No tactic* and lots of experimental shouting

[FMunderachiever]

4 minutes ago, herne79 said:

You can see them.  They're in the Team Instructions and Player Instructions user interfaces.

Programming errors?  More like "one tactic doesn't fit all".  The default tactics newly arrived in game for FM19 are just an indication of how someone may be able to go about setting up a certain system.  Some of these base tactics are better than others and require less tinkering.  There's certainly room for improvement though and I'd expect to see updates for FM20.

I was exaggerating to demonstrate a point.

Fixed that for you.

You can see them.  They're in the Team Instructions and Player Instructions user interfaces.

All theyll see is a bunch of things that say standard. It wont give them hardly any indication of what all their standards will be like on the field.

If its about logic, theyll logically be adjusting these things. Their inclination is going to be to adjust, and yet NOT adjusting seems their better option, even when faced with strikers with 20 acceleration and pace, theyre leaving the defensive line "normal" and their formation "normal". Even youd surely admit thats highly counter intuitive for a football manager to do?

Programming errors?  More like "one tactic doesn't fit all".  The default tactics newly arrived in game for FM19 are just an indication of how someone may be able to go about setting up a certain system.  Some of these base tactics are better than others and require less tinkering.  There's certainly room for improvement though and I'd expect to see updates for FM20.

No you miss my point. A pre set tactic is a defined tactic. Every pre set tactic has lots of instructions built into it. A new player, or even an experienced player it seems, would be better off never using these, as they are always adding in needless instructions.

But the game is giving the impression these instructions will work well with a certain approach. So its not needed. Either a defined approach (seeing as you seem to do better than your club should do without one) and team instructions that take away your players ability to think for themselves.

I was exaggerating to demonstrate a point.

The example I gave you about coloured pies was a bona fide example that i have personally seen with at least 5 people playing the game. So if thats my experience, think how common the experience is amongst players everywhere.

That is exactly how pies screw people up.

 

[herne79]

@FMunderachiever You clearly have very defined ideas of how this game should work.  Please raise them in the Feature Requests Forum.

[Southern Buddie]

Herne, would you be interested in elaborating on how to create sensible role allocations in different formations?

[herne79]

21 minutes ago, Southern Buddie said:

Herne, would you be interested in elaborating on how to create sensible role allocations in different formations?

Would this be useful?

[AndySummers]

9 hours ago, puma2442 said:

Sorry to go on a tangent, but could anyone elaborate on this? Is this an absolute known fact? It would follow what I was starting to believe, but I always have a nagging feeling I'm not maximizing my chances somehow if I choose a player who isn't green for a particular position/role. 

The green circle is a method to represent what the game ascribes as a player's optimal role based on his attribute set. But that does not mean the player will perform any less capably in another role given to him; context is key.

To give you a practical example: I have a player who is a full-circle deep lying playmaker, a half-circle halfback. He's not a natural halfback, lacks the defensive aspects and has no real aerial ability. But I use him as a halfback. Why? Because his ball retention is second-to-none, passing and vision dynamic, and his dribbling ability combined with a 'brings ball out of defence' PPM makes him liable to instigate moves more quickly than a more regular player and also helps to draw opposing midfielders out of position, setting up better counterattacking possibilities. The player is a distance better than the natural halfbacks I have in the squad.

The green circle also doesn't take into account ability. For example, I also use a BBM. See below:

 

So who is your BBM of choice? The youngster because the game tags him as a full-circle BBM, or the experienced part-circle player who has far better all-round attributes, the ability to finish etc.

Edited June 30, 2019 by AndySummers

[Svenc]

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 22:24, FMunderachiever said:

my point is though, surely you shouldnt be able to massively overachieve by basically doing nothing, in the same way you shouldnt be able to massively overachieve JUST by using preset tactics.

Or youre saying 90% of the game has little to no positive effect

Given that the AI tactically oft even struggles with what Herne is doing here (putting up a "coherent" base set up), purely tactically it never had taken much to at least match the AI. I've stopped following these boards really, as playing the game even more "indepth" tactically would be like trying to Play Chess against a two years old (to slightly exaggerate.) SI are just coding the game in a way their main audience prefers, and there's more than enough that rage-quit or re-start saves if they ever get embroiled in a Relegation fight or see the sack once in a dozen+ Seasons. In other words, the game should resemble the game of f ootball only on the most superficial Level, and most are fine with that. Demand and supply.

I think the more genuine Questions would be:

- Whether this is sustainable/repeatable (Leicester, Burnley, Newcastle a few Seasons back) or not (in other words, how much of a role did luck Play).

- What effect touchline shouts really have, and whether they are "realistic".

- Naturally, whether the game has the balance between "tactics" and "Player Quality" actually" at least semi-realistic too


As of luck, given the AI's simlicity and the Goal difference of +42, it will have played very Little of a role. That said, interesting Experiment for sure. But then I've already known that Players who dabble into excessive Micro-tweaking on average actually manage to make Things worse (and also chop and turn around Things at random whenever results start to turn "sour".) Unfortunately, results in Isolation don't tell very much in a Sports that sees this Little Goals -- and the vast majority of attacks coming to precisely zilch.

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Svenc

[enigmatic]

The green circle's just a basic indication of what roles conventionally suit a player - what is their best position given their natural position, skill balance and footedness and ignoring any particular tactical requirement you might have or who else you have available.

So the game tells you that an attack minded, right footed right back will be good as a FB(A). It doesn't rate him quite as highly in the more unusual option of IWB(A), not because he can't play there if your tactics demand it, but because it's normal to use fullbacks who can cross in a position which offers width and crossing

 

And yes, it won't give a brilliant all rounder a full green circle as a BWM because he's not that aggressive and telling him to play there kind of wastes his skills. But yes, if it's a straight choice at BWM between the brilliant all rounder and a very ordinary specialist BWM in your youth team, the all-rounder is probably much better, even though it's the guy whose only double digit attributes are in tackling, aggression, work rate and physicals that has the full green circle. (figuring this out isn't especially hard tbh... there's attributes, star ratings and coaches telling you that the senior player is considerably better at football than the junior one...)

[Experienced Defender]

20 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

A football clubs manager doesnt just stand there idly letting all his players and staff decide what they want to do, whether theres behaviours programmed into the game or not.

And if you choose to do that in the game then you shouldnt be rewarded by finishing 3rd

Picking a suitable formation and giving players suitable and logical roles and duties does not equate to "standing idly letting the players and staff decide what they want to do", even if he - deliberately, for the sake of an experiment - refrained from using any (additional) team and player instructions in this particular case. If he decided to use instructions as well, he could well have finished 1st, rather than 3rd.

If he was to try this same "no-instructions" experiment with some other team, he might opt for a different formation and roles/duties, because they would better suit that particular team. 

 

[yonko]

Regarding the green circles:

Users need to understand that these circles are based on attributes formula the game uses to illustrate which is the most suitable role. This formula is not always correct and it's time SI tweak this to avoid confusion. 

On each player's screen, users can select between available roles which highlight certain attributes deemed important for each role. If the highlighted attributes look high enough for you then the player has enough to play the role effectively. You also have to look at how Player Traits connect with these attributes. Keep in mind that SI have programed the game to highlight important attributes based on the criteria they have created. You may have a different set of criteria attributes for whatever role you want the player to play.

The important thing is to consider roles in terms of preset tactical instructions and pitch behavior when constructing a tactic. 

[FMunderachiever]

4 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Picking a suitable formation and giving players suitable and logical roles and duties does not equate to "standing idly letting the players and staff decide what they want to do", even if he - deliberately, for the sake of an experiment - refrained from using any (additional) team and player instructions in this particular case. If he decided to use instructions as well, he could well have finished 1st, rather than 3rd.

If he was to try this same "no-instructions" experiment with some other team, he might opt for a different formation and roles/duties, because they would better suit that particular team. 

 

What im trying to say is this.

 

Obviously, Herne is an excellent player of the game and intelligent. His formation is very well constructed and logical. And thats good obviously.

 

My point is if youre predicted to finish 9th, you have a team full of players who in theory should be worse than at least 8 teams in making decisions, technique, off the ball movement etc etc (im generalising, but obviously opponents should be better than them in many areas game to game, opponents will have specific strengths over them game to game), and you are ignoring 90% of the game, then you should not finish 3rd in the league.

 

By all means pick a formation that is logical, thats the whole point. But that and shouting shouldnt get you to 3rd in the table.

 

If anything, the game should be less penalising on the absolute way the roles fit together, and reward you more in your game to game management, your man management and your training schedules. that is what would make the difference in real life.

 

And the point still stands. If the AI cannot counter a formation that never changes with their own slight adjustments, thats just silly to me to be honest. Especially given the AI of the biggest teams should be able to think more critically.

 

Why cant the AI listen to whatever youre shouting and adapt off that basis? Why cant the AI use a generic formation itself? The game is just complicated for complicated's sake, is that what we are saying?

 

I was picking logical formations on championship manager 97/98. Back then there was no dynamics, there was no training really, there were no team talks, there wasnt even a 2D pitch to watch.

 

All these brilliant new innovations in the game were ignored in this experiment, to finish 3rd. It was like a modern version of a 20 year old version of championship manager.

 

By all means, if youre a brilliant player of the game (and im not, im only average) and you analyse all of this extra data, and you win the league as West Ham, hats off to you. Youre a quality manager on the game.

 

If you can ignore it all, pick a vanilla formation and shout, and finish TWO places lower, i think thats really disappointing.

[herne79]

16 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

All these brilliant new innovations in the game were ignored in this experiment, to finish 3rd.

No, they weren't.

25 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

If you can ignore it all, pick a vanilla formation and shout

I just splaffed together roles, right?

You've been repeating these things since day one, have been repeatedly told why what you are saying is wrong and it's now becoming tiresome.  If my irritation is showing, it's for a reason.  Trying to repeatedly tell me and (far more importantly) other readers of this thread that the tactical system I put together is just a splaffed together vanilla formation (your words) is not only incorrect but completely misleading.  I don't know why you keep banging this drum because all the information demonstrating why you are wrong is right here in the thread.  I can only assume you're not properly reading and understanding things.

Stating your opinion about how you think the game should work is one thing.  Repeatedly telling the rest of us that I've ignored innovations and logical assessment of roles when it's been explained how I haven't done that is something else entirely and, frankly, starting to **** me off.  Now, as I said above, if you have suggestions on changes you would like to see in the game, crack on over to the suggestions forum.  I'll also add that if you think something is bugged, then the Bugs forum is where you need to be.  Either way, you've said all you need to say here, so a good time to move on.  I'll remove any further posts you make here now as you clearly need to be in a different forum.  If you have a problem with that, PM me or report this post to the Moderating Team for review.

[Experienced Defender]

@FMunderachiever I think the best way for you to test your theory is to do the same kind of experiment as Herne - pick whatever team you want, choose the formation, roles ("generic", specialist, both, or whatever you want) and duties you believe would optimally suit the players and then play using only shouts. 

[Hovis Dexter]

Green or red circles or anything in between. Ideally I’d like them to give me a 100% accurate indication as to how an individual player will perform in a given position and role. They don’t and I can understand that because a player’s performance doesn’t depend on his personal attributes alone. They also depend upon how the player reacts to his surrounding team mates and the opposition. In the game I tend to regard the circles as training wheels on a bike ... take notice of them and you probably won’t fall off the bike. When you become more experienced you can take the training wheels off and try a bunny hop over uneven ground ... you may fall off or on the other hand you may overtake everybody else.

[herne79]

I thought I'd pick up on this again and perhaps explain a little more about the tactical system this time.  This is the finished system:

Exactly the same as the original, except the Advanced Forward is now changed to a Complete Forward.  It helps link play better (in this system) and is better for the team effort.

As you can see, still no adjustments to the TIs and PIs, and still using the Balanced mentality.  I'll explain this further:

Setting a Mentality - any Mentality - changes and sets a helluva lot of things.  All manner of Team Instructions (such as Tempo, width, passing, defensive line and more), along with less obvious changes to such areas as creativity and tackling.  And, critically, Mentality also changes individual player mentality (which you can see if you open the Player Instructions screen).  So a Fullback (support) for example is much more forward thinking and focussed when using the Attacking Mentality as opposed to the Defensive Mentality.

So using the Balanced Mentality (as I am doing) still sets all of these things up - it just sets these things at a middle ground.  So now I know if I use lets say the Inside Forward (support) role, I can be sure that role will function as intended without any other adjustments being made via Mentality.  The player used will also have an impact of course, but for now I'm just considering the role in and of itself.

And in terms of the TIs and PIs, I'm not trying to play the game with any particular style in mind or to attempt a real life tactic recreation.  If I wanted to play gegenpressing, or tiki taka or counter attacking or whatever other style, I'd be using TIs and PIs.  Similarly I don't want to give my players specific instructions to try to combat or enhance certain functions - so I'm not trying to play with a higher defensive line, or ask my players to press more, or drop the tempo, or whatever.  Again that way I can see exactly what my players are up to without any additional influences.  As @HUNT3R pointed out earlier, start small and build from there rather than throwing a whole bunch of instructions at a tactic and trying to figure out what is and isn't working.

So for this particular system I had in my mind to make my best player (originally Yarmolenko now Zivkovic after Real Madrid offered me silly money for Yarm) my main man.  This is how Ziv performed over the last season:

Setting him as a "playmaker" (indeed the only playmaker) helps the team focus play through him.  Could I have used the "focus play down the right flank" as well?  Absolutely and it may have made things even better for Ziv, so something to bear in mind.  But hopefully this shows how play can be influenced by using a specific role only, rather than also layering on additional instructions.  Yes the focus TI may have improved things, but consider whether it's needed before trying it.

But of course one player can only be as good as the system in total and other players around him.  This is a particular reason why I change the AF to a CF as the combination of roles works better for the team effort.  My Advanced Midfielder especially has been another superstar for me:

Not always the assist provider (although he gets quite a few) but he'll play a full part in the build up of attacks.  And not giving him a playmaker type role helps to keep the focus on my Trequartista.

And now this brings in the players themselves.   It's way too easy to select a bunch of player roles which looks sensible only to completely ignore the players themselves.  The two work hand in hand together and should not be separated.  To illustrate, this is a working example:

I needed a replacement for the ageing (and retiring) Zabaleta at right back.  I've seen it said that it's not exactly rocket science to give Zaba a defend duty due to his weakening physicals which is true to an extent although would be overlooked by many.  However, what about a younger replacement who isn't so hampered by weak physicals?  Maybe give this newcomer a more aggressive duty?  Not rocket science again right?  Wrong.  I didn't give Zaba a defend duty simply because of his physicals - the defend duty is part and parcel of the tactical system.  Too much aggression here with a low work rate Trequartista ahead and I could be leaving myself too exposed too often at the back.  I am retaining the defend duty because it fits the system (as well as the player). 

So who to replace Zaba with?  Well, I immediately discount any player with the Trait "Gets Forward Whenever Possible".  Why?  Because I don't want him getting forward more than his defend duty would otherwise allow.  If he did, it'll affect how the entire system plays (especially the right flank).  This kind of thought process is important for every single player in the team and the roles I'm asking them to perform.  Here's Zivkovic's Traits:

(He also has Cuts Inside but it doesn't all fit in the panel).

So on top of his great attributes for running with ball, passing and shooting, the Traits fit really well too.

So this is why I say don't separate the roles and the players.  If you select a role, consider how the player you pick for that role is going to play it - the role creates the framework, the player paints the picture.

Results

I've just got to the end of a season and this is how my assists have been shared around:

Evenly spread between crosses, short passes and through balls in the main.  Could this be improved?  Absolutely, if I wanted to go fiddling around with TI, PIs and roles, especially if I wanted to create a certain style of play.

And goal locations:

Roughly two thirds from inside the box.  Again, could this be improved to see a reduction in goals from long shots?  Yeh totally.  But from what I am playing around with here there is no need to.  Some matches I lost or drew I know I could have won by tweaking the tactic in match.  Likewise I could have scored more goals during some matches with tactical tweaks.  But again that's not the purpose of this save.

All I'm really trying to say here is before you go setting a style of play or task your players to carry out certain instructions, properly consider how your players and their roles combine.  And that's not always a quick and easy thing to do.

btw no I did not win the league this season - I ended up 2nd but a massive 9 points behind Liverpool (who are now managed by Pep, Klopp is managing Man City - go figure).  I did win the league the previous season, so technically I've gone backwards despite "improving" the squad.  Maybe I need to rethink my transfer policy .

[wixxi]

I must say this thread has really inspired me to go back to basics with tactics and making sure I understand how each role differs from one another and will link with the other roles within the system. I tend to overcomplicate tactics at times, one thing I noticed is making knee-jerk changes in a match based off 1 event, and I think this thread has really opened my eyes to how role/duty combinations alone can really go far to create a solid tactic.

[Purplejesus]

On 30/06/2019 at 23:41, Hovis Dexter said:

Green or red circles or anything in between. Ideally I’d like them to give me a 100% accurate indication as to how an individual player will perform in a given position and role. They don’t and I can understand that because a player’s performance doesn’t depend on his personal attributes alone. They also depend upon how the player reacts to his surrounding team mates and the opposition. In the game I tend to regard the circles as training wheels on a bike ... take notice of them and you probably won’t fall off the bike. When you become more experienced you can take the training wheels off and try a bunny hop over uneven ground ... you may fall off or on the other hand you may overtake everybody else.

I find it much more interesting, that they only reflect a players familiarity with a given role. It's much more realistic this way (or at least that's how I see it). I find it so interesting and inspiring to closely examine each players attributes and let them explore new (maybe better fitting) roles. 

In real life there are so many examples of this as well. Di Maria was utilized as a central playmaker after being a winger for many many years. Ramos from right back to central defender. Pirlo from a second striker/offensive playmaker to a deeplying playmaker. 

In the danish Superligaen, the manager of AC Horsens has used Rune Frantsen as both a right back and a striker. Same goes for Mikkel Qvist, but as a left wingback and a striker. I'm pretty sure that some of these examples would have had a "red or orange dot" in the newly given position, were they to ask their assistant manager in real life :-)

I see all these visuals in the game as the same as different opinions from a real life managers personnel. I'm sure a lot of them would be both destructive and confusing to an inexperienced managager outside of the game as well. This is, to me, just part of the realism. 

[yonko]

On 23/07/2019 at 08:40, herne79 said:

 

Evenly spread between crosses, short passes and through balls in the main.  Could this be improved?  Absolutely, if I wanted to go fiddling around with TI, PIs and roles, especially if I wanted to create a certain style of play.

This is very interesting. Really nice and even spread of assists between short passes, crosses and through balls.

I've been thinking for a while now how to create an attacking dominating tactic where most of the assists are from short passes + through balls and less from crosses.

It's difficult to do when you play with higher reputation team (City or Liverpool, for example) and most of the teams play very defensive against you - low block, narrow, hard tackling 541, 532, 4141, etc. Then you are forced to open up space and usually your players find it out wide, so crosses become a tool to create and score goals from. Or even set pieces in this case. You score 2-3 goals and then the opponents come at you, opening their back like for through balls but the game is almost over and no time left to score too many goals off through balls.

Perhaps that is a whole different topic for a thread.

Anyway, for the purposes of this thread, which shouts did you find effective and what effects did you actual observe if any?

Edited July 25, 2019 by yonko

[summatsupeer]

On 23/07/2019 at 16:40, herne79 said:

I did win the league the previous season, so technically I've gone backwards despite "improving" the squad.  Maybe I need to rethink my transfer policy .

Your RL name isn't Ranieri is it? 

Probably still over achieved, what was point difference between this 2nd placed season and you winning 1st season?

[FMunderachiever]

Ive been really critical of the game on this thread in the past. But from my colo colo save (decent team admittedly) what ive seen from using just one solitary instruction (deeper LOE) is:

1) i used to get bored of scoring similar goals over and over. Since losing the team instructions ive seen a noticeable improvement in our creativity, variability and unpredictability going forwards.

2) ive found out defending as a unit has become more solid because im resisting the urge to move defensive strategy to the extremes. I used to moan of being done over the top only to change the LOE and defensive line and then get done on crosses.

Now, i feel like our defensive strategy is far more balanced.

3) making plans in matches for specific threats is so much easier. I can add an instruction here and there to chsnge the performance perfectly.

Its so easy to make a small change to mentality, a small change like stay on feet just to make sure defenders shepherd the opposition away from goal and not get beaten etc etc.

Its made me much more flexible rather than trying to impose a one size fits all style.

 

I was highly scepitcal of not adding any instructions at all and to an extent i still am because its hard to see exactly what the effect of "balanced" tactics and PI/TIs from the tactics screens until the matches kick off

 

But as much as it might be counter intuitive my team is much more creative AND organised when i try and impose less "rules" onto them.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, FMunderachiever said:

Ive been really critical of the game on this thread in the past. But from my colo colo save (decent team admittedly) what ive seen from using just one solitary instruction (deeper LOE) is:

1) i used to get bored of scoring similar goals over and over. Since losing the team instructions ive seen a noticeable improvement in our creativity, variability and unpredictability going forwards.

2) ive found out defending as a unit has become more solid because im resisting the urge to move defensive strategy to the extremes. I used to moan of being done over the top only to change the LOE and defensive line and then get done on crosses.

Now, i feel like our defensive strategy is far more balanced.

3) making plans in matches for specific threats is so much easier. I can add an instruction here and there to chsnge the performance perfectly.

Its so easy to make a small change to mentality, a small change like stay on feet just to make sure defenders shepherd the opposition away from goal and not get beaten etc etc.

Its made me much more flexible rather than trying to impose a one size fits all style.

 

I was highly scepitcal of not adding any instructions at all and to an extent i still am because its hard to see exactly what the effect of "balanced" tactics and PI/TIs from the tactics screens until the matches kick off

 

But as much as it might be counter intuitive my team is much more creative AND organised when i try and impose less "rules" onto them.

Shame I can only upvote this once.  Seriously, well done .

[thehig2]

So was the point in this to find out what shouts to use in certain situations ?

I have found that 

Get Creative - normally inspires whole team

Demand more - normally focuses whole team.

Show some Passion - normally fired up team.

Praise - if times after a goal or two this fires up team.

Other shouts I use tend to have no effect or negative effects.

[herne79]

24 minutes ago, thehig2 said:

So was the point in this to find out what shouts to use in certain situations ?

No, not really.

It's more about demonstrating the importance of effectively combining players with roles & duties without needing to overload your team with all manner of tactical instructions.  It's also a discussion point for an oft-overlooked tool at our disposal (shouts), something which many players of the game discount.

[thehig2]

19 minutes ago, herne79 said:

No, not really.

It's more about demonstrating the importance of effectively combining players with roles & duties without needing to overload your team with all manner of tactical instructions.  It's also a discussion point for an oft-overlooked tool at our disposal (shouts), something which many players of the game discount.

Shouts are discounted because they do seem to have little effect compared to changing around tactics.

Shouts like encourage and push forward have always had negative reaction regardless of the situation, and shouts that get positive reactions don't seem to change the game.

My default tactic I use often has little instictions, I agree too many TIs and PIs is normally bad, as its hard to spot whats actaully going wrong.

[herne79]

22 minutes ago, thehig2 said:

Shouts like encourage and push forward have always had negative reaction regardless of the situation

I've been seeing quite a lot of positive reaction from these two shouts.  As with all shouts though, it's situational and contextual.  If you have always had a negative reaction it may just be because you've used them at the "wrong" time (although there isn't really a right and wrong).

23 minutes ago, thehig2 said:

and shouts that get positive reactions don't seem to change the game.

And yet there is a lot of at least circumstantial or anecdotal evidence which suggests otherwise.  Much more testing would need to be done to provide definite proof (and it would be very hard to assess anyway), but when you repeatedly see a highlight appear (if not a goal) shortly after a shout has been made, it's hard not to acknowledge a difference is being made.

I don't believe shouts can be discounted (as I have done for years).  Sure tactical changes may be more powerful, however there can be other more subtle ways of affecting the outcome of matches.

[herne79]

14 hours ago, yonko said:

Anyway, for the purposes of this thread, which shouts did you find effective and what effects did you actual observe if any?

I need to do a little write up on this.

5 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

what was point difference between this 2nd placed season and you winning 1st season?

I scored 84 points the season I won the league, 2 points ahead of Man Utd (Liverpool were 7th).  I just finished runner up behind Liverpool with 88 points, they got 97.

[thehig2]

16 minutes ago, herne79 said:

@herne79

concentrate also seems to be not effective as well.

If some kind of guide or tips can come from this experiment to point towards what effects the shouts have and a rough idea of what shout fits a certain situation best that would be great.

I've found shouting not worth bothering with in my games, I do agree with that not overloading the team with PI and TI is a good thing though. 

[summatsupeer]

24 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I need to do a little write up on this.

I scored 84 points the season I won the league, 2 points ahead of Man Utd (Liverpool were 7th).  I just finished runner up behind Liverpool with 88 points, they got 97.

Damn, improved your points total but lost position!  Will be an interesting read, probably cover further questions I have so i'll wait.

[FMunderachiever]

How do you assess what the shouts actually mean?

Ill give an example:

"Demand More".....

How would you interpret this shout? does demand more mean youre doing well, give me more of that? does it mean youre not doing enough, im demanding more of you?

Also, what about reverse psychology?

Getting them in at half time with a lead, and then telling them youre not happy for example. Even when you are?

Obviously dont do this if theyve been brilliant. But i find telling them not to get complacent doesnt really work, even though its intended to have the same effect as keep your performance up.

 

Just wondered peoples thoughts on this

[johnnyyakuza78]

I think a lot of shouts are completely situational and contextual. The same with team talks

Demand more might work well in situations where your side is under performing and is expected to do well in a match. It might work badly if they are huge underdogs. Maybe. 

It also depends on the individual personality of players. Some are easily freaked out and get anxious and whereas others are professional and don’t mind being told what to do.

What I like about shouts is it requires me to know my players personalities a lot better. Broad strokes works ok but for the best results I think tailoring your shouts at individuals works better

[FMunderachiever]

One thing i do notice is certainly not to say the same things too often.

I used to fall into a trap of thinking praising constantly and seeing lots of green was the way forward. i dont think it is always.

Ive learned that the occasional chat where i criticise a player can have the intended "kick up the bum" effect.

With a younger player or certain senior players, if theyre struggling i might be more inclined to have one of those "youre going through a tough time but i believe in you" chats

[Overmars]

On 30/06/2019 at 06:53, Svenc said:

I think the more genuine Questions would be:

- Whether this is sustainable/repeatable (Leicester, Burnley, Newcastle a few Seasons back) or not (in other words, how much of a role did luck Play).

- What effect touchline shouts really have, and whether they are "realistic".

- Naturally, whether the game has the balance between "tactics" and "Player Quality" actually" at least semi-realistic too

As of luck, given the AI's simlicity and the Goal difference of +42, it will have played very Little of a role. That said, interesting Experiment for sure. But then I've already known that Players who dabble into excessive Micro-tweaking on average actually manage to make Things worse (and also chop and turn around Things at random whenever results start to turn "sour".) Unfortunately, results in Isolation don't tell very much in a Sports that sees this Little Goals -- and the vast majority of attacks coming to precisely zilch.

I also wondered about luck, especially since FM results tend to be streaky thanks to form and momentum. I wanted to rerun the experiment with other mid-table teams, but I don't want to ruin the illusion that the game requires more management than this.

[zlatanera]

The personality of the players definitely plays a part in the effectiveness of shouts and team talks. For example when I had a very professional, highly skilled Ajax team and we were hammering a lesser Eredivisie team (think Heracles, Zwolle etc.) 3-0 at half time and I told them "don't get complacent" they'd respond positively and often manage to score soon after half time, same for using "Demand More" when not having scored in the 2nd half. Similar with my Man Utd team after I'd got it shaped how I wanted. Whereas Fiorentina, 3-0 up against someone like SPAL, with a lower level of professionalism in the dressing room would respond less positively in both occasions.

[Tom8983]

18 hours ago, Overmars said:

but I don't want to ruin the illusion that the game requires more management than this.

But this is the same amount of management as any other tactic. It takes the same process to not change a tactical instruction as it does to change a tactical instruction, just with a different conclusion. The roles and duties and how they interact with each other thought about just as much, if not more. And the actual players, with their strengths and weaknesses considered too.

[axelmuller]

as Zlatanera says, the players are really important for this kind of system. Who are you starting these days besides Zivkovic and Zabaleta ? I'm especially interested about the Complete Forward Attack role, is it Arnautovic still ?

[herne79]

13 minutes ago, axelmuller said:

Who are you starting these days besides Zivkovic and Zabaleta ?

Zaba's gone, I discussed his replacement here:

On ‎23‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 16:40, herne79 said:

I needed a replacement for the ageing (and retiring) Zabaleta at right back.  I've seen it said that it's not exactly rocket science to give Zaba a defend duty due to his weakening physicals which is true to an extent although would be overlooked by many.  However, what about a younger replacement who isn't so hampered by weak physicals?  Maybe give this newcomer a more aggressive duty?  Not rocket science again right?  Wrong.  I didn't give Zaba a defend duty simply because of his physicals - the defend duty is part and parcel of the tactical system.  Too much aggression here with a low work rate Trequartista ahead and I could be leaving myself too exposed too often at the back.  I am retaining the defend duty because it fits the system (as well as the player). 

So who to replace Zaba with?  Well, I immediately discount any player with the Trait "Gets Forward Whenever Possible".  Why?  Because I don't want him getting forward more than his defend duty would otherwise allow.  If he did, it'll affect how the entire system plays (especially the right flank).

 

14 minutes ago, axelmuller said:

I'm especially interested about the Complete Forward Attack role, is it Arnautovic still ?

Arnautovic hasn't been with us for a while now:

 

[axelmuller]

somehow missed the entire Page 2. better late than never though. Maxi Gomez as complete you can possibly be.

[Jean0987654321]

Very impressive, Herne for a first season with West Ham

[Piperita]

Thanks a lot for this idea! 

I lost count how many big tactical ideas I created this version and how many got simply discarded after a season or two. Or turned out to be pretty boring after the novelty wore off. Weirdly enough it never really occured to me to return to the basics I started with in #17. 

Now I have three systems I am *really* invested in that are growing into what I want and which are almost infinitely tweakable.

 It also is worth mentioning that for all the bad words heard about the match engine this year, that the players are surprisingly intelligent on their own! There are like a million presets available but sometines the best one is the good ol' Clean Slate

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Piperita
Holy mother of typos!

[FMExperiment]

With FM there are a variety of ways to give yourself an edge outside of tactics. A well managed team will have consistently high morale, high fitness levels, good coaching staff to maximize attribute progression, and also a high level of team cohesion. Then buying suitable players if the biggest advantage you can have over the AI. Plus maximizing team shouts and team talks for always positive reactions gives you more of an edge. With all that in mind tactics are only part of the equation so I don't think it's unreasonable to overachieve by succeeding in the many other parts of FM.

Whilst one may argue showing a lack of tactical nuance should be "punished", I do think it's wise to remember this game is played in many ways by millions of people, and having tactics be part of success and not all of success is a much more enjoyable user experience across the board.

But also whilst you can overachieve with a template tactic and no TI's or PI's, you will still do better if you tweak those to what the ME considers better. So yeah, there's something for everyone here. Play to have fun and create your own style! Winning is part of the game but ultimately meaningless, better to enjoy the experience how you see fit

Edited August 3, 2019 by FMExperiment

[wixxi]

35 minutes ago, FMExperiment said:

With FM there are a variety of ways to give yourself an edge outside of tactics. A well managed team will have consistently high morale, high fitness levels, good coaching staff to maximize attribute progression, and also a high level of team cohesion. Then buying suitable players if the biggest advantage you can have over the AI. Plus maximizing team shouts and team talks for always positive reactions gives you more of an edge. With all that in mind tactics are only part of the equation so I don't think it's unreasonable to overachieve by succeeding in the many other parts of FM.

Whilst one may argue showing a lack of tactical nuance should be "punished", I do think it's wise to remember this game is played in many ways by millions of people, and having tactics be part of success and not all of success is a much more enjoyable user experience across the board.

But also whilst you can overachieve with a template tactic and no TI's or PI's, you will still do better if you tweak those to what the ME considers better. So yeah, there's something for everyone here. Play to have fun and create your own style! Winning is part of the game but ultimately meaningless, better to enjoy the experience how you see fit

To an extent this can be seen in real life too, for example with Zidane at Real Madrid. While this is obviously a case of having world class players across the entire squad Zidane found incredible success mainly through man management alone rather than obsessing over tactics

[Earnie is God!]

On 27/06/2019 at 22:55, Exius said:

Even though I personally think shouts may have a great effect in certain situations, the experiment is incomplete to make such a statement. You need to compare 2 cases - the same tactic, the same players, in the first save you use touchline shouts, in the second you don't. And then go through a full season in both saves - only then we can compare an effect of these shouts.

Current experiment shows only that you are skilled enough to make a balanced tactic and roles combination to be successful even without TI and PI (which is a great result). I believe even without touchline shouts you'd have achieved a similar result. On the contrary, if less experienced player made less balanced tactic and inappropriate roles/duties combination, even touchline shouts wouldn't help him to succeed.

This is true. We don't know to what extent the success is mainly down to the carefully chosen formation and roles, and how much is down to the shouts.
I know that Herne has already acknowledged this but it's still a valid point.
Although trying to recreate this without the shouts isn't really the answer either. One small difference, whether that be a loss instead of a win, or an injury could change the whole season.

[Earnie is God!]

As for the circles/pies, and they have been mentioned a lot on this thread, they can be very misleading. They can give you just one or two 'slices' for players it deems are entirely unsuitable for a role yet, when you go and take a look at that player, he may have all (or almost all) the attributes needed to play it.
I think, over the years, the Complete Forward role has been the biggest culprit. There are seemingly very few players in the game who are deemed suitable for it.

For example, I have an 18yo newgen with some great attributes for his age. The game tells me he is pretty useless as a Complete Forward but is he really?

Every important skill for this role is at least in double figures. The lowest is 10, one at 11, and the rest are 12-15 so why is the game telling me he's completely unsuitable?

Now let's check some of his other roles...

As a Treq, the game is giving him a 6 out of 10 green circle. The problem is that he is lacking solid numbers in some of the key attributes for this role e.g. decisions = 8, first touch = 10, passing = 10. Same problem with the False Nine.

He's an 8 out of 10 as a Pressing Forward yet only has 5 for bravery. His teamwork is a high 17 though.

And another 8 out of 10 as a DLF. But only has decisions = 8, first touch = 10, passing = 10

If we look at all of the key attributes required for each role:

CF (suitability 2/10): 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, 15 (average = 12.91)
Treq (suitability 6/10): 8, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 15, 15, 15 (ave = 12.2)
F9 (suitability 6/10): 8, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 15, 15 (ave = 11.89)
PF (suitability 8/10): 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, 15, 15, 17 (ave = 12.89)
DLF (suitability 8/10): 8, 10, 10, 12, 15, 15, 17 (ave = 12.43)

The CF(A) role gives him the highest average and not one attribute below 10. He is also being trained as a CF to try and give him that more complete skill set.
But for some reason I'm being told that he is almost useless as a CF. Why?
He's yet to play a 1st team game for us and my U23s follow my 1st team tactics where I'm currently using an AF.
So he has been playing mainly as an AF for my reserves and this may explain why he is 10/10 for that and his attributes do suit that role (ave = 12.86).

But there is no way he should be rated so poorly as a CF. How is he not suitable?

A lot of managers, and not just newbies, are misled by these ratings circles and it really could do with changing, otherwise what is the point in having them?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Earnie is God!

[interthebest]

is it only me that thinks the green circles mean "how much experience the player has playing this role" instead of "how suitable the role is for the player" ?

[Piperita]

Some roles, Complete Forward being one of them, somehow factor the CA into suitability. 

If you have the editor, give a youth player with maybe 100 CA nigh perfect stats for the role and the circle will stay at a single dot. But increase the CA to the reccommended value somewhere in the 150s, 160s and suddenly the circle will be full. The attributes are the same but suddenly the player goes from catastrophe to perfect in the assistant's eyes. 

Just one of the many quirks these circles have. The ability to cross or having two functioning legs reducing the ability to be an Inverted Wingback being another one getting on my nerves.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Piperita

[Earnie is God!]

2 minutes ago, interthebest said:

is it only me that thinks the green circles mean "how much experience the player has playing this role" instead of "how suitable the role is for the player" ?

If you were correct, my 18yo above must have played a hell of a lot of reserve football as an AF, PF, Poacher, DLF, Treq, F9 and even as a TM and that's clearly not the case.

[interthebest]

its not experience compared to veteran players, but experience compared to the other roles. for example in march you get youth intake and one of the 15 year old players have player advanced forward until that moment so he is natural at it 

[WilltheWolf92]

2 hours ago, Earnie is God! said:

As for the circles/pies, and they have been mentioned a lot on this thread, they can be very misleading. They can give you just one or two 'slices' for players it deems are entirely unsuitable for a role yet, when you go and take a look at that player, he may have all (or almost all) the attributes needed to play it.
I think, over the years, the Complete Forward role has been the biggest culprit. There are seemingly very few players in the game who are deemed suitable for it.

For example, I have an 18yo newgen with some great attributes for his age. The game tells me he is pretty useless as a Complete Forward but is he really?

Every important skill for this role is at least in double figures. The lowest is 10, one at 11, and the rest are 12-15 so why is the game telling me he's completely unsuitable?

Now let's check some of his other roles...

As a Treq, the game is giving him a 6 out of 10 green circle. The problem is that he is lacking solid numbers in some of the key attributes for this role e.g. decisions = 8, first touch = 10, passing = 10. Same problem with the False Nine.

He's an 8 out of 10 as a Pressing Forward yet only has 5 for bravery. His teamwork is a high 17 though.

And another 8 out of 10 as a DLF. But only has decisions = 8, first touch = 10, passing = 10

If we look at all of the key attributes required for each role:

CF (suitability 2/10): 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, 15 (average = 12.91)
Treq (suitability 6/10): 8, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 15, 15, 15 (ave = 12.2)
F9 (suitability 6/10): 8, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 15, 15 (ave = 11.89)
PF (suitability 8/10): 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, 15, 15, 17 (ave = 12.89)
DLF (suitability 8/10): 8, 10, 10, 12, 15, 15, 17 (ave = 12.43)

The CF(A) role gives him the highest average and not one attribute below 10. He is also being trained as a CF to try and give him that more complete skill set.
But for some reason I'm being told that he is almost useless as a CF. Why?
He's yet to play a 1st team game for us and my U23s follow my 1st team tactics where I'm currently using an AF.
So he has been playing mainly as an AF for my reserves and this may explain why he is 10/10 for that and his attributes do suit that role (ave = 12.86).

But there is no way he should be rated so poorly as a CF. How is he not suitable?

A lot of managers, and not just newbies, are misled by these ratings circles and it really could do with changing, otherwise what is the point in having them?

Can you tell me the skin you're using?

[Earnie is God!]

Skin = TCS '19 v1.5

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Earnie is God!

[tmc269]

@herne79 how important to the tactic do you feel the mc support having get forward often trait ? 

[Apexmed]

necro up post 

fm19, no TI/PI