Do tactics/new formations etc. have a bedding in time on FM10?

[crouchaldinho]

One of the announcements for FM11 was that there will now be a 'match preparation area', where it seems that we will now be able to prepare our teams to play certain tactics (as shown in the official screenshot below).

This particularly caught my eye and it made me wonder if there is any similar effect in existence that is hidden from the user in FM10. And if there is one, how exactly does it work? It's one of those typical FM questions, which doesn't ever seem to have been answered, and to which there are many mythical answers floating around the forums.

Certainly, the in-game hints seem to indicate that there probably is some kind of effect:

Constantly changing your tactic and making dramatic alterations to the style of play will not help your players settle or find their rhythm and is likely to have an adverse affect on the team's performances.

But it's typical SI vagueness really and it doesn't seem to indicate exactly how it would work. Am I to take it, for example, that changing from a 4-4-2 to a 4-4-1-1 (the simple exercise of moving an ST to the AMC position isn't a 'dramatic alteration' and is therefore not going to be a problem, while changing from a 4-2-3-1 to a 3-4-1-2 formation is going to be a pretty major change and is likely to have an adverse effect? Does changing roles and duties count, or even mentality structures and closing down settings? What exactly constitutes a 'dramatic alteration'? It's a question I've always wondered about and therefore I decided to put the question to those on the tactics forum to get some opinions.

So, do you think that new tactics/formations etc. have a 'bedding in' time on FM10? If so, how do we think it currently works? Do we, in fact, think that it doesn't exist at all, as there seems to be no real indication in the game that new tactics or formations are causing the players to underperform. Tactics, to me, have always seemed to just work or not work, quite separately from things like team gelling and so on and so forth.

Anyway, what's your opinion? And would it perhaps change the way that you currently play the game if you found out either way?

[SFraser]

It has been my opinion for a while that tactics/formations don't have a "bedding in time" but players do. A settled starting 11 doesn't seem to be adversely affected by a change from one solid formation to another solid formation, but if you bring a new player into a team you will often see a perfectly timed run met with a perfectly timed pass but going the wrong side of the defender or aimed into one area while the player runs into a different one. After a while these "misunderstandings" between players seem to diminish and your players have almost a "sixth sense" when it comes to passing, timing runs, or staying deep to cover for others.

These could be argued to be "tactical issues" but to me they look more like communication and experience issues. It is quite possible that "Match Experience" or "Match Practice" is a key factor here because player performance even at maximum gelling is significantly poorer during Pre-Season or when players return from long injuries etc.

My interpretation is that "Gelling" is an indication of the Match Experience and "Understanding" of players and between players. It's not a tactical issue, it's an issue that affects individual players. Precisely what all goes into "Gelling" both in terms of "score" and actual on-pitch behaviour I don't know, but time at club, languages spoken, match experience, possibly even inter-squad relationships are big contenders.

[crouchaldinho]

I'm with you on those observations SFraser. Definitely team gelling is a factor and it tends to manifest itself in the ways that you indicate in your post (i.e. mistakes, mistimings, misunderstandings and general errors). There is a clear difference, to me, in these behaviours and tactical errors.

[Falahk]

the game also seam to hint (in the assistant manager comments during match):

"player x is not used to close down this much"

"player x is not used to play at this tempo"

however my observations are very similar to the once made by SFraser

with the 2016/2017 just wraped up, playing my Roma team, i got my hands on all 4 titles i could get this year (cup, supercup, serie a, CL), playing some 8-10 different formations, using heavy rotation, with a first team that was not much better then the other top 8 sides (and in a generation shift)

[Jenko_EFC]

the game also seam to hint (in the assistant manager comments during match):

"player x is not used to close down this much"

"player x is not used to play at this tempo"

I believed that suggested that he isn't fit enough, high enough workrate to close down that much or he isn't good enough at quickly reatcing to play fast (anticipation to react to team-mates' off the ball runs, react to quick passes etc) or doesn't like being closed down when playing at a slow tempo (composure probably). That seems the most likely explanation and not that he isn't used to the tactic although I could be way off.

[crouchaldinho]

I'm not sure about the match comments. They seem to happen for me when the team hasn't gelled or when I have a new player starting.

I haven't noticed them coming up when I have a gelled team and no new players, even when I change tactics or formation dramatically.

[aderow]

Im gonna agree with SFraser on this one. I recently just changed my tactic but it didnt seem to have much affect on my first 11 as they won their first match 5-1. However, I made 3 changes to the next squad (I played 2 youngsters, a back up, and a new signing) and won the game 1-0. Both matches were against similar opponents and the second match we were less stable defensively.

[crouchaldinho]

I do feel that rotation on a major scale can upset the team. Making dramatic changes to the line-up does seem to have an effect on the quality of performances. I've just seen little evidence to suggest that changing formation or tactics particularly has a bedding in period.

[SFraser]

I do feel that rotation on a major scale can upset the team. Making dramatic changes to the line-up does seem to have an effect on the quality of performances.

That's true but I have found that constant rotation of a relatively small squad is the quickest way to high levels of gelling and top performances. A large, overflowing squad that is constantly rotated is never going to gel easily but a smaller squad where everyone is sure of their roles, competing for places, playing regularly and keeping match fit and match experienced gels very quickly in my experience.

[Menz]

That's true but I have found that constant rotation of a relatively small squad is the quickest way to high levels of gelling and top performances. A large, overflowing squad that is constantly rotated is never going to gel easily but a smaller squad where everyone is sure of their roles, competing for places, playing regularly and keeping match fit and match experienced gels very quickly in my experience.

This is true. As some of you know, my main aim in any FM game is all about team building and obviously gelling comes into that.

For me, it is essential that you have no more than 2 players per position for optimum results with regards to team gelling. This then allows for you to have 1 or 2 adaptable players that can cover a few positions. The utility men.

In past FM's (not on FM10 though) I have run tests as to the perfect squad size for team building and the gelling together of players. There is no doubt that constantly changing a starting 11 has an adverse effect on gelling. However with a small enough squad, as SFraser said, it flips that negative side effect into a positive one as there are now less players competing for the same set of positions. This in any case builds team morale and unity as players grow closer through lack of numbers.

Just my observations anyway.

[sweep17]

I was recently playing my Coventry save in league 1 where I spent the first couple of months of the season trying a few different formations 4-5-1/5-3-2 etc with fairly inconsistent results which left me about 10th in the league. I changed to a simple 4-4-2 and after a about 10 games of further inconsistent results my team went on a great run which saw them win the division. My initial impression was that the squad had taken about 10 games to bed into the new formation.

However during that run my team was usually only playing on saturdays and I didn't have any serious injury problems which meant that I was fielding the same 11 week in week out. So in hindsight its difficult to judge if there is any benefit from 'bedding' in a formation as this run was almost certainly fuelled at least inpart by both general team gelling combined with superb morale (from winning the first couple of games) and a bit luck with injuries.

[wwfan]

I don't think there is any bedding in at the moment. The three live trained tactics is a request I made ages ago when testing FML and never thought would make into the game, because the general consensus was that users enjoyed playing around with formations. As far as I know, there were no restrictions in place for doing so in FM and FML.

I am pleasantly surprised to see this implemented. Far more realistic in my opinion.

[Wayne\'o]

So when managing a team and the assistant report says the team are blending well, when watching the game and most results seem to result in a negative score line, untill the report says the players have a strong understanding, beeing dissapointed with bad results shoul;d be taken with a pinch of salt.?

[crouchaldinho]

I don't think there is any bedding in at the moment. The three live trained tactics is a request I made ages ago when testing FML and never thought would make into the game, because the general consensus was that users enjoyed playing around with formations. As far as I know, there were no restrictions in place for doing so in FM and FML.

I am pleasantly surprised to see this implemented. Far more realistic in my opinion.

I quite like it too, I must say.

[crouchaldinho]

So when managing a team and the assistant report says the team are blending well' date=' when watching the game and most results seem to result in a negative score line, untill the report says the players have a strong understanding, beeing dissapointed with bad results shoul;d be taken with a pinch of salt.?[/quote']

With the team gelling, I find it's more dodgy and inconsistent performances, plus the potential for player mistakes or errors. When hitting 'good' gelling, I generally find things improve and often the team just feels less 'flaky' for want of a better word.

A team with low gelling requires a bit of patience and a manager who won't panic in my opinion. Best to try to keep morale up if results aren't going the right way and to just ride it out until you get to 'good' gelling when you'll get a better impression of where your squad is really at.

[crouchaldinho]

I must say that I am starting to change my mind a little bit on this issue.

I've recently had a save where I have been forced into changing my system quite regularly and results have suffered during this period but upon returning to a more consistent approach, the performances and results have really picked up.

[aderow]

Its probably a bit of both...

changing the role that a player has on the field can have the same effect as constantly changing the players that one has to play with.

[fdawsoniv]

Branching off slightly, is there a sort of consensus for how large a squad should be and how much to rotate? I remember having a squad of about 25 or so players in an Oxford save where there was never the same starting 11 for two straight games, often with a handful of changes if there was fixture congestion. And it was a dominating year my first year where we won pretty much everything we realistically could. Now Oxford was one of the most talented teams in the league, so that might be why we won almost all our games. And we didn't blow anyone out. I think 3-0 was about as wide as it ever got, with tons of 1-0 scorelines, so maybe things could have been better. But everyone seemed to be in good spirits and playing pretty well together and by the end of the year I had a big advantage in fitness because my guys hadn't logged the same kind of minutes.

Then I come on here and what I read suggests that most people tend toward having a pretty consistent starting 11 with as few changes made as possible. Has this been discussed in more detail elsewhere?

[crazyscotsman]

I have always use a 27 man squad made up as follows: 2 players for each position, then a 3rd GK, and 4 young players who I have the potential to eventually make the 1st team.

[Icy]

For what i see in the demo so far, it's been implemented in FM11, you can see it in the "Match Preparation" screen, where you can select up to 3 tactics and the tactic familiarity levels. This ads a lot to the realism.