It's time for a leap of faith

[Blaupunkt]

Also, bear in mind that this is just an example of how complicated real life is (never black and white) and how tactical decisions play a small role in the bigger picture of team management. I am not writting this as a suggestion of what should be introduced in a game yet. OK? Let us move on.

but i have to strongly disagree with that comment in a "football" environment. one of the biggest problems with in the English game IMO is the total lack of real tactical understanding, this was shown during the 80' and early 90's with English teams played a long ball system that totally bypassed the midfield and worked on the percentages Watford under Graham Taylor being a good example imo, Yes he might have been successful to a degree but this type of tactical setup put the English game back 10 years or more when comparing our game to that of the Dutch, Italians etc.

and why do you keep saying, "OK, let us move on" as if you are giving some sort of seminar and we have come to hear you speak ? what would you like to move on to exactly ?

[crouchaldinho]

Blaupunkt, you're spot on and also making me laugh a little with your last comment.

[edgar555]

Blaupunkt, I hear you loud and clear. This is something I just posted on another thread(asking what is more important team building vs tactics)

"You can't have one without the other, however, very good tactics can get you some joy with bobbins players, but it doesn't work the other way round."

For those that need a translation, bobbins = rubbish/poor/not very good.

Now wheres our lecturer gone to take us in another direction?

[tak]

Blaupunkt: I am saying "let's move on" because I am using a whole paragraph from my post over and over again as answer to the same argument.

Now, who will be brave enough to say that this example resembles nothing in real life?

[Tomer]

Now, who will be brave enough to say that this example resembles nothing in real life?

Fine, I'll sacrifice myself. I find it hard to believe that a lot of managers have to rescue their players from a cocaine addiction or tell on players' mothers to get them in line. Or that sponsors will try to make sure rival players will keep up their drinking.

Go on, let me have it.

[tak]

lol fair enough. I am not asking if it happens all the time, just if it could happen.

[SCIAG]

I don't remember that happening in real life.

More to the point, do you have any idea how hard it would be to code such an extraordinarily complicated simulation of life? If it was possible, if would have been done by know, and the future of the universe would be known.

[edgar555]

Tomer, well done, I'd have taken that one as well though!

[Tomer]

I don't remember that happening in real life.

More to the point, do you have any idea how hard it would be to code such an extraordinarily complicated simulation of life? If it was possible, if would have been done by know, and the future of the universe would be known.

He's not proposing this to be in the game. He just wants to make conversation, I think.

[tak]

I don't remember that happening in real life.

More to the point, do you have any idea how hard it would be to code such an extraordinarily complicated simulation of life? If it was possible, if would have been done by know, and the future of the universe would be known.

That's OK, many things have happened without me or you remembering them (actually we never know what happens behind the scene)

Bear with me for a while about implementation. I agree it is extremely complicated and not doable.

There is something we need to establish first though. That there are factors with profound effect on team performance that have nothing to do with tactics.

There are also football moments of brilliance that can be explained by a tactical desicion, although this is not the real explanation.

[Blaupunkt]

TAK: the problem is from where i am standing is, you are not actually answering anything, you are using your own assumptions that the higher up the world of football management you go the less important tactics become and the more important motivational techniques become, when ever someone counters this argument as i and others have done a few times you either totally dismiss it and do not bother to answer directly or indirectly or just repeat your own assumptions.

IF you want to try and change peoples opinion that the higher up the world of football management you go tactics do infact become less important then please show some real life examples and tell us how tactics were less important and not just the odd quote that seems to back up your argument, If you cannot find or do not know of any real life examples then please try and explain why you believe this to be true with out going into some sort of fantasy tale of make believe where a cocaine addicted play boy who loved to party makes a deal with a player he hates to win the champions league while having it off with 2 prostitutes on the way which was organised by his own manager ?!!

you present us with this "wild story" as some sort of evidence of what can happen in real life and seriously expect "us" to take what you are saying seriously ?

i am sure you would get far more support if you clearly wrote down what sort of things you would like adding to the game and what elements in the game currently you would like to see developed with maybe a few suggestions on how these things could be developed.

[tak]

Hi Blaupunkt

I am really really sorry for not answering all the questions that were asked, I want to go back and do it though. There was a considerable amount of attacks and I could not deal with everything at the same time.

I gave this fictional example to show how can a few factors react with each other in certain way that will produce a football success that has not much (but not nothing at all) to do with tactics. I tried to put some funny bits into it and my attempt at humor was clumsy, I apologise. However, it is a perfectly valid example.

I cannot provide you with any real life examples to show you how many different factors interacted to create a football success that had mainly to do with other things rather than tactics, because I can never be aware of all those factors and their interaction. However, I know of examples that standard tactics but brilliant general management lifted mediocre teams to stardom. I mentioned Greece and some people disagreed. That is fair enough

Bear also in mind that I only mentioned a few factors and a few interactions, but in real life they and their combinations are trillions and they multiply as we are going on higher league levels. It is terribly wrong to explain everything with tactics, although a lot of things can be explained this way.

Now, in terms of relevance of importance, I believe that tactics are not the most important thing in football success. Other people believe they are. However, I got strong reactions by people who categorically dismissed my belief and accused me of ignorance and (most funnily) an incompetence to understand football.

To them, I answered with this little example so that we can move on.

[muncherdave]

This thread has gotten absolutely ridiculous. Are we here to talk about something that could actually benefit the game or are we here for endless arguments and speculation about the level of players with personal problems needing help from their manager (which is something that seems unlikely we will get any great idea the scale of in the near future)?

Seriously, I'm starting to think tak either just loves arguing, boosting his post count or both.

[batata169]

Only thing that is wrong is the players' off the ball movement and passing, it needs HUGE improvement.

I think even millie mentioned it on the FM-BRITAIN forums.

[Blaupunkt]

Hi Blaupunkt

I am really really sorry for not answering all the questions that were asked, I want to go back and do it though. There was a considerable amount of attacks and I could not deal with everything at the same time.

I gave this fictional example to show how can a few factors react with each other in certain way that will produce a football success that has not much (but not nothing at all) to do with tactics. I tried to put some funny bits into it and my attempt at humor was clumsy, I apologise. However, it is a perfectly valid example.

I cannot provide you with any real life examples to show you how many different factors interacted to create a football success that had mainly to do with other things rather than tactics, because I can never be aware of all those factors and their interaction. However, I know of examples that standard tactics but brilliant general management lifted mediocre teams to stardom. I mentioned Greece and some people disagreed. That is fair enough

Bear also in mind that I only mentioned a few factors and a few interactions, but in real life they and their combinations are trillions and they multiply as we are going on higher league levels. It is terribly wrong to explain everything with tactics, although a lot of things can be explained this way.

Now, in terms of relevance of importance, I believe that tactics are not the most important thing in football success. Other people believe they are. However, I got strong reactions by people who categorically dismissed my belief and accused me of ignorance and (most funnily) an incompetence to understand football.

To them, I answered with this little example so that we can move on.

ok, fair enough but i still feel you could explain your own beliefs as to why you say motivation and man management become more important that the implementation of very good tactical approach the higher up the football echelon you go. there is no need to give an assumed real world example as you did with your "story" just clearly state why you believe this to be true.

as for the Greece example, i am sorry to say i am firmly in the "tactics" camp here, that's not to say man management and motivational skills did not play an important roll but to try and claim they were more important than the tactical approach of the Greek team i find some what hard to believe, this is not because some of the members on this forum also believe this to be true but because it has been so well documented by a lot of knowledgeable people who work within the football field, the fact that you dismiss all of this to be untrue and your own opinion to be the correct one i just cannot accept, maybe if you were to try and explain why and how you come to your beliefs then i and others would better understand your point of view, you cannot just say "i am right and you are wrong" and leave it at that.

seeing as you quoted Bill Shankly to try and back up one of your arguments i will leave you with a quote from the great man him self (and no im not a liverpool fan).

"Fire in your belly comes from pride and passion in wearing the red shirt. We don't need to motivate players because each of them is responsible for the performance of the team as a whole. The status of Liverpool's players keeps them motivated."

>>Source of Reference<<

[nick...]

Am i being sensible ambling into the middle of this? Maybe, maybe not...

The Greece example seems to have been done to death - but people are still flogging it, so i thought i'd throw a couple of different examples out there - may not help the conversation, but at least it will give us all something new to discuss...

Example 1 - Sam Allerdyce's Bolton

Big Sam's side was famed for his negative long ball tactics, but his wasn't the only side doing this at the time, although it was certainly the most successful and overachieving. To my mind the main factor for his success was his ability to convince big names and egos to A - sign for a club like Bolton and B - keep them happy at the club and reasonably united - even Nicholas Anelka. His ego management and ability to sell the club to the big names, i would argue, were the crucial factors in Bolton's success in his reign.

Example 2 - Sir Bobby's & Graeme Souness's Newcastle

Bobby Robson's Newcastle consistantly made European and Champions league places, with a squad containing a host of talented, but oft wayward players, including Lee Bowyer, Kieron Dyer and Craig Belamy. I don't intend to knock Sir Bobby's tactical skill in any shape or form, but the drastic dissintegration of fortunes of the club consisting of largely the same players (and the very public disharmony between these) can surely be mainly attributed to the two managers vastly contrasting styles of man-management. Perhaps this example shows that with man-management - like with tactics - the largest and most noticable effect is when it's done badly.

Of course, I could be drastically wrong in my assessment of both of these, but please feel free to discuss, as I think I learnt something I didn't know before during the previous discussions about Greece.

Kindest regards to all.

[tak]

First of all, I would like to thank nick for providing two examples.

ok, fair enough but i still feel you could explain your own beliefs as to why you say motivation and man management become more important that the implementation of very good tactical approach the higher up the football echelon you go. there is no need to give an assumed real world example as you did with your "story" just clearly state why you believe this to be true.

In a small level team you have less talented players but also less demanding. The fans are less, the media attention very small etc. Despite having not much else to do, tactics are important to overcome technical shortcomings and utilise the little talent you have at your disposal

In the world of big boys you have a lot of work to do dealing with 20 highly paid men in shorts, with fat contracts and celebrity life styles. Tactics are still useful but they become less important because "any old tactic will do", to quote an international manager who wishes to stay anonymous.

[Almondo]

PLEASE, if you want to disagree or you think I am ignorant or a lunatic or whatever PLEASE DO NOT POST.

tak this thread has been going somewhere and well but saying this has confirmed that you really think that people should only post in your threads if they agree with you. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I thought this was in the General discussion forum so a discussion which has both for and against arguements should be allowed.

You've made all these points, but you haven't given any ideas on how to implement into the game. Do you really think that making all that is feasible? If you do tell us how instead of preaching your so called "ideas." Simply those sort of scenarios are one off. There is no point SI coding that into the game, as it will be used so rarely that the it won't be worth the bother of adding it in. It already includes such things as personal problems with you or other players aswell as struggling to settle in. I agree this could be expanded, but definitely not to anywhere near the kind of depth that you seem to be suggesting.

Matt you're right here. he isn't giving ideas he's just going on about some hypothetical situation he's dreamed up.

Blaupunkt, I hear you loud and clear. This is something I just posted on another thread(asking what is more important team building vs tactics)

"You can't have one without the other, however, very good tactics can get you some joy with bobbins players, but it doesn't work the other way round."

For those that need a translation, bobbins = rubbish/poor/not very good.

Now wheres our lecturer gone to take us in another direction?

edgar555 this is exactly the point I was making in my previous post at the end of page 2 of the thread. You know the one about swapping Carlo Anchelotti and Dave Penny around clubs. Also I love the end comment.

@tak. tak I really think you need to just sit back and read through some of your posts in the thread. I understand that you're passionate about what you posted inyour OP but to say things like I quoted at the top of this post really shows your ignorance as to what a discussion really is. This thread which both myself and Tingting tried hard to pull back on track after you went into a war of words with wwfan is still headed off the rails really.

Also your continual critisism of Chrouchaldinho over the first two pages of the thread by stating that he's swore at you and others in threads that he's posted in is quite frankly ridiculous. I've been around the forums for a couple of years now and not once in any thread have I seen him use anyform of curse etc.

You have some good ideas locked up in your brain. Of that there is no doubt but seeing as how you've named the thread "It's time for a leap of Faith", I would have thought that you would have at least taken the time to tell us what this leap of faith could be. Like I've said it's obvious that you're passionate but please instead of telling us all that because we don't agree with you on any point you've made we're wrong, maybe try and take on board that people like Chrouchaldinho, wwfan et al do have valid ideas and points to make.

As others have said if you just tell us not to post if we disagree it seems as though you just want to lecture us on what you believe that the game needs etc. Please remember that no matter how smart or not people are they can actually have some very good ideas and are quite prepared to have an intelligent discussion with you and others around the forums. i have said that you brought up two very good questions earlier in the thread,(once again in my post at the end of the 2nd page) but your total dismissal of points that others make just makes them think that you would prefer it if you could lecture us and we have to agree with you.

Regards

Almondo

edit: Just found this quote from Brian Clough that seems to sum up the attitude taken by tak in the thread "We talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right."

[tak]

Hi Almondo

I know my phrase didn't come out very well. I am sure if you look at the essence of what I said, you will realise that I meant sterile disagreement that leads nowhere but to derail this thread. Constructive disagreement is more than welcome.

Best regards,

[Blaupunkt]

First of all, I would like to thank nick for providing two examples.

In a small level team you have less talented players but also less demanding. The fans are less, the media attention very small etc. Despite having not much else to do, tactics are important to overcome technical shortcomings and utilise the little talent you have at your disposal

In the world of big boys you have a lot of work to do dealing with 20 highly paid men in shorts, with fat contracts and celebrity life styles. Tactics are still useful but they become less important because "any old tactic will do", to quote an international manager who wishes to stay anonymous.

i totally disagree and think you have it the wrong way round, having played rugby and field hockey for local amateur level i can tell you that while there were some tactical planning and discussion for the hockey club i played for motivation seemed more important lower down the leagues you played, the 1st team were just below the National league and pushing for promotion most seasons, at my "peak" i was in the second team and down as "reserve" for the first team, i made the bench a couple of times and i can tell you that the higher up the clubs structure you went (they had 4 teams in leagues 6 teams in total) the more important tactics became.

when playing for the bottom 2 teams 5th's and 6th's tactics were virtually none existent, to the point of, keep it safe with passing, get stuck in, get player X on the ball as much as you can.

i can say the same for the ruby club, i firmly believe this to be true for football which i have played to a degree also but more 5 a side stuff, we used to practise passing in triangles and always having 1 player in space to receive a pass, when coming up against a team who had no tactical plan or were not used to playing against a team like us we could dominate them quite easily with some very basic tactics, no amount of motivation or man management would have made the slightest bit of difference because they did not know how to counter our game plan.

EDIT: why does the international manager want to remain anonymous?

[Mitja]

Slovenia managed to beat vastly superior Russian side and has qualified for WC. it was totally deserved win by unknown Slovenian manager over one of the best tacticians in the world. there wasn't a single word being said about how Slovenian team tactically outplayed Russians and I really doubt that Kek can compare with Hiddink when it comes to tactical knowledge. it was a win of team spirit and discipline, confidence the new Slovenian manager has managed to put into the team without any star players and great frendship over far better quality team with one of the best managers in the world. believe me not a single word was being said about tactics (which was fantastic) by the media or experts.

Croatia failed to qualify for WC. I don't remeber when Croatia played worse football than in these qualifications, absolute horror to watch, we vitnessed two worst defeats in Croatian football history against England. Bilic has agreed with media and experts analisys of this failure. they agreed the main reasons for it were poor team discipline and motivational factors, tough qualifing group, injuries of key players, luck (a couple of posts in both games against Ukraine), leadership problems after Niko Kovac retired, left back selction problems etc. eventhough team performances were far from the true ability the team has, Bilic was never critisised about tactical factors, only teams selection and squad managment.

Bosnia achieved the best result in their history, almost qualified to WC but lost to Portugal in knockout phase, under the Croatian manager Ciro Blazevic. he managed for the first time in bosnian (football) history to unite all three nations, Croatia achieved their best result with 3rd place in WC'98. Blazevic is known as a fanatic motivator, squad managment expert and for military discipline in his teams. tactically? I think it's enough to say that he never tried to play any other formation than 3-5-2.

[jcafcwbb]

I have to say at non-league level there are two main ways of preparing your troops.

1) If you're a club with little or no money you fill your squad with big, physical players to try and out-muscle the better teams players. You rely on set pieces and the physical prowess of your players to create chances.

2) If you have a bit of money you get players that are better than the league you are in and even possibly go full time. You rely on your technical advantage telling in the final third of the match.

We spent three miserable years in the Ryman where every week the "tactic" was to have big, physical players outmuscle us. Don't be fooled that lower league has anything approaching tactical insight.

On a way to develop the game - does a player's mental capabilties improve with age and experience? It seems strange that every youngster I get offered - is this because I'm in the CCL2&BSP? - has low technical stats. Surely you would see players with decent footballing skills but with need for the mental skills to be developed. Aaron Lennon is good example of this. He came in with the pace and skill to beat players but lacked the ability to play the final ball or when to pass. He had improved a lot this season possibly due to experience/training.

[tak]

i totally disagree and think you have it the wrong way round, having played rugby and field hockey for local amateur level i can tell you that while there were some tactical planning and discussion for the hockey club i played for motivation seemed more important lower down the leagues you played, the 1st team were just below the National league and pushing for promotion most seasons, at my "peak" i was in the second team and down as "reserve" for the first team, i made the bench a couple of times and i can tell you that the higher up the clubs structure you went (they had 4 teams in leagues 6 teams in total) the more important tactics became.

when playing for the bottom 2 teams 5th's and 6th's tactics were virtually none existent, to the point of, keep it safe with passing, get stuck in, get player X on the ball as much as you can.

i can say the same for the ruby club, i firmly believe this to be true for football which i have played to a degree also but more 5 a side stuff, we used to practise passing in triangles and always having 1 player in space to receive a pass, when coming up against a team who had no tactical plan or were not used to playing against a team like us we could dominate them quite easily with some very basic tactics, no amount of motivation or man management would have made the slightest bit of difference because they did not know how to counter our game plan.

EDIT: why does the international manager want to remain anonymous?

That's OK Blaupunkt, I cannot argue against your personal experiences. One common misunderstanding though is that I dismiss tactics at the top level. But I don't. What I'm saying is that they become less important than other factors. Of course, tactical miracles can still happen, but at higher levels, the manager needs to do a lot more work than tactical instructions. Many times, this exo-tactical work (jesus, sorry for this crazy word) produces most impressive results than tactics. Many times, brilliant results happen without supreme managerial input.

When I started this thread, I admit I didn't know exactly what I wanted (it's getting better now lol) but I immediately got two types of reactions:

a) Tactics are the most important decider of results by far. For that, I showed a perfectly resonable real life example, where tactics played zero role. I can show more that are not so "ridiculous".

b) Man management and motivation are already in the game. Although I realised I didn't know that player characters existed, again my "ridiculous" example showed that interpersonal, internal and external, interactions as well as events, are so poor in the game that they better start from scratch if they want to create something good. Improving the current ones is a mistake and later I will explain why.

I realise that many people are more than happy with "man-management". That's fine, most people are happy until things evolve to something new. Take crouchaldinho for example. He says that he is instilling a culture in his team. He read Sven's book and wants to create type B players. So, he wants to make them ambitious by pressing "expect a win" and fearless by pressing "we can win this". I am certain that if no "man-management" existed in the game but only one question with two boxes "What you want to instill: a) More ambition, b) Less fear", crouchaldinho would use those two boxes and fantasize he is instilling culture according to Sven's book.

I don't have any problem with that, and please crouchaldinho don't bother start your irony and insults, i find it wonderful, that is how all of us play FM more or less. We fantasize. That is why I love this game. However, we cannot include our fantasy as an argument when someone proposes an improvement and say "oh it's in the game: yesterday after the match I told my players that despite having won 2-1, it was unacceptable to play so good but neglect the defence. We even conceded an equaliser and thank God the linesman raised his flag." You ask "how did you say all that?". They reply "oh it's in the game, I told them I was dissapointed"

[Matt123456]

That's OK Blaupunkt, I cannot argue against your personal experiences. One common misunderstanding though is that I dismiss tactics at the top level. But I don't. What I'm saying is that they become less important than other factors. Of course, tactical miracles can still happen, but at higher levels, the manager needs to do a lot more work than tactical instructions. Many times, this exo-tactical work (jesus, sorry for this crazy word) produces most impressive results than tactics. Many times, brilliant results happen without supreme managerial input.

When I started this thread, I admit I didn't know exactly what I wanted (it's getting better now lol) but I immediately got two types of reactions:

a) Tactics are the most important decider of results by far. For that, I showed a perfectly resonable real life example, where tactics played zero role. I can show more that are not so "ridiculous".

b) Man management and motivation are already in the game. Although I realised I didn't know that player characters existed, again my "ridiculous" example showed that interpersonal, internal and external, interactions as well as events, are so poor in the game that they better start from scratch if they want to create something good. Improving the current ones is a mistake and later I will explain why.

I realise that many people are more than happy with "man-management". That's fine, most people are happy until things evolve to something new. Take crouchaldinho for example. He says that he is instilling a culture in his team. He read Sven's book and wants to create type B players. So, he wants to make them ambitious by pressing "expect a win" and fearless by pressing "we can win this". I am certain that if no "man-management" existed in the game but only one question with two boxes "What you want to instill: a) More ambition, b) Less fear", crouchaldinho would use those two boxes and fantasize he is instilling culture according to Sven's book.

I don't have any problem with that, and please crouchaldinho don't bother start your irony and insults, i find it wonderful, that is how all of us play FM more or less. We fantasize. That is why I love this game. However, we cannot include our fantasy as an argument when someone proposes an improvement and say "oh it's in the game: yesterday after the match I told my players that despite having won 2-1, it was unacceptable to play so good but neglect the defence. We even conceded an equaliser and thank God the linesman raised his flag." You ask "how did you say all that?". They reply "oh it's in the game, I told them I was dissapointed"

I think we should but this tactics argument to bed once and for all. In lower league football tactics take a back seat because players don't have the technical prowess to be able to function in complicated tactical set ups. For example, if you were playing in non-league football you would tell your winger to lump the ball into the box and hope your big striker got on the end of it. If Christiano Ronaldo was your winger, you would ask him to cross it to the far post when X happened, player a driven deep cross when Y happened, cut inside and shoot when Z happened etc. There are much more tactical options available to you at higher levels because the players are better and can carry out a wider range of tactical options. To say that the emphasis changes is stupid and has been proved wrong time and time again.

At the lower levels your managerial career relies on you to be able to creat a TEAM. Arguably that is the case of in all levels of football, but in lower leagues where your players don't have enough individual skill using man-management to create team spirit and co-operation is Paramount! What you're trying to say is at higher levels the manager has to manage the big ego's of his superstars. But that is the case of all levels. All teams will have a player with a big ego, and the manager will either get it under control, let it run free or kick the player out of the team. You have to rememer that players have personalities at all levels. As you go down to non-league footballs players don't suddenly lose their personality. They can be demanding and as difficult as the most arrogant, richest footballer.

What you haven't come to realise is that at higher levels EVERYTHING becomes more important. In essence the managers have a bigger job, so more tactics are needed, more man-management is needed etc. The proportion doesn't change - the manager just has to do more for each.

[crouchaldinho]

The opening poster can try to reduce my argument to the point of absurdity if he wants (no doubt, in order to wind me up, as is his wont) but it just makes him look silly.

I would still like to know the opening poster's thoughts regarding the idea that possessing even a basic knowledge of the existing content of Football Manager might be helpful to him in reaching conclusions about how well man management and motivation is reflected in the game.

So far, I feel our 'lecturer' has shown a basic ignorance of Football Manager and has come up with some of the most absurd suggestions I have ever read. I'm still awaiting a breakthrough! Meanwhile, some of the most interesting points that this thread has to offer have, in fact, arrived when the opening poster was away. Indeed, I have actually come up with more ideas than the OP in this thread and I'm supposed to be the 'bad' guy, an apologist for SI (allegedly!), while this is apparently the opening poster's 'leap of faith'?

[tak]

I think we should but this tactics argument to bed once and for all. In lower league football tactics take a back seat because players don't have the technical prowess to be able to function in complicated tactical set ups. For example, if you were playing in non-league football you would tell your winger to lump the ball into the box and hope your big striker got on the end of it. If Christiano Ronaldo was your winger, you would ask him to cross it to the far post when X happened, player a driven deep cross when Y happened, cut inside and shoot when Z happened etc. There are much more tactical options available to you at higher levels because the players are better and can carry out a wider range of tactical options. To say that the emphasis changes is stupid and has been proved wrong time and time again.

At the lower levels your managerial career relies on you to be able to creat a TEAM. Arguably that is the case of in all levels of football, but in lower leagues where your players don't have enough individual skill using man-management to create team spirit and co-operation is Paramount! What you're trying to say is at higher levels the manager has to manage the big ego's of his superstars. But that is the case of all levels. All teams will have a player with a big ego, and the manager will either get it under control, let it run free or kick the player out of the team. You have to rememer that players have personalities at all levels. As you go down to non-league footballs players don't suddenly lose their personality. They can be demanding and as difficult as the most arrogant, richest footballer.

What you haven't come to realise is that at higher levels EVERYTHING becomes more important. In essence the managers have a bigger job, so more tactics are needed, more man-management is needed etc. The proportion doesn't change - the manager just has to do more for each.

That's very interesting. When you have a player like Ronaldo you can go ahead and give all those instructions but they don't matter much because Ronaldo will use his high football intelligence to create the best out of a given situation. Managing Ronaldo has not so much to do with telling him how to react in cases A, B or C. It is more important to create an environment where the player can focus and his talent can flourish (although instructions still have a role to play).

[tak]

Slovenia managed to beat vastly superior Russian side and has qualified for WC. it was totally deserved win by unknown Slovenian manager over one of the best tacticians in the world. there wasn't a single word being said about how Slovenian team tactically outplayed Russians and I really doubt that Kek can compare with Hiddink when it comes to tactical knowledge. it was a win of team spirit and discipline, confidence the new Slovenian manager has managed to put into the team without any star players and great frendship over far better quality team with one of the best managers in the world. believe me not a single word was being said about tactics (which was fantastic) by the media or experts.

Croatia failed to qualify for WC. I don't remeber when Croatia played worse football than in these qualifications, absolute horror to watch, we vitnessed two worst defeats in Croatian football history against England. Bilic has agreed with media and experts analisys of this failure. they agreed the main reasons for it were poor team discipline and motivational factors, tough qualifing group, injuries of key players, luck (a couple of posts in both games against Ukraine), leadership problems after Niko Kovac retired, left back selction problems etc. eventhough team performances were far from the true ability the team has, Bilic was never critisised about tactical factors, only teams selection and squad managment.

Bosnia achieved the best result in their history, almost qualified to WC but lost to Portugal in knockout phase, under the Croatian manager Ciro Blazevic. he managed for the first time in bosnian (football) history to unite all three nations, Croatia achieved their best result with 3rd place in WC'98. Blazevic is known as a fanatic motivator, squad managment expert and for military discipline in his teams. tactically? I think it's enough to say that he never tried to play any other formation than 3-5-2.

Superb contribution. Thanks Mitja.

[edgar555]

Matt123456: You say tactics are less important at lower levels, but your argument is flawed. Just because you are only telling your player to lump it into the box, instead of giving him 3 options, that is still tactics, just reduced to their basic form. However it still takes an intelligent manager to assess the level of their squad and decide whether to use simple instructions or more complex ones.

At whatever level you play, tactics are crucial, hence the level of involvement in FM.

Crouch: I fear you'll have a long wait for the 'leap of faith'.

[tak]

Matt123456: You say tactics are less important at lower levels, but your argument is flawed. Just because you are only telling your player to lump it into the box, instead of giving him 3 options, that is still tactics, just reduced to their basic form. However it still takes an intelligent manager to assess the level of their squad and decide whether to use simple instructions or more complex ones.

At whatever level you play, tactics are crucial, hence the level of involvement in FM.

Crouch: I fear you'll have a long wait for the 'leap of faith'.

That is very interesting edgar. How important were tactics in the example I gave?

[Matt123456]

That's very interesting. When you have a player like Ronaldo you can go ahead and give all those instructions but they don't matter much because Ronaldo will use his high football intelligence to create the best out of a given situation. Managing Ronaldo has not so much to do with telling him how to react in cases A, B or C. It is more important to create an environment where the player can focus and his talent can flourish (although instructions still have a role to play).

That is also true to a degree. However they would still matter because Ronaldo would have to follow them to a certain extent. But my point was that you can't give all these instructions at lower levels because the players simply don't have the abillity to carry them out. Nor can you let their talents flourish because they don't really have the creative ability.

I have just also realised that you have been contradicting yourself throughout the entire post. You said the tactics are more important down the leagues, then you use the example of Greece as a small team who beat a large team down to purely man-management. Greece are the equivalent of a non-league team - who by your own admissions should rely more on tactics - yet you have categorically said that it was man-management that enabled them to beat higher teams. :confused:

Please explain this incredible inconsistency. If you can't your whole argument has just been disproved.

[Matt123456]

Matt123456: You say tactics are less important at lower levels, but your argument is flawed. Just because you are only telling your player to lump it into the box, instead of giving him 3 options, that is still tactics, just reduced to their basic form. However it still takes an intelligent manager to assess the level of their squad and decide whether to use simple instructions or more complex ones.

At whatever level you play, tactics are crucial, hence the level of involvement in FM.

Crouch: I fear you'll have a long wait for the 'leap of faith'.

Ah I didn't mean to say that they were less important. I was trying to point out that at higher levels there are more tactical options available to managers. Because really there are two types of tactics. There are team tactics and individual tactics. Team tactics are relatively similar whatever level you play at, but individual tactics become a lot more detail and in-depth as you rise up the leagues. FM simulates the team tactics and a simplified version of individual tactics, but it does not simulate more complicate individual tactics. And I think that for most casualplayers that is probably a good thing because it would make the game too hard or fiddly and I also know that it would be too difficult to do. I have no problem with the level of involvement in FM. I love the game.

[crouchaldinho]

That is also true. But my point was that you can't give all these instructions at lower levels because the players simply don't have the abillity to carry them out. Nor can you let their talents flourish because they don't really have the creative ability.

I think both arguments are flawed to be honest. It's not true to say that players at lower levels don't have the ability to carry out complex tactical instructions. There are intelligent players in non-League. There are also very technical ex-pros who actually rely more on their technical abilities than the physical side of their game. There are also talented players (relative to their level) who are able to operate in creative roles.

[Matt123456]

I think both arguments are flawed to be honest. It's not true to say that players at lower levels don't have the ability to carry out complex tactical instructions. There are intelligent players in non-League. There are also very technical ex-pros who actually rely more on their technical abilities than the physical side of their game. There are also talented players (relative to their level) who are able to operate in creative roles.

Yes but it is all relative. Compared to the higher levels the players at the low levels don't have the technical ability to function on the same scale. But compared to school-boy players they will be able to follow much more complicated instructions. You would be able to give Xavi much more complicated instructions than the equivalent lower-league playmakers. However there is also the view that you would trust him to do what was right. In the end it all depends on the manager and his management style. If I was a manager for example I would probably take the OCD, perfecting down to every detail type of management. There are some who would prefer to give a rough tactical plan and sign players with the ability to improvise.

[edgar555]

That is very interesting edgar. How important were tactics in the example I gave?

Which example tak? The 'Rony as alkie' example? Please, don't get me started. Which one?

As for you saying that crouch can't create the 'type B' environment in his squad and that its in his head. Nonsense. Using discipline, team talks, press conferences, scouting for players with the right mentality etc you most definitely can build that kind of squad. I know because I have done for the last 2 iterations of FM very succesfully.

matt123456: thanks for that, having re read your post I realise we are pretty much on the same page.

[crouchaldinho]

When I started this thread, I admit I didn't know exactly what I wanted

And you still don't!

I immediately got two types of reactions:

a) Tactics are the most important decider of results by far.

Show me who argued this?

I think you're making this up. Nobody, as far as I know, argued this.

For that, I showed a perfectly resonable real life example, where tactics played zero role.

It was utterly absurd, not reasonable, and what's more is you didn't explain how such a thing would work in the game.

b) Man management and motivation are already in the game. Although I realised I didn't know that player characters existed,

You've shown a basic ignorance of anything that is in the game in terms of man management and motivation. I'll ask you again, do you think it might help you to actually play Football Manager and to gain a knowledge of what is already represented in the game?

again my "ridiculous" example showed that interpersonal, internal and external, interactions as well as events, are so poor in the game that they better start from scratch if they want to create something good.

No it didn't. It showed that you have an over-active imagination, if it indeed showed anything!

If you want a start from scratch then please tell us what it is you expect to see in the game. So far, it's just three pages of you waffling on about nothing.

Seeing as you don't even know the basics of what is included in the game, I'd also love to know how you reached the conclusion? :confused:

Improving the current ones is a mistake and later I will explain why.

I cannot wait for this. I really cannot wait.

[crouchaldinho]

Based on Tak's example, I've got a good game for him: Social Worker 2010.

[Tomer]

If you want a start from scratch then please tell us what it is you expect to see in the game. So far, it's just three pages of you waffling on about nothing.

Exactly. How about we leave tak alone for a little bit so he doesn't feel he has to defend himself all the time (everyone has voiced their opinion by now) and he can work on those suggestions he's been promising. If they're any bit as good as his example it could become post of the year!

[crouchaldinho]

Exactly. How about we leave tak alone for a little bit so he doesn't feel he has to defend himself all the time (everyone has voiced their opinion by now) and he can work on those suggestions he's been promising. If they're any bit as good as his example it could become post of the year!

Haha!

Yes, good idea Tomer.

[edgar555]

Haha!

Yes, good idea Tomer.

I don't think I've got enough time to wait for these revelations.

[anagain]

Superb contribution. Thanks Mitja.

I'll admit I've left this thread alone recently, but I can't ignore this. Towards the start of this this thread a number of people left superb posts that might not have agreed with your original viewpoint, but were well written and analysed each side of the picture. You pretty much ignored each and every one of them.

Mitja's post is well written but because it almost completely agrees with your viewpoint it's a superb contribution. Are you still not interested in any other viewpoint?

I think Matjias Kek would be somewhat disturbed that his qualification for the World Cup was not down to his tactical knowledge but down to fluke, luck and a jolly good team spirit. I agree that there was some degree of team spirit to put it down to but Kek deserves as much praise as any manager for getting his team to play the way he wanted. They frustrated Russia to the result of making them play hard and having two men sent off.

Just a couple of reports from the web and Kek quotes.

FIFA.com

"Today's victory is not down to any individual player, but the team as a whole. We prepared thoroughly for this match and analysed the Russian style of play beforehand. I'm so pleased that we accomplished our plan."

ESPN

"My philosophy, which was accepted by players, is that I am not interested in individuals in my team and even less in the individuals of the opposite team. We showed that we can beat the best players in the world by an organised defence. For us the only important thing was a team and how we will win over Russia."

Slovenia pulled it off as did Greece at Euro 2004, through grit, determination and a strong tactical formation. They analysed Russia's abilities and countered them.

Bilic simply didn't pick the right team for the England matches and they lost. Many people may come out and make excuses about luck or the number of injuries wasn't on their side and Bilic failed to find the right team spirit, but the truth of the matter is his tactics were wrong in the two matches they needed a result in to qualify. They were unbeaten in the rest of their matches so there must have been something there.

National managers will always make excuses about luck and injuries if they fail an objective.

You are so willing to make your point, tak, that you are completely unblinkered in how you view things. If someone says it is all about team spirit you will glorify them and believe their points. If someone even dares to mention that tactics played a part, too, then you ignore it. You have to look at both sides of the picture.

I'll not go and say that morale, team spirit and organisation don't play a part in great victories, but to believe none of it comes down to a tactical approach is blinkered.

[Almondo]

@tak. tak I really think you need to just sit back and read through some of your posts in the thread. I understand that you're passionate about what you posted inyour OP but to say things like I quoted at the top of this post really shows your ignorance as to what a discussion really is. This thread which both myself and Tingting tried hard to pull back on track after you went into a war of words with wwfan is still headed off the rails really.

Once again tak I urge you to sit back and just read through some of your posts in this thread, but do it from a viewpoint of someone totally new to the forums who knows nothing about who any of us who have poasted in this thread are. I'm fairly sure that you will agree that some of your posts have been verging on the ridiculous and absurd.

You said in response to my previous post that you wanted constructive disagrement but when you get it you dismiss it as rubbish basically. If you don't then more people are going to agree with the Brian Clough quote below.

"We talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right."

[Blaupunkt]

i dont think this is going OT but still.

i have been thinking how tek suggests the manager should be a motivator, man manager and tactician(to some degree) friend to some/all the players etc i have actually come to the conclusion maybe wrongly that actually the manager will leave some of this to is assistant manager, for example when Teddy Sheringham played for Man UTD he and SAF were not what you would call "friends" but had a respect for each other and put their differences to one side for the sake of the team, i am sure i read about this.

i am putting forward the suggestion that actually the Assman would be more of the "motivator" and "friend" to the players where as the manager will usually keep a professional distances between himself and the players, after all if he was best friend to play X but the player was in a terrible run of form it would become increasingly difficult to drop "you friend" from the team. like wise if the player is getting on a bit and can no longer cut it at the top level and really should be dropped or sold and they were good friends off the pitch this could affect the managers judgement and actually hinder him and the team.

maybe the motivational side of things can be developed in the game but make it more to do with the assistant manager and the coaches?

the example given about Ronaldo to some degree may be true, maybe a play like him or Ryan Giggs for example might not need much in the way of a tactical plan to be out laid for them and be given their head, but they will still be told what is expected of them with in the teams over all tactical plan. no manager will give minimal tactical instruction to the whole team and just tell them to "get on with it".

i would argue that if you have a player or 2 who does not need much instruction and is allowed to do as he pleases the rest of the team will be playing to strong tactical plan, maybe more so than normal after all you will have to make up for this player(s) when he/they undoubtedly are not in position/tracking back etc when the other team win the ball and attack/counter attack them selves.

[robbert_o154]

I think that's a very good point, Blaupunkt, further borne out by Nani's recent comments in the press; you get the impression him and SAF hardy communicate on a day-to-basis. Definitely think you're on to something here.

[edgar555]

Blaupunkt, your point is even more supported by anyone who knows anything about the Clough/Taylor years. Clough would roast them and then Taylor would pick up the pieces and make them feel special again.

[Matt123456]

i dont think this is going OT but still.

i have been thinking how tek suggests the manager should be a motivator, man manager and tactician(to some degree) friend to some/all the players etc i have actually come to the conclusion maybe wrongly that actually the manager will leave some of this to is assistant manager, for example when Teddy Sheringham played for Man UTD he and SAF were not what you would call "friends" but had a respect for each other and put their differences to one side for the sake of the team, i am sure i read about this.

i am putting forward the suggestion that actually the Assman would be more of the "motivator" and "friend" to the players where as the manager will usually keep a professional distances between himself and the players, after all if he was best friend to play X but the player was in a terrible run of form it would become increasingly difficult to drop "you friend" from the team. like wise if the player is getting on a bit and can no longer cut it at the top level and really should be dropped or sold and they were good friends off the pitch this could affect the managers judgement and actually hinder him and the team.

maybe the motivational side of things can be developed in the game but make it more to do with the assistant manager and the coaches?

the example given about Ronaldo to some degree may be true, maybe a play like him or Ryan Giggs for example might not need much in the way of a tactical plan to be out laid for them and be given their head, but they will still be told what is expected of them with in the teams over all tactical plan. no manager will give minimal tactical instruction to the whole team and just tell them to "get on with it".

i would argue that if you have a player or 2 who does not need much instruction and is allowed to do as he pleases the rest of the team will be playing to strong tactical plan, maybe more so than normal after all you will have to make up for this player(s) when he/they undoubtedly are not in position/tracking back etc when the other team win the ball and attack/counter attack them selves.

Blaunpunkt that is a very good point, but I think this whole argument boils down to different types of management styles. Scolari for example wanted to be players friends, and that worked with Brazil, but with the strong personalities at Chelsea it failed miserably. SAF has an almost dictatorial style, which has been very effective it managing the big names in his team. I may be wrong here, but I think he probably has a sort of "good cop-bad cop" style of management with the assistant being the good cop. What Tak is trying to say is that the hands on with the players style of management isn't as adeptly simulated as the tactical genius style of management. If this is what he is trying to say (please confirm this Tak), then ignore all the incoherent, rambling long-windedness of his previous posts and focus on that as his point.

[Mitja]

@anagain

I would never suggest that tactics are not important part of football or that any manager will just pick the team without a serious match preparation. but man managment and motivational area of FM is vastly inferior compared to tactical. not just when it comes to tools available to interact with players but also on day to day basis. tactically you can play the game in great detail (maybe even too much) but there's imho no real depth in squad managment and motivation area. once you get grips with tactics and build the squad with right players, which is really not hard, the game doesn't offer much more real complexity. that's where I agree with tak. but unlike him I think tactics are equally important..

as for you coments about Kek and Bilic, I'm not denying or questioning their tactical knowledge. I expect from national team manager to be tactically enough capable to lead the team on top level. you're wrong about why Croatia lost to England. we just didn't have any chance nor confidence against far better quality team whith new manager and new philosophy, which was totally fired up against a team which put England out of EC. after England scored first goal Croatia just vanished. nothing to do with tactics.

your Kek coments and his quotes prove what I said. Slovenia couldn't beat far better quality opponents with far better manager only with tactics. Slovenia won because of the advantage the players had in their heads and hearts/balls. maybe Russian players feared too much of failure, maybe they underestimated Slovenian team, which I doubt. without the shadow of the doubt Kek did tactically prepare the team to every possible detail, just like Bilic did his team before the match against England.

[anagain]

@anagain

I would never suggest that tactics are not important part of football or that any manager will just pick the team without a serious match preparation. but man managment and motivational area of FM is vastly inferior compared to tactical. not just when it comes to tools available to interact with players but also on day to day basis. tactically you can play the game in great detail (maybe even too much) but there's imho no real depth in squad managment and motivation area. once you get grips with tactics and build the squad with right players, which is really not hard, the game doesn't offer much more real complexity. that's where I agree with tak. but unlike him I think tactics are equally important..

as for you coments about Kek and Bilic, I'm not denying or questioning their tactical knowledge. I expect from national team manager to be tactically enough capable to lead the team on top level. you're wrong about why Croatia lost to England. we just didn't have any chance nor confidence against far better quality team whith new manager and new philosophy, which was totally fired up against a team which put England out of EC. after England scored first goal Croatia just vanished. nothing to do with tactics.

your Kek coments and his quotes prove what I said. Slovenia couldn't beat far better quality opponents with far better manager only with tactics. Slovenia won because of the advantage the players had in their heads and hearts/balls. maybe Russian players feared too much of failure, maybe they underestimated Slovenian team, which I doubt. without the shadow of the doubt Kek did tactically prepare the team to every possible detail, just like Bilic did his team before the match against England.

I do agree with your post, Mitja. You made some very good and well researched comments. I agree that big win football games come down to motivation as well as tactics and that the team best prepared can win out even if they are tactically not as competent.

My post was mainly directed at tak. I feel he needs to look at the wider picture so I made some comments to compliment your thoughts.

Sorry if I made it appear I was washing your thoughts out of the water.

Tak's blatant glorying of your post because it echoed his original post is what he has been doing since day one of this thread. That is in contrast to him pretty much ignoring posts that disagree with him. His comment in reply to your post made me chuckle. Compare it to how he replied to a post by Crouchaldinho that he didn't agree with:

I am sorry crouchaldinho but since you hurt my feelings by shouting and swearing at another thread I don't want to speak to you. Besides you think that what we have is excellent so you are clearly not the person to strive for improvement let alone to think radically. Thanks for the input anyway...

I'd love to see a boost to the motivation branch of FM in the future but I'd also like tak to respect a post that talks of tactics. He needs to look at the wider picture. So far he has not been willing to.

[djwilko6]

I do agree with your post, Mitja. You made some very good and well researched comments. I agree that big win football games come down to motivation as well as tactics and that the team best prepared can win out even if they are tactically not as competent.

I said this on page 1 didnt I?

[RBKalle]

We can't really use examples of international football[/i] to prove the "motivation over tactics" point.

Upsets and surprises happen, but are usually due to ONE SINGLE MATCH, or eventually to a couple of good-lucky performances, so motivation can be a huge factor.

But let's not forget international managers work with the players just for a few days every year, and some weeks before World Cup/Euro Championships.

Obviously they can't work on the tactical side in the same way a club manager does, so motivation plays a bigger role.

And a national side is not a club, where you can buy and sell players according to a plan. You just must work with what you have... Be it good, average or poor.

About the old story of Greece at Euro2004, or about the examples brought up by Mitja: had it been a 30-games competition instead of a short tournament/group, Greece, Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia would have needed much much more than tons of motivation and a smart tactical plan.

[Be¢kham]

Haven't read through the whole threat but completely agree that tactics are far too complicated. Yeah it's nice to be able to choose player roles now but that's useless if you can't master the tactical side of the game.

I'd prefer if you could just choose a formation and player's perform more relative to factors such as form, morale, their playing statistics, team-mates and other external sources rather than a tactic.