Match Engine Realism and It's Tactical Implications

[eddymunster]

One of the most enjoyable aspects of FM for me is implementing real world tactical approaches of other managers and teams into my FM tactics, I also enjoy reading interesting posts on T&T tips regarding these real world approaches.

Great Example (as usual from SFraser)

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=191436

I however find that in order to be successful on FM you must form your tactics based on weaknesses in the ME rather than, as stated above, real world tactical approaches.

In reality any tactical approach will have it's pros and cons. And each tactical approach will be better suited to a specific situation. To see this you only have to see the many different tactical approaches and philosophies on show across football, be it from country to country, division to division or team to team.

In the ME on the other hand, it tends to be a case of formation x is better than formation y, be it played at Barca, Bolton or Shamrock Rovers.

What I want from this game is to be able to play in a way that is familiar to me from watching football in the real world, not by downloading the latest Super-duper-guaranteed-goals-for10.3.tac which wins because defenders can't cope with 3 strikers and 3AMCs.

I have found massive success on this game by playing narrow, short passing, cute through balls with many central attacking players. But in reality, this gets congested and width is necessary in a modern football team and as the ME is at the moment this is not the case.

Therefore it is my opinion that the unrealistic aspects of the ME, as stated above, make real world tactical approaches extremely difficult to implicate.

What are your thoughts on this?

[amit_leipold]

the ME working much much nicer 10.3, and i can tell you best is to fit the tactic to the players you have and not other way around.

i never download one tactic and i am doing well play 4321 nerrow and wide, 442, 451 wide. but i can see the differnt when i set duty's worng, people dont understand that if you set them worng you can creat to much space and lock one or 2 players out of the game.

set to many back or to many up can have HUGE effect on your tactic, if you dont find the balance in your tactic then you go to blam SI and ME for dont let you play the way you want.

i dont say the game 100% fixed and ME works totaly like IRL but is far nicer then you say in your post, so i think you shold go back to the game and use analysis slow on the tactic you play and try to find out if some players are block or what eles effect your tactic from working. good luck

[eddymunster]

I agree 10.3 is the best so far. But I still think there is room for improvement.

I tried to refrain from SI or ME bashing in the opening post as I think 10.3 is the best version in a long time.

I do however, as I stated in the OP think that the ME is still far from perfect, and makes it more difficult to implement real tactical approaches.

[amit_leipold]

yes i also think there some stuff that can be nicer, but its not realy tactics issue.

for exemple the height play biger role on the game then IRL football, mainly in air challenge, if your player is 180 height with 13-14 jumping they realy lose way to much air challenge, and this realy not like this IRL football, maybe they can fix it with making positioning effect the player abilty to reach them as counter skill to jumping. you can see for exemple Carles Puyol as a classic exemple that in the game lose more then helf and IRL maybe lose 10% against tall players.

the weeknes of hight become out of control imho, and shold be a bit more balance, but i dont want to be in SI positon to try fix something like this with out loseing to much balance.

[eddymunster]

I disagree, if something is less effective in the ME than reality then it will impact on tactics.

For example, nearly every header from inside the 6 yrd box is headed over, this makes crossing less effective, therefore making wingers less effective.

[Lord Rowell]

One of the most enjoyable aspects of FM for me is implementing real world tactical approaches of other managers and teams into my FM tactics, I also enjoy reading interesting posts on T&T tips regarding these real world approaches.

Great Example (as usual from SFraser)

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=191436

I however find that in order to be successful on FM you must form your tactics based on weaknesses in the ME rather than, as stated above, real world tactical approaches.

In reality any tactical approach will have it's pros and cons. And each tactical approach will be better suited to a specific situation. To see this you only have to see the many different tactical approaches and philosophies on show across football, be it from country to country, division to division or team to team.

In the ME on the other hand, it tends to be a case of formation x is better than formation y, be it played at Barca, Bolton or Shamrock Rovers.

What I want from this game is to be able to play in a way that is familiar to me from watching football in the real world, not by downloading the latest Super-duper-guaranteed-goals-for10.3.tac which wins because defenders can't cope with 3 strikers and 3AMCs.

I have found massive success on this game by playing narrow, short passing, cute through balls with many central attacking players. But in reality, this gets congested and width is necessary in a modern football team and as the ME is at the moment this is not the case.

Therefore it is my opinion that the unrealistic aspects of the ME, as stated above, make real world tactical approaches extremely difficult to implicate.

What are your thoughts on this?

What you describe, above, could be any number of top sides. Arsenal spring to mind. Chelsea also. Very few top sides nowadays play with orthodox wingers. Antonio Valencia at Man Utd is arguably an exception to the rule. Width nowadays tends increasingly to come from attacking full-backs. Hence, if the match-engine is like this, then I don't think its inaccurate.

I'm loathe to criticise SI for inaccuracy in their match engine because of the tremendous complexity there must be in designing the thing. Also, and I think sometimes this point is forgotten, football tactics change over time. It's not like SI have had years and years to get this right. Every time a tactical innovation comes along e.g. 4-5-1, assymetric formations, emphasis on transition play, defensive forwards, demise of the poacher, strikerless formations, increasing dissolving of traditional 'lines' in tactical set-ups, SI presumably have to keep adjusting their match engine to reflect these changes in real football. This can't be easy for them and on the whole I think they do a pretty good job of keeping it up to date.