It's time for a leap of faith

[iacovone]

This is how much thought crouchaldinho puts into his response: "It's just rubbish. Moronic and infantile nonsense."

Excuse me iacovone but I am not talking to a bully.

As far as I can see (please point out if I've missed it) he has not written your thoughts off as 'rubbish, moronic or infantile nonsense' :confused:. He has written a good post addressing what you believe needs changing and fought with a counter argument.

As for presenting dafuge's career as some kind of an argument, what can I say, I think it's funny.

It was a frame of reference to back up Crouchaldinho's point that a lot can be achieved in FM without the need for being a tactical expert.

To answer your observation about tactics, I completely agree that tactics have been evolved during the history of football (along with player's abilities, pitches, equipment, training methods, diets and many many things). I don't think that has anything to do with what I'm saying though...

Tactical evolution has everything to do with what you are saying. You are stating that tactics have very little to do with the modern manager, which as shown by my posts is completely incorrect. If you can't see past this basic error in your argument then there isn't much hope of a decent debate here. Tactical knowledge is THE most important tool a football manager must have, especially at the top level, where without it he will not succeed. Simple as that.

[tak]

It's not really. And I don't understand how the fact that tactics evolved throught 100 years (as they would) makes them THE most important tool of a manager. Of course a succesfull manager has to have strong tactical knowledge, but, especially at the top level, this is secondary.

You are really getting confused though. Dafuge made a point that a lot can be achieved in FM without the need for being a tactical expert? I thought you were saying tactics is THE most important thing in real life? Is FM such a bad simulation then?

[tak]

Why do you find it necessary to belittle dafuge's achievements with Tooting and Mitchell. Dafuges challenge as well as Gundo's and all the other small club to big club challenges are actually quite difficult and rely on using all the areas of FM. So this includes the morale system, the scouting system etc but the most important one is the Tactical side of it.

Dafuge has posted his achievements as a means to show what can be achieved when you have a very strong tactic and also bring in the players who will fit your systerm and not just those who are the best in the world.

You did have a great opportunity for a very good and possibly lively discussion here (which is why this is the General Discussiono forum) but unfortunately you've managed to kill that dead with your refusal to take on some constructive critisim and also the proof thatg tactics are an important part of the game.

Dafuge made a point that he played one tactic for 25 years and won everything, so the game is not very much about tactics.

At the same time other people say that football is all about tactics and fair play to the game for reflecting that.

I am saying.. well you know what I'm saying

[iacovone]

Right let me show you my standpoint on the issue:

FM is an excellent simulation in my opinion.

Tactics are an integral part of a manager's arsenal in real life.

The tactical element in FM is therefore one of the largest and most detailed parts of the game.

However, despite it having great depth, Crouchaldinho, and then dafuge emphasized that it is NOT essential to be an expert within the game to achieve something - backing up your point originally.

I think it is you that is getting confused.

My final point tonight on the issue:

FM is great in this respect because it allows the casual gamer to be successful in FM if they can buy the best players in the world for example. In that instance (as in real life for the most part) your team will be a success. HOWEVER for the devoted tacticians amongst us it is possible to turn an 'average' side into an overachieving side, capable of great success with below top class players. That is why I'd say the FM series has been so successful - it incorporates a whole host of managerial duties, but never insists on you being an absolute expert in all fields to achieve success within the game. And this happens in real life too.

ps. Please explain to me why you think tactics are secondary at the top level. Night.

[Seabeast]

I think the game needs what the OP is suggesting. We pretty much pay for SI to update this game yearly with new features, which is pretty much how it is with all sports games, so thats not a dig at SI. However, It would be nice to come into a new FM that feels fresh, new, exciting, because lets be honest, not much has changed over the last few years.

Talkin to the press is very poor, and feels pretty much meaningless for the most part, and some of the reactions you get from the players...well the less said about it the better. 9 times out of 10 you tend to just click the same old reply to the question. do we even read the full question after a month or two of them?

Training needs a total revamp, it should allow us to focus on a player a lot more rather than simply move a few sliders which allows a player to work on 4 or 5 areas when most of the time you would rather they focused on one. I find the training side of the game to be a giant snorefest, and would love for S.I to revamp this with better options, maybe a training ME that allows you to set up full on training sessions which would allow you to see how the players train, who is on form before the games. I know you get the odd report about players training, but its not really enough to get a feel for what they are doing during the days before games. Many little things could be used here, setting times for training, showing what time players show up for it, and the time they leave. Some people would probably hate to do this so it could be something you set up and set the assistant to do for you and give you a weekly report. I know some of this could be a little much, but its simply a few ideas.

I have said this many times, but the transfer/contract negotitations should be a face to face, or over the phone action so you can barter with the clubs/players rather than wait for a day or two for them to reject a bid/contract. It's a bit annoying to have to wait a day to hear back if the player has accepted terms or not, then have to do it all over again if he wants a bit more money, surely this is where agents could come into the game. A director of football, or whoever deals with the transfers should have more of a role in the dealings too ( I'm not talking Dennis Wise style, but more like Ivan Gazidis of Arsenal, or how David Dein used to do his job ) I know on the Jose Antonio Reyes deal DD went over to talk over the deal with the Sevilla president, so the deal was sorted out and Reyes flew to England to complete the move later that day. I know all deals arent completed this way, but its better than the current FM dealings.

A lot of managers tell the DoF the player they want and leave them to do the work, which would be something that could take away from the transfer system, so they could be used to make dealings more of a real time things, done either via conference call, face to face or whatever. I would love a system where you get in touch with the club/agent regarding the player, then theres a meeting with the player to trash out personal terms before the medical. I would think the player gets 'interviewed' a little by the manager and are asked questions, and id guess that they have questions for the manager also....like what position they would be used etc, because the story about Silvestre turning down Liverpool before Joining Man united was interesting, considering he turned them down because they wanted him to play at left back, which he ended up doing for Man utd anyway, but this could be something that would make the transfer dealings a lot more interactive and intersting.

I think it would make the transfers something that would be a lot more interesting than pressing submit bid, selecting player role ' back up for the first team ' and offering the contract.

Agents pretty much have no place in FM and it would make the transfer windows more interesting if players were offered to you more, agents contacting you saying a player would like to join the club etc etc. If you watch a lot of real life managers during Press sessions they always talk about agents calling them saying they have a player who is the best thing since sliced bread, or they constantly have the mobile on the go with agents trying to sell them players, but ive only been offered about 3 players in FM10 so far.

The players medical would be something that could be improved. A full report of the player would be something that could add another interesting factor in transfers. The club doctors/physio could send you a report regarding the players health, past injuries and maybe even their opinion on how the players health will be in the future, for example....say Liverpool sign Emile Heskey this month, they would obviously check his levels of fitness, any past issues and pass/fail him based on this and more, but surely if they reported to Rafa that it looked like he only had a year left in his legs because his fitness was low, it would be something that could make Rafa switch transfer targets, but again, only ideas off the top of my head.

The tactics are almost there for me, in FM10 its done quite well, although id like a little more diversity in what instructions i can give to certain players.

Anyway, thats enough for now, hope you guys like some of the ideas.

[tak]

Right let me show you my standpoint on the issue:

FM is an excellent simulation in my opinion.

Tactics are an integral part of a manager's arsenal in real life.

The tactical element in FM is therefore one of the largest and most detailed parts of the game.

However, despite it having great depth, Crouchaldinho, and then dafuge emphasized that it is NOT essential to be an expert within the game to achieve something - backing up your point originally.

I think it is you that is getting confused.

My final point tonight on the issue:

FM is great in this respect because it allows the casual gamer to be successful in FM if they can buy the best players in the world for example. In that instance (as in real life for the most part) your team will be a success. HOWEVER for the devoted tacticians amongst us it is possible to turn an 'average' side into an overachieving side, capable of great success with below top class players. That is why I'd say the FM series has been so successful - it incorporates a whole host of managerial duties, but never insists on you being an absolute expert in all fields to achieve success within the game. And this happens in real life too.

ps. Please explain to me why you think tactics are secondary at the top level. Night.

How, according to what you are saying that football management is all about tactics, can FM be an excellent simulation when, still according to you, you can achieve something without being a tactical expert?

[anagain]

It's not really. And I don't understand how the fact that tactics evolved throught 100 years (as they would) makes them THE most important tool of a manager. Of course a succesfull manager has to have strong tactical knowledge, but, especially at the top level, this is secondary.

Well here is something to start reading, then. Yes, it is only wiki but you'll be linked to other articles.

I'm not sure you're willing to understand if it doesn't get people on your cause though.

You could spend some money on this book if you so wish too. Someone mentioned it above.

[iacovone]

How, according to what you are saying that football management is all about tactics, can FM be an excellent simulation when, still according to you, you can achieve something without being a tactical expert?

Have a think about the definition of 'achieve something'. It doesn't mean win every competition in world football, its relative. If you're Burnley and you can take them into the top half then you have achieved something significant in my book. My point is that this could be achieved following either method in FM. You could be a tactical expert working with average players (like Hodgeson at Fulham IRL), or you could be a transfer guru (like Redknapp was at Pompey). That is reflected in game and is why I stated that I think FM is an excellent simulation.

[Seabeast]

Guys, this little war would be much better done via the private messaging or something, its ruining the thread.

[tingting]

I have no problems with the current tactical system in the game (though it could do with some more individual options) I think sliders are the most important part in the game (you cannot very well talk with your virtual players) because you cannot expect your players to perform how you want by just putting them in a formation. Similarly tactics is the most important part of the real game....a tactical genius could overachieve with a bunch of poor players while a tactical fool could destroy a team containing superstars. The tactics creator has gone a long way in simplifying the sliders in this version (though i have ditched it after finding that my team will play a more solid game if i go back to the old model).

However as anagain said...it does retain the 20 numbers. This is the only sore point in the game (for me). Once again please dont misunderstand (happening a lot to me these days:()...sliders are necessary...but what is not necessary is the 20 clicks for mentality, passing, creative freedom and closing down...in one of the earlier versions someone said you need it to position a player on the pitch...but you already have so many positions available in the formation...for example a central midfielder has defensive, normal and attacking positions while the defenders too have the option of standing in the penalty box or outside (i have not tried this so i dont know whether this is true...stating what i see on the pitch )

What really is the difference between a 16 creative freedom and a 18-19 creative freedom?? how does it affect the passing of a player if it is set to 2 or 4 (seeing that both the options are short) Maybe instead of all those numbers, you can simply the tactics system to just three (or in case of mentality and passing to five) clicks? For example passing can be set as short, mixed, direct and long? That will go a long way in simplifying the system to what type of passing should be chosen rather than deciding whether to choose 7 passing or a 12 passing?

And the numbers of options could be increased in the individual tactics screen? There has been some improvement in this region with the "Roam from Position" and the "Wideplay" options...but a couple of other options that could be used are asking the players to come deep to get the ball...or asking them to help the defense (which could see the player in question following the ball by coming one (or two depending on his mentality) position back??

Regarding media interaction...i remember that in my first championship manager game (i think it was 01/02) you used to get a news item if your team went through (i think it was five games) a winning, losing, unbeaten or winless streaks. The same was for the players who impressed in a number of games. I wonder why did they leave that out (i understand why they left the players' since you can release a comment but why did they leave the team's?) That could have increased the players' bonding with the manager.

Another media item that could be used was for an uncapped/dropped player from the national team with the club manager saying that he is ready to play for his country (or something along that line) and either the national manager agreeing/disagreeing with the comment and/or a news item saying that while the player is in good form, the current first choice player is performing on a consistent basis..or even the opposite might be used?

(p.s.: I think this post is a logical one and hope that it adds something constructive to the thread. I have written the post based on my understanding of the game and i hope it is enough to know how the game works. I also hope that i am not being "pedantic" nor am i "trolling" the thread. Finally, the gist of this post is not about arguing that night is day or day is night...if i have wasted someone's time...then i apologize....thank you:))

[dafuge]

Sorry lads but it's very funny that dafuge had to present his "achievements" as some sort of an argument. Most of the players do that at least once in every edition. We take a tiny little team and lead it to conquering the Champions League.

But I've done it without any real tactical input at all, all I've achieved is due to the 'other stuff' without concentrating too much on tactics. I thought that was what the thread was getting at.

I'm not trying to say that my 'achievements' are outstanding and something completely out of the ordinary, other people have done a lot better than I have. I'm just trying to say that it is possible to achieve a decent (not unbelievable) level of success with almost no focus on tactical tweaking at all.

I'm quite happy to admit that the way I play is perhaps not the most realistic, it is just the way I find the most enjoyable.

[GIMN]

I personally don't believe that the game is too reliant on tactics. The ease with which to build a decent tactic with the wizard underlines this. The most important factor of this game is managing your squad. It's about having the right players to suit your tactics.

It's no good littering your team with attacking flair players with low determination if you're going to play on the "overload" setting. You risk falling behind in such situations, and the low determination will hinder any comeback. This is not a result of the games reliance on tactics, this is a result of poor management of the squad (picking the wrong players).

You also won't win if you're unable to manage your players' condition. Having a strong first XI is not enough, because fatigue and injuries will occur. If you have to rely on unfit players playing, or you haven't properly organised your back up, then you will struggle.

Morale and teamtalks have been explored numerous times, and the effect both have on the way the game pans out is vitally important. This is why people come on here and complain about going on long unbeaten streaks to then suddenly find themselves on long non-winning streaks. It's not that the game is unfair, but merely that the player undervalues the role of morale. Look at Villa last season - went 16 games unbeaten, and then failed to win in 11. Similarly, look at Birmingham City at the moment. Not a team of world beaters, but their belief in themselves has helped put them on an incredible run.

[jcafcwbb]

One thing about the sliders is does it give us too much control over players? And does it give too many options?

For example if you look at Nani. He was obviously bought as a replacement for the outgoing Ronaldo but he hasn't worked out. But I am sure that by using the sliders you can probably find a formula to make him an effective player. But if you sign a new winger who has the ability to beat players but has a poor final ball - Aaron Lennon for example - you will obviously have to work on his final ball and decision making; I get the impression Harry has. This would never happen overnight and FM10 has bought this aspect into the game very well. But they could go further, instead of being able to change the slider values of a player the adjustment should be made over time from training and the PPM selection. It is a manager's job to spot the gaps in a players game and solve it.

Also during the match you should only have access to touchline shouts. This can be evolved to team and individual shouts - ie telling a team to hassle more or an individual to pass into space. You can already change opponent instructions/substitute etc in the touchline instructions.

Sliders may be needed for the ME engine to work properly by with player roles, duties and an amended touchline shouts to encompass individual shouts we should be able to change tactics without us directly accessing them. They should be in the background without our ability to change them.

[Blanchflower1]

Far more in-depth analysis from scouts/assistant manager. Not just "Chelsea haven't scored many goals in between 76th-90th minute.."

etc..

more like "Chelsea have used a 4-5-1 system more regularly with Joe Cole playing as the most advanced midfielder' date=' he likes to find pockets of space"

"the holding midfielder usually looks to get on the ball as much as possible, while the other midfielder looks to break from midfield to support forwards"

"The striker likes to drop deep to recieve the ball OR..the striker likes to run the channels"

"both their wingers enjoy staying right out wide and keeping their width.."

"this team usually play a high line"

Things like this, this is information managers will recieve before everygame, along with player monitors fitness levels, distance covered...or things like "Assistant manager informs you, Player A's work rate drops considerably as a game goes on.."

then it's upto you what you do with that information.[/quote']

This type of in depth analysis would need to have complex programming language!

[crouchaldinho]

Right let me show you my standpoint on the issue:

FM is an excellent simulation in my opinion.

Tactics are an integral part of a manager's arsenal in real life.

The tactical element in FM is therefore one of the largest and most detailed parts of the game.

However, despite it having great depth, Crouchaldinho, and then dafuge emphasized that it is NOT essential to be an expert within the game to achieve something - backing up your point originally.

I think it is you that is getting confused.

Spot on Iacovone. That is exactly our argument.

It is possible to be a Kevin Keegan or a Harry Redknapp on FM (i.e. someone who focuses primarily on players, motivation and man management). At the same time, you can be a tactical mastermind (as I pretend to be when playing FM! ) and switch between 4-2-3-1s and 4-3-1-2s etc., tweaking this and that to your heart's content!

Of course, the very best managers in real life can do both and you'll have most success on FM if you can manage the tactical side, motivate your players and bring in top quality players to add to your squad. That's what all of the top coaches do.

Regards,

C.

[crouchaldinho]

You've also not mentioned many ideas in reference to your 'leap of faith' SI need to take.

Quite right. This notion that the game needs to take a 'leap of faith' is all very vague and it seems to be based on largely unsound principles.

Of course, there are aspects of the game that need to be worked on. However, I think the depth and complexity is very impressive. If you read any work by a top coach on tactics and motivation and you will find pretty much everything translated to some level in FM. The key to the future of the series is to continue to improve these factors.

Regards,

C.

[crouchaldinho]

Talkin to the press is very poor, and feels pretty much meaningless for the most part, and some of the reactions you get from the players...well the less said about it the better. 9 times out of 10 you tend to just click the same old reply to the question. do we even read the full question after a month or two of them?

Have you ever heard an interview with Rafa Benitez? He gets asked the same questions 90% of the time and he 'clicks' the same answers, usually involving the phrases, 'we have kwality', 'we have confidence' and 'we concentrate only on the next game' etc.

Press conferences are pretty dull to watch in real life. Have you ever sat watching Sky Sports News before? Yawn. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

I'm actually enjoying the press conferences in FM10. I put myself in the shoes of the manager and, although I sometimes give the same answers, I also shake things up when I'm going through a bad run of form or I need a win.

Having said all of that, this is clearly an area of the game which will continue to evolve and it's obvious that there is plenty of room for improvement.

Training needs a total revamp, it should allow us to focus on a player a lot more rather than simply move a few sliders which allows a player to work on 4 or 5 areas when most of the time you would rather they focused on one. I find the training side of the game to be a giant snorefest, and would love for S.I to revamp this with better options, maybe a training ME that allows you to set up full on training sessions which would allow you to see how the players train, who is on form before the games.

Training is an area that could be developed and possibly changed. However, something like a training ME would be pretty boring in my opinion. It wouldn't add very much to the game at all. I predict that we would end up with a flashy add-on that barely any of us use.

You have to be careful with the training aspect of the game. I don't know if you have ever watched a training session in real life, but it isn't terribly interesting. I mean to say, it is kind of interesting in real life to see how players are doing, but can you imagine it in FM? The first thing most people would do is turn it off! So it is difficult to see how much beyond the slider control system and the player interaction it could move without becoming terribly dull in the process.

I have said this many times, but the transfer/contract negotitations should be a face to face, or over the phone action so you can barter with the clubs/players rather than wait for a day or two for them to reject a bid/contract.

I'm not sure that I could stand this personally. It sounds horrible to me and very tacky in my opinion.

Agents pretty much have no place in FM and it would make the transfer windows more interesting if players were offered to you more, agents contacting you saying a player would like to join the club etc etc. If you watch a lot of real life managers during Press sessions they always talk about agents calling them saying they have a player who is the best thing since sliced bread, or they constantly have the mobile on the go with agents trying to sell them players, but ive only been offered about 3 players in FM10 so far.

This one is a potentially good suggestion. I quite liked it when agents used to send you a video of a player. I'm not dreaming, am I? I'm sure that was on one of the CM games. :confused: Does anyone remember?

The tactics are almost there for me, in FM10 its done quite well, although id like a little more diversity in what instructions i can give to certain players.

I agree with this and I think (and hope!) it will continue to develop. But tactically, I really feel that we are heading in the right direction. I'm thoroughly enjoying the tactical side of FM10 and the tactics creator and tactics shouts are the biggest recent revolution in the game for me personally (bigger than 3D!)

Regards,

C.

[Mr Sandman]

love the new role selection, it lessens the importance of the "twenty" slider positions

[tak]

First of all I would like, once more, to ask crouchaldinho to keep away from this thread. We all remember what happened last time (http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=177980&page=4, post 325). He even had the nerve to say that he never swears. People like him disgust me and I wonder why is he not getting banned.

I would like to say a few things about the importance of tactics issue. My position is of course that tactics are not the most important thing in football management, which for many people is very strange. I too grew up with those wonderful stories about evolution of tactics etc. and believed for many years that they are very important.

Tactics have indeed been evolved together with players' abilities, training methods, dieticians' studies, improved equipment, improved pitches and many other things. As football grew in popularity, more people got involved and more money were spend, it was only natural that it would get better. The evolution of football becomes easier for the reader if he is shown certain examples like the great Ajax team someone mentioned above. It is customary to think about this team in terms of revolutionary tactics. It was a lot more than that. Michels took revolutionary approaches to building the team and managed the club from top to bottom turning them from amateurs with day jobs to the top European team. Mainly, he worked with psycho-analytical methods. Cruyff said Michels was their father. What Michels did is instill ambition, remove the fear of pain, instill fighting mentality etc.A strong hierarchy was introduced, a clan mentality, the leader being Cruyff. Weak links were sacked, it was the most terrible environment to work in. Many players and staff are still bitter.

Michels' work was the work of a true leader and yet we are told that he introduced some fantastic tactics and the team became great. Incredibly wrong. Ajax tactics came naturaly through the new managerial approach. It was a result rather than a cause.

More answers later, because I have to go now...

[dafuge]

I'm still confused as to why my post was so laughable. Didn't it show you that what you are after is possible, backing up your argument?

[Oypus]

Your suggestions are pretty good Tak. But until you can find a way for AI to respond to real situations exactly as a human, they are impossible. I would suggest letting us know when you got that, along with the whole scientific world.

The current responses to situations are hard coded. They happen, you get a message, maybe a few choices based on that. (What can happen is have more choices. And I'm all for that.) The AI can't exactly look at a situation, then apply human reasoning and make a decision. IRL, the amount of choices any human has at any given time is infinite. Really, you can do whatever you like, whenever you like. Most people, of course, don't. What you're proposing will end up being unnecessarily complex. How do you code something to have infinite choices? A game where you micro manage the egos of twenty or so international superstars, in addition to trying to win a game here and there? That's hardly what most people are looking for. I think we just want to win some games.

[crouchaldinho]

First of all I would like, once more, to ask crouchaldinho to keep away from this thread. We all remember what happened last time (http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=177980&page=4, post 325).

I will admit that this wasn't my proudest moment. It was an emotional response to some of the trolling going on in that thread. I regret it and would delete the post if I could do so now. At the same time, I also don't think that it was as terrible as you are making out. You didn't exactly cover yourself in glory either!

Please accept my apology if I have upset you by referring to the idea of the AI cheating as 'moronic and infantile nonsense'. That thread has gone and finished. I would hope that you could move on.

He even had the nerve to say that he never swears.

I don't see any swearing at all in that post. :confused:

I would like to emphasise the fact that I have not been swearing at anyone, so I do wish you would stop making such a claim against me!

I don't like to swear. I consider it vulgar and unnecessary.

People like him disgust me and I wonder why is he not getting banned.

What on earth should I be banned for? Giving an opinion that is different to yours, I assume?

Anyway, you seem very adept at ignoring all points of view but that of your own. Perhaps you might consider addressing some of the alternative points of view on this thread. Thank you.

[iacovone]

To be honest Crouchy I think its worth us all just ignoring Tak and his 'opinions'. He hasn't offered any ideas of his own for this 'leap of faith' as we well know.

His most recent post could be the funniest yet seeing as he has quite obviously, very unsubtly read up on the Ajax team of the 70s. He may as well have cut and pasted from wikipedia . I have very little time for his childish responses to you Crouchy. Whilst your response in the superkeeper thread may not have been that wise (as this one probably isn't from myself), it did highlight the generally deluded standard of posting he offers.

Calling for you to get banned ffs

[Neji]

Let's leave out the comments on other users posting style please. All it does is cause arguments. Anyone ignoring this warning, will be dealt with accordingly.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

Tactics need to be toned down a bit. Player intuition needs to be heavily buffed.

Motivational skills need to be heavily revamped in a way that a player just wont become angry or unsettled by little team talks or heavily motivated in the same manner.

In FM it is far too easy for a side to become unhappy and far too difficult to keep the dressing room happy and friendships formed and players bonding.

It isn't totally wrong in it's current state, but it needs to be a little less aggressive with the way the game responds to certain events.

[wwfan]

FM is already what you make it.

If you decide that you will only access the creator settings, FM is a finely balanced simulation of tactical, motivational and strategic play. Using the creator ensures you cannot 'break' the ME or employ strategies the AI cannot cope with, meaning you have to successfully manage motivation and squad building issues to achieve. If you send out a poorly motivated team, you have to react quickly and introduce tactical solutions to limit the damage. If you send out a fantastically motivated team, you often don't have to do much in tactical terms. If you have the wrong players for the tactic you are trying to play, you will struggle. If you have balanced player ability with your tactical ideas you will do well. If you have lost the dressing room and/or morale is shot, you are in for a difficult season.

Rejecting all the creator/match functionality can either make motivation and squad management more or less important. If you use the creator to design a single tactic which you use all the time, you will need to be a superb motivational and squad developer in order to succeed. Because you aren't doing tactical things the AI can't cope with, man and squad management are the only tools in your armoury and you need to become amazingly good at them. Get a team talk/press conference/management interaction wrong and your team might implode, with you powerless to stop the problems as you won't make any tactical changes. Consistently get them right and you'll do well.

Reverting to the classic siders can make motivation and squad management next to irrelevant. Although the AI is far more sophisticated than it used to be, it is still possible to 'break' it (or at least seriously challenge it) with certain 'custom' settings. If you custom tweak your own settings to come up with a tactic that dominates the AI no matter how it plays, then it doesn't matter how motivated your players are or what players you have as you will always have a chance of winning through tactical manipulation alone. For people who reverted to the classic system as the creator tactics were too 'unstable', it is because you are not very good at motivation or squad management and thus must rely on designing micro-detailed tactics to gain a consistent advantage.

Although in real life it is possible to be revolutionary in a tactical sense, it only ever gives you an advantage for a few seasons at most before other teams catch on and catch up, thus rendering your tactical innovation obsolete. Every 'revolutionary' tactical system that succeeded spawned imitators and/or opposites deliberately designed to counter the problems they posed. Winning titles through tactical innovation alone was/is possible, but only for a season or two. Greece's Euro win was, for example, built on a foundation of man-marking. Man-marking was a lost art, and when Greece re-introduced it, teams didn't know what to do against it, giving the Greeks just enough advantage to beat teams that, player for player, were superior. However, once the Euros finished, post-competition analysis levelled out the advantages of their system as everyone now knew what to expect and slowly worked it out. For the coming World Cup, it will be interesting to see if other teams follow the USA's tight-pressing defensive system against Spain's idiosyncratic narrow/possession game as it reduced their outlet balls and dried up their passing. If they do, Spain still have the players to overcome it, but the tactical questions it poses the Spanish system will require them to perform on the day every day.

In FM, if you have such an innovative system, the AI never works it out, meaning you never need to worry about motivation and squad management issues. You know you will play well every time you send the team out. The AI will never catch on, so you may as well just keep on pressing continue. In my opinion, playing like this limits the potential enjoyment of the game, although I can appreciate the reasons for doing so. However, the arguments that extend from such a playing methodology are flawed. Tactics seem overly important and man/squad management less so, simply because of how you have constructed your tactic. You have manipulated numerous 20 point sliders into a 'perfect' combination that ensures success, which is impossible and unrealistic in the real world. Forgetting they exist and using creator settings only brings about a far more rounded and enjoyable simulation.

[tak]

I'm still confused as to why my post was so laughable. Didn't it show you that what you are after is possible, backing up your argument?

I have sometime now to answer that, apologies for the delay.

My argument, dafuge, was never that it is impossible to succeed in FM if you do not constantly tweak tactics. Of course you can succeed by buying good players and doing little tactical work.

What I'm saying is that this game is built around tactics, ignoring or being unable to cope with real management issues. I never bother with tactics even, my way of playing is very similar to yours. I just find good players for the certain roles and then trying not to upset them.

So, of course you can ignore tactics, but does that change the fact that there are no real management features? No. All you can do if you don't want to become a tactical nerd in this game is:

a) answer the same questions over and over again

b) saying the same things over and over again

c) hearing the same advice over and over again

e) taking the same decisions over and over again

Whoever said that the man and communication management features are good has really no ambition in life. The management side of the job is there, and I gave credit to SI for trying to put something in, but it is so shallow that it actually reduces the feel of realism. The management tools are:

a) too few (team talks, press conferences, individual comments)

b) very poor (repetitive, lifeless, dull, plastic, beige)

The fact is that the higher you go to the football food chain the more you have to be a manager/leader than a tactician. Hell, you can even employee a tactician if you want, someone who read many books and can amuse you and, who knows, he might even say something clever. But, let us face the truth here, top managers are managers, they are not nerds.

Someone mentioned a few football successes, two of which I talked about: Ajax and Greece. I argued that they were both based on leadership skills and psychology and that tactics were less important (not unimportant, mind you). What were the answers to that: Well, about Ajax I was told that I read wikipedia and about Greece that their success was based on the re-introduction of man-marking (?). In essence, I got no answers.

The truth is, all great football successes were based more on man management than tactics. Naturally, at various points throughout football history, new tactics have stemmed from great teams. Years later, historians wrote books about those tactics and concluded that they were the makings of great teams. It is the same with many other stories both in sports and other aspects of life. Some historian puts what happened in a jar and draws conclusions.

Anyway, I will try and make some propositions later (sadly, I am not a programmer but I will try to start a brainstorming session)

[dafuge]

My argument, dafuge, was never that it is impossible to succeed in FM if you do not constantly tweak tactics. Of course you can succeed by buying good players and doing little tactical work.

Fair enough, I think I was reading between the lines and came to the wrong conclusion that you were annoyed at how difficult the game is if you are not tactically astute. In my defence, we do get an awful lot of those types of threads here so you can't really blame me.

Focussing on the 'other stuff' in management is something which FM will always need to do to move forward although it isn't always that easy, you've seen the reaction from a lot of people regarding the new press conference feature when it was introduced.

If things are going to be added/changed, it needs to be in such a way that is enjoyable to play and realistic, I'm looking forward to reading your suggestions

[djwilko6]

For once I agree with tak, tho I know Crouchy doesn't agree

Tactics do play too big a part in the game at the moment (possibly for the last few games actually), but what other way is there of doing it? Buying good players relative to the league and man managing them is something I have tried ad have had reasonable fun in doing so, but that doesnt nessercarily translate into success (winning leagues).

In my opinion it should be possible to be successful by having an above average squad (but not great) and a reasonable tactic to be semi-successful and then use the man management to take it up a level. But for me this just isn't possible, I find I have to take advantage of the match engine short falls (in the case of one-on-one chances, or the so called "superkeepers" issue, thats playing much wider than I'd like) rather than a narrow,long ball tactic ala-Bolton/Stoke.

I realise I'm all over the place in this post, that's my shortfall

[crouchaldinho]

First of all, I am curious to know your nationality Tak, if you don't mind me asking?

Now, to respond to your post.

The fact is that the higher you go to the football food chain the more you have to be a manager/leader than a tactician. Hell, you can even employee a tactician if you want, someone who read many books and can amuse you and, who knows, he might even say something clever. But, let us face the truth here, top managers are managers, they are not nerds.

I think before you start talking about what is the 'truth', we need some evidence here. This is simply your opinion really, isn't it? What is it based on?

A lot of evidence would seem to suggest that actually the top managers are great tacticians, as well as being good man managers and motivators.

Someone mentioned a few football successes, two of which I talked about: Ajax and Greece. I argued that they were both based on leadership skills and psychology and that tactics were less important (not unimportant, mind you). What were the answers to that: Well, about Ajax I was told that I read wikipedia and about Greece that their success was based on the re-introduction of man-marking (?). In essence, I got no answers.

I think you got a fairly good answer from WWFan regarding Greece actually. How can you dismiss his answer so readily?

The truth is, all great football successes were based more on man management than tactics.

There you go again with the 'truth' where this is just your opinion. Can we have some evidence of this? Could you explain how you have reached this conclusion?

Can I also ask if you have ever read Inverting the Pyramid? Have you read any other tactical theory books or any football history books? Also, do you have any experience in football coaching or even football managing?

Some historian puts what happened in a jar and draws conclusions.

Just as you seem to be doing by dismissing tactical theory. Your just putting it into a different jar, aren't you?

Can we really ignore what football historians, scholars and academics have to say? Can we really ignore what the top people in football, both in history and in the present, have to say?

Anyway, I will try and make some propositions later (sadly, I am not a programmer but I will try to start a brainstorming session)

I'm very interested to see what you come up with and I mean that very genuinely. I look forward to it.

Just a few quick points regarding things like press conferences etc. before I finish this post. You mention about the repetitive nature of such things, well, as I wrote above, have you ever heard an interview with Rafa Benitez? The questions he is asked are all very similar and we could all quote his answers (e.g. 'we have kwality', 'we have confidence' and 'we concentrate only on the next game' etc.) without much prompting!

is an example of what I mean.

Things like press conferences and team talks are necessarily repetitive. Of course, I wouldn't disagree with the idea that they need to continue to evolve and it's obvious that there is plenty of room for improvement. However, it is very important to be careful with these aspects of the game because new additions could become terribly dull very quickly. The plethora of meetings you were talking about - which seem to be your main contribution to this 'leap of faith' so far - could be potentially very boring for the gamer. Even more repetition would presumably be involved! I personally would hate to see tacky add-ons involving telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and so on.

One thing I would like to see is the ability to directly communicate with your players. Right now, we must always go through the media, and I find that frustrating. It would have to be carefully managed but there are possibilities here that need to be explored in my opinion.

I cannot agree with your assertion that 'football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things' though. I feel this is as wrong as claiming that tactics are the only important thing in football. I think that you might find Jonathan Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid - mentioned very often on these forums - to be a most illuminating read and I would thoroughly recommend it given your negative stance regarding the tactical side of the game.

[crouchaldinho]

In my opinion it should be possible to be successful by having an above average squad (but not great) and a reasonable tactic to be semi-successful and then use the man management to take it up a level.

I find this is how it works for me. Are you using creator tactics or classic tactics?

Have a read of WWFan's post a few posts up where he talks about exactly this.

But for me this just isn't possible, I find I have to take advantage of the match engine short falls (in the case of one-on-one chances, or the so called "superkeepers" issue, thats playing much wider than I'd like) rather than a narrow,long ball tactic ala-Bolton/Stoke.

I wonder if this is a shortfall of the way that you are approaching the game, rather than a shortfall of the game itself. I often find that the people who make claims about the tactical side of the game are playing FM very much as if it is a game to be beaten. They look at how they can beat the match engine and the AI, instead of thinking about real life football. Reading your post, it seems that this is exactly what you are doing (e.g. looking for something to take advantage of the match engine).

Similarly, I get the impression that Tak does the same things and I also get the impression that he does the same with the media side of the game. He talks about giving the same answers over and over again, and about making sure that he doesn't 'upset the players'. This is all very gamey. It's an attitude which seems to be saying, 'how can I beat the game?' rather than 'how can I win this football match?' if you understand my point.

I have always approached FM by trying to apply real life football ideas to it. My tactics are based on what I see every Saturday when I attend a match and my man handling and motivation skills in the game are based on what I see going on in real life. I never try to 'beat' the game. I just try to win a few football matches and make some good decisions along the way.

I can't help but wonder if WWFan's post actually shed more light on this whole thread than I realised at first. He talks about the different ways to play the game, and I definitely play FM as a simulation, rather than as if it is a game to be beaten by finding some perfect combination. I feel that this is where the main issues with tactics, motivation and man management may lie.

[djwilko6]

One thing I would like to see is more ability to directly communicate with your players. Right now, we must always go through the media, and I find that frustrating. It would have to be carefully managed but there are possibilities here that need to be explored in my opinion.

100% agree here, I always thought it strange that it goes through the media at all really.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that team talks still need a lot of work. I realise this is about to possibly contradict what I said about tactics, but it is my opinion that they play more of a part than they should. For big occasions, yes maybe they should (taking Liverpool's CL win as a RL example there), but for more mundane games, I don't think the players should be AS influenced by a good team talk.

What should happen is that everything together should result in a successful team. As a sort of grading scale what I think should happen is as follows, tho obviously it wouldnt be as simple as laid out, and with luck not included:

Great players, better tactics = Team that will be challengeing for the title

Great players, average tactics = Challengeing for a CL spot, should struggle more against teams with the great players.

Average players, better tactics = Midtable/Europa spot.

Average players, average tactics = Midtable/relegation

I'll be happy to answer any combination and where I think they should finish.

[djwilko6]

I find this is how it works for me. Are you using creator tactics or classic tactics?

Have a read of WWFan's post a few posts up where he talks about exactly this.

I've tried both, I found it easier with the creator tho.

I wonder if this is a shortfall of the way that you are approaching the game, rather than a shortfall of the game itself. I often find that the people who make claims about the tactical side of the game are playing FM very much as if it is a game to be beaten. They look at how they can beat the match engine and the AI, instead of thinking about real life football. Reading your post, it seems that this is exactly what you are doing (e.g. looking for something to take advantage of the match engine).

Similarly, I get the impression that Tak does the same things and I also get the impression that he does the same with the media side of the game. He talks about giving the same answers over and over again, and about making sure that he doesn't 'upset the players'. This is all very gamey. It's an attitude which seems to be saying, 'how can I beat the game?' rather than 'how can I win this football match?' if you understand my point.

I'm not denying that fact, it very could be my own shortfall.

However I don't play to "beat the game", tho winning is always fun , I try to put into practise what I see on the pitch (I don't go to real life games tho) but if I can't get it to work aswell as I'd like I'll look for the weaknesses in the match engine. Most certainy that is my own shortfalls, but it could also be that I don't have the tools to put across what I'd like in the game.

Just as quick and easy example, I had reasonable success in get an Arsenal-like system working with short, quick, counter-attacking football. But what I really wanted is a way to get the 4 forward players in my 4-1-1-3-1 interchanging, but I just couldnt work it out.

I have always approached FM by trying to apply real life football ideas to it. My tactics are based on what I see every Saturday when I attend a match and my man handling and motivation skills in the game are based on what I see going on in real life. I never try to 'beat' the game. I just try to win a few football matches and make some good decisions along the way.

I can't help but wonder if WWFan's post actually shed more light on this whole thread than I realised at first. He talks about the different ways to play the game, and I definitely play FM as a simulation, rather than as if it is a game to be beaten by finding some perfect combination. I feel that this is where the main issues with tactics, motivation and man management may lie.

Perhaps this is true (I was writing my previous reply while you were writing this) and I have also thought that maybe posts on this forum have influenced my views on the motivation side of things, but I'm not usually that easily swayed and I'd have had to see something in game to help me understand where the OP's are coming from. Perhaps I was looking too hard for a link.

[crouchaldinho]

Just as quick and easy example, I had reasonable success in get an Arsenal-like system working with short, quick, counter-attacking football. But what I really wanted is a way to get the 4 forward players in my 4-1-1-3-1 interchanging, but I just couldnt work it out.

Bit off topic but have you tried increasing 'creativity' and increasing 'roaming from position' in the tactics creator? Also go to the advanced mode and use the 'swap' command to get two, or perhaps even all three players, to swap position. I like having the outer players on the wings swapping so that sometimes they cut inside, and other times they play as a true winger. Furthermore, using a deep-lying forward, or a complete forward on support, will get him dropping into space, and then try using an attacking midfielder on an attack duty behind him, who will push on. You should then see some pretty dynamic and fluid movement from the front four, with them all on a free reign to do what they want (high creativity), all of them roaming (roam from position) and some of them swapping positions too.

Drop into the tactics forum and ask for more advice if you're still struggling, as there are plenty of people willing to give their opinions.

[djwilko6]

Bit off topic but have you tried increasing 'creativity' and increasing 'roaming from position' in the tactics creator? Also go to the advanced mode and use the 'swap' command to get two, or perhaps even all three players, to swap position. I like having the outer players on the wings swapping so that sometimes they cut inside, and other times they play as a true winger. Furthermore, using a deep-lying forward, or a complete forward on support, will get him dropping into space, and then try using an attacking midfielder on an attack duty behind him, who will push on. You should then see some pretty dynamic and fluid movement from the front four, with them all on a free reign to do what they want (high creativity), all of them roaming (roam from position) and some of them swapping positions too.

Drop into the tactics forum and ask for more advice if you're still struggling, as there are plenty of people willing to give their opinions.

If I remember right the creative freedom was already high due to the type of player I chose them to be. For the swap position I had the RW swap with the ST, the LW swap with the AMC, the AMC to swap with the RW and the ST to swap with the AMC. Perhaps I was thinking about it too much in that respect, and I will give your idea's about deep-lying a try when I can get back into the save, currently playing a game with Livingston and one as Eastleigh.

[tak]

I'll find some time to answer other issues, crouch, but just a quick one about Greece (as my geneaology is partly Greek, to answer your question about nationality):

I watched all games more than once, and not just the ones after group stage. Greece's success is a monument of man management and psychology. One of the tactical tools that were used was probably man-marking. To hear that Greece's opponents didn't know what to do against man-marking, and that was the reason Greece conquered the champonship, is just very poor, I think you'll agree, and it was only written because wwfan was desperately looking for a tacical explanation of this success.

The fact that even the great man himself could not come up with a plausible tactical reason is very satisfying.

[Matt123456]

I think it is sad that a very good thread has turned into what seems to be a cussing match. I think this is due to the inability of Tak to realise that this is debate. Please try to consider other people's points which they have thought out well and have put the time and effort into putting forward. I think that it would also be a mistake to reduce the importance of tactics in this game. Mostly because I think that Tak is over estimating the importance of the tactics already in the game. Sure it is important, but, especially in FM 2010, there are other factors that affect this (e.g. moral, general form, media interaction, team talk etc.)It is also a mistake to say that tactics aren't important for a real life football manager. I cannot understand why you would say tactics aren't important. Succesfull tactics=succesful team, and unsuccesful tactics=unsuccesful team. However, it is not the overrall tactics that is the most important, but the individual tactics. And that is what I think needs to be improved in FM.

Firstly I think there needs to be more options for player instructions. There are already good options, but I think that there is definite room for improvement. I think also the player traits can be developed a lot further (the Aaron Lennon example that has already been mentioned,) and the manager should have a much greater say on how his player plays. Revamping the training system could also help this, (though I think that is something that everyone will agree on,) by adding training for certain set piece combinations. I would love to be able to devise set pieces for my players and seem them put it into action. I'm not so sure how this would be integrated into the system, but it would be a very good option to have if anyone from SI is looking at this. Also perhaps you should be able to train players more specifically, for example intensive training one-on-one's or deep crossing or cutting inside etc.

And please Tak could you not resort to insulting those who have put down perfectly valid and well-thought out points. It is frankly childish, and only succeeds in making you look foolish. And don't take this as a personal shot at you. It isn't.

[iacovone]

Someone mentioned a few football successes, two of which I talked about: Ajax and Greece. I argued that they were both based on leadership skills and psychology and that tactics were less important (not unimportant, mind you). What were the answers to that: Well, about Ajax I was told that I read wikipedia and about Greece that their success was based on the re-introduction of man-marking (?). In essence, I got no answers.

You are just rambling now. You got a great answer from WWFan regarding that Greek side.

Anyway, I will try and make some propositions later (sadly, I am not a programmer but I will try to start a brainstorming session)

That would be nice. You don't need to be a programmer to at least provide one idea for your 'leap of faith'. Any danger?

[iacovone]

I'll find some time to answer other issues, crouch, but just a quick one about Greece (as my geneaology is partly Greek, to answer your question about nationality):

I watched all games more than once, and not just the ones after group stage. Greece's success is a monument of man management and psychology. One of the tactical tools that were used was probably man-marking. To hear that Greece's opponents didn't know what to do against man-marking, and that was the reason Greece conquered the champonship, is just very poor, I think you'll agree, and it was only written because wwfan was desperately looking for a tacical explanation of this success.

The fact that even the great man himself could not come up with a plausible tactical reason is very satisfying.

I'm not returning to this topic as I can't actually read any more of your incessant drivel. You are an incredibly ignorant poster.

[wwfan]

I'll find some time to answer other issues, crouch, but just a quick one about Greece (as my geneaology is partly Greek, to answer your question about nationality):

I watched all games more than once, and not just the ones after group stage. Greece's success is a monument of man management and psychology. One of the tactical tools that were used was probably man-marking. To hear that Greece's opponents didn't know what to do against man-marking, and that was the reason Greece conquered the champonship, is just very poor, I think you'll agree, and it was only written because wwfan was desperately looking for a tacical explanation of this success.

The fact that even the great man himself could not come up with a plausible tactical reason is very satisfying.

There's been a huge amount written about how and why Greece won the Euros, with the re-introduction of man-marking receiving much focus. I have no doubt pride, commitment and

good motivational management also contributed, but to determine Greece won the Euros just because they were the most motivated team is massively assumptive. Firstly, how can you quantify how much more motivated Greece were than any other European side? Secondly, how much more motivated do they need to be in order to turn inferior players into quality results? It's impossible to do so and hugely dismissive of the levels of motivation and man-management skills of other national managers.

Greece won because they played in a manner that asked serious questions of other teams to which they had no answer. They man marked and pressed aggressively, which had both fallen out of favour in the continental game. Nobody had the answers to the questions they posed, allowing their players to gain in confidence of themselves and the system, and ultimately overachieve.

If you wish to take this discussion into theories of motivation and man-management instead of tactical, I am a management researcher by occupation and would be happy to discuss concepts of charismatic leadership and self-efficacy, as both (alongside other motivational concepts) have influence on performance. However, performance is never just other or self-motivated. It is always steeped in practice, which feeds back into theoretical development, which then loops back into practice. In football terms, the practice is the technical training and actual match play, with the theory the tactical efforts to improve the collective abilities of the players on match days. Good man management just better enables the transmission of theory into practice, providing employees with the motivation and confidence to try and succeed at new things and ideas and to improve performance at practices they already know.

[Tosh178]

I personnally think that tactics play a huge part in real life football. Just look at Hull City last year. In the first half (maybe the first 1/3) of the season we employed a 442 with quick wingers and an AMC that quickly moved into a 5 man attack when we had the ball. We passed the ball around and made space to go forward. Things went downhill for City when Marlon King was dropped (for legitimate reasons), and we changed to a 451 for the rest of the season. This formation, and the long ball tactics that came with it were the downfall of City.

I agree that man management and motivation are important in football, but in the second half of last season you could see that the players were clearly motivated, and putting in plenty of effort, but they were fighting a losing battle as the tactics didn't suit the team.

[tak]

There's been a huge amount written about how and why Greece won the Euros, with the re-introduction of man-marking receiving much focus. I have no doubt pride, commitment and

good motivational management also contributed, but to determine Greece won the Euros just because they were the most motivated team is massively assumptive. Firstly, how can you quantify how much more motivated Greece were than any other European side? Secondly, how much more motivated do they need to be in order to turn inferior players into quality results? It's impossible to do so and hugely dismissive of the levels of motivation and man-management skills of other national managers.

Greece won because they played in a manner that asked serious questions of other teams to which they had no answer. They man marked and pressed aggressively, which had both fallen out of favour in the continental game. Nobody had the answers to the questions they posed, allowing their players to gain in confidence of themselves and the system, and ultimately overachieve.

If you wish to take this discussion into theories of motivation and man-management instead of tactical, I am a management researcher by occupation and would be happy to discuss concepts of charismatic leadership and self-efficacy, as both (alongside other motivational concepts) have influence on performance. However, performance is never just other or self-motivated. It is always steeped in practice, which feeds back into theoretical development, which then loops back into practice. In football terms, the practice is the technical training and actual match play, with the theory the tactical efforts to improve the collective abilities of the players on match days. Good man management just better enables the transmission of theory into practice, providing employees with the motivation and confidence to try and succeed at new things and ideas and to improve performance at practices they already know.

Studies have shown that Greece showed 740KPa of motivation compared to an average of 265Kpa between the other teams. No, I'm kidding, I can't quantify how much more motivated Greece was, although it is proven that in order to beat a superior opponent, a team has to be 17% more motivated. I'm joking again.

Excuse the poor humorous attempts but I am asked some very strange questions.

And then, we have the strange notion that aggresive pressing and man management had fallen out of favour. Pressing definately hadn't. Man marking is used less than it used to, but it is still used, especially in lower levels (for example when the opponent has a very talented midfielder and your team is not so great in safeguarding space). As a matter of fact, most teams of lesser quality will use a man mark or two when they face a more talented opponent. In many ways, it was a natural choice for Otto. Did Greece's opponents "not know what to do against man-marking"? Are we seriously discussing that now? Had Greece's opponents never played football in their lives? I mean, come on lads. They didn't equip themselves with swords and shields and formed a phalanx. They played some man-marking when it was needed. In a while we are going to hear that if you man mark a few players the other team are having heart attacks.

I would like to clarify something else though: I never said that tactics play zero role. They do not. I said, firstly, that the higher you go in the world of football the less important they become and, secondly, that tactics take a disproportionally big part of the FM pie. Mainly because the psychology of man management is hugely underdeveloped in the game. Since people relationships, their formations and effects are extremely difficult to simulate in software, I said it would be a leap of faith that one would need to take in order to achieve such a simulation.

"If you wish to take this discussion into theories of motivation and man-management instead of tactical, I am a management researcher by occupation and would be happy to discuss concepts of charismatic leadership and self-efficacy, as both (alongside other motivational concepts) have influence on performance." I would very very much like to discuss those issues. That is why I started this conversation, I guess. Since you work with theories of motivation and I practice management (not football though) it will be a very interesting discussion.

[Tez01979]

I kind of understand where tak is coming from in this subject but I beleive his viewpoint is a bit skewed (This isn't an attack tak just an observation).

It's all very well in saying the game should have more focus on the motivational, man management aspect rather than focus on tactics but in reality in making it into a game is a lot difficult than it sounds. Now I have no experience coding games (I've known ppl who do) and 23 years experiance of playing them and tbf the current tech doesn't really allow it in the way tek is describing what he wants to see. In fact he hasn't really described what kind of things he would like to see.

If I'm right in thinking you'd rather be able to have more say on players and their attitude, how they behave in a match, how they interact with the manager, with other players, how they're thinking and feeling, that type of thing. This isn't something you can just put into a database and have a computer at 2GHZ to be able to calculate.

afaik AI programs atm tend to run off of large databases with some procedual gerneration thrown in and are not very sophisticated in terms of interaction. I.E Black and White To have the type of interaction your looking for would require a super fast computer and even then the results wouldn't be spectacular.

Where as I do agree that it would be beneficial to the game to have something like this the practicality of it atm is just not viable and yes I know you do managerial for a living but let the real experts that are the coding staff do what they can within the limitations that are put in place as it's hardly their fault. Work is only as good as the tools your given.

[tak]

Don't get me wrong Tez, I am not trying to tell the boys who do code how to do their job. If it is not possible, then fair enough.

I am just trying to get something more real.

[Blaupunkt]

I would like to clarify something else though: I never said that tactics play zero role. They do not. I said, firstly, that the higher you go in the world of football the less important they become

i could not disagree more with this statement, we only have to look at the England football team and some of managers we have had.

Kevin Keegan, fantastic motivator and i would guess a good to very good man manager but was average at best when it came to the tactical side of things, if i remember right when he left the position of England manager he actually went on record of saying he was not tactically good enough at that level.

Sven, Personally i would say an average motivator but good man manager, tactically ok better than Keegan but never had a plan B. most international managers knew how we would be setup and knew exactly how to counter and nullify his tactics, i even remember Leo Beenhakker who was managing Trinidad and Tobago in the 2006 world cup saying in a press conference that he knew what the England team would be and knew exactly how we would play. If you watched that game then you would have seen a team with very very good tactics playing a team who had A tactics of sorts, and England were out played and lucky.

Steve Mcclaren, awful in everything and so were England.

Fabio Capello, personally i would say he is a good motivator, and good man manager but he is regarded an a very good tactician with in the game, probably the best we have played since Glenn Hoddle was in charge, who was not the best man manager at times if reports are to be believed (that i remember reading in the papers) but was very good tactically.

[InterWolf]

I think one of the main problems SI face is the amount that a manager on his own can achieve. While they get the blame, much of the success is down to pre-existing and external situations. In a manager game, the influence of a manager clearly has to be exaggerated, hence much of the tactical focus.

[Tez01979]

I personally understand that and from the two threads that I've seen you post in I can see you making that point. Unfortunally such is life that not everyone sees it from the same point of view and are more defensive than they need to be. As from these two threads not one person has said in certain terms that I see your point but it can't be done. (Again not attacking anyone just a general observation as I have read through both threads) It's a damm shame it can't really be done (well it can just not well wouldn't want to see a cross of FM and Fifa Football Maanger now would we) as the prospect of having proper control in the game would give me great pleasure and hours of fun. Yes I'm a control freak, but ain't we all). Hell I'd love to see more interation in the Sims 3, More options and ways to buil citys it sim city games. More larger life like FPS but this is about 10 years away from becoming reality. So Tak don't give up that fsith cos some day your dream will be reality.

[tak]

I think one of the main problems SI face is the amount that a manager on his own can achieve. While they get the blame, much of the success is down to pre-existing and external situations. In a manager game, the influence of a manager clearly has to be exaggerated, hence much of the tactical focus.

Wow. This is actually a brilliant post...

[iacovone]

No, this is a brilliant post. One of the best I've seen on here. And again you've dismissed it. Are you really so close-minded to not be able to understand what is being said here?

There's been a huge amount written about how and why Greece won the Euros, with the re-introduction of man-marking receiving much focus. I have no doubt pride, commitment and

good motivational management also contributed, but to determine Greece won the Euros just because they were the most motivated team is massively assumptive. Firstly, how can you quantify how much more motivated Greece were than any other European side? Secondly, how much more motivated do they need to be in order to turn inferior players into quality results? It's impossible to do so and hugely dismissive of the levels of motivation and man-management skills of other national managers.

Greece won because they played in a manner that asked serious questions of other teams to which they had no answer. They man marked and pressed aggressively, which had both fallen out of favour in the continental game. Nobody had the answers to the questions they posed, allowing their players to gain in confidence of themselves and the system, and ultimately overachieve.

If you wish to take this discussion into theories of motivation and man-management instead of tactical, I am a management researcher by occupation and would be happy to discuss concepts of charismatic leadership and self-efficacy, as both (alongside other motivational concepts) have influence on performance. However, performance is never just other or self-motivated. It is always steeped in practice, which feeds back into theoretical development, which then loops back into practice. In football terms, the practice is the technical training and actual match play, with the theory the tactical efforts to improve the collective abilities of the players on match days. Good man management just better enables the transmission of theory into practice, providing employees with the motivation and confidence to try and succeed at new things and ideas and to improve performance at practices they already know.

I know I said I'd leave the thread but I can't. Tak you said:

I never said that tactics play zero role. They do not. I said, firstly, that the higher you go in the world of football the less important they become

Explain how this can be possible. In my opinion you have it completely the wrong way round.

Poor players at a lower standard are in that lower standard partly because they are tactically inept. They lack the footballing intelligence to be able to adapt and enact tactical instructions. At this level therefore, the motivational managers have the advantage as this becomes the difference. The VAST majority of lower league clubs in England simply adopt a 4-4-2, put players in at and shout at them until they are fired up enough to go out and kick the other team about and battle to a victory.

At the highest level, teams and managers have similar backroom teams of advice, equipment, facilities, etc. Managerial motivation at this level is secondary. It is here, when you have teams of top level players capable of adopting and sticking to tactical instructions that tactics are at their most important. Tactical discipline and understanding are the gamebreakers here. The line is so fine here that one lapse will cost you a goal. No amount of motivational speaking will amend this. I don't think this can be denied (though I'm sure you'll find a way of avoiding the issues I've posed)

[tak]

There are a few reasons why tactics are more important in the lower levels. Like you said, players there are less capable (technicaly, psysicaly, fitness wise etc.) It is therefore necessary that the manager

a) spends more time explaining and teaching tactics

b) spends more time working with tactics that will exploit those limited capabilities to the maximum

As a matter of fact, the worse players a manager has at his disposal, the more he has to work on his tactics.

However, at the higher level we meet very good players. The manager can just throw a talented player into the pitch, with minimal instructions, and sit back to watch (a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). Of course, we all always learn and those players do not by all means know everything, but they definately don't need the tactical guidance that lesser players need.

There are other things that happen in higher levels though, many of them come externally as InterWolf brilliantly pointed out. Players are very popular, they earn huge amounts of money, they have shrewd agends, negotiate massive advertising contracts, get photographed wherever they go, marry models and buy sportscars.

Do you really think that managing those players, you basically need to be a tactical genius? No, it is a lot more than that and it takes the strongest of characters to make those super star players form a team. Tactics at this level are important but certainly secondary.