Im sick of inconsistent and unrealistic results

[JamboSteven]

I have a save playing as Brentford and managed to get them to the Championship in my first season (yes extremely unrealistic and very fortunate)

However, i also have a save with Man Utd and can't seem to beat any of the smaller teams, (losing to Fulham 4-0 is an absolute joke). There is a certain element that makes you want to run out onto the pitch and absolutely hammer then teams you should be, but it seems your more enclined to get a 7-0 victory over Arsenal than you are against most Championship teams.

Basically im trying to say i should have never been able to gain promotion so easily with Brentford in my first season and i should be having a much easier time with Man Utd.

[JamboSteven]

Results seem more random than actually reflecting your strategy and tactics. Just got beat of Wolves! wehey

[B£NNY]

Agree. Absolutely random. Your tacticts doesn't matter, or you need to DL someone elses supertactic where they just got lucky to hit whatever softspot in the game, which is totally unrealistic.

[Neji]

Agree. Absolutely random. Your tacticts doesn't matter, or you need to DL someone elses supertactic where they just got lucky to hit whatever softspot in the game, which is totally unrealistic.

IMO, it's not that tactics don't matter. It's that they DO matter. Maybe more than they should.

[Tomsmithwwfc1877]

Results seem more random than actually reflecting your strategy and tactics. Just got beat of Wolves! wehey

Nothing unrealistic about that at all.

[Newky]

Its far easier to score against a team that is trying to score itself - hence it seems easier to play a top team than it is to play the bottom of the pile hasnt got a point in 6 games team.

I think its pretty realistic, but also incredibly frustrating.

Maybe they should make it 4 or 5 points for a win? But even then I think a lot of managers would still try and keep a clean sheet and hope to fluke a corner somehow and maybe score

[glosrob]

Would agree that in FM10 tactics are much important, and crucially, this time around it is much, much easier to see where you are going wrong and to try to put it right.

[dave byrd]

I was second at Christmas with Bayern and 8th and sacked by April.

[Ari Gold]

It's not really down to "tactics" so much as it is responses though. More often than it should, I find that the tactic I am using is absolutely irrelevant. It never dictates the game, even though you have the players to back it up. Wrongly, it's the AI's tactic that dictates the game. Even as a top team, I often see that the other team has changed their formation when behind and they then proceed to have the best of play until I make a change, or until they score a goal and you see that all too familiar "revert back to..." message. Whilst this is fine for opposition of similar or greater quality, it makes for a rather farcical experience when facing the Hull or Wolves of this world.

Now, I'm not saying that you should beat these teams; far from it. But win, lose or draw, I find that the final result doesn't manifest itself the way it should. Case in point: My table topping Lyon recently drew away to a team that was 1-1-9 and had scored 7 goals at the time we met. We drew 3-3 and they dictated the pace of the game. Whilst very unlikely, I don't think a draw is out of the question. Considering they had scored 7 goals all season though, I do feel it was too high scoring and unrealistic. However, it's not the realism of the result or the score that disappoints, it's the way it manifests itself. Ignoring the fact that a 3-3 draw is very unlikely in this situation (a draw I will give you, but not a 3-3 one), the reality is that those 3 goals will come from counter attacks or quick passages of momentum for that team. They don't come about after that particular team dominates.

In the game, however, it seems that the Brums of whatever league you are playing have the capacity to dictate the game simply by changing tactics. Sure they can get a result, but do you really think Benitez or SAF should have to adjust their formation just because Hull went on the attack? Perhaps they would adjust it to improve the chances of scoring on the counter or exploiting a new weakness, but there is not really any onus, in terms of not conceding, on them to change what they are doing. In FM, regardless of who you are or who they are, it seems like this is the opposite.

Take for instance Liverpool's recent 2-2 draw with Birmingham. Brum didn't dominate the tempo or pace of the game. They scored from a free kick and a fluke long shot and were largely on the back foot for the rest of the game. This is a realistic way of a 2-2 draw manifesting. The problem with the ME is that the final result, as unlikely as it may feel to begin with, generally seems to manifest itself in ways that comprehend belief. A factor that I am sure makes the result itself seem more unbelievable.

[Sleepydude]

I beat Man Utd 9-1 as Arsenal in my 2nd season. Was a total fluke though, I struggled against them most of the time. They must have been binge drinking the night before or something.

[urbanjunkie]

The key, at least in my saved games, is to retain a consistent tactic making minor variations if necessary depending on the opposition. The side needs time to bed into the strategy, so chopping and changing will just confuse matters. I'm finding results to be quite realistic tbh. No and again, I suffer a lull and get beat, which is pretty much expected to happen. However, I do notice some rather big results in the Prem. 5-0, 6-1, and a couple of 5-4. Not enough to render the game fantasy though.

[Paul Edwards]

so is Rafa Benitez

Real life is full of bizarre and inconsistent rules

[Mystere1666]

Well in my first game Genoa won the Italian 1st division with their strange 3-4-3 tactic and in my current game they are dead last...

Now thats inconsistency

[Marek_Hamsik]

I am slowly getting sick of FM2010, into my 4th season.

Same problem, no matter who I sign, what tactic I use, defensive, attacking rar rar rar, results are extreemly inconsistent.

SI need to maybe look into easing up on the tactics a little in FM2011 or this is probably the last FM I will play for a long time. (I actually didnt even bother with any FM up until 09 after quitting the game in 2003/2004)

FACT.

[AB-forever]

I think part of the problem is that players don't dribble. Messi, Ronaldo, Arshavin, whoever is pacy and good at dribbling past somebody don't do it in the game, they just run past them and then the opposition player just keeps running next to him until the attacking player tries to cross and gets a corner.

[fujitsu]

Guys,

I have to say that I agree with most of what you say. Inconsistency is rather hard to accept at times as it is completely out of control of the manager. At times I just feel that I don't manage anything, every little tweak that I make is getting things even worse. Every season I have to assume there will be at least one terrible spell of form when I cannot win a single game for 7-8 games (at least) whatever I try. Then suddenly, something clicks in the ME and you are again the same perfect manager and have the feeling that you master the game completely as the game reproduces all the little tweaks that you make exactly the same way that you want.

Now, I agree that it is completely realistic to have such a bad spell during the season. But while IRL you as a manager should be able to find out the reason, for exemple the teams in nowadays organise their preparations and training schedules to hit top form in certain periods of the year. The problem with FM is that in most cases I cannot find the reason why my team suddenly loses form and than goes back to normal. For example, in my current game, I took Millwall to the Championship (won League I) in my first season and then brought some 11 new players to strengthen the squad as it is clearly inferior to the level in the division. My plan was to gel the squad during my first season and than to attack promotion in my second. But even to my surprise I started briliantly and end of December I was top of the Championship with a comfortable 8-point gap!!! This with a team that was completely rebuild and some players that even don't speak English. Then in January I lost two games in injury time where I dominated and suddenly everything went wrong... I couldn't find my form back till the end of the season and I felt completely powerless at times... the thing is that these bad runs of results where your players just stop listen to you are always associated with terrible luck - conceding early goals with their very first chance, own-goals, penalties against you out of nothing, series of red cards (in that Millwall save I got 4 red cards in 4 games in a row, my total for the whole season)... so to resume, my theory is that bad form is largely related to randomness.

At the end of the day, I'm fine with that and I will continue playing. Quite simply I wanted to share my theory and if that's the way the match engine tries to balance things and make them look more realistic, I can live with that and simply will wait for my lucky days.

I will be more than happy if someone could deny my theory but simply I cannot understand what suddenly changes a successful tactic to a bad one and than again to a champions tactic.

Thank you.

And please don't ask me to make researches in order to prove my theory. I don't have enough time to play the game let alone to make researches. I just wanted to share my impression and to debate on it.

[backpackant]

I find that morale seems to play a much more disproportionate part in performances than tactics.

Sure, tactics are important in FM10 but if you or your ass man say the wrong thing in the press conference or give a poor teamtalk, it doesn't matter what your tactics are, the players will mope around like grounded teenagers with no Xbox to play with.

I've found that an ass man with a good motivating attribute is crucial to good team talks and press conferences.

[arsenalboy]

Completely random. Any game where you're favourites, you're much more likely to lose.

[ste manders]

i have a save with birmingham. i was doing well i was about 12th in the league beating man utd 2-1, drawing 2-2 with liverpool and man city. i never took a whooping from anyone until. man utd away. i lost 8-1, 5-1 down in 30 mins. then west ham away the week after. lost 7-1, 4-0 down within 13 mins. i hadnt changed my tactic or my team from previous games it just really shocked me.

[arsenalboy]

It seems like as soon as you lose one game, the CP just wants to destroy you, and you go on a massive losing/drawing run.

[woody2goody]

This game is better for it than previous versions, but there still isn't enough emphasis on the skill of your players.

Obviously tactics matter, even with the best team in the world, but in real life, Man United, Chelsea or Real Madrid don't have to get everything perfect in order to beat a bottom-half team. 8 or 9 times out of ten they could make a few mistakes and still come away with a draw.

I said this last year I think, but to me, if you are managing Man Utd, even if you are a crappy manager you should be still challenging for the champions' league places, because the players should still play like their ability should allow them to.

The game is going in the right direction, but it's still not well balanced enough.

[woody2goody]

Completely random. Any game where you're favourites, you're much more likely to lose.

Which doesn't happen that often in real life. It happens (Man Utd v Burnley for instance), but come on, there's a reason why you are the favourites in the first place

[arsenalboy]

This game is better for it than previous versions, but there still isn't enough emphasis on the skill of your players.

I said this last year I think, but to me, if you are managing Man Utd, even if you are a crappy manager you should be still challenging for the champions' league places, because the players should still play like their ability should allow them to.

This sums up pretty much everything wrong with the game at the moment.

[Sussex Hammer]

What annoys me is the large gap between Home and Away performances. I am unbeaten at home but only won one away no matter what I try and do. I mean I beat Arsenal 2-1 at home, now surely that should boost confidence but nope, a 1-3 and 0-3 away reverses followed.

It's tough enough as it is without being one down away and your striker with a finishing stat of 16 gets a one on one and can't finish,,, more than once!!

[wwfan]

I said this last year I think, but to me, if you are managing Man Utd, even if you are a crappy manager you should be still challenging for the champions' league places, because the players should still play like their ability should allow them to.

I think this argument is close to being a non sequitur.

Premise: Good teams should win matches.

Conclusion: Even if I'm a useless manager, I should still take Man Utd into the top four.

There is clear logic/evidence missing.

1: If the quality of the manager doesn't matter, why do top teams spend millions on finding the right man

2: No top team is ever managed by a useless manager, therefore we cannot know how the players would perform

3: There is, however, clear evidence that bad or not ready managers can turn mid-table teams into relegation strugglers

4: In conclusion, it is a more acceptable hypothesis that a useless manager at a top team would turn them into a mid-table one, rather than maintaining their position near the top of a league

[jcafcwbb]

I think this argument is close to being a non sequitur.

Premise: Good teams should win matches.

Conclusion: Even I've I'm a useless manager, I should still take Man Utd into the top four.

There is clear logic/evidence missing.

1: If the quality of the manager doesn't matter, why do top teams spend millions on finding the right man

2: No top team is ever managed by a useless manager, therefore we cannot know how the players would perform

3: There is, however, clear evidence that bad or not ready managers can turn mid-table teams into relegation strugglers

4: In conclusion, it is a more acceptable hypothesis that a useless manager at a top team would turn them into a mid-table one, rather than maintaining their position near the top of a league

Scloari puts all your argument to the sword. A terrible manager who was the wrong fit for Chelsea but they still were a top 4 side in spite of him. You could also say the same about Avram Grant who didn't have a clue what he was doing and they were a kick away from winning the European Cup. In both cases the quality of players carried the club through. Conversely, Roy Hodgson's tactical ability will only take Fulham so far as they lack the players to make the difference in too many matches per season.

[wwfan]

Scloari puts all your argument to the sword. A terrible manager who was the wrong fit for Chelsea but they still were a top 4 side in spite of him. You could also say the same about Avram Grant who didn't have a clue what he was doing and they were a kick away from winning the European Cup. In both cases the quality of players carried the club through. Conversely, Roy Hodgson's tactical ability will only take Fulham so far as they lack the players to make the difference in too many matches per season.

That's a horribly subjective analysis. Scolari has won the World Cup and is widely regarded as one of the best international managers in the game, so obviously knows a little bit about football. He stuggled to adapt to the English game and lost his job because Chelsea were worried they would finish outside the top four if results continued to get worse. In my opinion, Avram Grant did a magnificent job in extremely difficult circumstances. It would have been interesting to see how well he'd have done given another year in the job. Arguing he didn't know what he was doing is ludicrous.

Hodgson can only take Fulham so far because of the following:

Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Man City, Aston Villa and Spurs all have proven managers and good squads. Hodgson will be competing for 8th with the likes of Steve Bruce, both being good managers with limited squads.

[jcafcwbb]

That's a horribly subjective analysis. Scolari has won the World Cup and is widely regarded as one of the best international managers in the game, so obviously knows a little bit about football. He stuggled to adapt to the English game and lost his job because Chelsea were worried they would finish outside the top four if results continued to get worse. In my opinion, Avram Grant did a magnificent job in extremely difficult circumstances. It would have been interesting to see how well he'd have done given another year in the job. Arguing he didn't know what he was doing is ludicrous.

Hodgson can only take Fulham so far because of the following:

Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Man City, Aston Villa and Spurs all have proven managers and good squads. Hodgson will be competing for 8th with the likes of Steve Bruce, both being good managers with limited squads.

But they were in the top 4 when he got sacked.

I believe that Hodgson is a better manager than Benitez, Hughes, O'Neill and Redknapp. The difference is the quality of the players he can sign and that is the one thing not properly shown in the game.

It was said that Grant was so sucessful because he stepped back and let the senior players take responsibilty - couldn't verify if it is true.

[Marek_Hamsik]

I have been trying to tell SI for years that morale is too big of a factor when managing big clubs.

They always say morale is one of the biggest issues with real football and that their game is spot on.

But in FM, I can win 10 in a row, hammering everyone, play an EPL side (as a League one) lose 2-0 and their morale drops so far down that everyone gets upset and I go on to not only lose that great form, but I get SMASHED 3-0 at home vs random sides, even conceeding 6+ goals away from home.

Results do not really destroy morale as much as it is coded in FM2010, but a bad dressing room atmosphere DOES have a huge effect. One or two players who want more football time, should not make all my professional players fearful and disillusioned at lack of harmony at the club.

In FM, and its been like this since the FM series came out (I never had an issue with it on CM, when SI were with Eidos) even managing Man United, I rest my key players for a game, get knocked out of a useless cup and suddenly Man United drops down to mid table and loses 4-0 to teams like Milwall etc.

Instead of working so hard on the match engine, how about lowering the morale effects in the game a tad, and we will see a lot less complaining.

In one save game, I used a save game editor to remove my sides unhappiness whenever it came up and kept morale up high and I finished 3rd in the Bundesliga with Stuttgart.

...It was a memorable save game.

Why did I do it?

I was sick to see players being unhappy after I praised them "doesnt think they have to do much to get praise from manager" or other randomly generated bad moods, like when another side would be interested in my player, and I negotiate the off and they reject and suddenly the player is unhappy that I didnt allow talks. Uhmm no, I wanted 7 mil for a 7 mil value player and not 4 mil.

Things like that destroy the dressing room atmosphere of a side you are managing without any issue only a few days prior to the event.

Bad morale doesnt suddenly make a player stand the wrong way and miss kick a simple clearance.

Sick of seeing my players playing like handicapped amputees.

[wwfan]

But they were in the top 4 when he got sacked.

I believe that Hodgson is a better manager than Benitez, Hughes, O'Neill and Redknapp. The difference is the quality of the players he can sign and that is the one thing not properly shown in the game.

It was said that Grant was so sucessful because he stepped back and let the senior players take responsibilty - couldn't verify if it is true.

He was sacked because Chelsea were afraid they would drop out of the top four, which is suggestive that bad (or, in Scolari's case, unsuitable for the culture) management will drop a side out of the top four. The risk was there, so they took action. What might have happened if a genuinely bad manager with no man-management skills or tactical nous took charge?

Your opinion on Hodgson is hugely subjective. He did far worse at Blackburn than Hughes, and his record is not comparable to Benitez and O'Neill (possibly due to the quality of club he has managed). I'd put him on a par with Redknapp in terms of experience, approach and ability. Either way, he is not notably superior to other top managers.

That might be indicitive of Grant's management style, but it is not bad management per se. Erikson does it too, and Ajaz/Holland are famed for it. As long as you can get such players to contribute constructively, then it is an excellent diplomatic/encompassing approach to management.

[Ari Gold]

For me the issue is not about how good teams should win regardless of the manager just because of the quality of player. The issue as I see it is that the requirement to play a certain tactic, despite having such strong players, is too extreme. Manager aside, if Chelsea played a 4-3-3, a 4-4-2, a 4-2-3-1 or 5-4-1, against say, West Ham, then assuming apt player selection, they aren't really going to struggle just because of the formation they are playing. For sure, West Ham are not going to dictate the game to them because Ancellotti decided to play with 2 up front instead of one, or vice versa.

I don't feel the game recognizes this very well. Whenever the AI changes it's tactic, it basically seems to renders yours a lot less effective. If Chelsea go out with a 4-5-1 and take the lead, their dominance of the game isn't vastly reduced because an inferior team changed it's shape.

Basically, it often feels that the success of your own tactic is qualified too much by the shape the AI takes. In trying to make touchline shouts and tweaks relevant, what we basically have is a turn based game of chess, where each move the AI makes must be responded to. In reality, the Chelsea's keep dominating games if they have the superior players and a formation that plays to their strengths. In FM, the value of superior players and a formation that caters to your strengths is lessened by the simple change of AI mentality and shape.

[glosrob]

Scolari was sacked largely in part due to him 'losing the dressing room' - Petr Cech, Michael Ballack and crucially Didier Drogba were clearly not motivated to play for him.

None of this disguises the fact that to suggest anyone could turn up at Man Utd and challenge for the league just isn't giving the credit due to the top flight managers.

The ability of players and of the manager clearly make a huge difference, but it isnt one without the other.

[The_Mighty_Wanderers]

The franchise has lost me now I'm afraid. I've put in so many hours so far and get sacked by Christmas a lot of the time. Absolutely ridiculous with Man Utd, Chelsea, Inter etc. I tried Villa and was 19th in March. All other FM games, I enjoyed success. This is so silly at times I get no pleasure from it anymore. I set easy tackling and concede at least 5 penalties a month sometimes, I play deep and strikers break through 1 on 1. It has just begun to feel like nothing I do will make any difference and I am now going back to playing FM09. Sorry SI, but I won't be buying another game until I read a lot of reviews and find it a lot more responsive to my decisions, and also a lot less dependent on every tiny detail. Going 23 games without a league win with Aston Villa is not my idea of a realistic sim. Sometimes wins should come even when you get it wrong purely because you have the better players

[outtasync]

I entirely agree about the point with morale being too critical in this game. With low morale all the problems people are complaining about pop up: players not closing down properly, poor tackling etc, but when the team is playing well the defensive play is actually a joy to watch. Having said that, I try to avoid the lottery of the media as much as possible.

[Jolanthustrel]

I was second at Christmas with Bayern and 8th and sacked by April.

As Bayern, shouldn't you be loking for a European spot, preferably Champions League? Not going to do that in 8th spot.

Look at how many Managers Chelski and RM have gone through in the past coupe of season. Top class managers lasting a season or less!

CSKA Moscow sacked Ramos after a few months.

The board obviously lost confidence in your ability to dig the team out of the hole.

[Marek_Hamsik]

Watch out wwfan and others will come on here saying the games perfect and you are just bad at the game.

Please people post your matches and save games, upload them and link them here and lets finally get some understanding of what causes these bugs and learn how to solve them collectively.

[Jolanthustrel]

United come from 3-0 down at half time to beat Tottenham 5-3 if that happened in the game you'd all be this game is unrealistic you shouldn't be able to do that. thats a half time turn around. Ole comes off the bench and slams 4 goals against Notts Forrest in 20 minutes. OMGWTFBBQ that's unrealistic, that shouldn't happen.

People complain the game is too easy, people complain the game is too hard, people complain the game is too realistic, people complain the game is too unrealistic. People would complain if SI gives away boxes of free money. The denominations are too small\large\the wrong currency. If you try to make everyone happy, you end up making no one happy.

[Marek_Hamsik]

What you fail to understand is that the teams making come backs are world class and they probably played world class football to get those goals. (passing play that lead to goals etc)

On my game, my defenders face the wrong way, fail to control a simple pass, do not clear the ball away, pass back from half way for a corner, which leads to a goal etc.

Teams in real life always spring amazing come backs each season, probably 1-5 or so per season and it is always easy to remember an epic game.

In FM, I am seeing it nearly every week with my Marseille side and its the only club I have this problem with, with other sides I managed it was fine.

So instead of making comment slike yours from your high horse, why not try to understand that something is fundamentally flawed with the game.

Even possibly some odd bug with a certain combination of talks/tactics etc.

People complaining can be annoying, but they wouldnt do it without some justification.

People ranting and be-littling other members because of their complaints is just as bad, if not worse.

[FestyF]

For god's sake Marek, stop ranting and crying like a baby. You can't win all the time specially when you have no understanding of the game and football in general and are using pathetic tactics as rightly pointed out by wwfan.

[Marek_Hamsik]

For god's sake Marek, stop ranting and crying like a baby. You can't win all the time specially when you have no understanding of the game and football in general and are using pathetic tactics as rightly pointed out by wwfan.

He didnt even see my tactics you spaz. Hence why I got annoyed, he remaked on my formation, tactics and team talks before I even uploaded my game.

Paul C is now going to look at my game.

You sir, are another hopeless tool, complaining about people complaining, and the irony of it, makes you look like an idiot.

I have posted my save game and my pkm's so why people say I am ranting without adding any data to my claim is well beyond my understanding.

[FestyF]

He didnt even see my tactics you spaz. Hence why I got annoyed, he remaked on my formation, tactics and team talks before I even uploaded my game.

Paul C is now going to look at my game.

You sir, are another hopeless tool, complaining about people complaining, and the irony of it, makes you look like an idiot.

I have posted my save game and my pkm's so why people say I am ranting without adding any data to my claim is well beyond my understanding.

He remarked without seeing your tactics because it was so obvious from your explanation that you got your formation, tactics and team talks all completely wrong. Hence there was no need to see your uploaded game.

You can upload as many pkm's and games as you want but until you have no idea what football tactics are all about, you are not going to keep your lead or keep a clean sheet.

[glosrob]

What you fail to understand is that the teams making come backs are world class and they probably played world class football to get those goals. (passing play that lead to goals etc)

I remember I think it was two boxing days ago watching Plymouth Argyle comeback and beat Wolves.

Plymouth Argyle are alot of things but they most certainly are NOT world class

[liturgy]

Tell me about it. How's this for unrealistic - Shrewsbury playing world class football and drawing 5-5 against my West Ham team in the League Cup (Shrews obviously won 9-8 on penalties..). Most of the Shrewsbury goals were 50 yard screamers.

Screenshot

Or how about this - pretty much the same team that drew with Shrewsbury went on to beat Everton 5-2 away.

Screenshot

[Jolanthustrel]

So instead of making comment slike yours from your high horse, why not try to understand that something is fundamentally flawed with the game.

Mainly because I'm just happy to have a game to play that's why.

But when you can go from one thread to another and find all 4 'complaints' I listed. These people are all playing the same game. except for the wage bug where big name players ask for the lowest possible wage when trying to sign them, I haven't noticed anything fundamentally flawed in the game. Maybe I'm not looking for flaws in the game and am just happy to play.

[Jolanthustrel]

Tell me about it. How's this for unrealistic - Shrewsbury playing world class football and drawing 5-5 against my West Ham team in the League Cup (Shrews obviously won 9-8 on penalties..). Most of the Shrewsbury goals were 50 yard screamers.

Screenshot

Or how about this - pretty much the same team that drew with Shrewsbury went on to beat Everton 5-2 away.

Screenshot

Everton played bad? not impossible.

[benegerton1985]

I'm not playing the game until the next patch comes out, it's just easier.

[Svenc]

He remarked without seeing your tactics because it was so obvious from your explanation that you got your formation, tactics and team talks all completely wrong. Hence there was no need to see your uploaded game.

Seen this thread now, and I can see how somebody would be confused about FM's counter attack option as in this case, for instance. The manual describes the corresponding tick box underneath the creator as a "means of defense", would cause your side to sit back, and such. What it really does is increasing the likelyhood of a team to hit the opponent on the counter, it is a means of attack: technically when a counter is triggered all of your team's mentality is pushed up - it is thus not a means of defense per se, it is a means of attack, to hit on the break often.

Well, that and as for the more obvious stuff, pushing all the way back and closing down like crazy is bound to provide the opponent tons of space to move into. Rather than reducing space, having players closing down all over the pitch means actually offering a plenty, particularly with a deep d-line and playing defensively. wwfan made a snarky comment on this, but only later on when it was insisted that there must be something else to it, more or less, than lack of basic tactical knowledge.

[KingKenny]

What you fail to understand is that the teams making come backs are world class and they probably played world class football to get those goals. (passing play that lead to goals etc)

On my game, my defenders face the wrong way, fail to control a simple pass, do not clear the ball away, pass back from half way for a corner, which leads to a goal etc.

Teams in real life always spring amazing come backs each season, probably 1-5 or so per season and it is always easy to remember an epic game.

In FM, I am seeing it nearly every week with my Marseille side and its the only club I have this problem with, with other sides I managed it was fine.

So instead of making comment slike yours from your high horse, why not try to understand that something is fundamentally flawed with the game.

Even possibly some odd bug with a certain combination of talks/tactics etc.

People complaining can be annoying, but they wouldnt do it without some justification.

People ranting and be-littling other members because of their complaints is just as bad, if not worse.

Without knowing the ins and outs of your game(s) if you only experience this problem with Marseille but not other sides then this indicates the game is not fundamentally flawed. It would be fundamentally flawed if it happened to all of the sides you managed.

The problems you are experiencing must be caused by something (or many things) relating specifically to your Marseille save.

I'm not trying to be fan-boy or anything, just applying a bit of logic to your situation.

[TSH]

I think this argument is close to being a non sequitur.

Premise: Good teams should win matches.

Conclusion: Even I've I'm a useless manager, I should still take Man Utd into the top four.

There is clear logic/evidence missing.

1: If the quality of the manager doesn't matter, why do top teams spend millions on finding the right man

2: No top team is ever managed by a useless manager, therefore we cannot know how the players would perform

3: There is, however, clear evidence that bad or not ready managers can turn mid-table teams into relegation strugglers

4: In conclusion, it is a more acceptable hypothesis that a useless manager at a top team would turn them into a mid-table one, rather than maintaining their position near the top of a league

I generally agree with your posts on tactics, but sometimes I believe you go a bit over board to support this side of the game.

It is true that world class teams with a bad manager can fail to perform, but in no way they can become middle table teams, most of the times at least. Even Milan, this year, with a mediocre manager and players far past their prime can be a force to be reckoned with.

World class teams in real life can actually beat lesser teams even if the manager is not very good. It's certainly more difficult than having a great manager but it's not impossible. It actually happens more times than not. The quality of the players, the familiarity with one another, the moments of flair and pure class can easily destroy a lesser team, even if the manager of said world class team is a bad one. This doesn't happen in FM this year, where it is much easier to beat world class teams (much easier) than mediocre or bad ones.

This, unfortunately, does not bode well for the realistic identity of this game.

I can accept that a bad manager, in due time, will be getting more bad than good results with a world class team, and that can indeed have an avalanche effect to morale and create a sentiment of underperforming that can damage the psyche of even the best of players. But that needs time, it's a slow process, if of course the bad manager in question even survives the first months of less than expected good results.

The tactical and morale side of this game is not well balanced. It shouldn't take a genius manager to hold a half-time 3-0 when playing against a mediocre team, when his own is a good one. On the other hand, a mediocre team shouldn't come out and start playing like Barcelona because of a tactical change. I am not saying that there shouldn't be exceptions, but in FM 10 it happens more often than it should.

The game can't recognize that the AI team is not a world class team and that their game -bar the odd exceptions- should have a quality ceiling. Also, as a manager, the player shouldn't be in such agony or need of such tactical tweaking to survive a match against a mediocre team that he is already beating 3-0 at half time. Now, if he's playing against the likes of Barcelona, then yes, he should be nervous because even the 3 goals are not a guarantee to success against such an opposition.

With the game as it is now, it feels like it takes the same effort to hold a result against a mediocre team and a world class team (when you are not beating them easily). That doesn't feel right. And I don't believe that asking people to know the tactical system in such in depth ways as its creators is the answer, especially when some in depth options feel pretty illogical to do in a realistic situation, despite the fact they can be successful in gameplay terms.

[glosrob]

It is true that world class teams with a bad manager can fail to perform, but in no way they can become middle table teams.

Why cant they?

I guarentee you if I was made manager of a Premiership side, we would not finish in the top half because I wouldn't have much of a clue as to what I was doing.

Even Milan, this year, with a medicore manager and players far past their prime can be a force to be reckoned with.

So Milan with a rubbish manager and rubbish players can still be good? So neither manager nor players matter?

I don't think I understand but then I think it is because I should be working