Matches getting ridiculous and unbearable

[Pasonen]

Theres 10 Leeds attacking area headers won 8 of them is headed directly to GK and are counted as shots. I'm pretty sure I watched them all

So about half of shots on target was headers. Heres the actual shot count

Heres the passes and crosses what tells Tottenham failed to intercept crosses. Yellow are key and chance created passes. Light green crosses.

Tottenham crosses 0%

Tottenham Passes and intercepted crosses (unfortunately yellow)

 

 

Some hastily done checking.

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Pasonen

[themadsheep2001]

51 minutes ago, blejdek said:

Take your time. I watch matches always on comprehensive, I really like to see what is happening on the match most of the time so I can act accordingly

  

4 minutes ago, blejdek said:

Take your time. I watch matches always on comprehensive, I really like to see what is happening on the match most of the time so I can act accordingly

 

03:39 Marcos - difficult shot, not the easiest to finish. 

07:57 Lopez from corner, decent chance. No idea how good he is in in the air mind

15:13 Herrero run. He needs to give that really rather than the long shot. Does he do that often, if so does he score?

19:35 Perrin header from free kick, not easy

21:53 Lopez header from cross at far post, again this could be adjusted based on how good or bad he is heading, but it's another low chance opportunity 

22:08 Smith header. First chance that i would personally call solid ( as in you've got a 1 in 5 chance of scoring)

I'm writing this as I watch, a lot is coming through Herrero trying to move dangerous crosses, be interesting to know how well your players do in converting these, and what their attributes are

24:15 Smith chance from corner knock down. Not an easy chance at all.

30:55. Spurs shot from range, speculative

41:20. Marcos. Agree with @HUNT3R this is actually frustrating to watch, its not super easy, but it's a solid chance and he doesn't do anything with it. Not the best decision made by him there to shoot so late (any PPMs?).

42:20 Marcos header. Too far out to be a real threat.

Half time, and I'd say you've not given Spurs a sniff, but not really created a huge amount of quality yourself. Marcos with the best chance of the game so far. Not seen enough of Zainolo on the ball for my personal liking, full backs are doing all your creative heavy lifting (not necessarily a bad thing, look at Liverpool)

45:15 Good work from Smith on keeper, decentish chance

48:26 Nice ball over the top to Smith, who probably dribbles too much and lets two defenders get in the way

54:11 This is actually a good chance for Smith. Hes across the defender, should do better here

61:08 Set piece header, nothing special about this chance, easy for keeper

66:01 Near post chance for Silva, again its what xg would rate as another low return chance

I'll skip over the mini flurry of Spurs chances here, because they are all low quality, and nothing you should be concerned with ( so far you've kept Spurs incredibly quiet)

73:55 Another set of set pieces chances, one header so far out its basically 0%

Hoever Goal: absolutely speculative but good finish  

Rodrygo Goal: see above

Ultimately, I don't think you created enough quality chances, though you prevent Spurs from having any really, and you've both scored from speculative finishes. I havent look at the tactical set up but everything seems to play wide, but you often take too long to do that so when crosses do get played in the box is busy, and I dont think there's enough runners arriving into the box

There's two or three chances your players might have done better on, that Marcos one in particular, but I couldn't say you definitely deserved to win. 

[HUNT3R]

I just finished my season. In the matches that are one-sided, with one team attacking and the other being cautious or defensive, I slipped up twice (drawing them) out of about 13 or so matches. In one (of the 13) match, they scored first too and I came back and won 2-1, though it was still a bit of a lucky win. A lot of these matches are put to bed in the first half already. I'm usually up by 2 or 3 by then. I don't even change tactic, though I have a mirror tactic of my main one going. I do change player selection based on who I face. In the 3rd last match, I had Renato Silva (my CM/A or AMR) as a fullback, charging up the pitch since the opposition wasn't going to attack me that much and I had a striker in his place at CM/A as that position gets a mix of finishing chances and also the odd headed chance. We ended up 3-0 ahead at half time.

 

The last thread got me interested in stats. I never really bother with them and just go based on what I see. We scored 71 (3rd most) goals in 38 matches and conceded 28 (3rd least) . In those matches, we created 112 chances (2nd most) and we had a conversion rate of 10% which was the 4th best. I'll admit we scored quite a few from corners (12) which was the most, 2 from DFKs (3rd) and 7 from IFKs (3rd).

As for set pieces, we conceded 2 goals from corners. That was only 4th best as 2 other teams only conceded 1 and Lyon conceded 0 in 38 matches. Interestingly Angers who finished 13th was one who conceded only 1 goal.

Conceding from IFKs, PSG conceded 0. We were tied for 7th, conceding 4 only, so it shows there wasn't a lot in terms of conceding from them either.

@blejdek, how do your stats compare?

 

These matches are damn frustrating, but so far in my own save, I'm not seeing these games go against me too often. Will see next season since we'd have received a decent rep boost with a clear 3rd place (predicted 4th), even leading for a while above the big PSG and Lyon (who finished unbeaten) and a first outing in the CL getting us into the first knockout round.

[Federico]

15 minuti fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

 but I couldn't say you definitely deserved to win. 

Well.... that's something a bit harsh to say to someone who counts 20 shots on target

Quality or not, his team produced enough to deserve more in my opinion, ain't it? Then there are those games @Svenc reported earlier, once in 10 years, when you trash the opponent and get lucky to get out of the pitch with 1 point in your pocket.

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, Federico said:

Well.... that's something a bit harsh to say to someone who counts 20 shots on target

It's not when you look at the actual shots themselves. I'm far more concerned with shot quality that shot quantity

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, Federico said:

Well.... that's something a bit harsh to say to someone who counts 20 shots on target

Quality or not, his team produced enough to deserve more in my opinion, ain't it? Then there are those games @Svenc reported earlier, once in 10 years, when you trash the opponent and get lucky to get out of the pitch with 1 point in your pocket.

To add to your edit, his team did not produce enough to deserve more really. And I've just been through the shots to explain why

[Federico]

Well... I haven't watched the game so I can't say, I confess I'm judging by watching only a single screenshot, I'm guilty I admit it!

You say his team did not produce enough. I say it did, and shots count is there for that. We can discuss about quality of shots, alright. But in my opinion, from a user perspective, if I see 90% of total highlights regarding my team creating chances (many more compared to an average real football game, quality or not), for someone it may be difficult to analyse what's going wrong. And when this happens game after game, it's even more difficult possibly.

Edit: and also, I read your analysis and I'm sure it was professional because I know you. But still made by many subjective factors (and it's the same when I do my own reports of course). A lot of not easy goals are scored by players having the right attributes in the right places (and some other times from players who haven't!), so, objectively, from my point of view it would be more proper to make an analysis by analyzing (sorry the repetition) the player traits instead.

Ex. "Could Mr. X score that goal according to his attributes?" "According to his attributes and his current shape, he has to X% of chances to score that goal".

[HUNT3R]

6 minutes ago, Federico said:

You say his team did not produce enough. I say it did, and shots count is there for that. We can discuss about quality of shots, alright. But in my opinion, from a user perspective, if I see 90% of total highlights regarding my team creating chances (many more compared to an average real football game, quality or not), for someone it may be difficult to analyse what's going wrong. And when this happens game after game, it's even more difficult possibly.

That's why, in my own breakdown, I tried to put some perspective (and TMS did too) about why the chance wasn't good. Hopefully it helps someone else too. The PKM is there to download and someone can watch that along with the breakdown of chances and then hopefully see what we saw.

[Guest]

@Neil Brock

As you can see, xG is a popular tool we want.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Guest

[themadsheep2001]

9 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

That's why, in my own breakdown, I tried to put some perspective (and TMS did too) about why the chance wasn't good. Hopefully it helps someone else too. The PKM is there to download and someone can watch that along with the breakdown of chances and then hopefully see what we saw.

Also while player traits can help minimise or maxmise opportunities, all players are going to be different, so in an ideal world you need a system where you can bring in your subs etc and still be creating decent quality. If this was my save and a persistent trend, i'd probably be reassessing my approach. But if its a one off game, stick it in the bin and move on

[Federico]

I think what we see sometimes can totally mislead us. And this happens way too often according to my experience. So when we think we're dominating and creating chances because the ME shows us exactly that, we are making a mistake. From my point of view this is kind of out of logic. Again, as @themadsheep2001 stated above, one game off and nobody would complain. This edition flaws of repetivity though in my opinion.

[HUNT3R]

50 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I havent look at the tactical set up but everything seems to play wide, but you often take too long to do that so when crosses do get played in the box is busy, and I dont think there's enough runners arriving into the box

By the way, I think you may be onto something with this. The tactic is on the first page. It's all along those lines - lower tempo, shorter passing, PooD.

I'm not a fan of the balance of the midfield 2 either, but that's another matter and I will add I didn't pay attention to how they performed specifically in that match.

[Svenc]

59 minutes ago, Federico said:

Well.... that's something a bit harsh to say to someone who counts 20 shots on target

Quality or not, his team produced enough to deserve more in my opinion, ain't it? 

A win wouldn't have been undeserved as such, but it's not the "trashing" a 20 SOT suggests at all. The issue to me is that in parts, the header accuracy is far too high, they're almost all on target, no matter how luke-warm and easy to save. Even the ones from Yards out, they go on target. Imagine a keeper in an actual football match that's headed at from yards out and hard angles over and over, that sort of stuff. Nobody would reward him for making spectacular saves, but saves he did.

In Terms of xG (whilst we're at it), this match would be closer to this (lots of chances, limited quality mostly):
 

Than to that infamous Atalanta one. The 20 SOT tells one Story, a subjective eye on the actual chances -- and that's now four of us who have taken a look and come to similar conclusions -- tells another. What was your final take, btw. @Pasonen?  

Edited July 19, 2020 by Svenc

[Zemahh]

7 minutes ago, Federico said:

So when we think we're dominating and creating chances because the ME shows us exactly that, we are making a mistake.

What you fail to understand is that not all shots are equal, on target or not. Even success rate of shots from inside the box can vary a lot, depending on the angle and the body part they're taken with. You may very well be dominating possession and having tons of shots (on target, even), but if all of them are easy saves, none of it really matters. Perhaps there's something to be said about the absurd amount of shots attacking tactics can create, but I still fail to see how a sheer stat number should somehow dictate whether you deserve a win or not.

That said, there definitely needs to be a way for the game to communicate this to players. Currently there's none, apart from clicking on every single shot in the Analysis section. A screen like this would be amazing:

[Federico]

To me, as discussed somewhere else, it's not about header accuracy, which sometimes looks even poor, but the fact that forwards tend to win the most of aerial challenges.

[Federico]

8 minuti fa, Zemahh ha scritto:

What you fail to understand

Suggestion of life: if you begin any kind of dialogue like that, you put yourself on the losing side already.

The rest of your post, not even read.

[Zemahh]

On 17/07/2020 at 22:13, blejdek said:

Looking at this tactic, it does not surprise me at all you're having trouble creating good quality chances. There's no space creation whatsoever, you're cramming everyone into central areas, which are the easiest to defend. Since you're in year 2025, I'm going to assume you have a good squad and are a favourite often, which means the AI will line up defensively to begin with (packing central areas with DM formations and defending narrowly).

First off, you have two playmakers right on top of each other, in central midfield. That alone will invite the ball into central areas very often, with playmaker roles having "ball magnet" tendency in FM.

Next up, two Inside Forwards, both looking to cut inside into an area your AM is already occupying. Now you've got 3 players, plus an Advanced Playmaker sitting on top of each other in close proximity. All the AI has to do is to defend narrow areas and your whole attack can be kept quiet.

Your only real space creation comes from Inside Forwards opening up space for overlapping Wing Backs, but that will only result in endless crosses. Is your striker good enough aerially to get on the end of most of them? Besides that, if crosses are your main game plan, 4-4-2/4-2-4 would be a better option, giving you two strikers to compete for headers.

As for instructions, Shorter Passing in combination with Lower Tempo won't result in many exciting switches of play either. When it comes to breaking down stubborn defences, a general rule of thumb is to either go short and fast, pulling opposition out of positions with incisive passing, or slow and direct, giving your players time to get forward and then switching play to either side. With the combination you've chosen, I can see you struggle creating anything of worth.

To sum it up, you're not giving defensive sides anything to think about. You have a bunch of players in close proximity, instructed to play it slow, which probably results in a lot of non-threatening passes, until players are eventually closed down and forced to shoot from wherever they are. I would use at least one out-and-out Winger to stretch the play, cut one playmaker role and change your passing or tempo instructions.

45 minutes ago, Federico said:

not even read

Yup, seems to be a common theme, judging by your posts. Must be about the 50th time I've seen you going on about stat numbers, completely disregarding anything else. 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Zemahh

[Pasonen]

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

What was your final take, btw.

Leeds:

- Some bad luck finishing attempts,

- AMC interrupted Tottenhams playmaking

- In 1-1 goal DR lost his game against AML then good dribble and finish. Nice goal.

Tottenham:

-GK Played well 7.5 rating, even after he almost gifted one goal

-Tottenham didnt try to cross their way to victory 29 vs 51 cross attempts. and 0% success when they did. Thats not good. If they would have had 3 cm's and no 2cm+1dm maybe they could have passed their way from flanks to more center efficiently.

- Because Tottenham played with DM they "forced" Leeds to flanks time to time. I'm not a fan of DM especially def roles because its so static and deep sitting role and that decision to use DM is a two bladed sword. It shuts down AMC but gives space for Leeds CM. I would have used support ST or marked CM.

Shot count is a bit too high because so many crosses finding target and headers going to target. It was a competitive match and there was effort to both directions. I think Leeds should have won but they didnt and this is what makes sports interesting. 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Pasonen

[Federico]

29 minuti fa, Zemahh ha scritto:

Yup, seems to be a common theme, judging by your posts. Must be about the 50th time I've seen you going on about stat numbers, completely disregarding anything else. 

When you'll post something smart, I'll read it I promise  

[Zemahh]

2 minutes ago, Federico said:

When you'll post something smart, I'll read it I promise  

Not sure I can lower myself to the level you'd understand. 

[Federico]

In questo momento, Zemahh ha scritto:

Not sure I can lower myself to the level you'd understand. 

Not sure you'll ever write it anyway

[themadsheep2001]

@Federico @Zemahh let it go please, thanks

[Svenc]

13 hours ago, Zemahh said:

not all shots are equal, on target or not. 

That's the debate we had ever since the CCCs were introduced (which equally, are far from equal).

Yesterday night saw another decent example. Despite having a ton of shots, Napoli scraped by winning only in injury time against Udinese, and that wasn't that "unjust". They may have even lost the match, considering that Udinese had arguably the two biggest chances. Again the simple stat tells one story, a more detailed stat another.

https://understat.com/match/13425

 

Here's another crucial thing introduced, which is the timeline (Timing Chart). Upon taking the lead early, Udinese could sit back and focus on defending early. Their other decent chance came only late into the match too though. The winner was eventually settled by a wonder strike but seconds from the final whistle.

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Svenc

[Pasonen]

27 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Here's another crucial thing introduced, which is the timeline (Timing Chart). Upon taking the lead early, Udinese could sit back and focus on defending early. Their other decent chance came only late into the match too though. The winner was eventually settled by a wonder strike but seconds from the final whistle.

 

It might be harder for player to understand in game that you need a certain level of skills to make your shots count. Game should be a bit more player attribute dependant and I dont mean only shooting (this would make it easier for player to see). at the moment if you play well with mediocre players you can get huge amount of shots and passes. Would that be the case in real world? Propably not because no matter how good your system is players are the ones executing it. On the other hand at the moment in game good teams get huge amount of shots but just cant finish. Its very complex balance..

In game system should be tighter and dynamic --> more movement, Anticipation system where players move to other formation positions if they anticipate something. More weight to technique and physical attributes because this would separate high pressing, ball controlling world class teams from the grey mass of teams. 

It might sound impossible to make but I think its not so far in the future.

[Federico]

@Pasonen thanks for your post which sums up pretty much my point of view on the current state of Football Manager ME wise. And very much agree about how the game looks "static" compared to real life football, a comparison I don't like to do at all anyway but this is how the ME looks like

In a real match players look "hectic" in proximity of the box and once they approach, markings begin being tighter, strikers move horizontally creating spaces for a rush from the back, overlaps on the flanks and many little movement to find the right space. At the same time the defending team is much more active&reactive but from my point of view at the moment it acts too passively. Here where it comes the the high SOT number. We have too many double digit games according to that stat, we can discuss how much you want about the quality of those shots but again, the SOT number is too often not reasonable in FM20.

@Svenc you rightfully mentioned the Napoli-Udinese game from last night, noting how Napoli had tons of shots. 9 shots on target are a lot in real world, normality in FM. But again, as said in another thread, the balance is damn hard to get right, as you have to keep the game plausible and convincing, and funny to watch at the same time. If FM replicated perfectly the real football, many of us would die of boredom in front of the screen

[zyfon5]

12 minutes ago, Pasonen said:

at the moment if you play well with mediocre players you can get huge amount of shots and passes. Would that be the case in real world? Propably not because no matter how good your system is players are the ones executing it. 

Southampton this season will like to have a word with you. They are outperforming better teams in shots and goals scored this season. They are also 11th in passes made. This is a team that face relegation battle for the last two seasons.

[Federico]

So do you think the Southampton model should be applied to any FM club pitching 11 mediocre players? Just asking, no polemic in here

[Pasonen]

10 minutes ago, zyfon5 said:

Southampton this season will like to have a word with you. They are outperforming better teams in shots and goals scored this season. They are also 11th in passes made. This is a team that face relegation battle for the last two seasons.

Cant really say a lot to that. Havent watched PL that much, but have their team changed a lot between these seasons? A team who can play directly from their spine as a unit negates some of the difference in attributes. Or maybe they had a good bar tour before season.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Pasonen

[yolixeya]

22 minutes ago, Federico said:

At the same time the defending team is much more active&reactive but from my point of view at the moment it acts too passively. Here where it comes the the high SOT number. We have too many double digit games according to that stat, we can discuss how much you want about the quality of those shots but again, the SOT number is too often not reasonable in FM20.

So, is this a issue typical for all teams or just human managed teams? Do the AI managed teams have higher SOT count as well? Do the stats in game show that? I think for something to be a ME issue, it would be have to be visable across all matches. Not just where human manager is involved.

[blejdek]

14 hours ago, Zemahh said:

Looking at this tactic, it does not surprise me at all you're having trouble creating good quality chances. There's no space creation whatsoever, you're cramming everyone into central areas, which are the easiest to defend. Since you're in year 2025, I'm going to assume you have a good squad and are a favourite often, which means the AI will line up defensively to begin with (packing central areas with DM formations and defending narrowly).

First off, you have two playmakers right on top of each other, in central midfield. That alone will invite the ball into central areas very often, with playmaker roles having "ball magnet" tendency in FM.

Next up, two Inside Forwards, both looking to cut inside into an area your AM is already occupying. Now you've got 3 players, plus an Advanced Playmaker sitting on top of each other in close proximity. All the AI has to do is to defend narrow areas and your whole attack can be kept quiet.

Your only real space creation comes from Inside Forwards opening up space for overlapping Wing Backs, but that will only result in endless crosses. Is your striker good enough aerially to get on the end of most of them? Besides that, if crosses are your main game plan, 4-4-2/4-2-4 would be a better option, giving you two strikers to compete for headers.

As for instructions, Shorter Passing in combination with Lower Tempo won't result in many exciting switches of play either. When it comes to breaking down stubborn defences, a general rule of thumb is to either go short and fast, pulling opposition out of positions with incisive passing, or slow and direct, giving your players time to get forward and then switching play to either side. With the combination you've chosen, I can see you struggle creating anything of worth.

To sum it up, you're not giving defensive sides anything to think about. You have a bunch of players in close proximity, instructed to play it slow, which probably results in a lot of non-threatening passes, until players are eventually closed down and forced to shoot from wherever they are. I would use at least one out-and-out Winger to stretch the play, cut one playmaker role and change your passing or tempo instructions.

Yup, seems to be a common theme, judging by your posts. Must be about the 50th time I've seen you going on about stat numbers, completely disregarding anything else. 

What if I choose to play with extremely wide area, so IFs AMC and AP wont be as close to one another as they are now ? Would that help the overall chances and shots to be more dangerous ?

OR  is the only real way going for short/fast or direct/slow style ?

[Zemahh]

33 minutes ago, blejdek said:

What if I choose to play with extremely wide area, so IFs AMC and AP wont be as close to one another as they are now ? Would that help the overall chances and shots to be more dangerous ?

Wide attacking width will make your players stay wider from each other, but Inside Forwards will still cut inside with the ball, as per their locked in instructions. That's where central areas get congested.

Imagine the opposition marking your players. Their wide defenders will track your wide forwards inside, consequently reducing space for your striker. That might result in your Wing Backs having a free reign down the flanks, but again, if crosses are your main game plan, you better have a striker that can get on the end of them consistently (and even then lone striker formations aren't optimal for wing play).

Now imagine if, for example, you had a right footed Winger on the right side. He will stay wide, forcing the opposition defender to stay wide with him as well. Now suddenly there's more space for opposition central defenders to cover and gaps your striker can expose (Move Into Channels) can start emerging. On the other side you can keep a role that cuts inside, gets on the end of back post crosses and opens up space for your Wing Back, creating some variety.

Assuming you're expected to win most of your matches, something like this:

• Mentality: Positive
• Team Instructions: Play Out Of Defence, Slightly Lower Tempo, Counter-Press, Higher Defensive Line, Offside Trap
• Individual Instructions: Close Down More on ST, AMC, AML, AMR

What's also worth mentioning, is that in a 4-2-3-1, both central midfielder have to be solid defensively. In the Premier League, I'd want them both to have at least 14-15 Positioning, Bravery and Tackling, otherwise you're better off using a more balanced 4-1-2-3 with a DM.

[blejdek]

11 minutes ago, Zemahh said:

Wide attacking width will make your players stay wider from each other, but Inside Forwards will still cut inside with the ball, as per their locked in instructions. That's where central areas get congested.

Imagine the opposition marking your players. Their wide defenders will track your wide forwards inside, consequently reducing space for your striker. That might result in your Wing Backs having a free reign down the flanks, but again, if crosses are your main game plan, you better have a striker that can get on the end of them consistently (and even then lone striker formations aren't optimal for wing play).

Now imagine if, for example, you had a right footed Winger on the right side. He will stay wide, forcing the opposition defender to stay wide with him as well. Now suddenly there's more space for opposition central defenders to cover and gaps your striker can expose (Move Into Channels) can start emerging. On the other side you can keep a role that cuts inside, gets on the end of back post crosses and opens up space for your Wing Back, creating some variety.

Assuming you're expected to win most of your matches, something like this:

• Mentality: Positive
• Team Instructions: Play Out Of Defence, Slightly Lower Tempo, Counter-Press, Higher Defensive Line, Offside Trap
• Individual Instructions: Close Down More on ST, AMC, AML, AMR

What's also worth mentioning, is that in a 4-2-3-1, both central midfielder have to be solid defensively. In the Premier League, I'd want them both to have at least 14-15 Positioning, Bravery and Tackling, otherwise you're better off using a more balanced 4-1-2-3 with a DM.

Ahhh I see. I will try some matches with the style u copy pasted in your post. So my left am will be winger on attack, or maybe right, gotta see which one has better crossing (both are unbelievable players, one of the best in the game currently). 

Edit: There is no option to close down more on ST AMC AML AMR ? There is only mark tighter options that is defensive one.

Edited July 20, 2020 by blejdek

[zyfon5]

9 minutes ago, Zemahh said:

Wide attacking width will make your players stay wider from each other, but Inside Forwards will still cut inside with the ball, as per their locked in instructions. That's where central areas get congested.

Imagine the opposition marking your players. Their wide defenders will track your wide forwards inside, consequently reducing space for your striker. That might result in your Wing Backs having a free reign down the flanks, but again, if crosses are your main game plan, you better have a striker that can get on the end of them consistently (and even then lone striker formations aren't optimal for wing play).

Now imagine if, for example, you had a right footed Winger on the right side. He will stay wide, forcing the opposition defender to stay wide with him as well. Now suddenly there's more space for opposition central defenders to cover and gaps your striker can expose (Move Into Channels) can start emerging. On the other side you can keep a role that cuts inside, gets on the end of back post crosses and opens up space for your Wing Back, creating some variety.

Assuming you're expected to win most of your matches, something like this:

• Mentality: Positive
• Team Instructions: Play Out Of Defence, Slightly Lower Tempo, Counter-Press, Higher Defensive Line, Offside Trap
• Individual Instructions: Close Down More on ST, AMC, AML, AMR

What's also worth mentioning, is that in a 4-2-3-1, both central midfielder have to be solid defensively. In the Premier League, I'd want them both to have at least 14-15 Positioning, Bravery and Tackling, otherwise you're better off using a more balanced 4-1-2-3 with a DM.

This is something that the AI will use most of the time. One player who will stretch wide on one side and on the other side an inside forward or a winger who will sit more narrow. This also applies to their midfielder one sit back one more attacking.

One problem with the 4231 is the CAM position is frequently nullified by a DM or a defensive minded midfielder while your striker has little space to drop back since the hole is occupied by another player. Hence 4231 is difficult to set up and balanced as have been discussed in the tactics forum especially for this year's game.

[herne79]

40 minutes ago, blejdek said:

OR  is the only real way going for short/fast or direct/slow style ?

Not the only way no.

This is how my current Le Havre team line up:

And here are some results against "defensive" teams who enjoy the majority of possession but have hardly any shots whereas I have plenty:

Obviously not all my matches look like that - some matches I have the majority of possession; in others it's more even.  Some matches are fairly even in shot count; in others the opposition have more (looking at you PSG).

Now ok I'm not playing with any particular style in mind (although I could easily) but the point is to understand how everything works together.  Each component part is just one cog in a larger wheel.  How your roles & duties all combine together; how your players affect their roles (different players will play the same role differently); how you rotate your squad; how you speak to your players before and during each match; what substitutions you make; what instructions you assign; and so on.  Some people believe that just complicates matters when actually if you stop and think for a couple of minutes and plan things it really isn't.  Fail to plan, plan to fail.

Take my two Wingbacks for example.  Identical roles & duties right?  But the players I use there are different - one has the Trait to get forward often, the other doesn't.  So one side is a little more attack focussed than the other.  But what if neither player had that Trait, couldn't I just give one Wingback an attack duty if I wanted some variety?  Yeh sure I could but then the profile of the role itself changes and (potentially) how it impacts the rest of the system.  There's nothing wrong with that so long as you understand this, plan for it and watch how things play out.

Now take my 3 attackers.  All 3 function beautifully together.  Why?  Because they have the right attributes for what I need from them and I haven't over-burdened them with lots of instructions.  They have plenty of off ball movement, composure and roaming ability; they're not told to attack too fast (into brick walls) or too slowly (into packed organised defences); and they have plenty of support behind or out wide if they need to recycle possession.  They tend to make the right decisions at the right time, speeding up or slowing down the attack as they see fit.  Sometimes people forget (or don't realise) that players are perfectly capable of making their own decisions without us managers telling them what to do via team or player instructions.

Goals are primarily from (and an even balance between) through balls and crosses, with some short passes and a few set pieces.  My AF scores for fun, my CF isn't far behind and my AMC leads the way in assists (and has a few goals too).

My point in all of this is that sometimes us managers can try too hard and end up over-thinking things.  I've seen possession systems with umpteen TIs for example which still don't give much possession, whereas to turn my system above into a possession system I'd add 3, maybe 4, instructions.  And also, just look at how this thread has gone - are you really any the wiser now after all this input, when all you actually need do is read and understand what @HUNT3R has been saying right from the get go?  Your quote above suggests not and that's a shame. 

The game is not perfect (and neither is a lot of "advice", no matter how earnestly some people write) but as a man much wiser than me once said, if you don't know what something does - don't use it.

[Zemahh]

9 minutes ago, blejdek said:

There is no option to close down more on ST AMC AML AMR ?

Click on those roles on your tactics screen, Edit Instructions and there's a Pressing Intensity bar on the left side, above marking and tackling options.

[blejdek]

2 minutes ago, Zemahh said:

Click on those roles on your tactics screen, Edit Instructions and there's a Pressing Intensity bar on the left side, above marking and tackling options.

Ohhh, I see it now, but I cant move it, they are stuck on less urgent all 4 :o

[Federico]

2 ore fa, yolixeya ha scritto:

So, is this a issue typical for all teams or just human managed teams? Do the AI managed teams have higher SOT count as well? Do the stats in game show that? I think for something to be a ME issue, it would be have to be visable across all matches. Not just where human manager is involved.

Definitely yes it involves AI teams as well according to my savegames

[yolixeya]

1 hour ago, Federico said:

Definitely yes it involves AI teams as well according to my savegames

Then I would say it is a ME issue. If it was typical just for human managers then that would be more of a AI then ME issue, because AI managers fail to create tactics that generate SOT like human does.

I will keep an eye in my current season on SOT. I only started the season so I'll have to wait until at least midpoint of season. I'm not intrested to see stats for any match in isolation, but the overall SOT count across the league and compare it to the real world.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, blejdek said:

Ohhh, I see it now, but I cant move it, they are stuck on less urgent all 4 :o

You need to set Pressing Intensity Team Instruction to default first and after go to each player PI to do whatever you want for pressing. 

If you have max pressing intensity as TI and players show less urgent, I have been told numerous times that is a visual bug - glitch. 

[Zemahh]

51 minutes ago, yolixeya said:

Then I would say it is a ME issue. If it was typical just for human managers then that would be more of a AI then ME issue, because AI managers fail to create tactics that generate SOT like human does.

I can't really say I see the AI generating any kind of absurd numbers in my saves. I'm not a stats expert, but even on attacking mentalities, the numbers seem quite reasonable.

• Liverpool, Positive 4-2-3-1: 8 shots, 4 on target
• West Ham, Positive 4-1-2-3: 9 shots, 6 on target
• Man City, Standard 4-2-3-1: 13 shots, 7 on target
• Man United, Attacking 4-2-3-1: 7 shots, 2 on target
• Wolves, Cautious 4-2-3-1: 6 shots, 3 on target

Mind you, all of these are against a narrow 4-3-3, a defensively very vulnerable formation. But the AI sticks to its sensible tactics and as a result doesn't rack up 30+ shots a human could.

For comparison, yesterday against Spurs, Leicester had 24 shots, 6 on target. They lost 3-0.

[Federico]

11 ore fa, yolixeya ha scritto:

Then I would say it is a ME issue. If it was typical just for human managers then that would be more of a AI then ME issue, because AI managers fail to create tactics that generate SOT like human does.

I will keep an eye in my current season on SOT. I only started the season so I'll have to wait until at least midpoint of season. I'm not intrested to see stats for any match in isolation, but the overall SOT count across the league and compare it to the real world.

Just some examples, taken randomly from my current save. Don't be scared by players, I'm using a retro-database

Yeah I read your last sentence... I'm trying to see if I can sort that somehow from somewhere.

But again... comparing it to the real world is the wrong comparison.

Anyway: in the current FM season, Italian Serie A, after 17 games, the team that has the highest number of shots on goal is AC Milan, with 136 attempts. They scored 32 goals, the average is 1 goals scored every 4,25 shots. Of course I'd need to finish the season to have a reliable statistic, from which I would discard the best and the worst in the general count.

English Premier League: after 17 games, Arsenal and Man City have 173 SOT, Arsenal scored 40 and City 37, respectively 1 goal after 4,325 SOT / 4,675

Spanish La Liga: after 19 games, Real Madrid counts 180 SOT, scored 56, avg is 1 goal every 3,2 SOT.

 

[goranm]

12 hours ago, yolixeya said:

So, is this a issue typical for all teams or just human managed teams? Do the AI managed teams have higher SOT count as well? Do the stats in game show that? I think for something to be a ME issue, it would be have to be visable across all matches. Not just where human manager is involved.

SOT is pretty much on point in my save, but conversion rate is way off. The highest and lowest conversion rate in 18/19 La Liga was 19.1% and 10.5%, with more than half of all teams above 13%. In my save the highest conversion rate is 13%, the lowest is 5%, most teams have between 8% and 10%, only 1st 2nd and 3rd have 13%, 12% and 11%, respectively.

Similarly in 18/19 PL the highest and lowest conversion rates were 21% and 7.8% with most teams above 13%, whereas in my save the highest conversion rate for PL is 12% and the lowest 4%, with most teams between 7% and 9%.

[goranm]

1 hour ago, Federico said:

But again... comparing it to the real world is the wrong comparison.

Why? The ME is advertised as a simulation of real world football, so it's only fair to compare it against the real world. Otherwise, there is no benchmark to compare it to.

[Federico]

From my personal point of view if we keep comparing FM to real football, we'll keep expecting to see in FM what we see in real football. And this cannot be achieved, never. Because of a simple fact: AI cannot cope a human brain and anything related to it, like emotions, experience, even born gifts. And because FM is ruled by algorithms, of course.

FM is surely a spectacular emulation that achieved massive targets on regard of football verisimilitude.

Developers must have something to rely on of course (and this could be one of the problems of FM from a certain point of view) and here where they need to look at real football. But for users like us, it's a different story. Why do you think this very topic was created?

People will keep being frustrated at FM if our milestone is the real football. Instead, always from my point of view, if we start analyzing our matches compared to other matches in the FM world, I'm sure there would be a better understanding of the game and more people would enjoy it more than they're doing now.

[goranm]

31 minutes ago, Federico said:

From my personal point of view if we keep comparing FM to real football, we'll keep expecting to see in FM what we see in real football. (...) People will keep being frustrated at FM if our milestone is the real football.

Well, yes, because that is the selling point for FM. It advertises itself not as an arcade, but as a simulation of real life football managerial experience. If you go to www.footballmanager.com, the main headline is "Simulation Gaming Perfected". Based on that marketing strategy, consumers will have certain expectations, main one, of course, being that the matches should resemble real football to a degree of accuracy. I don't think that anyone is expecting perfection, but they are expecting that, for example, world-class forwards don't miss 9/10 one-on-ones vs average keepers, which absolutely breaks immersion.

Quote

Instead, always from my point of view, if we start analyzing our matches compared to other matches in the FM world, I'm sure there would be a better understanding of the game and more people would enjoy it more than they're doing now.

This is absolutely valid, however there is a difference between understanding how the game works, and having expectations of how the game should work, and the expectation is that it should simulate real world football as much as possible, because that is how the game is marketed. Certain aspects of the ME break the immersion, and some criticism is absolutely appropriate.

Edited July 20, 2020 by goranm

[Federico]

Voilà

(that is not french anyway, I think it's canadian or haitian...)

[Svenc]

7 hours ago, goranm said:

SOT is pretty much on point in my save, but conversion rate is way off. The highest and lowest conversion rate in 18/19 La Liga was 19.1% and 10.5%, with more than half of all teams above 13%. In my save the highest conversion rate is 13%, the lowest is 5%, most teams have between 8% and 10%, only 1st 2nd and 3rd have 13%, 12% and 11%, respectively.

Similarly in 18/19 PL the highest and lowest conversion rates were 21% and 7.8% with most teams above 13%, whereas in my save the highest conversion rate for PL is 12% and the lowest 4%, with most teams between 7% and 9%.

These numbers by the way are taken from Transfermarkt. https://www.transfermarkt.com/jumplist/chancenverwertung/wettbewerb/ES1/saison_id/2018

They are neither Shot conversions (far too high) nor SOT conversions (too low). Somebody had brought them up, and they keep on being quoted. 

What you are quoting as high in your league with 13% is the shot conversion, which is roughly the same Spurs or City or Liverpool have. The average shot conversion in pretty much any league is ~10%, and it remains a mystery what it is Transfermarkt are actually counting.  If somebody can enlighten me, I'd be very much interested btw. Even at a basic glance, they are suggesting that Real Madrid, one of the most attacking teams in Europe, had unleashed no more than 12 shots per match in 2018/2019. I still suspect they may be excluding blocks, but they're doing that exclusively then. Nobody does that -- including FM. 
 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Svenc

[HUNT3R]

6 hours ago, goranm said:

SOT is pretty much on point in my save, but conversion rate is way off. The highest and lowest conversion rate in 18/19 La Liga was 19.1% and 10.5%, with more than half of all teams above 13%. In my save the highest conversion rate is 13%, the lowest is 5%, most teams have between 8% and 10%, only 1st 2nd and 3rd have 13%, 12% and 11%, respectively.

Similarly in 18/19 PL the highest and lowest conversion rates were 21% and 7.8% with most teams above 13%, whereas in my save the highest conversion rate for PL is 12% and the lowest 4%, with most teams between 7% and 9%.

Having similar conversion rates in France in my save. Highest being 11%, my own team at 10% and the lowest at 7%, so it's quite close between teams.

[Svenc]

14 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Having similar conversion rates in France in my save. Highest being 11%, my own team at 10% and the lowest at 7%, so it's quite close between teams.

Yes, that's in his save. There's no way any league has above 13% of shot conversions for the majority of teams, as Transfermarkt suggests. Here's the current EPL from two to three weeks back (Liverpool have fallen down to 13.6% meanwhile, as have Leicester dropped below 13% after their most recent games, including the 0 goals game at the weekend). 

liverpool 14,3%
city 13,5%
leicester 14%
chelsea 10,6%
united 10,2%
wolves 11,3%
sheffield u 10%
tottenham 13,2%
palace 9,5%
arsenal 12,3%
burnley 11,2%
everton 9,3%
newcastle 9,1%
southampton 9,7%
brighton 8,9%
west ham 8,2%
bournemouth 9,4%
villa 9,5%
norwich 7,2% 

Transfermarkt must be excluding blocks or something.  Their stats have puzzled me ever since I've seen them. They are also calling their category not "shots" but curiously "shots at goal", which suggests as much. Spurs. https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/chancenverwertung/wettbewerb/GB1

Edited July 21, 2020 by Svenc

[HUNT3R]

13 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Yes, that's in his save. There's no way any league has above 13% of shot conversions for the majority of teams, as Transfermarkt suggests. Here's the current EPL from two to three weeks back (Liverpool have fallen down to 13.6% meanwhile, as have Leicester dropped below 13% after their most recent games, including the 0 goals game at the weekend). 

Yeah I can agree with those figures. Looks a lot more realistic to me. I know even the best strikers every season have around 20-25% conversion rates, so obviously for the entire team we're looking at a lot less than that. I did think the team averages were slightly higher than what they are, but good to know it's not too far off RL stats.