Im sick of inconsistent and unrealistic results

[TSH]

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.

Because they usually don't end up middle table teams in real life. And even if they do, they bounce up next year, by firing the bad manager or bringing new players in. I am not saying it can't happen, I am saying that it is pretty rare.

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

I didn't say they have rubbish players, I said they are past their prime. But even now, their class, can win them games even against teams like Real Madrid.

The Milan example was to show that a bad manager doesn't always mean that a team with world class players can consistently under perform, and that they can beat some weaker teams even with bad guidance. Even if most of them are past their 30s, like in Milan.

[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.

I may not have seen your tactics, but I asked questions, received answers and made educated guesses about what was happening to you. Given I designed the logic for the tactical creator, I'd have thought that would have been useful. Whereas Paul can explain technical reasons why things happened, he'd be the first to admit I'm the go to guy for tactical concepts. Paul will be able to tell you that you conceded goals because defender A was too tired or defender B complacent, whereas I can give conceptual advice on how to minimise the likelihood of that happening.

It's up to you whether you take my advice, but accusing me of blindly defending the game or not knowing what I'm talking about makes me wonder why I bother to help.

[wwfan]

World class teams in real life can actually beat lesser teams even if the manager is not very good.

How about if he doesn't have a clue? Not to beat about the bush, but some of the ranting posts provide very interesting perceptions of football management.

[glosrob]

but in no way they can become middle table teams.

I am not saying it can't happen, I am saying that it is pretty rare

???

I give up lol

[benegerton1985]

if the game was right people wouldnt moan. that's all i'm going to say...

[Wee Aja]

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.

I disagree completely. In my current Liverpool save I have lost only 2 matches all season (we're into December). We were winning games comfortably but then somehow lost 4-0 away to Wolfsburg, then we went on another winning streak before coming a cropper against West Ham in the LC quarter final, losing 3-1 despite my fielding a strong side. After that we beat Spurs 2-0 and carried on winning. We're top of the League and unbeaten, and I'm not seeing any of this "lose one match and you go on a losing and drawing streak" phenomenon that so many are speaking about.

[glosrob]

if the game was right people wouldnt moan. that's all i'm going to say...

But just because people do moan, doesnt mean the game isnt right.

That is an A therefore B fallacy.

[benegerton1985]

But just because people do moan, doesnt mean the game isnt right.

That is an A therefore B fallacy.

But its true? if this game was sooooo perfect you would get a couple of moans about a few minor things. but every other thread complaining about the same thing? dont have to be a genius to work that one out.

[glosrob]

I didnt say it was so perfect. On the contrary, I have around 3 or 4 gripes myself.

But you cant say because of A, B is therefore correct - that isnt logical - which was being suggested above (everyone is moaning therefore the game isnt right).

[DaveTheGaff]

my problem with FM10 is the number of times ill dominate the first 45 mins and get a 2-3 goal lead and the other team will come back in second half and play like brazil and come back and win. Its unrealistic.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

How about if he doesn't have a clue? Not to beat about the bush, but some of the ranting posts provide very interesting perceptions of football management.

As do some of the 'the game is fine' posts......

[Riverplate]

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.

Maradona is the best example of a bad manager in a team full of super stars. You would think Argentina with messi, tevez and company would make it to the world cup easily but it wasnt the case since Argentina suffered from bad tactics and managing skills and almost didnt make it to the 2010 world cup. Luckily individual skills saved the team.

[Wee Aja]

Beggars belief that Maradona nearly failed to reach the WC with such a talented squad

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Yet they still qualified.......despite having what is clearly a terrible man manager. Not sure how he is on the tactical side of things but it doesn't look good.....

So this only proves that you don't have to be a great manager if you have a team of superstars surely?

[TSH]

How about if he doesn't have a clue? Not to beat about the bush, but some of the ranting posts provide very interesting perceptions of football management.

I don't believe my post was a rant, if your comment was referring to me.

And I have seen great teams beating lesser opposition even without a manager for a game or two, while having a substitute manager until the board hire a new one. I am not saying that good management is not important, it really is. But I just believe that not everything comes down to manager skills and tactics, all the time, and the game struggles to show this.

???

I give up lol

I meant become "permanent" mid-table teams. Sorry for the confusion, but there was no need for your rude response.

[Svenc]

As was said, there's a difference between being a bad or mediocre manager and not having a single clue. People not having a clue would never get the job - any job - offered in the first place. You get to read about people being up 3-0 at half time who then have their side drop deep and make them all running around the pitch closing down like crazy in a misguided attempt to hold onto that lead. And who are then wondering why they can't keep the score line - by effectively providing the opponent space and holes a plenty as aggressive closing down means compromising the team's defensive shape. That is a blatant mistake no matter against what opponent, it's violating the most basic rules of common sense and tactics. And whilst the manual might be a bit sketchy, this is one of the things that is being adressed right there under "closing down".

It is thus important for the guys to figure out what is down to the player and what is down to the game's code. Being open to each others suggestions and arguments is an entry level requirement for this to happen, as long as they're there. As is keeping it cool, and that goes both ways.

[daryn]

Good post SvenC. The one thing I have never seen is the OP of a thread with outlandish statements or negative things to say about the game, come back to the thread to actually thank people for trying to help them or even eat humble pie and say that "actually you have got a point, perhaps a deep D line with oppressive closing down is wrong, let me try it a different way"

Just silence...... perhaps that pie is hard to digest

[grade]

The thing is when there is too much factor in influence that I ask this: What are the stats are for?

if a player (A) has a 6 on long shots then he should score one long shot screamer once or twice in the entire season or depnding on the GK stats. But with now with Press Conferences and a very picky team talk and morale that long shot stat of A instead of changing instead 6 to 9 or 10 due to high morale it is changing from 6 to 20.

Is that real? Not in my world. Personally now the stats are useless.

[bardock]

I finished about a season and a half with Liverpool and I have to say results were pretty consistent.

Never got beat by more than 3 goals except for once (played reserves) and never decimated the opposition. Matches usually ended 1-0 3-0 3-1. You know the usual. I did it with the original squad so I didn't have a super squad, god knows I didn't have the money to assemble a super squad. Finished first in my first season and am currently in second halfway through the second season.

My biggest problem with playing lower teams was breaking through the stubborn defence, which I think is very realistic. Most of the matches finished by me winning by one or two goals, but every now and then my squad did manage to score more.

Though I agree that the match engine could be better, wwfan is probably right. It really comes down to having solid tactics.

I probably should mention that I'm not a master tactician nor do I ever download anyone else's tactics.

[Kill Rock Stars]

love how people will try their hardest to defend the game, even when there's an obvious problem, flaw or bug

[grade]

Good post SvenC. The one thing I have never seen is the OP of a thread with outlandish statements or negative things to say about the game, come back to the thread to actually thank people for trying to help them or even eat humble pie and say that "actually you have got a point, perhaps a deep D line with oppressive closing down is wrong, let me try it a different way"

Just silence...... perhaps that pie is hard to digest

I can't speak for the OP, but myself I'm one of the "Moaners" By fanboys' standard and to be honest and if I was mistaken of something I would agree and apologize and say in this forum I was mistaken. However the same was not seen from fanboys or SI.

If you don't recall last year edition (FM09), one of highly criticized by Moaners was the injuries bug and was quickly dismissed by both fanboys and SI by introducing links of Braclays premiership list of injuries in the name of realism or saying it was our training. However The injury issue was severally toned down in FM10 - FM09 has 70% more injuries then FM10 and FM07 combined. Not a single sorry or "I was wrong" apologies where said to us moaners who in the end where right, it was a bug.

So Daryn, why do the moaners need to eat humble pie, if fanboys don't?

[glosrob]

FM09 has 70% more injuries in FM09 then FM10 and FM07 combined.

OK I'm going to make an assumption that you haven't actually got this evidence and are just making it up?

[Kill Rock Stars]

I can't speak for the OP, but myself I'm one of the "Moaners" By fanboys' standard and to be honest and if I was mistaken of something I would agree and apologize and say in this forum I was mistaken. However the same was not seen from fanboys or SI.

If you don't recall last year edition (FM09), one of highly criticized by Moaners was the injuries bug and was quickly dismissed by both fanboys and SI by introducing links of Braclays premiership list of injuries in the name of realism or saying it was our training. However The injury issue was severally toned down in FM10 - FM09 has 70% more injuries in FM09 then FM10 and FM07 combined. Not a single sorry or "I was wrong" apologies where said to us moaners who in the end where right, it was a bug.

So Daryn, why do the moaners need to eat humble pie, if fanboys don't?

likewise, people always used to dismiss the idea that there were "superkeepers", yet gradually the issue was fixed, which surely suggests that there was a problem after all?

i'm sure at some point the problems with teamtalks, comebacks and morale overriding ability will be fixed. doubt you'll find any fanboys admitting that there was ever a problem though

[TSH]

As was said, there's a difference between being a bad or mediocre manager and not having a single clue. People not having a clue would never get the job - any job - offered in the first place. You get to read about people being up 3-0 at half time who then have their side drop deep and make them all running around the pitch closing down like crazy in a misguided attempt to hold onto that lead. And who are then wondering why they can't keep the score line - by effectively providing the opponent space and holes a plenty as aggressive closing down means compromising the team's defensive shape. That is a blatant mistake no matter against what opponent, it's violating the most basic rules of common sense and tactics. And whilst the manual might be a bit sketchy, this is one of the things that is being adressed right there under "closing down".

What needs to be accepted is that even when a team has holes in their defence or is just plain wrong in their defensive mentality, a bad team, with bad players, mustn't always take such a huge advantage of these flaws. Bad players are bad because they don't have the vision to create chances, don't have the finishing to convert goals or do that killer cross, don't have the stamina to press so hard or the strength to keep the ball so easily.

People who persist in laying everything at the feet of tactics must take into consideration the actual player skills, too. There has to be a balance. How many times haven't we all witnessed a world class team escaping with a win because of a lesser opposition's inability to convert chances to goals or see that hole in the defence for that killer through ball? In FM10 (and the series in general) it seems that with a great tactic, the A.I. can can easily transform a lesser team to a great one, disregarding to a large extent the player's abilities. It just happens more times than it should.

Of course, to get something like this right must be extremely difficult. In my opinion, a rethink on how the tactics module works in conjunction to the individual ability module would not go amiss.

[daryn]

If I were I fanboy I'd feel compelled to write a weighty response to you (Kill Rock Stars & Grade) but I 'm not, however I can see your point. I think there is a major difference between reported bugs and people like the op who are having tactical issues but not being willing to accept that there might actually be, shock horror, a solution to why their tactics are failing them. I didn't experience any problems with injuries in FM09 but that doesn't mean there was a problem and obviously there was because SI acted accordingly.

I am neither a fanboy or a moaner but am able to see both sides to this discussion which a lot of people don't. Also I think a lot of people confuse others, who are able to make sound tactics without experiencing the problems the op has had, as fanboys. They're not.

[benegerton1985]

a rethink on how the tactics module works in conjunction to the individual ability module would not go amiss.

i second this, players are more important than tactics...

[grade]

OK I'm going to make an assumption that you haven't actually got this evidence and are just making it up?

Well I had average 5 to 7 players injured and In FM10 and FM07 i have an average of 2, 3 injuries. I can provide the PKMs of both FM07 and FM10, if you like?

[Kill Rock Stars]

on the subject of bad managers, i do think they're able to bring a club down massively irl, but not in the same way that they do in fm

in reality, a lot of clubs struggle because the manager makes basic, fundamental flaws: getting players to hit long balls and crosses at short strikers, trying to counter attack with slow players, mistaking keith andrews for a footballer, etc. if a player or ai manager tries something that shouldn't work, they should struggle because of it

however, if a manager gives a side a slightly-off teamtalk at half time, it shouldn't turn them from brazil to barnsley. likewise, if you go in a half time 2-0 down and give your team a going over, it might well make them more motivated in the second half, but it shouldn't feel as if they're completely new, improved players, which is what it feels like at the moment

one thing i like about fm10 is that they've captured the importance of a dressing room atmosphere better than previous games (imo). if you lose the dressing room you are basically screwed, and if everyone at the club either hates each other's guts or can't be bothered then the club is probably doomed (as newcastle found out last season). i've no problem with the game making good players play badly if the manager has consistently mismanaged them, or even if the manager is blameless but happens to have a side full of mardy troublemakers

however, short term morale (primarily teamtalks) is skewing the game at the moment, and overshadowing the actual skill and ability of your players

[aston_martin]

on the subject of bad managers, i do think they're able to bring a club down massively irl, but not in the same way that they do in fm

in reality, a lot of clubs struggle because the manager makes basic, fundamental flaws: getting players to hit long balls and crosses at short strikers, trying to counter attack with slow players, mistaking keith andrews for a footballer, etc. if a player or ai manager tries something that shouldn't work, they should struggle because of it

however, if a manager gives a side a slightly-off teamtalk at half time, it shouldn't turn them from brazil to barnsley. likewise, if you go in a half time 2-0 down and give your team a going over, it might well make them more motivated in the second half, but it shouldn't feel as if they're completely new, improved players, which is what it feels like at the moment

one thing i like about fm10 is that they've captured the importance of a dressing room atmosphere better than previous games (imo). if you lose the dressing room you are basically screwed, and if everyone at the club either hates each other's guts or can't be bothered then the club is probably doomed (as newcastle found out last season). i've no problem with the game making good players play badly if the manager has consistently mismanaged them, or even if the manager is blameless but happens to have a side full of mardy troublemakers

however, short term morale (primarily teamtalks) is skewing the game at the moment, and overshadowing the actual skill and ability of your players

This is spot on really.

[Svenc]

In FM10 (and the series in general) it seems that with a great tactic, the A.I. can can easily transform a lesser team to a great one, disregarding to a large extent the player's abilities. It just happens more times than it should.

Could you provide some evidence for this? It's really hard to adress anything like that when opinion isn't backed up by evidence. That is one part of the problem. wwfan claims that the AI isn't even that clinical, in fact it would be quite inept to bank on a team's theoretical maximum capability, if you want to call it like that. But then he knows this thing inside out. The other problem, as you put it, it's hard to get a game meant to simulate real-life management "right". And then what is one person's "right" is another person's "not quite right". Or just "wrong". In the end, the game designers, the players and the naysayers all have their own vision of what things should look like, and for a discussion to start there must be laid some groundwork, impartial facts, i.e. long-term statistics, examples, etc. Personally I've never noticed anything like this, quite the contrary, I was able to be quite successfull even though I was pretty clueless about the tactic tools when I started out with FM. I'm much like most in that respect, I guess, I don't have the evidence, it's more of a gut feeling.

I agree with you that bad teams aren't necessarily able to capitalize on mistakes as much as better ones. Depends on what that mistake looks like, as pointed out, people are committing suicide and don't even notice, apparently. With such a total confusion of the basic groundwork of tactics likely just about any opposition in your league and cup competition is going to take advantage of that - the standard of opposition a team gets to play during a season generally just isn't that much off for each team in the real world, and in FM. Ligue1 sides hardly get to play a side hailing from anything League Two or below. Generally levels of play so far apart that individual player skill might make up for such blatant mistakes made by the manager don't get to face off each other. There rarely are match ups where players from one team are so much fitter, faster and apt than their opposition that they can cover every single holes imposed on the team by nonsensical tactics. Depends on the mistakes, naturally. But basic mistakes like that are bound to make any side bleed a plenty, be it in real-life or in FM. It's like a pro team managed by somebody who got his license by watching Match Of The Day once a year and still trying to figure out what the heck this offside stuff is all about. Or well, quite like that.

[Laarsto]

This is something that is bothering me very much. It seems impossible to win just promoted team even if you just won the league last season and you have only strenghten your team up a notch. And it seems all the opposition needs is a two or three nice 35 yard screamers, corner kicks or nice freekicks. Also my defenders seem to do their utmost to help the wrong team by losing 80 percent of headers to some 165cm midgets.

[grade]

Okay I think that this comes down to stats and how the ME interprets them with Press Conference, Morale and Team Talks. I think it is neither the Tactics and all that. Fm09 problem was the one above i figure.

We all know that Stats of the players and coaches are the basis of the game and I think in some way with press Conference, Morale and Team Talks the opponents seemed to drink a lot of Redbull. Has anyone from SI has checked how these three things are affecting the stats? It seems the problem isn't how frequent long shots are scored, but being scored by player who has low stat value of long shots also enters here how good are the stats of GK or the defenders (this happens a lot when player is going to shoot a long shot, some defenders will give their bodies in front of the ball and it is not only defenders everyone with enough courage stat could do this).

So I think (I might be wrong; SEE ) might be how Press Conferences, Morale and Team Talk are influencing the stats.

I mean there are a lot o long shots in real match but it only is scored 1 in 10 shots (not exact numbers, I'm just giving an example).

[TSH]

Could you provide some evidence for this? It's really hard to adress anything like that when opinion isn't backed up by evidence. That is one part of the problem. wwfan claims that the AI isn't even that clinical, in fact it would be quite inept to bank on a team's theoretical maximum capability, if you want to call it like that. But then he knows this thing inside out. The other problem, as you put it, it's hard to get a game meant to simulate real-life management "right". And then what is one person's "right" is another person's "not quite right". Or just "wrong". In the end, the game designers, the players and the naysayers all have their own vision of what things should look like, and for a discussion to start there must be laid some groundwork, impartial facts, i.e. long-term statistics, examples, etc. Personally I've never noticed anything like this, quite the contrary, I was able to be quite successfull even though I was pretty clueless about the tactic tools when I started out with FM. I'm much like most in that respect, I guess, I don't have the evidence, it's more of a gut feeling.

There have been plenty of times when a lesser team has managed to score 2 or 3 goals against my team, which is a better one, despite me having already an advantage of 2 or 3 goals. I am not complaining, because most of the times I manage to come away as a winner. But when I am playing a lesser team and I thrash them in the first half and in the second they come back playing like Barcelona, well, it's not the most logical thing in the world, especially when I have done some minor tweaking to slow my tempo, be a little more defensive, etc.

I am not saying that it can't happen, I am saying that in this version in particular it seems to happen more often than it should. And beating lesser teams or keeping a lead against lesser teams should be a tad easier. That is the point of having a good team, isn't it? Players of low skills shouldn't perform like world class players that many times, regardless of my defensive mistakes (providing they are not serious ones). As I said before, it can happen, but not to the extend that it seems to happen in FM 10, and in the series in general.

For a good cross to happen, a one on one to be converted, a long shot to be successful, e.t.c. by the A.I., it has to take into account the ability of its players too, not only my defensive mistakes. I should be micromanaging my tactics to keep a lead against a world class team but, against a lesser team, it should be easier. Not always but plenty enough times to convince me that my team is a better one, since I am top in my league table and my opponent in the low belt. And I am not bringing to the table the overbearing team talks and media module which need balancing, too.

Anyhow, what I am saying is that players, like managers in real life, need an easy afternoon here and there, without needing to construct amazing tactical routines or tweaking every second of every minute. The tactics module tends to overcomplicate some things, which in turn brings confusion to what it should be a clearer instruction.

As for actual examples I must provide the pkms, which is something I intend to do. But I don't see why my word is not enough. I have no inclination to ditch the game just for the sake of it. Despite the flaws I still think it's a marvellous game and we are all trying to contribute to make it better. I have actually written plenty of design pages for many aspects on the game over the years, just for fun. It's a great hobby and a good exercise for the mind.

[Tubey84]

This:

To this:

So, yes, a "bit" inconsistent at times, but that's all due to the numerous factors the ME has to consider. It's never going to be perfect so I don't see a cause for concern.

(I'm posting in this old thread because this is the link that brought me to the subject!)

[speople]

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.

Hmmm, Man U lost 4-0 in game to Fulham which is just horribly inconsistent with real life eh.

So I suppose Fulham's 3-0 IRL this season is just some kind of mass world dream

[Chief232]

Hmmm, Man U lost 4-0 in game to Fulham which is just horribly inconsistent with real life eh.

So I suppose Fulham's 3-0 IRL this season is just some kind of mass world dream

Well...not to be picky..

But in reality, that United side had two midfielders and a reserve defender playing in defence... they were quite battered by injuries.

Nonetheless, crazy results DO happen. But I do feel FM has some odd results occuring too often. For me, teams that aren't quite that good tend to give too many problems to teams that are good. I don't know if its just me as a manager but sometimes I'm just getting completely outclassed by a team for no reason.

Not enough to make me stop playing FM. There are flaws, but it's nonetheless a great game.

[Guest]

I think the problem is it's all about team talks. Team talks are more important than tactics and players.

I could garrantee a loss against weaker opposition just by saying the wrong thing. I expect a win seemed to translate to try too hard and lose. The teamtalk for higher rep and same rep teams is more effective than the one against lower rep teams. You will find having players who struggle to find motivation agaisnt lower clubs need special teamtalks.

Its the same sort of issue at half time. Want to throw away a 2 goal lead. Just select the wrong teamtalk. The teamtalk for 1 nil down is more powerful than the one for 2 nil up.

Unless you start messing around with individual teamtalks and know what you are doing you will continue to have these 'unexpected' results more often than not.

Teamtalks > Tactics + Players.

[Cikku]

On the subject of Scolari, he always had great teams when he won. Yes, he won the world cup with brazil; but brazil had a great great team. He got to a euro final with portugal, but once again, they had a great team with players reaching their peaks (and ended up loosing to Greece anyway btw).

He seems more of an aggressive shouting personality than a tactical genius. For any of you who saw the series "Blackadder the Third", Scolari reminds me of the Duke of Wellington (who appears in the final episode of the series, challenging the Prince Regent to a dual)

Hope you like my comparison lol

[Makollig Jezvahted]

Originally Posted by woody2goody

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.

If this was true, you really should give the Liverpool board a call and tell them to sack the overpaid Spanish dude in charge and look for a drunk recplacement in the local pub, willing to do the job for a six-pack a week.

[TheRealMagpies]

The AI tbh isn't actually all that very good

AI managers use 1 tactical formation, which is then adjusted by thier hidden attributes for tactical play

(depth, closing down, tempo etc etc), and don't seem to vary anything at all.

Not all of these attributes seem to be effectively implemented however, the AI managers will play the same starting 11 for the whole season even if they have a Rotation rating of 20.

The failings frequently evidenced in the game are due to the errors introduced into the tactical decisions made by the Chair-Keyboard Interface (You) module of the game.

If you talk, calmly and rationaly, with people here like Cleon, WWFan, SFraser/Millie you'll discover that the tactical difficulties in the game are quite easy to work around, IF you take some time to understand how the ME and AI work.

[edgar555]

I am sick and tired of inconsistent and unrealistic results too. However, I'm talking RL here, my team have been challenging for top 4 all season, yet we've lost home games to rubbish sides who we should beat easily. Oh hang on, that sounds like what all you whingers are saying, maybe I should complain to the FA that there's something wrong with IRL? What do you think? I honestly wonder how much a lot of you actually know about football?

[SCIAG]

Why can my Reading side beat Liverpool and Burnley, but lose 4-1 to Plymouth?

[baker.simon]

Why can my Reading side beat Liverpool and Burnley, but lose 4-1 to Plymouth?

It's because real life is broken and unplayable. Perhaps you should post your issues in the 'real life bugs forum'

[earmack]

All these things have been said about every FM.

Its the same game. Every time.

Still pretty good though

[SFraser]

Inconsistent and unrealistic results do not automatically equate to an inconsistent and unrealistic game. If one manager can get consistent and realistic results and another cannot, then it far more likely that one manager is inconsistent and unrealistic in his approach to matches, tactics and management in general.

In other words a lack of consistency and realism is consistent with a poor manager. A manager completely incapable of competing against low reputation, defensive minded, counter-attacking sides.

[ATW]

I am sick and tired of inconsistent and unrealistic results too. However, I'm talking RL here, my team have been challenging for top 4 all season, yet we've lost home games to rubbish sides who we should beat easily. Oh hang on, that sounds like what all you whingers are saying, maybe I should complain to the FA that there's something wrong with IRL? What do you think? I honestly wonder how much a lot of you actually know about football?

Don't be silly! That doesn't happen in real life. For example, with a good League 1 class Manager my favourite club were conceding goals left, right and centre, but now we have an auld fox in charge we've only conceded 1 goal in 8 league matches.

Or how about the fact Aberdeen can draw 4-4 with Celtic, and 2-2 with Hibs but be thumped by Falkirk, Motherwell and be beat by Raith Rovers...

All of this did not happen. Inconsistency does not happen in real life, only in Football Manager