It's time for a leap of faith

[wwfan]

Thanks for confirming my belief that you were employing MBA style jargon to determine what management and leadership is. I am very aware of the numbers of books and journal articles about organisational culture as it is my job to research them and write about them. I also teach MBA students. My own research activities involve the nature of engagement and resistance in organisational settings, which bounces off concepts of leadership, culture and management on critical and popular levels. My immediate superior is a major culture change expert, and I'm fortunate enough to be friends with and the occasional colleague of the leading figure in critical organisational theory in the world. I've also ran my own consulting company and been involved in designing and running leadership and communication development programmes in some of the biggest organisations on the planet.

Once more we are talking at cross purposes. You have had some MBA training, which is packaged as a set of skills and tools which transcend organisational types. Because you have experienced management/leadership/culture packaged this way, it is hardly surprising you have the belief that these tools are the most important elements of management. You've had it shoved down your throat that they are.

The basic problem we have is the rising contemporary belief that MBA programmes actually hinder good management practice as they avoid specific practical issues. The Harvard method of case study analysis is particularly criticised. As a result, some business schools are trying to redesign themselves in a manner that enables practical knowledge of an industry to synthesise with managerial training. INSEAD is the most famous example.

You are simply trying to import MBA level theory of management into the football management arena, avoiding the practical elements of the trade when doing so. You obviously haven't researched football tactics in any depth so cannot hope to communicate on a level playing field when discussing their importance in historical terms or for specific tournaments, as your Greek examples illustrate (btw, I had a Greek girlfriend during that tournament, so I watched every one of those matches). I also read about them in some detail when arguing with crouchaldinho about marking patterns in modern football.

Not only are you lacking in theoretical appreciation of or practical immersion into football (either of which I'd accept as a stance), you are also lacking in knowledge of management history, which limits your horizons as to what management is/can be. From your Arsenal example, you also seem to be very unsure as to what 'strong culture' actually is. You have provided me with a basic strategic overview, which, unfortunately, has nothing to do with practices of strong culture. You've espoused 'values' and 'beliefs' in classic MBA-style, but what do they mean?

You have also proved that you don't appreciate much of the non-tactical elements of FM as you fail to understand how or why certain elements of the game are in place. You've accepted you are unaware of the existence of certain elements of game-play, which means they are not obvious enough, not that they don't exist. For those of us who are aware of them, they are important aspects of the game. If your team is playing nervously, you need to know how to overcome it, both tactically and motivationally.

Likewise, good mentoring and PPM training can turn a good player into a brilliant player. Again, because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. I suggest you read The next Diaby's threads on Psychological Warfare and Player Development, which explains it all in great detail. Furthermore, a good affiliation network improves your chances of picking up quality overseas talent and getting your players great first team experience. Additionally, the whole point of delegation is so you don't have to do the work. How else can delegation be simulated?

The only point I agree with is that good managers can transcend organisational types if they have the humility to accept they need to understand the practices of the industry they are walking into before they make managerial decisions. That is the essence of good management. For a football manager, that is understanding how football works as a sport and an industry. From thereon in, good man and motivational management gives you extra advantages, but not before.

Your last post has basically clarified for me that you don't understand many of the development, man-management or motivational tools already in the game. This arguably means that they are not obvious enough, which is a more than acceptable stance, but not that they are random or cosmetic. If they feel so to you, it is because you aren't managing them well, not that they don't work. You are further trying to import MBA-style management ideas into the game, which I will stand against for an eternity as they have very little relevance to actual messy and practical management that modern managers have to cope with. They are especially irrelevant to sports management.

[RBKalle]

in that sense i think SI need to work more in tactic for hard core tactic people, i know some think twicking is fine as they want to play 5-10 matches a day ... but for hard core like me, i play one match a day and spend lots of time analyzing and studying before starting the game .. so twicking is not enough for me tbh

Well...

In that case, why not giving up on FM and becoming a manager in real life (assuming you're not one already)?

I don't want to sound brash, but ONE MATCH A DAY means it's not a game anymore. It's a job, or worse than it, because it's done for free on our free time.

The moment such a level of immersion (obsession?) will be the minimum requirement in order to fully "understand" the game, it'll be the day FM will die.

I mean, judging by the sort of posts we all can read around here, the vast majority of FM users tend to be more on the "casual" side of things, be it in terms of actual football knowledge or in terms of gaming dedication.

And already as it is now, FM seems to have put a lot of people off with its tacticoholism.

See, I think we're running in circles: people complain about a "strange event" [or about the game "cheating"] and what's the reply from the Gurus of the board?

it's your tactic!

People then complain about tactic being convoluted/inconsistent etc.

Gurus retaliate with "you don't understand football".

And so on...

The fact is: are all those who play and have some issues with a particular event either spoiled brats, total morons or football ignoramus?

Or MAYBE, and I stress MAYBE, the Tactical Wizard, as good as it is, is just a cosmetic simplification for a more complex, and seemingly hard-to-grasp, tactical management system which doesn't seem to totally reflect the VISIBLE DECISIONS in its simulation?

In all honesty, I refuse to think we all are stupid (some are thick, some watch football but don't really "get" it, past the fanboy level), so there might be an issue with the user-->ME interaction?

In my very humble opinion, hinting the tactical side of FM needs to be even more in-depth, thus complicated, reeks of elitism. Or at best of poor judgement.

As I said, it's a game, and it's supposed to be fun!

If I have to sit through painful hours of planning (for ONE game), just to see it all fall apart because I forgot to set a slider or to give an instruction to my fullback in injury time... well... how fun can that be?

I'd rather study or work, at least my time would be spent in something equally tiring but more rewarding than claiming Champions League cyber-Gold or an Awesome SuperTactic.

P.S. this has nothing to do with the OP's now-exposed ideas about MBA... something I'm not fond of, and I don't think we need in FM, at least not as he put it.

From "SimFootball: Tactical Micromanagement" to "Dr.Phil's Football Shrink"... not an improvement.

P.P.S. again, don't take this post personal. I just think a game should be fun, even if it comes at the expense of some tiny details.

I'm a supporter of the "Less is More" philosophy.

It's fine you want more tactics, but if it's already "too much" now, and it's not perfected yet, why adding more if the game (and the users) can't chew what they're biting already?

[tingting]

Well...

See, I think we're running in circles: people complain about a "strange event" [or about the game "cheating"] and what's the reply from the Gurus of the board?

it's your tactic!

People then complain about tactic being convoluted/inconsistent etc.

Gurus retaliate with "you don't understand football".

And so on...

The fact is: are all those who play and have some issues with a particular event either spoiled brats, total morons or football ignoramus?

Or MAYBE, and I stress MAYBE, the Tactical Wizard, as good as it is, is just a cosmetic simplification for a more complex, and seemingly hard-to-grasp, tactical management system which doesn't seem to totally reflect the VISIBLE DECISIONS in its simulation?

In all honesty, I refuse to think we all are stupid (some are thick, some watch football but don't really "get" it, past the fanboy level), so there might be an issue with the user-->ME interaction?

Hit the nail on the head. I really hate it when people start saying "You don't understand football". Sorry to disappoint such people but most of us do....what we don't understand is how apply that knowledge in the game. While the Tactics Creator has gone a long way is providing a base for tactics, it is still far from perfect. You still have gaps on the field which is more apparent in the defense.

Even a balanced philosophy with strategy set at standard has the central defender's closing down rating set at 7-8 (own half). That would mean my defender gets pulled out of position time and again. Now this would not have been a problem if he used his head before launching himself out of position.

This (in my opinion) is a major major flaw in the ME. Players on the field do not have any positional nor mental awareness. Central midfielders do not track back when a striker is taking on my central defenders (i would understand if they were too far upfront...but they just stand there on the halfway line) players do not cover a player when he is pulled out of position, rarely see attackers try to find some space upfront or players offer themselves for a pass.

Even in the tactics creator you can clearly see the issues. A deeplying playmaker has a mentality of 7-8 while a ball winning midfielder has a mentality of 10-11. Both have mentality of normal so why exactly are they on different numbers??? If you try to meddle with mentalities of any one of players, the whole tactic goes kaput (though not if you know what you are doing...this is no way concerned with the understanding of football...this is concerned with the understanding of football manager)

And you cannot set players to different mentalities (for example i would like my defenders to defend, midfielders to have a normal mentality and attackers to attack) This is not possible presently since it pulls the players too far apart and since they do not offer themselves for a pass, such a move would be disastrous.

The dynamism, the constant movement, that we see on a football field is clearly absent on the football manager field

I sincerely hope that the tactics creator is the first step that SI have taken in ditching the numbered sliders. Dont get me wrong...sliders are needed in the game because there is no other feasible way to tell your players what to do..but drastically cutting down on the numbers will allow many of those who do not understand the ME to watch and understand what is going wrong and take appropriate measures.

Someone said that ideas being suggested in this thread does not constitute the "leap of faith" that the OP was talking about. I disagree...A leap of faith does not necessary mean one very big feature...a number of smaller features that help in reshaping the football manager game that we know more than make up for that one big feature.

Toning down the tactical instructions (again dont get me wrong...i agree that tactics is the most important area for a football manager), improving manager-player interaction, improving manager-board interaction, improving manager-media interaction, improving training, improving scouting (not just the scout reports), introducing manager-fans interaction (not exactly a vital feature but would increase the enjoyment), introducing some features such as director of football etc....i bet many of us FM fanatics would have settled for these improvements if we had a choice between them and the biggest feature in recent years (3D)

[tak]

@ wwfan: I was almost certain you are in the business of teaching rather than doing, and I have no problem with that. Teachers and consultants have both a role to play and I definately have time for them. They are not participating in real time innovation and new frontier exploration but they can understand new discoveries, put them in writting and spread them.

At the beginning I had two theories about your negativity, one professional and one personal. Will I just summarise them for fun? OK:

- Because what I was suggesting was very difficult to simulate in a computer game, part of the FM market would not really care and the current economic climate is more about survival than trying Herculean projects, I thought you were on a spin mission to attract attention elsewhere, confuse the matter and ultimately kill the conversation. However, I am more inclined to believe my second theory which was that

- your theoritical occupation makes you bitter against those that "dare" to suggest things while coming from a practical background and haven't read huge amounts of literature.

Before we go any further I would like to suggest once more that you watch the games of Greece 2004. I think what happened in real time, watching them with your Greek girlfriend, was too strong emotionaly and bad for tactical observations. This is probably why you had to refer to studies afterwards to form conclusions. Please, I beg you, watch the games again and we will talk.

I really want to get this conversation moving so, if you don't mind, I would like to stop this debate about the use or relevance of an MBA (which is judged in real life, anyway) and also I would like to ask you to abandon the theory that my goal is to instill "MBA-style management ideas" into the game. This is something you invented either to derail the topic or because of personal envy. The concepts of leadership and culture, as they appear in bibliography, do not really interest me.

However, I am very interest to see if there is actually an opportunity for FM to simulate (to whatever extend possible) real life management. Furthermore, I am interest to see if there is an opportunity to simulate real life circumstances and their effect on a team. This way, I believe, an FM manager will deal with more real life problems and decisions, because they are extremely important, especially at top levels. The tactical side of FM can stay exactly as it is, I don't mind that.

It is all very well to answer "it's in the game" whenever someone suggests something. I am also prepared to accept that for the sake of conversation. So before we go any further, and since I "fail to understand them", can you make a list of the personality and character traits of players that actually exist in the game (other than "mental attributes")? Can you also tell us how they are affected?

[Matt123456]

@ wwfan: However, I am very interest to see if there is actually an opportunity for FM to simulate (to whatever extend possible) real life management. Furthermore, I am interest to see if there is an opportunity to simulate real life circumstances and their effect on a team. This way, I believe, an FM manager will deal with more real life problems and decisions, because they are extremely important, especially at top levels. The tactical side of FM can stay exactly as it is, I don't mind that.

What do you think the whole game is supposed to be doing? The whole point of the game is to try and simulate real life management. That is what the game is. And virtually everyone here will tell you that it does a damn good job of simulating management with the technology that is available at this time. It is all well and good making all these suggestions. I already said that it would be brilliant if we could have a conversation with the players. But technologically that is impossible, and technology will have to progress a lot for that to be made possible. It is also impossible to simulate the "real life problems and decisions" more than a certain degree because of how complicated it would be. FM already has some personal issues included - for example personal problems or failing to settle in a certain area - but it is simply not feasible, or even technologically impossible, to go a lot further than that. If you're going to make suggestions, please keep them within the realms of possibility, otherwise there is no point in this thread.

[tak]

What do you think the whole game is supposed to be doing? The whole point of the game is to try and simulate real life management. That is what the game is. And virtually everyone here will tell you that it does a damn good job of simulating management with the technology that is available at this time. It is all well and good making all these suggestions. I already said that it would be brilliant if we could have a conversation with the players. But technologically that is impossible, and technology will have to progress a lot for that to be made possible. It is also impossible to simulate the "real life problems and decisions" more than a certain degree because of how complicated it would be. FM already has some personal issues included - for example personal problems or failing to settle in a certain area - but it is simply not feasible, or even technologically impossible, to go a lot further than that. If you're going to make suggestions, please keep them within the realms of possibility, otherwise there is no point in this thread.

I understand your point of view. To what extend can technology simulate real factors at the moment?

[Matt123456]

I understand your point of view. To what extend can technology simulate real factors at the moment?

I don't know, as I don't have any specialist knowledge on the matter. But I think common sense will tell you what is unfeasible or not. I think that coding in new features to the game will always be complicated, and the fact that the features you are suggesting will have such a large impact on the game will mean that they will be especially complicated. I stress that I am not sure of this, but from what I have read earlier on this thread and on other threads, it would be extremely difficult to introduce a whole raft of new personal factors for players. If you think about it, adding more personality traits for players seems relatively simple, but it would effect the way they work with coaches, the way they work with other players, their relationship with the media, how well they work under pressure, how they respond to criticism or praise and how that affects their performance in the match and a whole host of other things. And these mental traits are already in the game - albeit in a very simplified form - so to make such a big change, though benefiting the game, is probably not feasible from SI's point of view. Other changes, for example introducing more ways to interact with players, would also be extremely complicated, and I think suggesting a complete revolution, or a "leap of faith" wouldn't work. Suggesting ways to tweak the current system is a much better way to get SI to take notice as it is easier to do, and most likely they may already be considering for FM 11 anyway.

EDIT: I totally agree with improving the way you interact with players. I don't think there is any doubt this needs to be tweaked.

[wwfan]

...because of personal envy...

You really need to get over yourself.

Player Personalities

Ambitious: Ambition = 15-19 & Loyalty < 10.

Balanced: none of the rest

Born Leader: Influence = 20 & Determination = 20.

Casual: Professionalism = 2-4 & Determination < 10.

Devoted: Loyalty = 20 & Ambition = 6-7.

Determined: Determination = 18-19 & Ambition >9.

Driven: Determination = 20 & Ambition > 9.

Easily Discouraged: Determination = 1.

Fairly Ambitious: (Ambition = 15) or (Ambition = 16-20 & Loyalty >9).

Fairly Determined: (Determination = 15-17) or (Determination = 18-20 & Ambition < 10).

Fairly Loyal: (Loyalty = 15-17) or (Loyalty = 18-20 & Ambition = 8-14).

Fairly Professional: (Professionalism = 15-17) or (Professionalism = 18-20 & Temperament < 10).

Fairly Sporting: Sportsmanship = 15-17.

Honest: Sportsmanship = 20.

Iron Willed: Pressure = 20 & Determination > 14.

Jovial: Pressure > 14 & Temperament > 9.

Leader: (Influence = 19) or (Influence = 20 & Determination < 20).

Light-Hearted: Sportsmanship > 14 & Pressure > 14 & Determination > 9 & Temperament > 9.

Low Determination: Determination = 2-5.

Low Self-Belief: Pressure = 2-3 & Determination < 10.

Loyal: Loyalty = 18-19 & Ambition = 1-7.

Model Citizen: Determination > 17 & Ambition > 17 & Loyalty > 17 & Pressure > 17 & Professionalism > 17 & Temperament > 17 & Sportsmanship > 17.

Model Professional: Professionalism = 20 & Temperament > 9.

Professional: Professionalism = 18-19 & Temperament > 9.

Perfectionist: Ambition > 17 & Professionalism > 17 & Determination > 17.

Realist: Sportsmanship = 2-4.

Resilient: Pressure = 17-19 & Determination > 14.

Resolute: Determination = 15-17 & Professionalism = 15-17.

Slack: Professionalism = 1 & Determination < 10.

Spineless: Pressure = 1 & Determination < 10.

Spirited: Pressure > 14 & Professionalism = 15-17 & Temperament > 9.

Sporting: Sportsmanship = 18-19.

Temperamental: Temperament = 1-4.

Unambitious: Ambition < 6.

Unsporting: Sportsmanship = 1.

Very Ambitious: Ambition = 20 & Loyalty < 10.

Very Loyal: Loyal = 20 & Ambition = 1-7.

Each can be shaped by assigning the correct tutor. For further details on how best to do this:

Please read:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=12330

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=4791.0

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=8016.0

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=8015.0

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=7938.0

http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/index.php?topic=5259.0

[tak]

Thanks wwfan, this is indeed a good start. Let me work a bit with this information in hand...

[wwfan]

He's wrong about some of the team talks, but most of the advice he gives is excellent.

[tak]

Fan, can I ask one more thing? I am changing some of my players now on fmrte to model citizens, perfectionists etc. and some I make slack, casual etc. What actually changes in the way the react to external factors?

Edit: Also, how is their game affected by their personalities?

PS: Briefly, no need to get into trouble. Just give an example.

[tak]

While I am studying FM's "man management" system, here two wise quotations:

Bill Shankly: "Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple."

And my particular bugbear, this week, is ********-artists who try to over-complicate a perfectly simple game by waffling on interminably about formations and tactics; holding midfielders, players in the hole, galloping wing-backs blah, blah, blah snooze yawn in a bid to make out they’re more clever than everyone else. There is, of course, a time for such talk, but as somebody clever once said about analysing humour, dissecting football to that degree is like dissecting a frog. Nobody is particularly interested and the frog dies. — Barry Glendenning.

lol

[wwfan]

@ wwfan: I was almost certain you are in the business of teaching rather than doing, and I have no problem with that. Teachers and consultants have both a role to play and I definately have time for them. They are not participating in real time innovation and new frontier exploration but they can understand new discoveries, put them in writting and spread them.[/Quote]

I am a management researcher who used to run his own company which specialised in teaching managers to manage. I thus managed people who explained management to managers. Originally, I did this at a practical level, but have since moved into academia to do it at a more theoretical level. I am perfectly experienced with both stances.

At the beginning I had two theories about your negativity, one professional and one personal. Will I just summarise them for fun? OK:

- Because what I was suggesting was very difficult to simulate in a computer game, part of the FM market would not really care and the current economic climate is more about survival than trying Herculean projects, I thought you were on a spin mission to attract attention elsewhere, confuse the matter and ultimately kill the conversation. However, I am more inclined to believe my second theory which was that

- your theoritical occupation makes you bitter against those that "dare" to suggest things while coming from a practical background and haven't read huge amounts of literature.

You brought theory into the conversation by referencing your MBA from a good business school. Now you have realised I have a considerably stronger foundation in management theory than you, theory is irrelevant and practice the only viable stance? You need some level of consistency in your argument. You can't chop and change the importance of theory/practice in order to suit your opinion.

As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I have walked the walk. I now talk the talk.

Before we go any further I would like to suggest once more that you watch the games of Greece 2004. I think what happened in real time, watching them with your Greek girlfriend, was too strong emotionaly and bad for tactical observations. This is probably why you had to refer to studies afterwards to form conclusions. Please, I beg you, watch the games again and we will talk.

Google is your friend. In order to refute this, you need to illustrate how Greece weren't man-marking (with examples) and/or validate your position as a theoretical or practical expert on football tactics or football management. If you are neither, your opinion that Greece didn't man mark has no weight at all.

I really want to get this conversation moving so, if you don't mind, I would like to stop this debate about the use or relevance of an MBA (which is judged in real life, anyway) and also I would like to ask you to abandon the theory that my goal is to instill "MBA-style management ideas" into the game. This is something you invented either to derail the topic or because of personal envy. The concepts of leadership and culture, as they appear in bibliography, do not really interest me.

Once more, you brought it up. You argued that football management should include instilling values and beliefs into players. When I challenged you it was patently obvious you didn't know what it meant, let alone how it is done. If you are going to argue things are part of the management experience, you have to be able to defend the stance.

As for the derailing the discussion and personal envy, it is almost too ridiculous for words. I am trying to get you to explain exactly what this 'leap of faith' should entail and what evidence you have to support it. I'm basically doing the job I do in real life in this forum, which is to improve people's understanding of generalised and specific concepts of management. As of yet you have produced a few interesting snippets of ideas and a lot of biased personal opinion drawn from a pretty low-level understanding of management theory and your personal understanding of management practice. I'm simply trying to get you to expand upon and clarify what you think management means and illustrate the related importance of these ideas to football management. How you have concluded that means I am envious of you beggars belief.

However, I am very interest to see if there is actually an opportunity for FM to simulate (to whatever extend possible) real life management. Furthermore, I am interest to see if there is an opportunity to simulate real life circumstances and their effect on a team. This way, I believe, an FM manager will deal with more real life problems and decisions, because they are extremely important, especially at top levels. The tactical side of FM can stay exactly as it is, I don't mind that.

Then you still need to be clear what that means. I've been trying to get that out of you for post after post now, but you refuse or are unable to clarify what this means.

It is all very well to answer "it's in the game" whenever someone suggests something. I am also prepared to accept that for the sake of conversation. So before we go any further, and since I "fail to understand them", can you make a list of the personality and character traits of players that actually exist in the game (other than "mental attributes")? Can you also tell us how they are affected?

See my above post.

Fan, can I ask one more thing? I am changing some of my players now on fmrte to model citizens, perfectionists etc. and some I make slack, casual etc. What actually changes in the way the react to external factors?

Edit: Also, how is their game affected by their personalities?

PS: Briefly, no need to get into trouble. Just give an example.

They can affect squad gelling, performance in match types (big/small games) and score lines (likelihood of nervousness, complacency,anger), reaction to team talks, ability to reach potential, willingness to stay at a club instead of following the money, relationships with other players, ability to settle in a country, ability to learn a language, ability to adjust to a different football culture, media interaction, reaction to media interaction etc, etc. Quite how is down to the virtual manager to work out.

[tak]

You brought theory into the conversation by referencing your MBA from a good business school. Now you have realised I have a considerably stronger foundation in management theory than you, theory is irrelevant and practice the only viable stance? You need some level of consistency in your argument. You can't chop and change the importance of theory/practice in order to suit your opinion.

This is a blatant lie. You talked about what MBA teaches and I replied that I hold one but wasn't tought what you said. You brought MBA up. Are you drunk by any chance?

I did not change my stance on theory/practise importance. How did you conclude that?

[wwfan]

This is a blatant lie. You talked about what MBA teaches and I replied that I hold one but wasn't tought what you said. You brought MBA up. Are you drunk by any chance?

at?

I also explained why you arguably weren't taught that, which is because MBA programmes are going through a massive re-evaluation as to their relevance to the problems and practices of modern management. Unless you were at a select few business schools, you wouldn't be taught any critical or reflective practice.

I only mentioned the MBA in passing as an example of something else. You are the one employing the MBA qualification as an example of what modern management is, unless you are assuming your own management style is what football management should be. It has to be one or the other. Are you employing personal experience of management to determine what football management should be or drawing form a theoretical body of work (MBA related studies)?

The whole problem of MBA style management is that it assumes its skills and tools are transferable to other forms of management no matter its practices. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is exactly what you seem to be arguing for. Basic, MBA-style man and motivational management skills transferred into the football management arena as the most important tools of the trade. If this is not what you are arguing for and you are only using your own personal experiences of management as a basis for critique, how do you expect to be taken seriously? How can how you choose to manage be the most important elements of football management? You have to be basing this on theory not practice at the basic level.

I did not change my stance on theory/practise importance. How did you conclude that?

Exhibit A, m'lud: Your dismissal of the trait of leadership as a buzzword is, of course, your prerogative. You are also entitled to dismiss the concept of culture. Since you like books, I am sure you will find thousands that show that leadership and culture are very real and very important. (By the way I hold an MBA and what I learned was not what you describe. It is from a highly-ranked university as well and I am only saying that just in case you reply "there are many MBAs these days"). Culture is not something that "supposedly explains organisational performance". It does explain it and I confirm that every day. Same with leadership. Far from being a buzzword, I observe its presence or absence daily in a few organisations.

Exhibit B, m'lud: - your theoritical occupation makes you bitter against those that "dare" to suggest things while coming from a practical background and haven't read huge amounts of literature.

So, which is it? Are these thousands of books important or not? Or is the practical experience you allude to in the former paragraph the only thing of importance?

[tak]

Hi wwfan. Look, I will for the first time attempt to do the many separate quotes thingy that everyone else seems to have mastered. Wish me luck:

I am a management researcher who used to run his own company which specialised in teaching managers to manage. I thus managed people who explained management to managers. Originally, I did this at a practical level, but have since moved into academia to do it at a more theoretical level. I am perfectly experienced with both stances.

I regret to say that, but you are not. You used to manage a company of teachers and then you became a teacher. Like I said, you teach management techniques from books written by people who watch real managers who actually do something. Once more, no problem with that, I find it wonderful. You don't have to convince me that you have management experience anyway. I know pretty well.

You brought theory into the conversation by referencing your MBA from a good business school. Now you have realised I have a considerably stronger foundation in management theory than you, theory is irrelevant and practice the only viable stance? You need some level of consistency in your argument. You can't chop and change the importance of theory/practice in order to suit your opinion.

As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I have walked the walk. I now talk the talk.

This is a lie. I never had any intention to talk about MBAs etc. I don't really give an F about me holding one or not, by the way.

Google is your friend. In order to refute this, you need to illustrate how Greece weren't man-marking (with examples) and/or validate your position as a theoretical or practical expert on football tactics or football management. If you are neither, your opinion that Greece didn't man mark has no weight at all.

I really think you had too many drinks. Find the exact point where I said "Greece didn't man mark". I actually said that "in many ways it made sense for Otto to use man-marking". My position on that is that man-marking did not confuse experienced international players because it is common. And then you said "yes, but they managed 9 people", which by the way does not exists in any of the links appearing in the first page of your Google search.

Once more, you brought it up. You argued that football management should include instilling values and beliefs into players. When I challenged you it was patently obvious you didn't know what it meant, let alone how it is done. If you are going to argue things are part of the management experience, you have to be able to defend the stance.

As for the derailing the discussion and personal envy, it is almost too ridiculous for words. I am trying to get you to explain exactly what this 'leap of faith' should entail and what evidence you have to support it. I'm basically doing the job I do in real life in this forum, which is to improve people's understanding of generalised and specific concepts of management. As of yet you have produced a few interesting snippets of ideas and a lot of biased personal opinion drawn from a pretty low-level understanding of management theory and your personal understanding of management practice. I'm simply trying to get you to expand upon and clarify what you think management means and illustrate the related importance of these ideas to football management. How you have concluded that means I am envious of you beggars belief.

Sorry wwfan, I am really worried at this moment. Are you absolutely sure you feel OK? You accuse me of trying to instill MBA ideas into the game, I say that was never my intention and you reply that I argued that the manager should instill values and beliefs into players. Can the latter be independent of the former?

Look I will very reluctantly be perfectly honest: I did use the world "or" about envy because I am not sure. But if it was there I know where it would come from. Some teachers feel sometimes bad that they are not as good as the ones who actually do. I think you are worried that if we were to manage the same football team in real life I would do better, although I haven't read the Pyramid.

[wwfan]

As I said before, you really need to get over yourself. You also need to learn to argue factually, not from unsubstantiated opinions about people you don't know and haven't met. You further need to be consistent in your arguments. Additionally, you need to learn to clarify your stance when asked to or people will believe you don't actually have anything more than hot air to back it up. You further need to stop insulting people when you are unable to answer their questions. I am all for passionate debate, but I don't expect to have to deal with puerile comments about my mental or emotional state.

First question: Where have you got your ideas on good management from? Your own experience or from theoretical studies?

Second question: If it is the former, how do you know whether you exhibit good management? If it is the latter, where did you get the theory from?

Third question: Given you argue it should be part of FM, what evidence do you have that this type of management is fundamental to the football management experience?

If you can answer these questions, your OP about a 'leap of faith' has validity.

Specific questions: What are values and beliefs in a managerial/organisational sense? How do you know this (i.e. where did you get this information)? How are they managed and what evidence do you have that they are part of football management?

Successfully answer these questions and I'll accept that there is a fundamental lack in the game that needs addressing.

[tak]

I also explained why you arguably weren't taught that, which is because MBA programmes are going through a massive re-evaluation as to their relevance to the problems and practices of modern management. Unless you were at a select few business schools, you wouldn't be taught any critical or reflective practice.

I only mentioned the MBA in passing as an example of something else. You are the one employing the MBA qualification as an example of what modern management is, unless you are assuming your own management style is what football management should be. It has to be one or the other. Are you employing personal experience of management to determine what football management should be or drawing form a theoretical body of work (MBA related studies)?

The whole problem of MBA style management is that it assumes its skills and tools are transferable to other forms of management no matter its practices. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is exactly what you seem to be arguing for. Basic, MBA-style man and motivational management skills transferred into the football management arena as the most important tools of the trade. If this is not what you are arguing for and you are only using your own personal experiences of management as a basis for critique, how do you expect to be taken seriously? How can how you choose to manage be the most important elements of football management? You have to be basing this on theory not practice at the basic level.

I am not employing the MBA qualification as an example of what modern management is. The fact is I do not have any specific theory on what modern management should be. In practise, I recognise good or bad management but good comes from different styles and bad is caused by different flaws.

You are assuming that I opened this thread to imposse a certain style of management. I did not do it for that. What I would like to see is that a chance is given to the virtual manager to actually manage a lot more different things than tactics, work more realisticaly with many more real life factors and develop into whatever type of manager he develops into.

Exhibit A, m'lud: Your dismissal of the trait of leadership as a buzzword is, of course, your prerogative. You are also entitled to dismiss the concept of culture. Since you like books, I am sure you will find thousands that show that leadership and culture are very real and very important. (By the way I hold an MBA and what I learned was not what you describe. It is from a highly-ranked university as well and I am only saying that just in case you reply "there are many MBAs these days"). Culture is not something that "supposedly explains organisational performance". It does explain it and I confirm that every day. Same with leadership. Far from being a buzzword, I observe its presence or absence daily in a few organisations.

Exhibit B, m'lud: - your theoritical occupation makes you bitter against those that "dare" to suggest things while coming from a practical background and haven't read huge amounts of literature.

So, which is it? Are these thousands of books important or not? Or is the practical experience you allude to in the former paragraph the only thing of importance?

I don't know if the books are important, I have not read many of them but I know they argue that culture and management are real and important. I also know you like books, so I thought you would read them.

I am not trying to impose my personal management style to the game. I am saying that the game should become a lot more real from a management point of view so that everyone will be able to develop whatever management style they want.

[wwfan]

Then clarify it. What do managers do that football managers also do that is missing from the game? How do you know this?

If you can't answer these questions, you really don't have a point.

[tak]

As I said before, you really need to get over yourself. You also need to learn to argue factually, not from unsubstantiated opinions about people you don't know and haven't met. You further need to be consistent in your arguments. Additionally, you need to learn to clarify your stance when asked to or people will believe you don't actually have anything more than hot air to back it up. You further need to stop insulting people when you are unable to answer their questions. I am all for passionate debate, but I don't expect to have to deal with puerile comments about my mental or emotional state.

First question: Where have you got your ideas on good management from? Your own experience or from theoretical studies?

Second question: If it is the former, how do you know whether you exhibit good management? If it is the latter, where did you get the theory from?

Third question: Given you argue it should be part of FM, what evidence do you have that this type of management is fundamental to the football management experience?

If you can answer these questions, your OP about a 'leap of faith' has validity.

Specific questions: What are values and beliefs in a managerial/organisational sense? How do you know this (i.e. where did you get this information)? How are they managed and what evidence do you have that they are part of football management?

Successfully answer these questions and I'll accept that there is a fundamental lack in the game that needs addressing.

I am sorry that you feel insulted but I thought there was something wrong because you are constantly misquoting me. If you say you haven't touched a drink, I have no reason not to believe you.

OK, the dreaded questions!

1st) I got my ideas on good management from experience at work, from school, from reading newspapers and magazines, reading poetry and history, playing team sports and talking to people in the pub.

2nd) N/A

3rd) I don't argue that a particular style of management should be part of FM.

I hope I have done well in the above, but let us go to the next:

What are values and beliefs in a managerial/organisational sense? How do you know this (i.e. where did you get this information)? How are they managed and what evidence do you have that they are part of football management? I am sorry, I can't remeber the definition but I learned it in school. Arsene Wenger has a strong set of values and Jose Murinho has a different strong set of values. Since they are football managers, their values are part of football management.

How did I do?

[tak]

Then clarify it. What do managers do that football managers also do that is missing from the game? How do you know this?

If you can't answer these questions, you really don't have a point.

That's easy: Managers go to the Xmas party, where they are involved in a funny conversation with another employee while waiting for a taxi to go to the club. Football managers also do that. That is missing from the game. I know this because I was told the same story buy a manager and a football manager (not joking)

Do I have a point now?

[wwfan]

I am sorry that you feel insulted but I thought there was something wrong because you are constantly misquoting me. If you say you haven't touched a drink, I have no reason not to believe you.

OK, the dreaded questions!

1st) I got my ideas on good management from experience at work, from school, from reading newspapers and magazines, reading poetry and history, playing team sports and talking to people in the pub.

2nd) N/A

3rd) I don't argue that a particular style of management should be part of FM.

I hope I have done well in the above, but let us go to the next:

What are values and beliefs in a managerial/organisational sense? How do you know this (i.e. where did you get this information)? How are they managed and what evidence do you have that they are part of football management? I am sorry, I can't remeber the definition but I learned it in school. Arsene Wenger has a strong set of values and Jose Murinho has a different strong set of values. Since they are football managers, their values are part of football management.

How did I do?

If I'm misquoting you it is largely because I am struggling to follow your train of thought. It seems to be leaping all over the place. This might well be my own interpretive bias and is so, I apologise. However, you might also be leaping around.

1: So, largely through theory and interpretation with some practical experience at a later age.

2: Why is it not applicable? You obviously think you are a good manager and perform in ways that FM should simulate. There must be personal reasons for this.

3: No, but you argue that FM is missing fundamental managerial practices from its simulation. I'm still trying to work out what they are or whether they are already in the game and you just haven't noticed them (which is another argument entirely).

4: That's more an example of traditional charismatic management rather than contemporary structures of management than are intended to transfer organisationally important values and beliefs (held separately from those of individual managers) into the employee mass. If you are arguing purely for the importance of charismatic management, you have a point, but arguably it is already simulated to some degree. If you are arguing for the introduction of structures of engagement to be managed by the user, which is how modern values and beliefs are built into organisations, then I need examples from football management to accept their relevance.

[wwfan]

That's easy: Managers go to the Xmas party, where they are involved in a funny conversation with another employee while waiting for a taxi to go to the club. Football managers also do that. That is missing from the game. I know this because I was told the same story buy a manager and a football manager (not joking)

Do I have a point now?

So, you think FM should simulate the liminal space. Might be interesting but also a huge technical challenge to stop it from being gimmicky and boring.

[tak]

Sorry w, I don't know what "liminal space" is.

I understand that there are many things introduced in FM during the latest years in an attempt to pacify voices asking for realism and detachment from just tactics. They are basic and work in a straight way (if you are winning by two goals say pleased). However, it would be better they did not exist because their exostence hinders progress rather than helps it.

If I say, I want to be able to talk to my players like a football manager in real life would (give them a bollocking, crack a joke, invite them for dinner and attend their wedding) you will answer "player interaction is already in the game". If I say I would like when I am fighting for the signature of a young player to be able to promise him that he will be the face of Nike and also buy a car for his mother, you will say "bidding wars already in the game". If I say I would like to take my players to a remote monastery on the Alps where I will torture them mentaly and physically you will say "training schedules already in the game".

I know there is a real danger of features like that becoming gimmicky and repetitive. But is this the only danger? And if so, is it absolutely impossible there is a solution if there is some "out-of-the-box" (sorry about this terrible phrase) thinking? Maybe a tiny leap? Of faith?

[Guest]

It should be 70 or so % right/superior players and 30 % right tactics. Sometimes it seams like 20 % players and 80% tactics. If both teams have equal players then tactics should win.

At the moment better tactics will almost always beat better players.

[tak]

If I'm misquoting you it is largely because I am struggling to follow your train of thought. It seems to be leaping all over the place. This might well be my own interpretive bias and is so, I apologise. However, you might also be leaping around.

By the way, I might be leaping around. But I am trying to say something that is not completely formed and that happens in conversations. Your probing helps a lot and I think we will get somewhere. Sorry about the personal comments.

[wwfan]

Management takes place in two distinct locales, the ritual frame and the liminal space. The ritual frame outlines the type of language and behaviour expected for the managerial/organisational situation, with performance evaluated via these expectations. Breaking the ritual frame often leads to censor or embarrassment. Liminal spaces are the spaces in which critique/management takes place away from the ritual expectations of the organisation. THis could be at an informal lunch, in social gatherings, even in the bathroom.

Ritual frames of the football manager are, for example:

Training and coaching

Tactical preparation

Motivational management

Media interaction

Player acquisition/sales

Some of these frames operate between the manager and players, others between the manager and club administrators/directors, others between the manager and journalists. Each has a set of official and unofficial rules that determine behaviour patterns. How well the manager performs in each of these frames determines how well he does his job. As such, they are key points of simulation.

Arguably, some are simulated better than others. Although I'm hugely biased, I'd argue the new tactical creator/touchline management functionality simulates tactical management with reasonable sophistication. At the very least it is a step forward from the abstract, technical nature of the sliders. However, the link between tactics and training is weaker than it should be. I also think much of the motivational management is too hidden away, meaning the average user misses it. Media interaction is necessarily repetitive. Player acquisitions and squad management could also possibly be improved.

The liminal space covers all areas of management that do not fall within the expectations of the organisation and surveillance of its employees. Although it is an important facet of management and is generating a lot of research interest, there are distinct problems with simulating it.

Firstly, by nature it is unmapped, random, complex and/or chaotic. Because there is no ritualised understanding of the space, it is impossible to design a decent simulation of its processes.

Secondly, it has only recently been researched to any degree. Whereas research into these spaces does stretch back almost 20 years, it is only now attracting mainstream interest. Until the importance of these spaces to processes of good management has been better determined, it would be extremely risky to try and simulate any of its forms.

Thirdly, because it is random and chaotic, actual attempts to simulate it cannot avoid being gimmicky and/or repetitive. FIFA MAnager suffers from such elements, none of which improve the gameplay, most of which are annoying. In my opinion, if it can't be done well, it is best not to do it at all.

[HammerDaFanBois]

Why don't you guys swap phone numbers? That way you can keep your irrelevant MBA circle-jerk private.

[tingting]

Can we stop this "i know more than you do" fight? The OP made a decent start to this thread, making a couple of valid points. As far as i remember reading this read...he did not say that tactics do not matter in real life. What he said was tactics are not the only thing that a real life manager does but the game's focus is solely on tactics. People suddenly started jumping on his back claiming that he said tactics was not important (even though he denied saying that in a couple of other posts)

The thread was soon dragged into an analysis of why Greece won the Euro 2004 (more of it later) and now who holds a better MBA degree or understands it better. His main points in the first couple of posts were:

• In essence, this game is only tactics' tweaking. Nothing much else. It still amazes me that there are, for example, 20 different settings on how much should a player close down. Or, 20 different levels of time wasting?! Fair enough, they have tried to simplify but just for the player. The machine remains as big and complicated.

• There is too much concentration in tactics. Unrealisticaly much. Real life football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things.

• A lot of work needs to be done on personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players).

• The point though is that the whole tactics system takes up an enormous amount of time during the game, withou baring resemblance to reality.
  

The thread was completely derailed with many questioning (almost all of the time with a patronizing tone) his knowledge in tactics, his knowledge in football and his knowledge in management. You mean to say that most of the areas in the game needs no improving???

Do you mean to say that the area of personal relationships is good in the game. I hardly believe that Rafael and Fabio will list Dunga in their favored personnel should he suddenly decide to call them to the national squad. Because this is what happens in the game. You give a national debut for a player and he lists you among his favored personnel. From then on it is very easy to unsettle a player at his club. For a game that aiming to be realistic...this is hardly so.

I am finding that when someone opens a thread with a decent suggestion to make...or criticizes the game (however slightly) that thread is being dragged into fights (this thread, the superkeeper thread and the not a rant thread) They either pick only one point, twist it into their own understanding and start to fight...or they patronizingly question the opposite party's football knowledge (maybe they should apply for managerial posts if they understand the game completely)...or start bringing up stats and studies (which are done by academics)....or start throwing insults

There are so many good suggestions in this thread. No one has talked about it...yet people come and pick up the same point and start to fight. The second page is all about "I know more about MBA\football that you" arguments while the first page was all about why Greece won Euro 2004.

With respect to that wwfan i took your suggestion and did a search regarding that subject and came up with 4-5 different sites, none of which say man marking won Greece the tournament. In fact one of the betting sites put up a blog during Euro 2008 said

But the most likely answer lies in their German manager Otto Rehhagel and the team spirit the he instilled into the minds of the Greek players.

. Many say Greece had a disciplined and organized defense...but none say they won it for their man marking. Now i believe that the truth is both of you are right...saying that only tactics won is wrong and saying that only motivation won is wrong. Portugal faced and lost to Greece in the opening match...

Is Scolari such a blockhead that he was unable to pinpoint what went wrong in the first game when his side was preparing for the biggest match in its history? Portugal had three of the best flair players in the game during that time (Ronaldo, Figo and Deco) or is it that Greek defenders are some of the best in the business when it comes to man marking??

Edit: Just curious... I see the above post has been given an infraction...can i know why???

[Almondo]

I have to say that tingting is right in the fact that this thread now seems to have got into oneupmanship. As he says you are both in your own ways right about the game etc, but come on guys lighten up and stop all this "I know more about management/football management than you do" as quite frankly it's getting old.

What is football management about? What distinguishes a succesful manager?

The two questions that tak raised above from his OP are the two that seem to get to the core of things concerning what management is about etc. In my opinion football management is about not just the Tactics side of the game but also the man management of your team etc. I mean is a manager like say Dave Penny at my local club Oldham going to be able to effectively manage a team like Chelsea. It goes without saying that I believe he will not be able to as he would have to deal with the ego's of players like Drogba, Anelka, Ballack, Lapard et al.

Now go to the flip side and just for fun say that Carlo Anchelotti took over at Oldham. He would probably be able to get the team playing succesful attacking football just by utilising tactics as there aren't the big ego's at Oldham to deal with and he could probably get them out of League 1 into the Championship. However if Oldham was full of players with big ego's that need massaging Anchelotti would have to work that bit harder to do exactly the same thing.

Now tak's second question is the one which does raise points that all FM players should really think about. I mean a successful manager needs to have the tactical nous to get a team gelled into a tactic and playing said tactic well, he also needs to have great man management skills to deal with the ego's of his players and also any problems that may arise, he also despite his scouts etc needs to be able to recognise a quality player from an average player in order to make his team one of the best.

I believe that tak has thought about this and realised that and if we're all honest we'll admit that he is right when he says that tactics are relied on too much in FM. Now I understand this point and it is a very valid one. I believe that the options of man management are limited at the moment within the game, what with repetitive press conferences et al.

There are a lot of valid points in the thread that have got lost throughout due to what I will call the sniping being done by certain parties posting here (and yes I do include tak in this). So come on guys lets stop all the nonesense about Greece etc and get back to a well informed discussion about how the game that we all love to play can be made better in the future.

[tingting]

As he/she says you are both in your own ways right about the game etc, but come on guys lighten up and stop all this "I know more about management/football management than you do" as quite frankly it's getting old.

It is a he please

[Almondo]

It is a he please

Edited I was just making sure

[wwfan]

And there I was thinking we were finally getting somewhere. The point I've made consistently throughout the thread is that management needs to be immersed first and foremost in the practical requirements of an industry, which in football means understanding football at a technical and tactical/strategic level. From thereon in, other managerial skills become applicable.

Tak has now finally clarified in which areas he feels FM is lacking. It seems to me that he has actually underestimated much of the man and motivational management already existing in the game, which suggests it is not obvious enough and needs work fleshing it out, both in terms of making it a more in your face feature but also adding richness and depth. He has also identified that he wishes for more 'liminal' aspects of the management experience to be added into the game, which I think is likely to be problematic.

Had he actually clarified all of this at the start, we wouldn't have had to go through all the questions and debate. However, he couldn't have clarified it initially as he didn't know exactly what he was talking about until I pushed him to try and think it through. Despite his unnecessary insults, a lot of the last part of this page has been very useful in terms of trying to understand what might and might not be good/bad about certain elements of the game. Ultimately, that is what heated debate tries to achieve. I have a thick skin and can take the insults as long as the final outcome is positive.

I still don't believe the type of management skills he wishes to improve should be core to the game and more important than football-related managerial skills, but at least I have an idea of where he is coming from. I also think much of his knowledge comes from MBA type theory that is problematic and largely irrelevant to football management, which has meant his parallels seem forced and clumsy. However, I do think he has a strong point when considering the importance of liminal management.

All i have tried to do is sharpen his fuzzy ideas. Unfortunately, this has meant my having to strongly defend my own knowledge levels so actually starts to think things through precisely and clearly. I had no intention of doing so originally, but when you face accusations of ignorance and strongly biased pronouncements, you need to argue forcefully in response.

NB: The poster got infracted for posting a puerile response to what I believe to be a heated but useful debate. It was a completely unnecessary post.

Jonathan Wilson on Greece:

Lurking behind progress, though, are old ideas waiting to be reapplied. Most obviously in the past decade, Greece won Euro 2004 playing with man-markers, setting opponents a problem they had forgotten how to solve. The success Stoke had with Rory Delap's long throws last season fall into a similar category. Teams now have remembered how to counter them, and so they are no longer such a potent threat. It may even be that towards the end of the next decade, as centre-backs have got used to advancing, that the poacher is resurrected as a counter to attacking defenders.

[fuzzrab]

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.

I have only read up to this point so far so wont comment yet on the overall debate but felt i needed to comment on this point.

As i understand it so far, and i am prepared to adimt i could be wrong here, you are saying Tak that motivation plays a huge part in real life and thus should be reflected in the game also?

If you cant quantify motivation in real life how do you expect it to be implemented into the game itself.

So as i understand it you are asking SI to implement a feature into the game which can't even be quantified in real life?

Apologies if this is incorrect.

[tingting]

Jonathan Wilson on Greece:

Lurking behind progress, though, are old ideas waiting to be reapplied. Most obviously in the past decade, Greece won Euro 2004 playing with man-markers, setting opponents a problem they had forgotten how to solve. The success Stoke had with Rory Delap's long throws last season fall into a similar category. Teams now have remembered how to counter them, and so they are no longer such a potent threat. It may even be that towards the end of the next decade, as centre-backs have got used to advancing, that the poacher is resurrected as a counter to attacking defenders.

Thats what i am saying. Each and every one of them have got their own opinion. You believe that man marking won them the Euro, tak believes that motivation won them the Euro, while the actual truth may be a combination of the two. Saying you are right...or tak saying he is right...it leads to nothing but fights which derails the main aim of a thread and ultimately leads to mods closing down a thread that had started with a perfectly valid point.

[wwfan]

Of course the truth is a combination of the two. However, the immersion in specific practices of football has to be the primary focus of football management, not generic motivational and man management skills. No team can beat superior technical opponents without a plan of attack, however motivated they are.

Personally, I think the game has things relatively well balanced, although I accept that maybe the motivational/man management aspects are possibly not clear or obvious enough. They can all be worked out, but perhaps they shouldn't have to be.

[Mitja]

- tactical area: the game should lean more towards buliding tactics than 'rock, scisiors, paper' way, like it is at the moment.

- training area: linked to what I wrote above, training is fundmental aspect of any sport. tactics cannot work without training and at the moment training and tactics have no conection in FM. irl teams cannot change between differenet tactical styles as easily as in FM (we have maybe even too much tactical control, we shouldn't have without linking tactics to training).

- squad/man managment and motivational area: no doubt it can improve. equaly important aspect as tactics for me. being a manager of Real Madrid is not hard because of finding a right tactics, it's because you're managing 10 superstar egos. the tools available right now are not sufficiant. there should be much more problems we would face and should be able to deal with.

- media/supporters aspect: it is a motivational tool at the moment, which I think it shouldn't be, at least not as drastic as it is. in this context we should be able to interact with players directly (motivational tool). and this area should be a interaction tool with supporters' and media opinon. it's about handling the pressure, which is very important part of managers life at the top level of football.

[Cydver]

Hi, after all the mud-slinging in this thread I think it's fair to say it's going way too off-topic. Strange really how Greece '04, which was used as an example, became the main talking point of the topic after...a couple of posts.

First off, I want to say, wwfan, fantastic job on the new tactical system. It's a big step towards the perceived "realism" of simulation. I would continue on about how removing a number of slider positions to about 5 or 6 would be even better, but that would be off-topic.

So anyway, for all the work done on the tactical side of FM, I think tak is right to say that the other features require a real lot of work. I do not agree at all with him that tactics play any less of a role than they already do in the game, however. I'm no Premier League manager, but I did give "tactical instructions", if you would call it that, to my absolutely amateur class team. We were the least technically skilled, I would think, but we won and drew 1 game each in a 3-game mini tournament. We lost the other game through a dodgy decision

But anyway, the point is, tactics do play a huge part in football. You can't throw people onto the pitch with a tactical outline devised over 10 minutes and expect to win games. That's "Fun" for a while I guess, but then it just becomes boring. Even during training sessions, managers will think about tactical instructions. So as of now, the tactical system is good, the sliders should go (oops!), but the importance of tactics in the game is just alright in my opinion.

What I fully agree with tak on, however, is the improvements in man-management. We know (personal) manager stats have been pretty useless, I'd like to see SI try something innovative with that. Morale and player personalities are in the game and there are a lot of player personalities indeed, but the impact of these variables, slightly underrated. Look at Greece 04, the example that has been used so much here. How would the mean defense have been a tight defense in the first place without great morale, and great teamwork? Morale and personality needs to have a bigger prominent role in the game.

Then there's training, which is too generic a schedule and until now I haven't figured out what the "Training Performances" information in the Manager Overview contributes to a FM-er's management. I'm pretty sure training plays a huge part in football but in this game, its value is severely underrated. Not in terms of effects of course, as I can see the players improve. But I'm certain managers don't assign schedules with clicks or even words like, "We're gonna do some light shooting practice today guys," without going in-depth, or allowing wingers to train crossing instead of long throws at the same time.

The day-to-day basic man-management aspect is pretty much raw and could do with some real improvement.

And about player/media interaction, I believe it's made clear hundreds of times on this forum already that what we have right now is extremely primitive in this day and age. Examples? It's great that we have a box to type additional lines into our conferences, but how much do these lines influence? I would like to see some official or at least user-based research in defense of this. Then there are the repeated questions, the 5 "Best-to-worst" answers and more.

So in all, I agree SI should step up its efforts in improving these aspects which have been pretty neglected bar a couple of minor additions...correct me if I'm wrong. But in no way do I agree with tak that tactics should be less important in FM at all. I would like more tactical freedom, as a matter of fact!

[RBKalle]

the new tactical creator/touchline management functionality simulates tactical management with reasonable sophistication. At the very least it is a step forward from the abstract, technical nature of the sliders.

I Agree.

Although I still think (correct me if I'm wrong) the Tactical Wizard is just a cosmetic and simplified interface given to the still-existing 20-level sliders system.

Maybe the number of available settings for each slider can be drastically reduced?

However, the link between tactics and training is weaker than it should be.

Indeed.

First and foremost, we should be prevented from being able to change formations as often as we change underwear.

In FM I often feel there is a reward for not knowing which formation suits our players better... The opponents' reaction to X tactic is IMO too high.

It's unlikely I can defeat a team which "struggle against 4-4-2 formation" if I've been playing 3-4-3 the whole time and I just decide to field an impromptu 4-4-2.

Every team should have a "formation prowess" rating for each formation in order to prevent user (and AI too) from going OCD and playing 10 different tactics every season.

I also think much of the motivational management is too hidden away, meaning the average user misses it. Media interaction is necessarily repetitive. Player acquisitions and squad management could also possibly be improved.

It's not a matter of "missing it". It's a matter of not fully knowing WHAT to do.

Players interaction outside of team talks and form praise/criticism is non-existent. And even team talks are a bit too cryptic.

Player A is angry/concerned/wants to leave/complacent etc... but what can WE do to change things?

I praise player B's form, yet he's "under no illusion". So, he means he can play better, fine. But why is he now playing average and looking complacent?

Player C wants to leave, fine. I transfer list him, and now he's suddenly angry because he felt treated unfairly? WTF???

The list could be go on and on and on and on... but you get my point.

We "get" how interaction works, and how personalities work. We just don't get how to effectively deal with it.

The liminal space covers all areas of management that do not fall within the expectations of the organisation and surveillance of its employees.[...]In my opinion, if it can't be done well, it is best not to do it at all.

The game can, as per now, BARELY present the basic aspects of everyday, traditional, football-life in a convincing and functional way

The last thing we need is the far-fetched addition of fancy MBA drivel.

When/if Tactics, Training, Interaction, Scouting, Transfers and Media will be mastered, THEN we can talk again about "liminal space" and other human resources shiny-but-empty concepts.

[crouchaldinho]

Of course the truth is a combination of the two. However, the immersion in specific practices of football has to be the primary focus of football management, not generic motivational and man management skills. No team can beat superior technical opponents without a plan of attack, however motivated they are.

Personally, I think the game has things relatively well balanced, although I accept that maybe the motivational/man management aspects are possibly not clear or obvious enough. They can all be worked out, but perhaps they shouldn't have to be.

I agree with you WWFan and I think that the opening poster's whole argument has been totally devalued by the fact that he has a basic ignorance about what is already in the game. This is most clearly evident in his lack of knowledge regarding player personalities and their influence in FM. Quite how anyone could reach the 'ground-breaking' conclusions that he has without possessing even a basic knowledge of the existing content of Football Manager is beyond me.

He has also shown a lack of knowledge about football generally, which has resulted in an attempt to dismiss the importance of tactical theory in football. On top of this, he has shown a total lack of ideas in the first place, and often resorted to insulting people in lieu of actually making any kind of valid point. I'm quite frankly shocked that this thread has managed to reach two pages.

There is no doubt that improvements can be made but to claim that there needs to be a 'leap of faith' (the irony, no doubt, being that we need to make a leap of faith to grasp the opening poster's intangible and non-existent argument) with a starting point of almost total ignorance about what is currently represented in Football Manager is quite frankly bizarre. An even deeper irony, perhaps, is that the opening poster is so quick to rubbish books and writing on football in favour of the practical, and yet asks us to accept the idea that the game needs a 'leap of faith' to something undefinable, intangible and, let's be honest, something non-existent in his own mind.

What this thread amounts to is an attempt to offer criticism from the point of view of ignorance (both about the game of football and the content of Football Manager) and what follows is a desperate attempt to find something, in fact anything, wrong with the game. It is a missed opportunity of a thread, which could have resulted in some interesting discussion if it wasn't for the absurd rantings of the opening poster and his arrogant insistence that he has some kind of 'truth' to offer us (he does at least show himself to be adept at providing insults if we don't agree with him). A missed opportunity indeed.

[wwfan]

I don't know. I think we are getting somewhere. I have something a little more crystalline to post that has been inspired by this thread but no time tonight. Hopefully at some point over the weekend.

[tak]

I am dissapointed with wwfan trying to wrap things up by "oh very well, this is liminal space, kind of complicated, everything else is in the game, case closed, I'm going to bed". Edit: I just read you actually have more to offer. This is great.

Thanks tingting and Almondo for trying to put the conversation back on track. The usual argument coming from experts is "but you haven't read the pyramid". I've noticed this behaviour of intentionaly steering away from the subject but I think we will keep it in the right course (unless the teachers get really wild and the thread is closed).

I think we all agree so far that the football manager must have knowledge of football. I never said he must not. Of course he makes important tactical desicions. If we take that as a given, there are many people that agree with me that tactical decisions are not as important as some people will have us think. Bill Shankly said football is simple, and it is.

I quote something a read yesterday: "Of course, without intelligent formations and plans there would be no football, but it’s wrong to believe football is merely the sum of its tactical parts. Yet today Jonathan Wilson’s Inverting the Pyramid: A History of Football Tactics sells like hotcakes, and every fifteen year-old boy who’s won a few games on Football Manager posts up their opinions of Wenger’s use of attacking midfielders, with the firm belief that if only they’d been in Arsene’s place to option Vela as a lone striker, Arsenal would never have drew [fill in the the lower table underdog here]. It’s considered conventional wisdom that tactics make the football and not vice-versa, and that’s led to an over-emphasis on the importance of the manager as the driving force of the game. Players are no longer considered capable of taking any on-pitch leadership, or of using their instincts and playing to their individual strengths by grasping a fleeting moment, brilliantly, to change a game midstream."

There are lots of people that are tired of endless tactical talk but we never hear them because they don't write books nor spend ages waflling about formations. Tactical conversations can be intelligent but they can often lead to a form of "mental self satisfaction". Tactical changes evolve in football naturaly, affected by countless factors. They do not necessarily start at the top level either as someone suggested. Intelligent managers react to changes with changes and sometimes they come up with something brilliant in terms of tactics. Some football successes are a result of such tactical changes, some have happened with good old tactics and are not.

I find wwfan's argument that you can do the same in FM (succeed based on tactics but also succeed based on man management), is not a suitable answer to my argument. Man management in the game is not as real as tactics are and certainly not as satisfying. There is a reason for that:

FM is based on the central idea that football management is a lot of tactical decisions with a little man-management on the side. I strongly disagree that man management "is there" and a player can exploit as much as he wishes. I have read all of the links that wwfan provided and I verified that FM this so called "man management" is a side function that works in a linear way (this player knows PPMs, tell him to teach that player). Furthermore it is a contradiction that a small function has such big effect on a players game. And it is actually this effect that makes many people say "what are you talking about, man-management is already important in FM". Morale and players characters play a big role but all you can do about them is follow the instructions (tutor him, and say pleased if he gets five sevens etc.). There is zero sense of reality, zero imagination.

Having said that, I congratulate FM on actually putting personalities in the game and I admit I wasn't aware of that. They are a good start but there is not a good follow up. The great man himself admitted that the only way to mould personalities is through tutoring. This is poor. What needs to be created is a dynamic environment where personalities evolve in realistic ways, affected by not just the manager, but the team philosophy, the fans, the media, the sponsors, events in personal life, experiences, local events, national triumphs or disasters etc. InterWolf correctly pointed out, that the game is neglecting external factors.

This all can become very complicated and we end up with a strategy game. This would indeed be dreadful. I don't want something as time consuming as it sounds because I do agree with many people that said this game needs a lot more fun.

If the game detaches itself from feeling as it belongs to a secret brotherhood that meet to discuss formations and player positions (and dismisses everyone else as ignorant, even people that would be a lot better football managers than them, with half the "tactical knowledge"), adds reality and fun, I think we're gonna enjoy every minute of it.

But this will not happen by adding three factors and pretend "man management" has been taken care of. This will happen as a concious all, encompassing change.

[edgar555]

Who did that quote come from? Where did you find it? You can't put something up to defend your argument but then not back it up with the who, what, why etc?

Besides it doesn't necessarily defend your argument anyway

[tak]

Who did that quote come from? Where did you find it? You can't put something up to defend your argument but then not back it up with the who, what, why etc?

Besides it doesn't necessarily defend your argument anyway

You are right. It defends part of my argument.

[bigdunk]

What needs to be created is a dynamic environment where personalities evolve in realistic ways, affected by not just the manager, but the team philosophy, the fans, the media, the sponsors, events in personal life, experiences, local events, national triumphs or disasters etc. InterWolf correctly pointed out, that the game is neglecting external factors.

Do you have any examples from real life where a players personality has been affected by the fans, the media and sponsors? What sort of events in personal life, experiences, local events, national triumphs and disasters are you suggesting? And again, do you have examples from real life the back these up?

And finally, make some suggestions about how this could be implemented! It's your big idea, but you seem to be expecting everyone else to do the work. How should these external factors fit into the game? How should you interact with them? To what degree should they be modelled in FM? How should players reactions be modelled and displayed to the user?

[crouchaldinho]

Another good question would be to ask if the opening poster feels that possessing even a basic knowledge of the existing content of Football Manager might be a help or a hindrance to him in reaching conclusions about how well man management and motivation is reflected in the game?

[edgar555]

You are right. It defends part of my argument.

And still you don't tell us who it was, where or why? I'm sure you are on a wind up.

[crouchaldinho]

And still you don't tell us who it was, where or why? I'm sure you are on a wind up.

A quick search reveals that it is from EPL Talk:

Link to the article

[edgar555]

Show me where I called you a liar? Others in the thread haved cited their sources, not sure why you won't do the same.

[tak]

Another good question would be to ask if the opening poster feels that possessing even a basic knowledge of the existing content of Football Manager might be a help or a hindrance to him in reaching conclusions about how well man management and motivation is reflected in the game?

Please, crouchy, this time you have to stay calm. What you are doing is very rude.

And still you don't tell us who it was, where or why? I'm sure you are on a wind up.

Do you really think I am lying?