player is played in one of his 'competent' or 'accomplished' positions. I'm pretty sure that is a fact.

I give the example of using mentality to adjust position. An MC with a low mentality, encouraging him to be more cautious and thus having an effect on his positioning on the football field, will not be playing in the DM position he is 'natural' in, even with this low mentality. However, under the old system, an MC with a barrow to DM would be moving to that position and operating in that position off the ball. Isn't that how it should be? I gave the example, in one of the threads in the opening post, of last season where St. Albans City had a striker playing on the left wing who was encouraged to take up advanced positions to move into his more familiar position on the field. Giving him high mentality, free roles and everything you want doesn't achieve that in the game at the moment. A simple arrow to an adjacent attacking position to encourage such a direction would.

I'll bow out of this convo now. Judging by Ov Collyer's post, SI might have made us both happy with FM10. We'll just have to wait and see.

As you say, we can but wait and see. Somehow, I don't think I'll be getting quite what I want though.

And my previous request (to have a gander at your tactical attempt ) still stands, if you get a chance to upload it.

Thanks for the offer. I do know what I can achieve on FM using various methods to generate similar effects to those real life tactics that I try to replicate. However, I can think of so many instances where giving some specific direction to a player, as defined in this thread, is almost impossible to generate in the current match engine. We could argue until we are blue in the face about free roles and so on and so forth, but the fact remains that the current tactical options are limited since the demise of the arrows and that I really should be able to encourage a midfield player to drop into an adjacent position in the midfield (DM, for instance) without necessarily having to adjust his mentality and so on in order to achieve this simple instruction (and even that still doesn't work, because he doesn't officially move into such a position but just takes a more conservative MC position on the field through his judgment of risk and reward etc.)

Hope you do see my point (and, for what it is worth, I appreciate your points, even if I disagree that they are in any way solutions to my tactical issues).

No hard feelings, I hope, and thank you for adding your thoughts to the thread.

Regards,

C.

[SFraser]

We could argue until we are blue in the face about free roles and so on and so forth, but the fact remains that the current tactical options are limited since the demise of the arrows and that I really should be able to encourage a midfield player to drop into an adjacent position in the midfield (DM, for instance) without necessarily having to adjust his mentality and so on in order to achieve this simple instruction (and even that still doesn't work, because he doesn't officially move into such a position but just takes a more conservative MC position on the field through his judgment of risk and reward etc.)

This is where you are wrong. The current tactical options provide much more flexibility, fluidity and subtelty of on-pitch behaviour and positioning because of the way the players in the current ME react to their conditions. Players no longer need to be told to take up adjacent positions, they do so on their own merit when the situation demands it. Make sure your most defensively capable midfielder is not heading too far forward and he will automatically assume the central position infront of the defence and behind the forward line so long as there are no deep gaps in the forward line he should be filling.

If your defensively adept CM is not taking up a central position it is because the formation shape currently produced by your other players makes a different position near to him a better overall position to maintain. Your other CM is not advanced enough meaning a position adjacent to HIM is superior than a position central and advanced to the defence.

Sure in FM08 you could have a yard of space between your DM and the guy to the left of him and 20 yards of space between your DM and the guy to right, but in FM09 this is bad positioning and poor teamwork. It's pretty rare in real life football as well.

[paulo_ac]

Quote:

What I would like to see are two new personal instructions for players like the following:

1. Move position (drop down: in possession/ when defending) to (drop down: positions...).

The key here is that this instruction should not robotically override all other instructions but also be determined by the attributes of the player, for instance decisions, work rate, teamwork, creativity and so on.

To avoid misuse the positional option could and should be restricted to one position from the common position of the player (like a chess pawn who can move into any direction). An AML would thus only have the options ML, MC, AMC and SC. Also it should have a noticable effect on the match condition and make stamina more important.

This way we would be able to have a 433 with the wingers cutting inside into striker position as well as a 433 becoming a 451 for instance if the wingers move back into a flat midfield line when defending.

At the same time the option would only allow for one of those two settings. Thus an exploit by using both settings in one tactic to create another unrealistic tactic would not be possible.

2. Also, I'd like to see a tick-box which allows players to move wide, like the MCs you mentioned. It might be named "Encourage to move to the flank" and should do what it says. Depending on the attributes of the player, he should then more often than otherwise move to a wider position in cases he feels it's beneficiary.

Setting the team width applies to everyone and that might not be intended at all, so I think this would be an improvement which is needed as right now we cannot give that instruction.

Both of your ideas are the sort of thing that I am looking for in the game, whether this is provided by an arrows system or a new system involving wizard instructions.

Regards,

C.

Hear, hear!! Totally agree!

[paulo_ac]

Hi guys, having played a certain demo, and read the reactions of SI to the comments in this thread and others, I decided to have another, and closer, look at the screenshots for FM10.

Crouchaldinho, check out image 17. Maybe the new system will have exactly what we are looking for.

http://www.footballmanager.net/index.php?p=info_pc#

I did think Ov. Collyer sounded far too confident!

[peter-evo]

How is image 17 relavant?

[Ackter]

Probably meant 16, which shows the match analysis.

Still not relevent, but makes more sense.

[SFraser]

Hi guys, having played a certain demo, and read the reactions of SI to the comments in this thread and others, I decided to have another, and closer, look at the screenshots for FM10.

Crouchaldinho, check out image 17. Maybe the new system will have exactly what we are looking for.

http://www.footballmanager.net/index.php?p=info_pc#

I did think Ov. Collyer sounded far too confident!

Screenshot number 4 (FORUMS ONLY) is far more revealing. Apparently it now has all the information you need to create tactics.

Quite a few people in this thread have been saying the same thing.

I think Ov Collyer has not been spending the last year playing FM08 and Ov Collyer has not been spending the last year lamenting the loss of Farrows. After all, all that has changed is that you need to take into account match situation, player attributes and behaviour influencing instructions to achieve the same effects as Farrows, Barrows and Sarrows.

Under those conditions I would be confident that I am making brilliant progress as well.

[Ackter]

They don't achieve the same effects as the arrows system, and that's a very good thing.

They achieve realistic alternatives that actually do what people assumed the arrows used to do but never actually did.

[paulo_ac]

I am in mind that the image sequences may change, I have it as 12 now.

Whatever, it is the screenshot about Philosophy, and I quote: "The philosophy determines how rigidly the players adhere to their playing positions (...) Rigid philosophies tend to be preferred by managers who like to dictate every facet of a player's role (...) allowing players to contribute to attacking and defending in more areas of the pitch than just their own position"

I am also encouraged by the one about Strategy, the interesting thing is the last paragraph, which reads: "It focuses heavily on getting players forward and into space and allows them the creative freedom to express themselves"

So, it looks like a good mix of the free role Dekker2 and Sfraser were alluding to, and the control Crouchaldinho and I crave.

I very much wish I could see further screenshots of the remaining headings of Strategy and Philosophy. I can't wait now.

PS - Sfraser, I am pretty sure that if anything O. Collyer has been spending his time dedicated to FMLive...

[Ov Collyer]

Yep, my time these days is spent 100% on FML - a large amount of time in recent months has been working on the FML implementation of the tactics creator and touchline instructions though.

This has allowed this feature to develop in isolation from FM, for us to refine it further as a result of feedback from FML players, both live and in beta.

The FM team are now in the process of implementing the new system into FM.

In terms of the original post and the question of arrows, I think we accept we could do with some more control over things like individual player width and so forth to make up for the removal of arrows and we've started taking steps towards this by introducing a 'Wide Play' instruction for each player allowing you to tell players to cut inside or hug the touchline (wide players) or move into the channels (central players).

[PhroX]

In terms of the original post and the question of arrows, I think we accept we could do with some more control over things like individual player width and so forth to make up for the removal of arrows and we've started taking steps towards this by introducing a 'Wide Play' instruction for each player allowing you to tell players to cut inside or hug the touchline (wide players) or move into the channels (central players).

Allow me to be the first to say...

WOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[jayahr]

Yep, my time these days is spent 100% on FML - a large amount of time in recent months has been working on the FML implementation of the tactics creator and touchline instructions though.

This has allowed this feature to develop in isolation from FM, for us to refine it further as a result of feedback from FML players, both live and in beta.

The FM team are now in the process of implementing the new system into FM.

In terms of the original post and the question of arrows, I think we accept we could do with some more control over things like individual player width and so forth to make up for the removal of arrows and we've started taking steps towards this by introducing a 'Wide Play' instruction for each player allowing you to tell players to cut inside or hug the touchline (wide players) or move into the channels (central players).

Sounds great

From what I understand that does not include changes in shape of a tactic depending on whether a team is attacking or defending, does it? As we see this happen a lot in real life I would greatly appreciate if that was re-added to the game again. Do you have any plans to work on that for fututre versions?

[Elrithral]

A general answer to those who complain about the corner exploit is that they don't have to use it, they can set up an alternative routine in order to avoid any unrealistic possibilities. With that in mind, why remove sarrows etc in the interest of realism? Surely the same rule applies; if you want realism don't use them, if you aren't bothered about realism in the strictest sense, then use them.

I don't subscribe to all this realism/fun nonsense, and couldn't care less whether anyone understands what sarrows etc did. Afaic if you have the option not to use it, then why remove it? Reducing the possibility of unrealistic tactics etc doesn't cut the mustard, who cares how people play the game?

[bigdunk]

In terms of the original post and the question of arrows, I think we accept we could do with some more control over things like individual player width and so forth to make up for the removal of arrows and we've started taking steps towards this by introducing a 'Wide Play' instruction for each player allowing you to tell players to cut inside or hug the touchline (wide players) or move into the channels (central players).

Sounds good. All we need now (unless you've already implemented this ) is for the arrows to track these settings in the same way they track the forward runs settings, so if you give an AMR a run towards the ST position, he'll make forward runs and cut in. Give him an arrow towards the corner flag and he'll make forward runs but hug the touchline.

[nni]

Elrithral don't forget FM is played live and as such any exploits are not welcome. And the aim of FM is to be as realistic a simulation of football as possible. If a feature is completely unrealistic in footballing terms and in addition, the AI is unable to cope with it (as was with the arrows) then it should be removed.

[Elrithral]

Elrithral don't forget FM is played live and as such any exploits are not welcome. And the aim of FM is to be as realistic a simulation of football as possible. If a feature is completely unrealistic in footballing terms and in addition, the AI is unable to cope with it (as was with the arrows) then it should be removed.

Like I said, I don't see why this concerns anyone other than SI. People play the game how they want, if you want realism then don't use sarrows, it is little odds to you whether or not someone prefers to use an unrealistic feature and in removing it SI are only going to annoy people who did use it. Realism and simulation, yeah ok, but it is possible to maintain realism and simulation for those who want it without affecting other people's games.

Other than SI and their push for simulation, can anyone trutfully say that the fact that other people can exploit an ME if they so choose, really bothers them? I don't use the corner exploit, but I couldn't care less if everyone else does. I don't use the additional fees exploit, but I couldn't care less if other people do. I play my game as I wish and to have sarrows removed, in the interest of realism, when all those who don't like them had to do was ignore them, really does annoy me.

As long as it is possible to play the game realistically, then it doesn't matter what exploits exist, especially if they are avoidable.

[crouchaldinho]

In terms of the original post and the question of arrows, I think we accept we could do with some more control over things like individual player width and so forth to make up for the removal of arrows and we've started taking steps towards this by introducing a 'Wide Play' instruction for each player allowing you to tell players to cut inside or hug the touchline (wide players) or move into the channels (central players).

Ov, this does sound promising and would seem to be the kind of thing that some of us are looking for.

Would it also be possible to consider some way of directing or encouraging certain players to switch to an adjacent position more often? I'm thinking mainly of the examples in the opening post, that is makeshift strikers in the AMR/AMC/AML roles, where a short farrow in previous FMs would achieve this. Or, another example is a central midfielder encouraged to withdraw into the DM position when out of possession. This could be achieved using a short barrow on the previous editions of the game.

I realise some will say that such effects can be achieved with adjustments to mentality and so on and so forth, but such instructions have concomitant and undesired effects to the overall behaviour of the player, when all is really needed is a simple instruction to encourage direction to an adjacent playing position on the field. I've given quite a few real life and FM examples of this in the posts above.

In addition to the 'wide play' instruction, perhaps it might be possible to introduce a 'withdraw' and an 'advance' command.

A 'withdraw' command would encourage a central midfielder to withdraw into the DM role off the ball, for instance.

An 'advance' command would encourage a player on the wing to advance into a forward position and act like a makeshift striker, for instance.

With the combination of these three instructions (i.e. 'wide play', 'withdraw' and 'advance'), I believe that the options would be sufficient to enable the user to create more accurate representations of narrow formations, three man midfields and three man forward lines and so on and so forth. Additionally, several modern formations would be more realistically portrayed, such as the 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 etc. It would also allow some positional direction to be given without necessarily changing the overall mindset of the player, as is currently required. Finally, it would also mean that the user could encourage certain players that are being played outside their natural roles (e.g. forwards in a 'makeshift striker' role, defensive midfielders in a central midfield position) to withdraw or advance to their favoured, 'natural' roles.

Regards,

C.

P.S. Ov, I would appreciate it, should you have the time, if you would also cast your eyes over this thread regarding the 'player swapping' tactical option. It contains some development ideas from myself and others. Many thanks.

[Ov Collyer]

Sounds great

From what I understand that does not include changes in shape of a tactic depending on whether a team is attacking or defending, does it? As we see this happen a lot in real life I would greatly appreciate if that was re-added to the game again. Do you have any plans to work on that for fututre versions?

I'll discuss this next with the guys actually - at the moment you have a certain amount of control over this via the forward runs and mentality settings, but as I say, I'll bring up your point and someone will post back here.

EDIT : Just read your post Crouchaldinho, same reply as above applies.

[crouchaldinho]

Ov - thanks for the reply and I am really pleased to hear that this is something that you will take into consideration.

As corny as it probably sounds, one of the things that I admire about SI games is that they do listen to constructive feedback and ideas from the fans.

Many thanks,

C.

[jayahr]

Add my cheers

[googoo56]

Mr. Collyer,

These additional individual controls do sound great, but are we going to have more? Or just the 3 you mentioned?

I would have a few suggestions if you don't mind:

- tracking back: it's almost impossible on the current FM to get AM's track back. There'll be huge holes on both sides of the pitch between your fullbacks and wingers in the AMR/L positions. Specific man marking seems to be the only way, but I think we can agree it's far from a realistic approach.

Strikers don't really track back either. Think Rooney or Tevez.

A simple checkbox would be an excellent option, really easy to use and understand.

- coming deep to get the ball: would be great to have some players drop from their original position to pick up the ball in deep spaces.

Think Paul Scholes in midfield (he almost regurarly drops in between the two CB's to ask for the ball) or Rooney or any other SS

Even these two little options would greatly improve the game I feel.

Thanks for reading this, would be great to hear your thoughts.

[Ov Collyer]

For FM10 the aforementioned wide play instructions are the only ones being added, but we're monitoring this thread and the overall tactical discussion around these forums, so please keep the suggestions coming!

[Scoham]

Mr. Collye- coming deep to get the ball: would be great to have some players drop from their original position to pick up the ball in deep spaces.

Think Paul Scholes in midfield (he almost regurarly drops in between the two CB's to ask for the ball) or Rooney or any other SS

There might not be an instruction to drop deep, but the "comes deep to get ball" PPM should be in FM 10, it's been added to FM Live's match engine - http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/08/17/match-engine-1-3/

And because of that, I assume you'll be able to tutor a player so he learns the PPM.

[paulo_ac]

I think it is most excellent of Ov Collyer (which, by the way, "whispers": is the game co-creator!) to take some time off to reply and try to address our concerns.

In the name of all of us thanks, Mr. Collyer. Ah, and not only for posting, but for making the original CM and giving us relentless hours of entertainment (or frustration!! )

[paulo_ac]

There might not be an instruction to drop deep, but the "comes deep to get ball" PPM should be in FM 10, it's been added to FM Live's match engine - http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/08/17/match-engine-1-3/

And because of that, I assume you'll be able to tutor a player so he learns the PPM.

Love that article! Very informative.

P

[crouchaldinho]

For FM10 the aforementioned wide play instructions are the only ones being added, but we're monitoring this thread and the overall tactical discussion around these forums, so please keep the suggestions coming!

Excellent news.

Regards,

C.

[KnightedManager]

I'm encouraged to read that a 'width instruction' is being considered/added. It sounds a tad trivial but the lack of arrows was one of the main reasons I gave up on FM09 and took it back. The farrows especially were always a big part of pretty much my tactics (wingers getting to the byline without having to have the ball and cross mostly) and I just could not get the same effect in FM09 as I could in previous games. Did my head in! So a wide/narrow option is a start, but hopefully something along the lines of a 'push forward team in possession instruction' could be implemented aswell.

[Dekker2]

There might not be an instruction to drop deep, but the "comes deep to get ball" PPM should be in FM 10, it's been added to FM Live's match engine - http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/08/17/match-engine-1-3/

And because of that, I assume you'll be able to tutor a player so he learns the PPM.

Just wanted to say thanks Scoham for that article - an interesting read.

And thanks to Ov Collyer while I'm at it: it's always nice when SI can get onto the boards and keep us clued in.

[paulo_ac]

I just can't wait for the demo to try out the new stuff!! SI, can you please, please give us more screenshots??

[SCIAG]

Fallacy 1- f/barrows were always unrealistic

This is true to an extent, but there are occaisions where players are genuinely told to get forward immediately. I cite Jimmy Kebe under Steve Coppell- he had to run like the wind forward to be in line with the strikers as soon as Reading got the ball, unless he was involved in the play of winning the ball or was passed to. Similarly, whenever I've seen a traditionally 4-3-3 (not C's St Alban's example), the opposite winger to the ball has to get forward and act like a striker, straight away. Generally I'd agree with what is said about this though.

Fallacy 2- a player with a f/barrow will get forward and back as soon as possession changes hands, regardless of the scenario.

Nope. You have to wonder whether the people saying this had watched the ME play out. If a player had a chance to tackle before getting back, he attempted a tackle. If he had a pass to him, he would take it and move on with the ball, if instructed to. If a centre back's header was bobbling free, the full back pounced on it. Sorry, but that's pretty much fact. It was put to me that they didn't look for a pass, but to be quite honest, I don't want my full backs looking for passes from the centre back, it goes against everything I believe in in football.

Fallacy 3- removing arrows improves/d the ME

Not a fallacy actually, but something I really strongly disagree with. When I first heard they were removing arrows, I tried playing without them. The football looked horrible. It didn't look like real football. I don't know about FM08's ME, which people later started to say was improved without arrows, because I was (and still am) playing 07. However, in my opinion, 07's ME with arrows>>>>>>07's ME without arrows>>>09's ME, for how much it looks and plays like real football, how easy it is to watch, and how easy it is to make adjustments. Not all to do with arrows.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, setting that aside, if 10's ME is better than 07 and these options work, it will be a great game. If the ME in the demo is not as good as 07's, I won't buy it. The ME is by far the most important aspect of the game IMO, and as the last five (8.0.0, 8.0.2, 9.0.0, 9.0.2, 9.0.3- iirc, 8.0.1 and 9.0.1 only had minor changes) weren't up to it, I won't bother with 2010, or any other FM ever, unless this ME is better than 7.0.2. Eugh, I meant that to be a really positive paragraph. Putting that behind, if the ME is good, then the game will be out of this world, because the improvements to the game are brilliant.

[PeterR]

I would like to see the Wibble/Wobble return.

That way you can place you players around the pitch the way you would like to see them behave when the ball is in a certain area. It than can create a tactic when in possesion and when without possesion.

It is than a mere guideline because the execution of your tactic depends on the abilities of the used players.

[therubberducky]

Apparently wibble/wobble lets people expolit the ME too easily. Id just like the arrows back tbh. No reason for them ever to be changed.

[SCIAG]

Who cares if the ME is exploited by others? Wib-wob and arrows, even at their best exploiting, are nothing like Eidos' goalkeeper corner bug, for example.

And fwiw they did exactly the same thing.

[therubberducky]

I didnt say I cared. Thats the reason why SI dont like it apparently.

[SCIAG]

I'm just knocking down their reasons

As I've said before, they haven't stopped you playing with three MCs, or setting up your own corner routines, so why remove on and off ball movement?

I do think that this new system is almost as good as arrows though.

[therubberducky]

In FM10 you mean?

[SCIAG]

Yes, the one coming for FM10.

[crouchaldinho]

I agree with a great deal of what SCIAG is saying.

I'll repeat myself and say that I don't feel that it is at all unrealistic to ask a player to move to an adjacent position on the pitch.

That would mean either:

1) 'Withdrawing' from his natural position when off the ball into an adjacent position (e.g. MC dropping to DM).

2) 'Advancing' from his natural position when on the ball into an adjacent position (e.g. MC moving to AMC or AMR to FR).

3) 'Playing wide' or 'coming inside' from his natural position, (e.g. the middle ground between MC and MR or the middle ground between FR and FC).

These would all seem totally realistic ideas to me and something that a manager wouldn't necessarily tie in with mentality or forward runs.

Anyway, due to my overactive football nerd gene, I actually took some notes on the Saints tactics on Saturday.

First of all, I studied how the midfield trio were playing and how they were staggered for different effects.

Secondly, I watched how the front three interacted and how they behaved in terms of off the ball movement and on the ball tendencies.

I'll start off in the Homeric order.

The City front three were basically playing in a 'chain' of: wing --- forward --- wing, with the central forward often slightly ahead of the wide forwards. The two wide forwards were actually playing level with the opposition fullbacks off the ball. They didn't move back into an AMR/AML position but occasionally they would track back when called for down their particular flank.

The three forwards were extremely interesting to watch. Sometimes they naturally moved inside, other times they played with their 'feet on the line' very wide. Laterally, they took up a position anywhere between the edge of the centre-circle to playing, as I said above, with their 'feet on the line' as circumstances dictated. The front three were a little narrower than I had remembered previously when play was in the middle.

What was interesting about the front three was that they interchanged positions really regularly during the match so that each forward had played in all three positions at some point. They started out with a right-footer on the right and a left-footer on the left. The right-footer switched with the central player quite often. Then the right-footer and left footer switched so that they were on opposite flanks. Every combination, basically.

It did strike me that the three forwards were naturally inclined to stagger themselves slightly too. It seemed to me that the left forward would play a little deeper, while the right forward naturally moved inside more and played more centrally. The left forward was more likely to run at his fullback and cross but would often come inside too. The right forward was far more likely to come inside. When the fullbacks made a forward run, the forward on his side would drop inside to make space. Sometimes he would move out wide to offer an option. Most of the crosses came from deep positions or from the fullbacks though.

Now on to the midfield and I noticed that the midfield trio were quite different to how they have setup thus far this season. One regular was missing and so I think the midfield was layered slightly differently. Essentially, two MCs played a little deeper off the ball, both staggered, one slightly higher and moving forward occasionally, the other very much a defensive-minded midfielder. The third midfielder regularly moved into the final third, in the space between midfield and attack, when the team was in possession. Several times, he made runs from this position into the box to make a front four, similar to in a 4-4-2 with the wide players pushed up on the wings. Although, the job of this player was really to position himself in the space in an 'AM' type position. He would take up a more 'natural' position as MC when not in possession.

So actually, I interpreted the formation shape as being more like 4-2-1-3, with two holders and an advanced midfielder. The three in midfield was almost one DM, one 'box-to-box' and one AM in terms of its staggered effect, although they played out like a flat three MCs in FM terms.

Now, if you've got this far, congratulations.

What I want to say is that I have been fiddling on FM08 this evening to try and get St. Albans City's 4-3-3 working as I see it. I'm now going to post up some screenshots to illustrate the kind of player directions that I would like to use in FM10.

Few screenshots below for anyone who is interested.

This 4-2-1-3 is what I am trying to achieve in my game.

I tried the FCs with the outward sarrows first but the forwards were not playing wide enough generally.

So then I tried the wide forwards with no sarrows but I felt the forwards were always too wide.

So, finally, I tried the wide forwards with sarrows and it is pretty much what I am seeing in real life in my opinion. Looking good huh?

The point is that I had three potential options to make these wing forwards play wider or narrower as I required. This kind of lateral direction in terms of player movement is much needed in FM10 and I'm glad to hear that it sounds as though it has been addressed through the 'tactics creator' feature.

You'll no doubt notice that I also used a farrow to encourage the middle MC to come forward rather than using an AMC. That gives me the advantage of having three players in central midfield off the ball. This is how I interpreted the St. Albans City 4-2-1-3. The central MC would advance into the AMC role when the side were in possession and then sometimes make forward runs from that position. Using this forward arrow, I am able to instruct him to take up an adjacent position and make further forward runs from there, which is something I regrettably cannot do in the current incarnation of the game. You would face a similar problem in the 4-3-3 with two wingers on the flanks, who often play as wing-forwards, moving into an FR/FL position on the ball, as SCIAG has pointed out.

There are various formations that are not well reflected in the game at the moment due to this lack of farrow, barrow and sarrow type instruction. It's essential to making certain systems work in my mind. As far as I am concerned, there are some systems which just will not work with the current tactical options available.

Regards,

C.

[paulo_ac]

This is exactly right, the arrows, I always felt, gave you a great degree of freedom of where you wanted your players, in terms of width and in terms of support.

The fact that it could be exploited always seemed weak to me and quite a moot point to be honest. I have given in to what I have read in the forums that the arrows did not do what I thought they did, but I think Crouchaldinho has ilustrated beautifully, that actually, they did. Or at least, what I wanted from them, on the whole, they did.

(I must confess that I must be pretty dumb, because I don't even know how to exploit the arrows!)

Personally, I always thought that the match engine and the AI should be perfected to avoid exploitation, rather than do away and replaced with something much more basic.

I'm looking forward to find out how it'll work in FM10.

Good post there though chap.

[paulo_ac]

Out of interest, Croucahldinho, do you think you would have the chance to look at the next Arsenal game as a comparison against the Saints. Wenger has been playing 4-3-3 with three strikers rather than a striker and two wingers. I wonder if you feel they play a lot narrower than the game you've just watched, and whether it'll look like your FM08 FCs with the outward sarrows.

[crouchaldinho]

paulo_ac - I will certainly watch Arsenal closely next time they play. I was led to believe, mainly from what I've read, that they were playing more in the Dutch style (i.e. wider). I haven't 'studied' them in any depth though and I've usually had a few glasses of wine by the time MOTD comes on!

The other trouble is that I don't feel I can ever get a very good idea of player positioning and movement from watching on the television, compared to watching live where you can look at the whole pitch. But I'll certainly try to see what I can.

You might be better off asking an Arsenal fan who goes to matches. Maybe try the Arsenal thread on the Football Forum.

Thanks for your comments regarding my post by the way.

Regards,

C.

[Elrithral]

That is the formation I used in FM08, credit to Croat, for the image.

I don't think anyone could argue that this formation is unrealistic, in the strictest sense. It's a basic 4-2-3-1, with two holding midfielders and three attacking midfielders, two of which act as wingers for the majority of the game, but take up an advanced support role when my team has possession.

The two holding midfielders play in the centre of the park, not far behind my trio of attacking midfielders, in a sense creating a five man midfield and at the same time controlling possession. The arrows backwards mean that they operate deeper at times, and offer cover for the defence, leaving the three AMC’s to manage midfield duties. This is still possible in 09.

The three AMC’s is a whole different kettle of fish. I want them to play just behind the striker, to pick up loose balls and to offer support on the edge of and in the area. At times it will look like a four man attack, at other times it will look like a three man support team. I also want the left AMC and right AMC to play on the wings, so as to offer me some width.

Scenario 1 – Right AMC gets ball on wing, I want my left AMC to be on the edge/in the area, not on the left wing. I want the left AMC to be supporting my striker, ignoring his wing duties and creating options for my right AMC.

Scenario 2 – Midfielder gets ball in centre circle. I want both my right and left AMC supporting the striker on the edge/in the area, offering options in the centre and not on the wings. A four man strike force in a sense.

Scenario 3 – The opposition attack my area, the CM’s have moved back to help the defence and the AMC’s have dropped back to cover midfield. We clear the ball and there’s the chance of a break, I want my left and right AMC on the wings, ready to break with pace and offer wider options rather than a narrow midfield frontline that will be easily covered by the oppositions defence.

In summary, I want my AMC’s to fill in the gaps up front when necessary and I want them to play wide when necessary. I want them to cover midfield if my holding midfielders get pulled out of position and if one is hugging the touchline and has the ball, I don’t want the other to do the same.

Afaic you can’t emulate that system, a not wholly unrealistic system, without barrows, farrows etc etc. I can’t have a winger who offers width and at the same offers support to the striker, in the same way I can’t have an AMC who offers support to the striker at the same time offering width.

If anyone has any ideas how to replicate this system, then I’m willing to listen, but afaic (and I’ve tried many times) it just isn’t possible.

[Ceching You Out]

Elrithal, going to take a stab at your scenario.

The holding midfielders you'll want to run forward rarely and operate on a decently lower mentality than the "global" setting for your team. Based on where you want their first ball, you may have to compensate for the lower mentality by making their passing style more/less direct.

The AMCs you'll want to set to run forward often and operate on a mildly lower mentality than the "global" setting for your team. I'd probably set them to close down less than the "global" setting for your team, and probably set them to zonally mark the space.

Additionally, I'd set the whole team to play relatively narrowly to keep the midfield tight on defense and give the AMCs free roles to range wide on counter-attacks (since there will naturally be space there when your team gains possession). And after all that, you may need to adjust the passing setting, tempo, and time wasting for your team as a whole to adjust for the movement of your players off the ball. Playing ultra quick, direct, and low time wasting will emphasize your AMCs positioning themselves more like the 3rd scenario, while the opposite will mainly look to get them to the forward position you describe in the 2nd scenario.

[Ceching You Out]

Sorry for the double post, but I figured any general comments I made would get lost in the mess of my tactical suggestions.

I agree with a lot of what SFraser mentioned. The arrows in FM08 led to a lot of binary decision making by players. If a player wasn't the primary responder and the ball wasn't in close proximity, he would rush forward to the tip of the arrow regardless of play.

In FM09, I've found recently that I've finally been able to tweak my tactics to get my RM & LM forward. Granted, I read a lot of TT&F and still required a bit of luck to stumble into it, but I'm finally satisfied. A few things I've learned along the way:

"Free role" generally means move into space. If you have FWO, you get a player streaking forward. If you have FWR, you get a player drifting into open spots. Even the official description implies a sense of a player running willy-nilly but I've yet to see this happen even as I was refining my tactic.

Width controls your defensive spacing, but so does closing down, zonal vs man marking, and tight marking. It took me a long while to realize that many of my attacks struggled because I wasn't taking into account my players' starting point (ie, their location on the pitch when we won the ball).

I have a strong feeling, only observed anecdotally, that off the ball, work rate, and teamwork are highly underrated by people when creating a flexible tactic with significant shifts between offensive and defensive positions. Someone mentioned Rooney and Tevez tracking back earlier and you'll notice they have a high work rate (and I'd guess a high teamwork rating as well). Team shape depends a lot on players responding to each other's movements (teamwork & the hereto unmentioned "gelling") and getting into strong defensive/offensive positions (workrate & off the ball).

That said, it would be nice for width and channels to be significantly easier to define in tactics. It sounds like FM10 is headed that direction and I'm exicted to see where the new wizard takes this.

Note -- for what it's worth, I play a 4-5-1 with the mids providing a triangle up the pitch when we win the ball and my wingers and center-est mid finding the gaps between defenders as we approach the box, although with sustained possession even my other two well-rounded (think Michael Essien-type) CMs will roam box-to-box.

[Kriss]

That's a very astute analysis and I predict you'll be delighted with the new ME and tactical options.

[paulo_ac]

Having watched Arsenal tonight, I agree that it is quite difficult to give a definite answer based on what you can gleam from the telly game as opposed to watching it live.

However, it was quite clear that the front three played fairly wide, even with Eboue as one of them. The positioning was actually incredibly fluid, and there were a lot of permutations. Watching Eboue popping up into a strikers position was a surprise I must admit, as a gunners fan, but it paid off with really well taken goal. Eduardo was much more quite central off the ball than with it interestingly, as soon as the ball came to Clichy, he just drifted wide.

Most interetingly of all, and possibly more relevant to our discussion, as the mid three of Song, Denilson and Diaby. Whilst Diaby had an average game, Denilson was bombing forward all game turning up wide right quite a few times, especially when he was running with the ball as Eboue went central. Song was pretty much the sit-in classic DM.

Now you tell me (if you watch that game you know what I mean) how can you get the game to have the sort of movement that Diaby and especially Denilson did on this game without without an arrow? Because defensively they were packed across the middle, with one of the fron three tracking back when needed.

So I think the argument for arrows, and the discussion about them, is valid, and I for one am pleased that SI and Ov. Collyer concur and have tried to address them in FM10 and are monitoring this thread.

[paulo_ac]

paulo_ac - I haven't 'studied' them in any depth though and I've usually had a few glasses of wine by the time MOTD comes on!

C.

Good man, especially if Lawro is presenting is probably a good idea. I do hope it's a good portuguese wine though!!!

[SFraser]

That's a very astute analysis and I predict you'll be delighted with the new ME and tactical options.

There is quite a lot of astute analysis on these forums that goes unnoticed by the vocal minority, but it is the vocal minority and the vocal minority alone that SI responds to on these forums. Why is that?

[fallenjuggalo]

We talking about the Arrows from FM '08?

If yea, please bring them back!

I hate the straight Arrows in FM '09.

[Elrithral]

Elrithal, going to take a stab at your scenario.

The holding midfielders you'll want to run forward rarely and operate on a decently lower mentality than the "global" setting for your team. Based on where you want their first ball, you may have to compensate for the lower mentality by making their passing style more/less direct.

The AMCs you'll want to set to run forward often and operate on a mildly lower mentality than the "global" setting for your team. I'd probably set them to close down less than the "global" setting for your team, and probably set them to zonally mark the space.

Additionally, I'd set the whole team to play relatively narrowly to keep the midfield tight on defense and give the AMCs free roles to range wide on counter-attacks (since there will naturally be space there when your team gains possession). And after all that, you may need to adjust the passing setting, tempo, and time wasting for your team as a whole to adjust for the movement of your players off the ball. Playing ultra quick, direct, and low time wasting will emphasize your AMCs positioning themselves more like the 3rd scenario, while the opposite will mainly look to get them to the forward position you describe in the 2nd scenario.

Thanks for the reply Cech, it all makes sense and in theory should work, but at the same time it's all based on a lot of hope. That's not a put down, hoping I can explain myself

A sideways-angled arrow meant that I knew exactly where the player would take up position in certain scenarios and whilst that may be unrealistic, to a certain extent, it's not unrealistic to assume that i've told him to make sure where he positions himself, depending on the play. Relying on free roles isn't as exact, you're right that because of the space available the players will take up wider positions, but there's no guarantee of that.

The setting that you describe is like telling the player; "you're free to roam and play wherever you see fit", but what I want to say is; "in situation X, make sure you're available on the wing".

I would have thought that selecting free role would also cause problems in other areas of the system, that don't appear until free role is ticked. I can set my AMC’s to forward run, but free role means that I have no control over when they make a forward run and what positions they can take up. Once again, I can’t say "in situation X, make sure you're providing support to the front man/mopping up loose ends".

In other words, I want the best of both worlds I want to tell them what to do in attack situations and what to do in defensive situations. Your suggestions go some way towards helping me achieve that, but 09 requires you to pick one over the other, pick a focus. Focus on width and lose the front man support, focus on support and lose the width. Of course, you don’t completely lose either, but you do struggle to achieve a 50:50 mix.

It feels like I’ve lost an element of control over my players, I’m relying on them to choose when to move wide and when to come inside, which is all well and good and some might say realistic. However, it’s no more realistic than me telling my players exactly what I expect and giving them strict instructions without reliance on free role.