Official Football Manager 2015 Feedback Thread 15.2.1

[Raniel3]

Aren't you making the mistake of equating defensive tactics with sitting deep and giving up space? Being a consistently good defensive team has historically always required a very well drilled and carefully planned strategy of pressing and disruption. The problem with a few previous versions has been that individual quality too often failed to beat a robust deep unit sitting right in front of their goal which made standing off and conceding space an attractive prospect from a defensive point of view. I haven't played against the Hazards and Robbens in FM15 yet myself, but them being able to beat passive defenses through individual quality sounds just about right to me.

My personal approach to FM has always been defense first. As said, I haven't played the top level teams in FM15 so my experience is limited to a range of tiers below them. But so far I've really enjoyed how well I can set my team up defensively on all the levels I have played at. This is my current season in the Hungarian second divison:

Granted, achieving that requires keeping more than 55% possession on average, but possession in my view is the main defensive tool anyway. For me this is close to as good as it gets defensively. However I'd still expect individual quality to beat that approach more often when moving up to a top level. That would only make sense.

Do you feel there are issues with defensive logic in the ME? Because I can't see it. All I see is AI unable to cope with the level of tactical flexibility. The AI teams let user teams overwhelm them with attacking tactics because they don't know how to set up defensively. Cramming everybody in their own box isn't a good enough strategy anymore and going all out attack back at them is only going to end in a frantic end to end stuff where the user will have an upper hand in most instances. It's going to be a tough balancing act but I do feel the focus has to be on AI tactics instead of ME mechanics.

Well, he is obviously talking about WEAKER teams that try to have at least a solid defense. Of course with Barcelona you don't sit deep when you want to have a good defensive record. But weaker teams, that just don't have the ability to keep possession, need to sit deep and restrict space in the final third to be defensively solid. This is next to impossible in FM 15, though, as shots for your opponent increase the more you fall back (which shouldn't be that much the case, except for long distance shots, because you do restrict space in front of your area, which decreases the amount of shots in real life).

Basically, you can only have a good defense if your team is good overall. That's why it's a save tactic to go kamikaze with let's say Burnley and evade relegation with 90 goals for and 95 against.

I'm yet to see someone conceding less than 40 goals with Burnley, e.g.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Well, he is obviously talking about WEAKER teams that try to have at least a solid defense. Of course with Barcelona you don't sit deep when you want to have a good defensive record. But weaker teams, that just don't have the ability to keep possession, need to sit deep and restrict space in the final third to be defensively solid. This is next to impossible in FM 15, though, as shots for your opponent increase the more you fall back (which shouldn't be that much the case, except for long distance shots, because you do restrict space in front of your area, which decreases the amount of shots in real life).

Basically, you can only have a good defense if your team is good overall. That's why it's a save tactic to go kamikaze with let's say Burnley and evade relegation with 90 goals for and 95 against.

I'm yet to see someone conceding less than 40 goals with Burnley, e.g.

If you concede space then by very nature you will concede shots. What is an example of a poor team sitting deep, not playing the pressure game and getting consistent results? There's a reason poor teams generally end up bottom of the table with a lot of goals conceded.

My Hungarian team is hardly Barcelona either. Nor have any of the teams I've managed in this version which vary from Swedish amateurs to English lower leagues and similar. I've had a good defensive record with every one of them.

Evading relegation with Burnley should be an extremely difficult prospect with whatever tactics. It's not good that it's so easily done with attacking tactics but that doesn't mean it should be remotely easy to make them concede around 1 goal per game. The real life version has 36 goals against in 22 games.

[RTHerringbone]

Basically, you can only have a good defense if your team is good overall.

I think this is quite a sweeping statement. I've had the best defensive record in the Premier League with Southampton, in Hong Kong with Sun Pegasus, in Sweden with IFK Göteborg, Australia with Melbourne City and now the Third Division in Brazil with Águia de Marabá.

Barring Sweden and England, my teams have been far from competitive in terms of relative player quality in their leagues.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I think this is quite a sweeping statement.

Not to mention that it's also quite accurate generally when it comes to reality. What are the historical examples of poor teams that have been great defensively?

A good example of successful defensive strategy in the top game, at least in England, obviously has to be Stoke under Pulis. They however had a team that were taller and stronger than their opponents, played a very aggressive disruption game (ask Arsenal fans) and maximized their size and strength through set pieces. And they still took their fair share of beatings. That's just how football is at top level where so many individual players have match winning ability.

[Raniel3]

I think this is quite a sweeping statement. I've had the best defensive record in the Premier League with Southampton, in Hong Kong with Sun Pegasus, in Sweden with IFK Göteborg, Australia with Melbourne City and now the Third Division in Brazil with Águia de Marabá.

Barring Sweden and England, my teams have been far from competitive in terms of relative player quality in their leagues.

Yes I admit I was overshooting a tad. I do have a great defensive record myself, but not by sitting deep. The counter approach never worked for me in FM 15, but did work excellently in FM 14. Was that in your first season with Southhampton or more down the road, when the team was supposedly strenghtened quite a bit? And did you play rather defensively or were you pressing high?

@Äkttsjon Männ: Of course it's a bit of a paradox to look for "poor" teams with a great defense, because as soon as a team is defensively solid, you won't call it "poor" anymore. What I mean is, take a team that is let's say flop 5 regarding CA-average in your league, and overachieve with them through a solid defence rather than through an attacking style (that is, sit deep, play on the counter etc.). In FM 15 I think - and that's what Svenc argued and proved with his experiment - that's either not possible at all or it is at least always a lot less profitable than just going all out attack. And this is something that needs to be adressed ASAP. Offensive, risky style for weak teams should only be an effective option if the team has the players for it (like high work rate, aggression, stamina for high pressing game etc., or if they just have 8 brilliant forwards but only incompetent defenders e.g.).

I think we would all agree, that if Burnley played the above mentioned tactic, they WOULD end up with 90 goals against them, but certainly with a lot less goals FOR them, wouldn't we?

[RTHerringbone]

Not to mention that it's also quite accurate generally when it comes to reality. What are the historical examples of poor teams that have been great defensively?

Absolutely agree in terms of real-life context; I was just disputing the notion that in FM you can't defend well with a crap team.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Yes I admit I was overshooting a tad. I do have a great defensive record myself, but not by sitting deep. The counter approach never worked for me in FM 15, but did work excellently in FM 14. Was that in your first season with Southhampton or more down the road, when the team was supposedly strenghtened quite a bit? And did you play rather defensively or were you pressing high?

@Äkttsjon Männ: Of course it's a bit of a paradox to look for "poor" teams with a great defense, because as soon as a team is defensively solid, you won't call it "poor" anymore. What I mean is, take a team that is let's say flop 5 regarding CA-average in your league, and overachieve with them through a solid defence rather than through an attacking style (that is, sit deep, play on the counter etc.). In FM 15 I think - and that's what Svenc argued and proved with his experiment - that's either not possible at all or it is at least always a lot less profitable than just going all out attack. And this is something that needs to be adressed ASAP. Offensive, risky style for weak teams should only be an effective option if the team has the players for it (like high work rate, aggression, stamina for high pressing game etc., or if they just have 8 brilliant forwards but only incompetent defenders e.g.).

I think we would all agree, that if Burnley played the above mentioned tactic, they WOULD end up with 90 goals against them, but certainly with a lot less goals FOR them, wouldn't we?

Yes it is possible, although the sitting deep point has to be separate as you just can't equate sitting deep and countering with defensive play (I'm still waiting to hear examples of lesser teams who concede all the space, don't press or disrupt yet get consistent results). Less profitable than overloading the AI, yes. The difference that I'm desperately arguing against the majority here is that the latter is much more likely to be down to AI's handling of tactics if the former is true.

And again, playing on the counter is a very difficult concept that requires both skill and speed in abundance. We need to stop with the idea that technically poor teams should be able to execute it with any sort of consistency either defensively or in attack. Simply sitting deep and expecting your stronger opponents not to batter you with all the space you concede shouldn't be any more successful than going all out attack on them.

[RTHerringbone]

Yes I admit I was overshooting a tad. I do have a great defensive record myself, but not by sitting deep. The counter approach never worked for me in FM 15, but did work excellently in FM 14. Was that in your first season with Southhampton or more down the road, when the team was supposedly strenghtened quite a bit? And did you play rather defensively or were you pressing high?

Just had a look at my stats, and in season one we conceded 27 in 38 league games (just Arsenal and City conceded fewer). We were still relatively average in the second season in terms of player quality, but had the best overall defensive record with 29 conceded. It was an Attacking Mentality within the constraints of a defensive formation (4-1-4-1).

There are a bunch of factors at play overall and somewhere between Äktsjon Männ and Svenc is the ideal middle ground. Äktsjon Männ correctly points out that there aren't really contemporary real life examples of bad teams sitting deep, conceding space and doing well. Svenc's observations about Attack Duty positioning are known issues and they inevitably lessen the likelihood even more of deep defensive systems working well with lesser sides in FM15 at the moment.

If / when the advanced Duty balance is resolved, then the effectiveness of imbalanced systems becomes diluted and it therefore should appropriately increase the effectiveness of a defensive system. When that stage is reached, Äktsjon Männ's point about lesser teams' ability to defend well still holds within the appropriate context.

[johnhughthom]

Twelve tutoring assignments come back at once, every single one "such and such is a little disappointed..." Squad with great morale, top of the league, every one was one of the recommended tutors. Pointless.

[Shake Appeal]

Bearing in mind that this is about the most unbalanced and risky you can go over 90 minutes in full (no additional player instructions atop the exposing duty/structuring, but encouraging a high pressing game), and that two of these are the worst sides in their league by far, I don't think it's a surprise that most tend to favor hugely aggressive attacking tactics in any kind of way. Defenses tend to get overwhelmed too easily, even if they have man advantage, and apparently despite individual setbacks you can succeed in simply overloading final thirds. Hugely many runs from deep=good luck defending them. What might factor into this that even the cheapest teams can be turned into a threat in front of goal is also that technical attributes in isolation, such as first touch, passing and technique are still very under weighted in the calculations, in terms of simple ball retention ability anyhow (that is, keeping the ball over short distances).

I strongly, strongly agree with this. I was far too fearful in my first few games in the EPL with newly-promoted Norwich. I tried to have a patient, cautious counter and got pounded a few times. When I shrugged my shoulders, gave up trying to keep the ball, pushed higher, pressed higher, and set more players to aggressively attack the box from deep, I started winning and winning big. I'm now seventh, Kyle Lafferty is the leading scorer in the Premier League, and Norwich have more goals than anyone else in the league. Despite having relatively mediocre first touch and passing, we have some of the highest passing success rates in the league. We just overload most teams, and my recklessness is overwhelmingly rewarded.

After multiple patches, this FM finally looks sort of like real football, but I think it's more fundamentally flawed than in the last few years. There are still far too many goals. It's still far too easy to score. AI defending, interceptions and controlling of space are still mediocre, and the game still uses whopping amounts of tackling and poor finishing of great chances to compensate. It feels easier to "game" than it did in FM14, bizarrely, and fewer approaches feel valid. Certainly it feels like you're hamstringing yourself if you play safety-first football. Why not just win 5-2?

[PeeDub]

It's the one bugbear I have about the bug reporting system, but I know that it's no simple task. If they could say, for example, "Upload your current save, and we'll do the rest", and then go in and be able to call back everything that has happened (within reason) to track down the bug. To be honest, that's probably something they've thought about and gone "wouldn't it be nice" or already completely discounted it, but it's always something I've thought about when it comes to reporting bugs.

Go on then, I'll say it - would be nice if I could hear what the SI devs think about that

I'll say this then : getting the save issue fixed will result in people keeping running saves more often and thus helping to have a pre-issue save. I'm not having the save issue, so I always have one per week.

[sirgiorgio]

Yes it is possible, although the sitting deep point has to be separate as you just can't equate sitting deep and countering with defensive play (I'm still waiting to hear examples of lesser teams who concede all the space, don't press or disrupt yet get consistent results). Less profitable than overloading the AI, yes. The difference that I'm desperately arguing against the majority here is that the latter is much more likely to be down to AI's handling of tactics if the former is true.

And again, playing on the counter is a very difficult concept that requires both skill and speed in abundance. We need to stop with the idea that technically poor teams should be able to execute it with any sort of consistency either defensively or in attack. Simply sitting deep and expecting your stronger opponents not to batter you with all the space you concede shouldn't be any more successful than going all out attack on them.

I agree with everything except the last sentence. You make it sound like lesser teams choose to sit deep and get battered... and better teams don't know better ways to "batter" their opponents than to shoot on sight... Sometimes teams park the bus because they think it's the only thing to do, sometimes they have the best intentions but they're simply swept away by their opponents. And great teams, nowadays, tend to win matches by carefully choosing their chances, instead of constantly crossing/dribbling/shooting. Which is something the ME sometimes "forgets" to represent: it seems that you're playing in the best possible way and the goal is about to come, and yet you don't score, and you're kind of forced to play "worse" in order to obtain "better" results.

Anyway, I agree that AI's handling of tactics (and even more specifically, formations) is much more "to blame" than the ME, atm. Although I still can't believe my eyes when I see my lone striker on support duty (Woodrow, Mitroglu, Tevez, Morata, Championship, EPL, Serie A, doesn't matter) scoring more than one goal per game...

If / when the advanced Duty balance is resolved, then the effectiveness of imbalanced systems becomes diluted and it therefore should appropriately increase the effectiveness of a defensive system. When that stage is reached, Äktsjon Männ's point about lesser teams' ability to defend well still holds within the appropriate context.

I'm kind of scared of the contingent effects of this possible "dilution". The thing I like the most about the current ME is that you can clearly see the difference between defend, support and attack duties. If duties are "watered down" (again), then it'll be harder to see what's right/wrong with your tactics. People complain because trequartistas and poachers don't track back... Well, they're not supposed to. Use other roles and duties if you want them to track back. Want a defensive tactic? Start with a defensive formation, with defenders, defensive midfielders and/or wingbacks. Want to attack? put more players upfront. It's simple, easy and tbh not far from the truth.

First and foremost, changes should be made on AI/database level, IMO.

[Svenc]

Granted, achieving that requires keeping more than 55% possession on average, but possession in my view is the main defensive tool anyway. For me this is close to as good as it gets defensively. However I'd still expect individual quality to beat that approach more often when moving up to a top level. That would only make sense.

Was kind of like my point. Obviously defending is a balancing act. However, whilst in real life minnows can frustrate opposition on occasion simply by keeping men back and deep in numbers, in this iteration this means jack at all in comparison to some earlier releases, though arguably in particular up to FM 2012, forcing opponents to take long shots was probably too easy (defensive mentality+drop deeper+stand off, etc.). Or to put it in another way: Whilst pushing men simply up in numbers results in a ton of goals regardless of player quality, doing the opposite is a much harder thing to do. I'm managing in lower divisions right now too, where it is obvious from the statistics that individual class doesn't quite as shine (my top wingers average but two runs per game which makes them already the top of their league and is arguably too few -- at the top it is multiple times of that which is too much though if you look at real life stats), so that is a bit different. However, naturally the way the attribute system is set up, everything rubs off on any level of play (a supposedly, I don't know, increase in prowess of dribblings/off the ball movement/decision making affects all levels). However it is the very top naturally with player such as Hazard or Aguero in the EPL who multiple times during a match create space out of jack all all by themselves, naturally.

It's a tough compare to real life football though, whilst anybody's talking anecdotes. What relegation side does that? What team plays that way full stop?! More recently Nuremberg hired Verbeek last autumn when they were struggling against relegation and he did encourage them to play a pro-active possession game, which is unusual for a side out of confidence and struggling to get results, however then he was sacked before the season was wrapped and Nuremberg were relegated regardless. However at least personally I'm confident that I couldn't have gotten such good results with the teams had I not encouraged the side to go all out attack. That's twice almost qualifying for Europe with the weakest teams. I'm positively hopeful actually that it's just me though. That's not a call for it to be easy (or even possible) to get a side such as Burnley conceding a goal per match or anything. That is more a call of it being a tad more difficult for sides to break down in particular packed boxes and tight bands of players in front of it, rather than walking straight in regardless time and time again. I may be wrong, but that balance appears to have shifted a little.

Do you feel there are issues with defensive logic in the ME? Because I can't see it. All I see is AI unable to cope with the level of tactical flexibility. The AI teams let user teams overwhelm them with attacking tactics because they don't know how to set up defensively. Cramming everybody in their own box isn't a good enough strategy anymore and going all out attack back at them is only going to end in a frantic end to end stuff where the user will have an upper hand in most instances. It's going to be a tough balancing act but I do feel the focus has to be on AI tactics instead of ME mechanics.

The AI arguably too readily couples more cautious mentalities with drop deeper encouragements from the looks of it, for instance, which also likely contribute to games with high shot counts. If all was entirelly down to AI decision making though, set up a new save, preferable in Classic as there is little so such thing as a tactics being ungelled, pick two teams, arrange a friendly and try it. :-) Personally I did and found it hard to cope with everybody advancing into the box. The first match-up was won, but it was harum-scarum stuff and a little luck, 6-5 or something. The best way to go about it would be not getting it to that point though probably, that is keeping the ball off them and not encouraging to get pinned back in the first place. Some of the more physical side of defending has traditionally not been implemented into FM quite of yet, the shoulder charging, the huffing and puffing, the physical contacts. If all you'd watch was key highlights, which naturally only shows defending at its most passive on either end very likely, it'd also draw an exaggerated picture of the state of things though. On the positive side, obviously there's much to admire about some of the fluidity on display, the runs being made into space that opens up, the interlinking of passes, the many direct and through balls when they're on, the way attacking players try to evade their markers. Going back to earlier releases, attacking play is far more robotic. :-)

[Äktsjon Männ]

I agree with everything except the last sentence. You make it sound like lesser teams choose to sit deep and get battered... and better teams don't know better ways to "batter" their opponents than to shoot on sight...

That sentence was in FM context. You're right of course that in reality a lot of cases of teams defending very deep is not by choice but simply a result of the other team pinning them back. In FM it's much more flexible because team shape is very heavily dependent on the formation you select. Sitting deep and standing off is thus even more counter productive because good teams look to pin bad ones back in their own half right from the start. Going deep and passive forces you even deeper with lesser outlets so conceding a lot of shots has to be expected.

It's a tough compare to real life football though, whilst anybody's talking anecdotes. What relegation side does that? What team plays that way full stop?! More recently Nuremberg hired Verbeek last autumn when they were struggling against relegation and he did encourage them to play a pro-active possession game, which is unusual for a side out of confidence and struggling to get results, however then he was sacked before the season was wrapped and Nuremberg were relegated regardless. However at least personally I'm confident that I couldn't have gotten such good results with the teams had I not encouraged the side to go all out attack. That's twice almost qualifying for Europe with the weakest teams. I'm positively hopeful actually that it's just me though. That's not a call for it to be easy (or even possible) to get a side such as Burnley conceding a goal per match or anything. That is more a call of it being a tad more difficult for sides to break down in particular packed boxes and tight bands of players in front of it, rather than walking straight in regardless time and time again. I may be wrong, but that balance appears to have shifted a little.

If you're referring to my Hungarian example then as I said, that's the extreme end. The team are not relegation candidates so keeping possession as a defensive tool is very viable. I wouldn't expect it to work with Burnley in the Premier League simply because player quality will prevail most of the times. But the principles can still be applied. Pressure is a vital part of any successful defense and key to consistency. You can retreat into your own box and get a result through incredible goalkeeping, opposition having an off day or simply through a large dose of luck but over a stretch of games that has never been, nor will it ever become a winning strategy.

Some of the more physical side of defending has traditionally not been implemented into FM quite of yet, the shoulder charging, the huffing and puffing, the physical contacts. If all you'd watch was key highlights, which naturally only shows defending at its most passive on either end very likely, it'd also draw an exaggerated picture of the state of things though. On the positive side, obviously there's much to admire about some of the fluidity on display, the runs being made into space that opens up, the interlinking of passes, the many direct and through balls when they're on, the way attacking players try to evade their markers. Going back to earlier releases, attacking play is far more robotic. :-)

Yes, the physical side of defending is still not there, but that will not change in FM15. I actually enjoyed the previous version of the 15 ME (15.1.something?) more than the current one because it compensated more heavily through defenders scrambling back, making blocks and recovering tackles etc. But it did overpower the defensive recovery too far which made it too easy to completely shut down all opponents even with really weak teams. 15.2 is more balanced in this regard in my opinion.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I'm kind of scared of the contingent effects of this possible "dilution". The thing I like the most about the current ME is that you can clearly see the difference between defend, support and attack duties. If duties are "watered down" (again), then it'll be harder to see what's right/wrong with your tactics. People complain because trequartistas and poachers don't track back... Well, they're not supposed to. Use other roles and duties if you want them to track back. Want a defensive tactic? Start with a defensive formation, with defenders, defensive midfielders and/or wingbacks. Want to attack? put more players upfront. It's simple, easy and tbh not far from the truth.

First and foremost, changes should be made on AI/database level, IMO.

I also strongly agree with this. In my view the defensive positioning of attack duty players is just fine and how I'd expect it to be. I would be disappointed to see it change back. What is not fine is AI's use of duty combinations and it's ability to punish the human player for similarly illogical tactical choices.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Oh and sorry for the triple post, but this just occurred in my save.

Just what exactly am I supposed to say here? Not a single aspect of this makes the tiniest bit of sense.

[HUNT3R]

That's clearly a bug. He doesn't seem to be recognising that he has been playing regularly. If you have a save from before his complaint, it would be greatly appreciated in the bugs forum.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Am uploading it already but it's taking an age and I'm not sure it'll be finished before I have to leave for work.

[Mitja]

I also strongly agree with this. In my view the defensive positioning of attack duty players is just fine and how I'd expect it to be. I would be disappointed to see it change back. What is not fine is AI's use of duty combinations and it's ability to punish the human player for similarly illogical tactical choices.

in real life football everyone plays defense and tracks back. it's just the basis of football that wingers track back after full-backs. SI stated it needs fixing. I'm yet to see attackers positioning like on those pictures Svenc posted. ever. also sitting deep in own half tactcics is standard for real life qiuck counter-attacking football most low and middle tier teams play like that.

[Äktsjon Männ]

in real life football everyone plays defense and tracks back. it's just the basis of football that wingers track back after full-backs. SI stated it needs fixing. I'm yet to see attackers positioning like on those pictures Svenc posted. ever. also sitting deep in own half tactcics is standard for real life qiuck counter-attacking football most low and middle tier teams play like that.

Everyone tracks back how far? You've never seen attackers keep their position higher up during the defensive phase? I'm sorry but you should start paying more attention if not. The issue with those screenshots is the amount of players staying up in defensive phase not the positioning itself.

Also most lower tier teams absolutely do not successfully play quick counter attacking football. They may try, but not being that quick or technically skilled tends to make it rather futile. They do get forced deep as discussed but that's rarely by choice. Again, there's a reason lesser skilled teams end up where they do results wise i.e low in the league tables.

[edupampero]

I would like to see again the kits at the time of the game, for example: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2yy1m5k&s=8

as I do to do that? could help me?

[Svenc]

There are a bunch of factors at play overall and somewhere between Äktsjon Männ and Svenc is the ideal middle ground. Äktsjon Männ correctly points out that there aren't really contemporary real life examples of bad teams sitting deep, conceding space and doing well. Svenc's observations about Attack Duty positioning are known issues and they inevitably lessen the likelihood even more of deep defensive systems working well with lesser sides in FM15 at the moment.

I wasn't so much trying to argue that bad teams sitting deep should do well, they should struggle regardless of approach (it is, by the way, possible to play keep-ball even with lesser sides, which is arguably tied to how technical attributes factor little into simple ball retention -- perhaps somebody remembers my screenshot of 10 EPL games in succession of which 7 ended in a nill nill draw). I was merely arguing that dropping deep is a viable defensive strategy often taken by inferior sides as a means of frustrating superior opposition, their chance of getting a result, and not merely by luck, but denying exclusively the space where said opposition can hurt them, and not conceding that space by getting outplayed by superior technique and pace far up the pitch already by defending high and closing down all over the shop. It is typically the far weaker side, unless we're talking i.e. Chelsea's ploys of dismantling Barca in the CL ties of 2012, for instance -- them simply dropping deep and succeeding in such would overly simplify their approach tactically and would downplay the individual displays of top quality players they had in trying such, but nonetheless there ware large spells in the tie that resembled a match of handball more than association football (and earlier with Inter in 2010 they let Barca have more than 80% of the ball, which is probably still a record on that level to this day). But in the end as controlling a ball with a foot is a bit harder to do than with a hand, even for those graduating at La Masia, the re-active side prevailed and had a realistic chance of doing such.

Such defensive tactics are applied by AI managers in the game anyway, perhaps a bit too drastically and readily, but that is a matter of research and how it ties into AI tactical decision making. FM tends to be biased a little in terms of attacking plays in such a way that I don't think it is a surprise that many tend to go with more proactive tactics regardless of side. And I think older iterations had that balance better on, but let's agree to disagree. I'd be interested in putting it to the test whether the Burnley/Augsburg/Hertha case was all down to AI decision making though or whether boxes are too readily penetrated regardless of player quality. Like exporting one of the sides for a head-to-head online match-up on the weekend. :-) On the top level, Hazard/Aguero/Robben have been nerfed a little, but in December they could (statistically, see the CCC case, cough) average up to 14 dribblings per EPL match. That is 14 on average.

As for the duties: The problem with the duties, is firstly that the most defensive midfielder(s), at least if you opt to field one of such, would need an awareness of whether a side keeps multiple players upfront. I think there is too much space in which pairs or trios of attack duty attacking players can operate in when the attacking side advances. But for a more professional assessment of that SI fortunately appear to have all the football contacts they need. The other problem is more from a gamey perspective. I don't remember exactly, but the reason the majority of players were struggling with the rather unsubtle 4-2-4 tactics the AI used to switch to when trying to chase a game years back was that it suddenly just happened like that, and you'd need to immediately adapt by keeping your full backs at bay. This was basically but about two positions, 2 wingers turning into basically static forwards always high up the pitch all of a sudden. You can field up to 6 players in the respective (AMC/FWD) slots and give them an attack duty each. Even if it was a change of one/two to three, such a dynamics in most formations (two centre backs) immediately shifts the balance.

AI tactics will remain lesser ones in terms of creativity, but in online saves, leagues and matches I can see human players switching duties around like mad, turning this into a battle of micro-duty-twists and turns, essentially number games, that wouldn't happen in football as players or certainly managers would spot what's going on. So I think the problem is two-fold. 1) Whether it depicts a realistic positioning approach, in particular regarding how sides in possession have always operated in FM. 2) Whether it is viable as a "gameplay" mechanism -- there have been various options taken out of the game or made hard coded before as they proved to lend themselves to exploits or unrealistic player behavior. Plus naturally the AI issues as that can't cope with it, as argued.

[Sunstrikuuu]

I'll say this then : getting the save issue fixed will result in people keeping running saves more often and thus helping to have a pre-issue save. I'm not having the save issue, so I always have one per week.

Indeed. I'd like to save a lot more regularly than I am, but it's taking three to four minutes to save each time.

[Sunstrikuuu]

It's weird how 42 teams have all agreed that a £15 million future fee is too high, but £8.75 million is just right. It's also weird how six teams have decided that £11 million is too much for Keiran Gibbs, but £9.5 million paid out over 48 months is perfect.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Still getting this annoying thing after I've clinched promotion with a few games left where I'm asked to hold a team meeting every week until the end of the season to inspire my squad to pick up the one point I need to go up. I even get this in the last game if I'm miles clear. And it's always a team talk option as well! Doesn't actually make any tangible difference, but it's weird.

[andu1]

Are you having a laugh now SI?

And to those that suggested that too many shots is linked to attacking style, I play COUNTER strategy 4-4-2- with wingers pushed to AM posi, not even standard or control, i use work ball into the box and my players have 56 shots on goal? Please, do the needful with this game, it is not even funny anymore. I am not bothered by the score, but i would prefer realistic football instead of this arcadish nonsense.

This is not a rant, i am just expressing my dissapointment.

[Johnny Ace]

What was the long shots count from that game? Not digging just might help explain it

[andu1]

11 long shots.

[Cougar2010]

Are you having a laugh now SI?

And to those that suggested that too many shots is linked to attacking style, I play COUNTER strategy 4-4-2- with wingers pushed to AM posi, not even standard or control, i use work ball into the box and my players have 56 shots on goal? Please, do the needful with this game, it is not even funny anymore. I am not bothered by the score, but i would prefer realistic football instead of this arcadish nonsense.

This is not a rant, i am just expressing my dissapointment.

You had 56 shots but only 6 clear chances. You did dominate possession and have good completion stats for passes/crosses/tackles.

Its not just about your overall strategy, its about the individual roles/duties/instructions/PPMs/Player tendencies as well.

From my experience this version even with a fairly direct strategy I've never seen my team have more than around 35-40 shots at the very, very most (Generally ave 12-18 per match) so to have 56 with a counter strategy suggests you need to look more at the individuals on the pitch.

Which players were taking the most shots? Were they wasting possession? why? Was it a role, duty, instruction or a PPM causing them to take too many shots.

I suspect if you look closer at the match there will be probably two maybe three players who took the bulk of the shots.

[andu1]

I disagree Cougar2010, my tactic is perfectly fine as long as i am winning titles.

No matter what tactic you use you shouldn't have 56 shots on goal in any football game.

[Cougar2010]

I disagree Cougar2010, my tactic is perfectly fine as long as i am winning titles.

No matter what tactic you use you shouldn't have 56 shots on goal in any football game.

You are fully entitled to your opinion but in mine you are wrong, users should always have the opportunity to "get it wrong"

As winning is the aim of any match then any tactic which wins the match is fine (Providing it doesn't exploit the ME). In your example you got the win but personally I wouldn't be happy with the manner of the win. I would be looking to pinpoint why the team had too many shots and why they weren't creating better quality chances.

Less shots/more clear chances should then = more goals and a more comfortable win which I would be happier with.

[RTHerringbone]

Please! 56 shots, only a third on target, 11 long shots and it isn't tactical? The mind boggles.

As Alex has asked, please upload the .pkm to the Bugs Forum and advise what your system is (Roles, Duties, Mentality, Team Shape, PIs and TIs).

[andu1]

Can you provide a pkm file for that match, the ME team can then take a detailed look into why there were so many attempts at goal.

@ Alex Crawford, I uploaded it now, name is PSG 56 shots and i am curios what your analysis will discover.

@RTHerringbone, i know you defend this ME with all your all your passion but in this instance you are wrong.

You think it's tactical when my team had 6 Clear Cut Chances? If i had won 5-1, that meant my tactis are rubbish? What if i had scored 20 from that 56 shots? This very team that i had 56 shots against was trashed 11-2 by Lyon in the first game of the season.

[forameuss]

@ Alex Crawford, I uploaded it now, name is PSG 56 shots and i am curios what your analysis will discover.

@RTHerringbone, i know you defend this ME with all your all your passion but in this instance you are wrong.

You think it's tactical when my team had 6 Clear Cut Chances? If i had won 5-1, that meant my tactis are rubbish? What if i had scored 20 from that 56 shots? This very team that i had 56 shots against was trashed 11-2 by Lyon in the first game of the season.

But you didn't do any of that, so what's the point in playing the what if game? In this particular game, your tactics weren't good enough to win by more than 2-1.

[andu1]

@Forameuss

Please stop the fanboysm, it is not helping SI at all. If you want arcade trash go play fifa.

I uploaded the game for SI and I will let them fix their game.

[andu1]

Ok I will, *snip*, i wish you luck in finding and fixing all the bugs that result in these type of games.

[Äktsjon Männ]

You are fully entitled to your opinion but in mine you are wrong, users should always have the opportunity to "get it wrong"

There's a difference between the ability to get something wrong and the ability to get a team having 56 shots at goal. The latter is near impossible in real life context so it should be extremely hard to replicate in FM as well, never mind happening unintentionally with tactics that on the surface are trying to restrict shots (counter+work ball into box). There's clearly an issue with the AI letting themselves be bombarded in this manner tactically and I suppose with the willingness of the players to keep having redundant shots, which ties into decision making in the ME. So in short, yes it's tactical but the result is too far in the extreme to be disregarded.

[jumbohotdog]

@ Alex Crawford, I uploaded it now, name is PSG 56 shots and i am curios what your analysis will discover.

@RTHerringbone, i know you defend this ME with all your all your passion but in this instance you are wrong.

You think it's tactical when my team had 6 Clear Cut Chances? If i had won 5-1, that meant my tactis are rubbish? What if i had scored 20 from that 56 shots? This very team that i had 56 shots against was trashed 11-2 by Lyon in the first game of the season.

I have never trusted what fm says is a Clear Cut Chance.

[RTHerringbone]

Could you create an actual thread in the bugs forum please andu1. At the moment it looks like just a .pkm has been uploaded, but if it isn't logged in a specific thread, it could easily get missed, and SI won't be able to add your example to any open bug reports they have.

[andu1]

Could you create an actual thread in the bugs forum please andu1. At the moment it looks like just a .pkm has been uploaded, but if it isn't logged in a specific thread, it could easily get missed, and SI won't be able to add your example to any open bug reports they have.

i just did

@jumbhotdog

Not sure what you want to say. If my strikers had a good day the result could have been 15-1.

[jumbohotdog]

What I am trying to say is I do not trust the clear cut chance stats in fm. What the game charts as a Clear Cut Chance is not always a true Clear Cut Chance

[Svenc]

In my opinion unless there's something fishy going on with the AI team's decision making, or this was a team full of "shots on sight" PPM players or anything, the only way to amass this many shots, in particular considering the restrained mentality, is by having both the central midfielders on attack/support duty so that every one advanced and had no choice but to finish every time due to no possible save back pass, possibly coupled with attacking full backs too. In previous releases PPMs could influence that too, but in this one a holding player stays a holder playing regardless from my experience. There's no real life comparison to this, no team in football plays that way if that was the case (imagine Woy pushing Gerrard, Carrick and whatever is the rest of his midfield in any given match all up at once for the full 90 minutes). In that case team instructions wouldn't do much, as a team's shape obviously has to suit them first (limited use clicking "go route one" if there's no options upfront, etc.).

Would be interesting to hear what it was now, as as seen the AI has a couple of issues too.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Would be interesting to hear what it was now, as as seen the AI has a couple of issues too.

I think you should be able to grab the pkm from SI's ftp server if you want to have a look for yourself.

Edit: just checked, you can't. Can only ask andu1 to upload it to a public server I guess.

[Loversleaper]

It's pretty easy to re-create those type of games like the one andu1 experienced, so in reality I don't think it is worth arguing over...

[Kriss]

Proper feedback please or it won't just be posts deleted.

[Worldclass]

Even without the collision system, FM 2012 seems harder than FM15. Or should I say just as easy. Considering FM2015 has a collision system, it just as easy to score goals and create chances in FM2015. In FM2012 you can get some boring 0-0s, with hardly any shots on goal. I'm just wondering why this is? wasn't the collision system introduced to make it harder to create chances. But so far FM2012 (Final patch) seems to provide a more balanced match engine, if you play it without exploiting the match engine.

[themadsheep2001]

Proper feedback please or it won't just be posts deleted.

To add to this and to Alex's post, there has been a rising level of sniping at each other and it needs to stop now, or we will simply escalate warnings to 30 point infractions.

Thank you.

[Davey Boy]

How can this happen? i have a German scout, scouting the bundesliga and 3/4's into the season he has yet to spot a talent like julian Draxler? :confused:

[CityAndColour]

Who are you playing as? He might not think Draxler would improve on what you have in the same position or might think he's unobtainable.

[Some Guy!]

Yeah, we get it, you are dissatisfied with the long save time issue that some users are experiencing. However, stop cluttering up other people's threads with it.

Can't even make jokes it seems. Fine, in the feedback thread then:

Are they still "working" on it? At this point in time it seems suspiciously like this has just been shoved in the "completely unimportant, fix with 15.3" pile, as I was worried they would.