I really don't know what to do next

[pheelf]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

If they were a lot closer, wouldn't they opt for a byline cross instead? My own logic, which might be severely faulty. I personally don't mind them bombing up even further, but then someone has to cover for them in midfield.

I don't think there is a definitive answer to that question and it all comes down to the situation and judgement of the player. Sometimes they'll drive to the byline and other times they wont, with a Support duty the majority of the time they wont.

Absolutely correct, if you are asking them to bomb forward then you need to have someone in the midfield staying back and providing cover for them.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, pheelf said:

I don't think there is a definitive answer to that question and it all comes down to the situation and judgement of the player. Sometimes they'll drive to the byline and other times they wont, with a Support duty the majority of the time they wont.

Absolutely correct, if you are asking them to bomb forward then you need to have someone in the midfield staying back and providing cover for them.

I used a DLP-D in the middle, and further back, but what does a CM-Su do, defensively? I'm unsure on which PI-s to put on that kind of role, if I want some cover for a wide defender.

[pheelf]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

I used a DLP-D in the middle, and further back, but what does a CM-Su do, defensively? I'm unsure on which PI-s to put on that kind of role, if I want some cover for a wide defender.

With the CM(S) you make him do whatever you want as its one of the roles in the game which has no pre defined PIs and has all options available. If you want him to provide cover then 'Hold Position' seems a good starting point.

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, pheelf said:

With the CM(S) you make him do whatever you want as its one of the roles in the game which has no pre defined PIs and has all options available. If you want him to provide cover then 'Hold Position' seems a good starting point.

Yeah, that flexibility also leaves me with a thousand doubts. Does an AM-At offer enough movement to offset a stationary CM behind?

[pheelf]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Yeah, that flexibility also leaves me with a thousand doubts. Does an AM-At offer enough movement to offset a stationary CM behind?

No need for doubt, you know what you want him to do so you select the options which suit. If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.

I see no reason why not? What kind of movement do want to see from him? I don't know whether it's necessarily offsetting his more disciplined approach. Look at it as an opportunity to have a less disciplined player with respect to positioning in the AM (A) role.

[Bunkerossian]

3 minutes ago, pheelf said:

No need for doubt, you know what you want him to do so you select the options which suit. If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.

I see no reason why not? What kind of movement do want to see from him? I don't know whether it's necessarily offsetting his more disciplined approach. Look at it as an opportunity to have a less disciplined player with respect to positioning in the AM (A) role.

Well, guides emphasize the need for some players in midfield to offer movement on and off the ball. I'm not sure if I have all that.

[pheelf]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Well, guides emphasize the need for some players in midfield to offer movement on and off the ball. I'm not sure if I have all that.

Why? You have loads of movement off the ball just because a player isn't a midfielder doesn't mean that he isn't going to operate in the midfield zone. You have the wingbacks which will come up into the wide midfield area, the AM(A) which has get further forward as a preset, the DLF(S) who is going to drop deep into the midfield and the AF who is constantly looking to test the back line and run into channels, All of them will have off the ball movement. How much more movement do you want? 

Even on the ball movement is fine, the wingbacks will dribble the ball forwards, the AF will do so and you can instruct the AM(A) to do so also if that's what you want.

I'd be very careful when reading guides and taking it as gospel which others have also said on here. That's not saying there is anything wrong with them its just that you don't want to fall into the same trap that I did and allow it to stifle you from making decisions. Use the guides to inform your decisions not to make them for you.

Anyway, I think I've pretty much exhausted all my tactical musings for now. You'll crack it eventually, all the best

[Bunkerossian]

I have failed, yet again. Several people have tried to help me, but I was unable to get any wins in 5 league games.

[Bunkerossian]

4 minutes ago, looping said:

You won't get learn anything here. Not because advice given is bad. The reason why you won't understand anything is because any advice given here proceeds on the basis there are certain things you understand. And you don't understand them so advice is useless because doesn't answer your questions.

You'd need private tutoring, someone literally sitting besides you and playing the game in front of you so you can see the logic of the game.

By the way, me too.

You have other alternatives, though:

- Download a tactic

- Go to the tactic creator and choose any tactic. Change all Auto roles to support, and don't touch anything. Just play. You will certainly underachieve and sometimes you'll be sacked but most of the time you'll be able to play the game. Playing the game this way includes having terrible bad runs also (20 or more games without a win).If you are sacked go to another team. That's what I'm doing right now and if you accept you are going to lose many matches, you can play it. Your players are able to win despite your tactics most of the time (according to their quality)

I indeed do need private tutoring. People tell me in PM-s to look for the level of support the players get, their movement, passing options... I just can't gauge these parameters on my own. I lost a game in which I was very happy with how my team created chances. But I only scored once. There must be flaws with my tactic, but I cannot identify them.

[herne79]

@looping  Stop giving advice.  It's terrible.

"Do what I said or give up".

"You won't learn anything here".

These are phrases that will simply get me riled up and makes a mockery of the numerous people who give up their own free time to offer help.  You've already been told not to open a new thread until such time as you have some (consistently) good news.  Well now I'm also going to tell you to just stay out of the Tactics Forum completely until such time as you have some good news.

Anything else from you from this point onwards in this forum I'm going to treat as trolling or anti-social behaviour and there are rules about that.

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, herne79 said:

@looping  Stop giving advice.  It's terrible.

"Do what I said or give up".

"You won't learn anything here".

These are phrases that will simply get me riled up and makes a mockery of the numerous people who give up their own free time to offer help.  You've already been told not to open a new thread until such time as you have some (consistently) good news.  Well now I'm also going to tell you to just stay out of the Tactics Forum completely until such time as you have some good news.

Anything else from you from this point onwards in this forum I'm going to treat as trolling or anti-social behaviour and there are rules about that.

Please don't be so harsh on him. I'm dejected by the complexity of things, just as he is. I know he isn't offering constructive advice, but to be honest, constructive advice has, up to this point, only revealed that I cannot analyze visual data properly. I do need tutoring, just as he does.

[Svenc]

13 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

constructive advice has, up to this point, only revealed that I cannot analyze visual data properly.

You also have a health problem, with generally unfavorable traits (rage proneness, impatience in particular with a flat out mediocre side, ...) being not the most ideal for this "special" game type. No least because all your opponents you compete against are like those robots from Terminator, completely immune to anything such, just carrying on with their programmed schedules. No matter how plain dumb some of those schedules may be, this can unfortunately be already a big edge over us inherently flawed humans. (We all are in our own ways).

You also seem to suffer with your view on football. If you followed football, you wouldn't question your entire approach just because your team scored "but a goal". Goals in football fluctuate wildly. One one week you win because of two direct free kicks being converted against all odds. The following four you don't win any match, despite your team battering an opposition. This happens in the game too. In real football, this is actually fairly brutal. Teams go weeks, months with such streaks, even if their generally performance remains more or less consistent. Given that most win margins are but by one or two goals, that shouldn't be such a surprise. Football matches are settled in key seconds of 90 minutes. However, if a side consistently create decent chances, streaks will less likely last. Indeed, what all top sides genuinely dominating leagues have in common is that they have multiple times the decent scoring opportunity of their opponents -- every single week, not once in five matches. May be a little harder to do had they not those superior players, however....

There's one thing I've agreed with looping all along. Looking for advice here will only get you so far, as everybody has already developed his own playing methodology, which required him to get to grips with the game, and most crucially before, football. You're all getting that backwards. This has been documented multiple times (looping can still occasionally compete for top spots, by the way, which says much about the "difficulty" of this game). The rest of the suggestions outside trying downloads are, predictably, bad. Much better go assistant manager for the match days. On FMT you can instruct them further with the "Match Plans". This should be more expanded, as managers work with tactical assistants too (Löw->Klinsmann, for a more prominent pair). I still would be cautious depending on how the game makes you feel. It's just not worth it if it feels like time wasted (hey, I stopped playing too, see the first page ). At this rate, you either way, have a gigantic mountain to climb.

[Bunkerossian]

2 hours ago, Svenc said:

You also have a health problem, with generally unfavorable traits (rage proneness, impatience in particular with a flat out mediocre side, ...) being not the most ideal for this "special" game type. No least because all your opponents you compete against are like those robots from Terminator, completely immune to anything such, just carrying on with their programmed schedules. No matter how plain dumb some of those schedules may be, this can unfortunately be already a big edge over us inherently flawed humans. (We all are in our own ways).

You also seem to suffer with your view on football. If you followed football, you wouldn't question your entire approach just because your team scored "but a goal". Goals in football fluctuate wildly. One one week you win because of two direct free kicks being converted against all odds. The following four you don't win any match, despite your team battering an opposition. This happens in the game too. In real football, this is actually fairly brutal. Teams go weeks, months with such streaks, even if their generally performance remains more or less consistent. Given that most win margins are but by one or two goals, that shouldn't be such a surprise. Football matches are settled in key seconds of 90 minutes. However, if a side consistently create decent chances, streaks will less likely last. Indeed, what all top sides genuinely dominating leagues have in common is that they have multiple times the decent scoring opportunity of their opponents -- every single week, not once in five matches. May be a little harder to do had they not those superior players, however....

There's one thing I've agreed with looping all along. Looking for advice here will only get you so far, as everybody has already developed his own playing methodology, which required him to get to grips with the game, and most crucially before, football. You're all getting that backwards. This has been documented multiple times (looping can still occasionally compete for top spots, by the way, which says much about the "difficulty" of this game). The rest of the suggestions outside trying downloads are, predictably, bad. Much better go assistant manager for the match days. On FMT you can instruct them further with the "Match Plans". This should be more expanded, as managers work with tactical assistants too (Löw->Klinsmann, for a more prominent pair). I still would be cautious depending on how the game makes you feel. It's just not worth it if it feels like time wasted (hey, I stopped playing too, see the first page ). At this rate, you either way, have a gigantic mountain to climb.

The worst part of it all is I guess my inherent health issue. When I see players on the 3D or 2D view, I only see individuals. I have no idea what to look for, when people mention things like ˝level of support˝ or ˝passing options˝. I see that teammates of the one in possession are fairly nearby, but I have no idea if this is close enough. The fact that everyone mentions things like these is a part of my frustration. I just can't spot it.

[Scrench]

One advice i can give you is to read a lot of IRL football analysis, you will understand the basics much better, and have an idea of more advanced concepts.

After a while, when watching football matches you will easily notice the fundamental things like the defesive shape of teams, some basic patterns in movement and positioning.

In FM you can pause the match and rewatch everything as many times as you want. However don't expect FM to play out like a real life football match as there can be huge differences between them in terms of fundamental tactical concepts(pressing for example).

[Armistice]

36 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

The worst part of it all is I guess my inherent health issue. When I see players on the 3D or 2D view, I only see individuals. I have no idea what to look for, when people mention things like ˝level of support˝ or ˝passing options˝. I see that teammates of the one in possession are fairly nearby, but I have no idea if this is close enough. The fact that everyone mentions things like these is a part of my frustration. I just can't spot it.

 

This is what passing options look like in general, in my opinion. The ball carrier should have enough players around him to pass the ball. You could see players around him, but these could be man marked and in this situation, you could see for example your defender lumping the ball forward even if you instructed them to play from the back, like here.

 

 

When I played with Hartlepool, because of defenders low composure, they would kick it long if a striker would start pressing them which frustrated me a lot because we would lose possession and the opponent had it easy to get the ball and start building attacks. So what I did, along the increasing tactical familiarity which helped my defenders use their brains more when on the ball, was to add a pivot to help them play from the back. How would a pivot help? Well he provides another passing options for my defenders which would help them circulate the ball in shorter passing style. You can notice pivots in Guardiola systems. 

https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/2013/8/21/4644330/guardiola-4-1-4-1-single-pivot-attack-defense-schweinsteiger

 

That's an example of passing options situation at least in my experience, with a poor side.

 

Another example. Let's say you want to create a system around a deep lying playmaker, or a regista. When he gets the ball, he has passing options like this.

 

 

Of course, it depends on players too, as I said, because if they can't find spaces to move into, to provide passing options for the ball carrier, or in other words, they stand still like dumb stones, of course you got to take a look at attributes.

[Bunkerossian]

47 minutes ago, Armistice said:

 

This is what passing options look like in general, in my opinion. The ball carrier should have enough players around him to pass the ball. You could see players around him, but these could be man marked and in this situation, you could see for example your defender lumping the ball forward even if you instructed them to play from the back, like here.

 

 

When I played with Hartlepool, because of defenders low composure, they would kick it long if a striker would start pressing them which frustrated me a lot because we would lose possession and the opponent had it easy to get the ball and start building attacks. So what I did, along the increasing tactical familiarity which helped my defenders use their brains more when on the ball, was to add a pivot to help them play from the back. How would a pivot help? Well he provides another passing options for my defenders which would help them circulate the ball in shorter passing style. You can notice pivots in Guardiola systems. 

https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/2013/8/21/4644330/guardiola-4-1-4-1-single-pivot-attack-defense-schweinsteiger

 

That's an example of passing options situation at least in my experience, with a poor side.

 

Another example. Let's say you want to create a system around a deep lying playmaker, or a regista. When he gets the ball, he has passing options like this.

 

 

Of course, it depends on players too, as I said, because if they can't find spaces to move into, to provide passing options for the ball carrier, or in other words, they stand still like dumb stones, of course you got to take a look at attributes.

Thank you. When I look at my team, it seems to me that there are passing options available in most cases (I rewatched several randomly picked game segments). However, my problem is that my own assessment might be faulty.

[Svenc]

9 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

The worst part of it all is I guess my inherent health issue. When I see players on the 3D or 2D view, I only see individuals. I have no idea what to look for, when people mention things like ˝level of support˝ or ˝passing options˝. I see that teammates of the one in possession are fairly nearby, but I have no idea if this is close enough. The fact that everyone mentions things like these is a part of my frustration. I just can't spot it.

If you still insist on doing tactics your own (which the game does not force you to do) -- I'd focus on the end products first, which are those chances on both ends. If your side truly creates that many chances, goals will more likely be scored, and there is no reason to chomp things up. Put things into context though. If you play a much better side, similar to football, you may be "dominated" no matter what you do. Away matches are tougher than home matches, which is reflected in any home and away table too. I have yet to see any indication that both of you follow much football in a way that would be of benefit as of playing the game. As argued on the last page, this is an up-hill battle I don't see any of you winning. I could upgrade my questions and add a few as a test. If you can't answer, do not even try! Any of your opponents (as well as your assistant) can answer most of them in their sleep.

How to teams set up their defences so that they aren't easily countered?

How do teams break down massed defences? Do they all do it the same way?

What type of role does Ronaldo play? Messi? Rooney? Walcott? Müller? Are there similar in FM, can you apply them to the team you follow (Celtic?)

How do teams see out tight games? Do Stoke do it the same as the Spain national team?

Bonus: What changes do teams make to their style of play in different conditions (weather, pitch sizes, etc.)

Additionally, what doesn't help, the basics would do. Half the stuff players in the tactics community engage in are no requirement whatsoever to get sides to at least perform. 

[herne79]

37 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Additionally, what doesn't help, the basics would do. Half the stuff players in the tactics community engage in are no requirement whatsoever to get sides to at least perform. 

I can't upvote this enough.

[Bunkerossian]

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

If you still insist on doing tactics your own (which the game does not force you to do) -- I'd focus on the end products first, which are those chances on both ends. If your side truly creates that many chances, goals will more likely be scored, and there is no reason to chomp things up. Put things into context though. If you play a much better side, similar to football, you may be "dominated" no matter what you do. Away matches are tougher than home matches, which is reflected in any home and away table too. I have yet to see any indication that both of you follow much football in a way that would be of benefit as of playing the game. As argued on the last page, this is an up-hill battle I don't see any of you winning. I could upgrade my questions and add a few as a test. If you can't answer, do not even try! Any of your opponents (as well as your assistant) can answer most of them in their sleep.

How to teams set up their defences so that they aren't easily countered?

How do teams break down massed defences? Do they all do it the same way?

What type of role does Ronaldo play? Messi? Rooney? Walcott? Müller? Are there similar in FM, can you apply them to the team you follow (Celtic?)

How do teams see out tight games? Do Stoke do it the same as the Spain national team?

Bonus: What changes do teams make to their style of play in different conditions (weather, pitch sizes, etc.)

Additionally, what doesn't help, the basics would do. Half the stuff players in the tactics community engage in are no requirement whatsoever to get sides to at least perform. 

Well, that one game where I created lots of chances, but still lost was against a team that's similar to my club, in strength. Against Lazio, I got soundly beaten. That makes sense. I still feel that a midtable Serie A team should be able to get at least 1 win in 5 games. I had a draw against AC Milan that was lucky. The goals I conceded overall, were so varied that a clear pattern cannot be established. Also, pre-suggested tactics could not any more be used due to certain injuries of players with specific attributes.

You mention Celtic in one of your questions. The fact of the matter is, watching Celtic influences my answer on at least one question- the bolded one. From experience, I have seen that patience doesn't help there- only long shots and crosses do.

[Armistice]

22 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

Well, that one game where I created lots of chances, but still lost was against a team that's similar to my club, in strength. Against Lazio, I got soundly beaten. That makes sense. I still feel that a midtable Serie A team should be able to get at least 1 win in 5 games. I had a draw against AC Milan that was lucky. The goals I conceded overall, were so varied that a clear pattern cannot be established. Also, pre-suggested tactics could not any more be used due to certain injuries of players with specific attributes.

You mention Celtic in one of your questions. The fact of the matter is, watching Celtic influences my answer on at least one question- the bolded one. From experience, I have seen that patience doesn't help there- only long shots and crosses do.

Well why didn't you try to answer his questions? It seems to me that people wanna help you and you kind of rejecting the help, or ignoring it. 

 

// Oh nevermind.

[Bunkerossian]

Well, I thought the questions by  @Svenc were for me to answer in my own head.

1. One defender can stay deeper, either as a sweeper or a covering defender. The GK can himself be a sweeper. If nothing else is possible, the D-line has to go deep.

2. Some try to draw them out by passing (won't work if the defending team is disciplined.), some go for long shots, and some go for crossing, to create chaos in an overcrowded box.

3. Ronaldo is now a Complete Forward maybe? Used to be a winger. Müller got a role specifically for himself in this FM (or was it FM 16?)- the Raumdeuter. Rooney is tough. I remember him being something like a Shadow Striker due to his aggression. Last Euros, he was used in midfield. Walcott is, or at least was a winger, Messi plays anything in attack. Inside Forward, False 9, for the current Argentina team even a bit on left wing.

4.  Defending strictly in their own half, with safety as priority is the approach most teams take late in the game. Spain keep possession to run down the clock.

5. If a team has ingrained DNA- they don't. Spain actually try playing the same, even if the pitch is in a poor condition, or the weather is bad. Weather and pitch condition influence the default playing style of the team. It is impossible to demand or expect teams in Scotland to start playing tiki-taka. Wet or frozen pitches favor long ball play, while cold weather in itself rewards frantic running. Spanish or Mediterranean weather in general is too hot to allow frantic running, so teams take it slow and pass the ball around to conserve energy. Teams with less stubborn managers might adapt though. Croatia persistently opted for high crosses vs. Finland, several days ago, despite strong winds. Inflexible manager and/or players. The first low cross of the game gave them the lead.

[Svenc]

Yup, those questions weren't posted necessarily to straight out answer them.  The answers can be a bit subjective too (Rooney as a shadow striker sounds about right), and with the first that wasn't quite what I was after. But that's not the point. The point is:

- Anybody who is able to think in such terms, asking this kind of question to himself
- Anybody who in a second step is able to translate that kind of thinking into the game, and actually does it

Will do fine. The depth of the above covers probably more than what long-term successfully members of these boards like dafuge do. He has the same core tactics ever since about FM 1758. He starts with a lower league side, puts it into action, improves his squad, and is already in season 2420/2421 by the time guys who make this a more complicated affair than they apparently want it to be be are "failing" continuously, still stuck in 2016/2017 as they can't make that jump. And yeah, whilst I have some more "tactical" journeys, I did quick saves too where I just cobble something together myself, and never really looked much back. So if you're able to do any that, you should be reasonably fine. There is no reason not to. Likewise, if you don't struggle to follow football, I don't see how you should struggle with following the play in the ME, which is much more "robotic". Most of it isn't needed anyway. Just go with common sense, which includes not questioning an approach because your side has scored but a single goal. There's guys who beat this game and score 3 every match with any side. Football isn't beatable. If you aim to "beat" this, you're in for a  frustrating ride involving lots of trial&error.

Still not the kind of game I'd recommend with unfavorable mental traits. It's a football management sim. There's supposed to be moments of frustration and ambiguity up for personal interpretation in there, and based on their history SI, are never going to change that.

 

[Bunkerossian]

40 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Yup, those questions weren't posted necessarily to straight out answer them.  The answers can be a bit subjective too (Rooney as a shadow striker sounds about right), and with the first that wasn't quite what I was after. But that's not the point. The point is:

- Anybody who is able to think in such terms, asking this kind of question to himself
- Anybody who in a second step is able to translate that kind of thinking into the game, and actually does it

Will do fine. The depth of the above covers probably more than what long-term successfully members of these boards like dafuge do. He has the same core tactics ever since about FM 1758. He starts with a lower league side, puts it into action, improves his squad, and is already in season 2420/2421 by the time guys who make this a more complicated affair than they apparently want it to be be are "failing" continuously, still stuck in 2016/2017 as they can't make that jump. And yeah, whilst I have some more "tactical" journeys, I did quick saves too where I just cobble something together myself, and never really looked much back. So if you're able to do any that, you should be reasonably fine. There is no reason not to. Likewise, if you don't struggle to follow football, I don't see how you should struggle with following the play in the ME, which is much more "robotic". Most of it isn't needed anyway. Just go with common sense, which includes not questioning an approach because your side has scored but a single goal. There's guys who beat this game and score 3 every match with any side. Football isn't beatable. If you aim to "beat" this, you're in for a  frustrating ride involving lots of trial&error.

Still not the kind of game I'd recommend with unfavorable mental traits. It's a football management sim. There's supposed to be moments of frustration and ambiguity up for personal interpretation in there, and based on their history SI, are never going to change that.

 

I tried applying (what I think is) common sense to creating tactics, and it hasn't really helped. I see positive behavior in opposing players I seem to rarely or never be able to replicate with my teams.

My ˝common sense˝ rules:

- don't try a high back line with slow or unintelligent defenders

-don't try strictly possession football if defenders are poor on the ball

- assign at least one defensive duty in midfield

- assign at least one, but preferably more Support duty in midfield

- adjust crossing style if the striker (s) is poor in the air, or very good in the air.

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

 

My ˝common sense˝ rules:

1

2

3

4

-snip-

It's important to realize  the reasons for each of those, and that this isn't something you just picked up from somebody's guide (though i still don't see how somebody could consistently fail just copying wwfan's 12 step thingie to the letter pretty much, never changing a thing -- no way, I've tried). The reason this is almost "fail proof" is that it: Ensures a movement structure to this day that makes sure your team doesn't defend in flat lines, that it's got enough movement, that the finishes don't all fall to single forward and that the type of assists are mixed up across the board. Rigidly sticking to it  means your team has that every single minute of the season. What that means in the end is that more often than not unless the side is mismanaged elsewhere, it will finish at least about to its ability, which is up to you to realistically gauge. In itself what you list are disjointed pieces of a puzzle. Just randomly puzzling them together, it's a Frankenstein monster, rather than a holistic "system". There are times when I never have a support duty in midfield, for instance, as I either want to have all guys to stay behind the ball (no kidding) or pushing aggressively forward. Each of those decisions is a means to an end, not the end itself. Thinking holistically is something that the game doesn't teach you, and probably can't. It would be a huge job for any player here. It's all out in the wider football media. However, it's a tough task likely if you say your viewing is affected.

Out of interest, are you at all hugely interested in the tactical parts? As said, there are those assistants...

[Bunkerossian]

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

It's important to realize  the reasons for each of those, and that this isn't something you just picked up from somebody's guide (though i still don't see how somebody could consistently fail just copying wwfan's 12 step thingie to the letter pretty much, never changing a thing -- no way, I've tried). The reason this is almost "fail proof" is that it: Ensures a movement structure to this day that makes sure your team doesn't defend in flat lines, that it's got enough movement, that the finishes don't all fall to single forward and that the type of assists are mixed up across the board. Rigidly sticking to it  means your team has that every single minute of the season. What that means in the end is that more often than not unless the side is mismanaged elsewhere, it will finish at least about to its ability, which is up to you to realistically gauge. In itself what you list are disjointed pieces of a puzzle. Just randomly puzzling them together, it's a Frankenstein monster, rather than a holistic "system". There are times when I never have a support duty in midfield, for instance, as I either want to have all guys to stay behind the ball (no kidding) or pushing aggressively forward. Each of those decisions is a means to an end, not the end itself. Thinking holistically is something that the game doesn't teach you, and probably can't. It would be a huge job for any player here. It's all out in the wider football media. However, it's a tough task likely if you say your viewing is affected.

Out of interest, are you at all hugely interested in the tactical parts? As said, there are those assistants...

I have no issues understanding youth development or scouting mechanics, and thus have only tried the full FM game. I am interested in tactics, but I simply fail at it. Admittedly, I picked most of the rules up after reading guides. Lots of guides.

[Seagullfan]

It seems the one thing missing from the whole “I am rubbish at FM” conversation is that win,lose or draw you are actually engaging with the game. Whilst we all want to create teams who are unbeatable world champions it’s other aspects of the game that make it so exciting. That last minute winner, beating a top team on their turf, a developed youth who breaks through into the first team, that offside goal you concede and curse, hitting the woodwork when 0-1 down and a minute to go, the sending off that clearly wasn’t, the sublime move that ends in a goal etc etc.

I’m sure we have all shouted at the screen, jumped out of our chair, sworn at a referee and ended an evening in a buoyant mood after a tough victory.

Winning is great but there is so much more to enjoy about this game than that alone. 

Just relax and enjoy the ride....whatever the outcome.

[Cap'nRad]

On 11/10/2017 at 15:34, Bunkerossian said:

I am interested in tactics, but I simply fail at it

What looping has been trying to say, which I'm sure at this point most experienced users will agree with, is that fm has certain nuances, a "language" if you will, that you need to understand which is not instantly intuitive and (at least to me) not easy to understand. It has to do with mentality and fluidity, which affects both team and individual instructions.

I'm sure there are already a lot of posts about it, including an excellent analogy by Rashidi which you have to read (unfortunately can't find it right now), but the main thing to understand is that tactical instructions, mainly Pi's and Ti's are never made in a vacuum.  The fluidity and mentality is the base foundation on which the other instructions are built. This is very unclear until you read more about it in the forums, so if you're struggling with tactics, this might be the "language" that looping was suggesting you learn. I agree with him. 

Edit: Another example of fm language is the tactical implications of certain roles which my be unclear in he descriptions. Target men attract long balls, playmakers attract passes and drift more laterally than normal cm's, bwm's close down outside their zone, etc. There are certain things that you learn mostly by watching the ME or hearing from others users, the game doesn't explicitly say. That's the language of fm. 

[Svenc]

3 hours ago, Cap'nRad said:

Edit: Another example of fm language is the tactical implications of certain roles which my be unclear in he descriptions. Target men attract long balls, playmakers attract passes and drift more laterally than normal cm's, bwm's close down outside their zone, etc. There are certain things that you learn mostly by watching the ME or hearing from others users, the game doesn't explicitly say. That's the language of fm. 

All of this is true. Actually, even SI oft fail to acknowledge sometimes fairly major overhauls as to how some team instructions where altered (when they are altered). However, I have yet to see a player who majorly, consistently struggles for results simply because of UI though personally.  I also will repeat the above one more time and then no more. The basics do on this. You would never ever consistently, always, underperform if you have them covered. You wouldn't even need to watch much. You can only consistently underperform if your base structure has holes everywhere, or either is pitifully one dimensional when going forward, as both undermines all player ability with some consistency. As there's no getting through though, I've given up on it, and apparently an upgraded guide to wwfan's won't do the trick either, despite most of his stuff still ensuring that sides generally more often than not perform at least to their ability.

Now if you wanted to improve from there, that's another thing. Baby steps rather than trying to conquer the world immediately. The first would trying to understand the advice that is given. A second may incorporating a few experiments of your own. As long as that second step makes you afraid of even picking a specific role, then probably the game can't help you much or you're on the wrong track. This kind of user feedback isn't new by the way. It's existed even with far worse AI opponents. To some guys you will get through. To others not.

[Cap'nRad]

9 minutes ago, Svenc said:

All of this is true. Actually, even SI oft fail to acknowledge sometimes fairly major overhauls as to how some team instructions where altered (when they are altered). However, I have yet to see a player who majorly, consistently struggles for results simply because of UI though personally.  I also will repeat the above one more time and then no more. The basics do on this. You would never ever consistently, always, underperform if you have them covered. You wouldn't even need to watch much. You can only consistently underperform if your base structure has holes everywhere, or either is pitifully one dimensional, as both undermines all player ability with some consistency. As there's no getting through though, I've given up on it, and apparently an upgraded guide to wwfan's won't do the trick either, despite most of his stuff still ensuring that sides generally more often than not perform to their ability.

Now if you wanted to improve from there, that's another thing. Baby steps rather than trying to conquer the world immediately.

Players may struggle because they don't understand some unexplained things, e.g putting a bwm as a lone holding mid and screwing up their defensive structure, simply because that's how they are described in the real life, or playing a tm not knowing about the automatic direct passing and screwing up their whole buildup structure because of it. Even if they have balanced basics for duties, they still need to understand roles. Which makes the basics not really basic anymore as it gets more complicated 

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, Cap'nRad said:

Players may struggle because they don't understand some unexplained things, e.g putting a bwm as a lone holding mid and screwing up their defensive structure, simply because that's how they are described in the real life, or playing a tm not knowing about the automatic direct passing and screwing up their whole buildup structure because of it. Even if they have balanced basics for duties, they still need to understand roles. Which makes the basics not really basic anymore as it gets more complicated 

Hence probably an "upgraded" guide. wwfan is very specific in his advice actually on using a Target Man AT ALL, but back then it wouldn't attract the ball as much, for instance. Likewise, other roles have had a bit of an overhaul too. You have also to take into account that in various threads of the past year of certain users, puzzled players even copied some tactics "designed" and ran into none of the "rot" the players reported. On some of those, even a few tactical mods suspected a "wind-up", as structurally, they should be sound enough to ensure a few results. If there's no getting through, there's no getting through though. Generally agree on that FM has its own vocabulary, which is why that "translating" part into common sense into the game can be a hurdle. For Bunkerossian, there may be still hope, but it's hard to judge how his illness affects him, and I wish him well. I'd still not force it. And consider going aforementioned alternative routes, of which the game offers plenty (and always will). If it's too stressful, I advice to stop playing.

 

@Seagullfan Good post too. There's traditionally two schools of FM players (none of which is the superior species). The one who takes this for the ride, the role-play what it may be like to be in this job, ups and downs and all. Some of this the game simulates well, others not much. The other type approaches this like a  video game, where the AI opponents are soundly beatable. In football, such is impossible. Game AI and engines have limitations, however. Despite the game now arguably representing a better/more realistic balance between "tactics" and squad ability in general, outside of experimental shapes the AI responds badly to, "beating the game" hs become harder in some recent incarnations. As "fresh" as FM 2015 some AI tactics were this poor you could easily go a fully season with a top side conceding far less than 10 goals or less (not very much football, most of the time), and some engine weaknesses added to it. But that doesn't matter for the second type of player as much. However, the closer you tend to be of the second type, the more frustrating you may find this to be, including any less favorable run/result, trying harder and harder to achieve your results.

[Bunkerossian]

5 hours ago, Cap'nRad said:

What looping has been trying to say, which I'm sure at this point most experienced users will agree with, is that fm has certain nuances, a "language" if you will, that you need to understand which is not instantly intuitive and (at least to me) not easy to understand. It has to do with mentality and fluidity, which affects both team and individual instructions.

I'm sure there are already a lot of posts about it, including an excellent analogy by Rashidi which you have to read (unfortunately can't find it right now), but the main thing to understand is that tactical instructions, mainly Pi's and Ti's are never made in a vacuum.  The fluidity and mentality is the base foundation on which the other instructions are built. This is very unclear until you read more about it in the forums, so if you're struggling with tactics, this might be the "language" that looping was suggesting you learn. I agree with him. 

Edit: Another example of fm language is the tactical implications of certain roles which my be unclear in he descriptions. Target men attract long balls, playmakers attract passes and drift more laterally than normal cm's, bwm's close down outside their zone, etc. There are certain things that you learn mostly by watching the ME or hearing from others users, the game doesn't explicitly say. That's the language of fm. 

Fluidity is my bane, personally. I don't know why it is even there as a setting, when it has negative effects, whichever setting (other than Flexible) I pick. It's hard to understand the practical uses for this.

[Svenc]

15 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Fluidity is my bane, personally. I don't know why it is even there as a setting, when it has negative effects, whichever setting (other than Flexible) I pick. It's hard to understand the practical uses for this.

Not required to get sides to at least to perform. [Actually, imo it's not even required for getting sides to overperform]. It is, however certainly the hardest thing to grasp, in parts as it arguably really has no equal in real football how it's modeled into the game, but that's my opinion. It's either way exactly that area where you're immediately moving beyond the basics by a mile. Roles and duties, that is were the main goodies would be at.

[Cleon]

My advice is ignore fluidity, I don't believe its as important as people make out. I think people sensationalise its importance and impact in the game. There is no need to over complicate things for yourself when you are struggling with the basics. Leave things like this until you have a real handle on things. Playing flexible all the time is fine and there's nothing that can go wrong by using this all the time.

Or if you can't ignore it, then think of it in the simplest terms possible which would be;

Players mentalities would be closer together and creative freedom on the roles you use would be slightly higher than normal. That's about the short of it. No need to go into anymore depth than that really.

[Bunkerossian]

3 minutes ago, Cleon said:

My advice is ignore fluidity, I don't believe its as important as people make out. I think people sensationalise its importance and impact in the game. There is no need to over complicate things for yourself when you are struggling with the basics. Leave things like this until you have a real handle on things. Playing flexible all the time is fine and there's nothing that can go wrong by using this all the time.

Or if you can't ignore it, then think of it in the simplest terms possible which would be;

Players mentalities would be closer together and creative freedom on the roles you use would be slightly higher than normal. That's about the short of it. No need to go into anymore depth than that really.

Alright, but in which cases would I want to use Fluid or Structured? This is what's been bothering me for other things too- the practical application of theory.

[Cleon]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Alright, but in which cases would I want to use Fluid or Structured? This is what's been bothering me for other things too- the practical application of theory.

If you wanted players to have roughly a similar mentality structure, i.e bringing them all closer together. The more fluid you'd go. And then the reverse for the others.

However like I said, don't bother about it and stay flexible. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Sort the basics out first.

[Bunkerossian]

5 minutes ago, Cleon said:

If you wanted players to have roughly a similar mentality structure, i.e bringing them all closer together. The more fluid you'd go. And then the reverse for the others.

However like I said, don't bother about it and stay flexible. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Sort the basics out first.

The hardest thing probably does fall into basics: role synergy.

[Cleon]

11 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

The hardest thing probably does fall into basics: role synergy.

Why not create a game and just focus on this then and nothing else? Use a 433 or something and mess around with the roles. See what happens when you use inside forwards and a striker who stays high, see how they link up. Then use a striker who drops deep and see how he links up with them. Then have a look at a playmaker in the midfield and how plays changes compared to using a midfield without a playmaker and so on. Trial, error and viewing these things yourself is the only way you'll ever work out how different roles work with each other.

[Bunkerossian]

4 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Why not create a game and just focus on this then and nothing else? Use a 433 or something and mess around with the roles. See what happens when you use inside forwards and a striker who stays high, see how they link up. Then use a striker who drops deep and see how he links up with them. Then have a look at a playmaker in the midfield and how plays changes compared to using a midfield without a playmaker and so on. Trial, error and viewing these things yourself is the only way you'll ever work out how different roles work with each other.

I'm often mislead by the friendlies in a season. At this very moment, I'm playing my first league game with Swansea. The opposition look dangerous, and I haven't had a proper chance from open play. I have the lead only thanks to the fact that I have a set piece specialist- G. Sigurdsson. And yet, my tactic seemed sound to me. I have no idea why wouldn't the balance be OK. At least I'm not losing. Yet.

 

[Cleon]

Just now, Bunkerossian said:

I'm often mislead by the friendlies in a season. At this very moment, I'm playing my first league game with Swansea. The opposition look dangerous, and I haven't had a proper chance from open play. I have the lead only thanks to the fact that I have a set piece specialist- G. Sigurdsson. And yet, my tactic seemed sound to me.

 

Ignore preseason, it doesn't really tell you anything that useful. It's more about getting players fit and tactical familiarity maxed. So just play the game and use the friendlies for fitness and maxing you tactical familiarity then base how your tactic plays in a competitive game. Basing anything on what happens in preseason is misleading as players aren't fit, the games are not of a competitive nature etc.

Also be realistic about which games you should be getting results from and those that you shouldn't. I often see people use mediocre teams like West Brom, Bournemouth, Swansea etc and they'll finish 4th in the league and then post moaning because they didn't win the league or lost 3 games in a row. I'm not saying you do this, I'm just pointing out that expectations that the user has can be out of touch with realistic expectations. 

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, Cleon said:

Ignore preseason, it doesn't really tell you anything that useful. It's more about getting players fit and tactical familiarity maxed. So just play the game and use the friendlies for fitness and maxing you tactical familiarity then base how your tactic plays in a competitive game. Basing anything on what happens in preseason is misleading as players aren't fit, the games are not of a competitive nature etc.

Also be realistic about which games you should be getting results from and those that you shouldn't. I often see people use mediocre teams like West Brom, Bournemouth, Swansea etc and they'll finish 4th in the league and then post moaning because they didn't win the league or lost 3 games in a row. I'm not saying you do this, I'm just pointing out that expectations that the user has can be out of touch with realistic expectations. 

My expectations with Swansea are ideally to finish somewhere top table (9th perhaps). If pre-season can't tell me anything tactically, how can I know if I'm completely on the wrong trail, somewhere close to having a decent tactic, or spot on?

Update: Bournemouth are very dangerous... Some Swansea fans are being strtchered out- heart attacks in spades.

[Cleon]

2 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

My expectations with Swansea are ideally to finish somewhere top table (9th perhaps). If pre-season can't tell me anything tactically, how can I know if I'm completely on the wrong trail, somewhere close to having a decent tactic, or spot on?

Update: Bournemouth are very dangerous... Some Swansea fans are being strtchered out- heart attacks in spades.

I told you how in the reply. 

[Bunkerossian]

2 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I told you how in the reply. 

Then it means I have a very short window to fix things, if there are issues. At least I should look forward to Team Dynamics then. I typically do well with Squad Harmony. LOL

[Cleon]

4 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Then it means I have a very short window to fix things, if there are issues. At least I should look forward to Team Dynamics then. I typically do well with Squad Harmony. LOL

Why does it give you a short window to fix things and find issues? You do realise that tactics are constant right and you'll never have the perfect one? Tactical issues are on going, just because you get something right one day doesn't mean that applies to the next game. Every single game you play will bring a different set of problems and issues. This is why playing the same game over and over is one of the most pointless exercises ever because you are playing to play that one perfect game against that particular side. You don't learn anything like that.

[Bunkerossian]

21 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Why does it give you a short window to fix things and find issues? You do realise that tactics are constant right and you'll never have the perfect one? Tactical issues are on going, just because you get something right one day doesn't mean that applies to the next game. Every single game you play will bring a different set of problems and issues. This is why playing the same game over and over is one of the most pointless exercises ever because you are playing to play that one perfect game against that particular side. You don't learn anything like that.

Well, at least you convinced me not to restart games in order to try different things vs. the same opponent. I had seriously been considering that, at certain points.

[Bunkerossian]

Is a player rating always a fair assessment of the performance of said player? Currently, my LB is having a stormer defensively, but the game had given him only a 6.8 at HT.

[Armistice]

38 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Is a player rating always a fair assessment of the performance of said player? Currently, my LB is having a stormer defensively, but the game had given him only a 6.8 at HT.

I don't think they're extremely accurate, for example in a game my CB had a mare of a game and then we got a penalty and because I didn't set up my penalty takers, he stood up to take it.  He scored it and his rating bumped from something like 6.1 to 6.8.

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, Armistice said:

I don't think they're extremely accurate, for example in a game my CB had a mare of a game and then we got a penalty and because I didn't set up my penalty takers, he stood up to take it.  He scored it and his rating bumped from something like 6.1 to 6.8.

Yeah, penalties affect rating a lot. My LB had not gotten a single point above 6.8, despite really having saved my ass this game. The game is weird.

I won 2-1 in the end. Bournemouth had 19 shots to my 4! Alarm bells can ring right now, but I have no clue where are the issues. A free kick and a solo run from a winger gave me the win. I had no sustained ability to threaten their goal. At least I had luck on my side.

[Armistice]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Yeah, penalties affect rating a lot. My LB had not gotten a single point above 6.8, despite really having saved my ass this game. The game is weird.

I won 2-1 in the end. Bournemouth had 19 shots to my 4! Alarm bells can ring right now, but I have no clue where are the issues. A free kick and a solo run from a winger gave me the win. I had no sustained ability to threaten their goal. At least I had luck on my side.

Well out of their 19 shots, how many were on target? Or actually, how many were from inside the box?

[Bunkerossian]

2 minutes ago, Armistice said:

Well out of their 19 shots, how many were on target? Or actually, how many were from inside the box?

If I'm reading the Shots chart right, 6 were inside the box. The white outline idincates the box, right?

[Armistice]

4 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

If I'm reading the Shots chart right, 6 were inside the box. The white outline idincates the box, right?

Go to Team Analysis, select Bournemouth and select all the shots and upload the pic here. Ofc a shot inside the box doesn't necessarily mean it's with the foot, it can be a header too, from a set piece.