Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Fabian Jonsson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fabian Jonsson

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This challange looks really cool. I usually pick one team (specifically my local club, IFK Göteborg) and stick with it, so a journeyman save would be something rather new to me. I will probably fire up a new save this evening an see where it takes me. Just out of curiosity, do you guys tend to have any backroom staff and/or players that you bring along when you move from one team to another? Also, how much of the scouting knowledge follow you along between clubs?
  2. I agree. I think that the current frameworks are all reasonably sound. I tried to think about all the aspects of player development that I would want in the game and I find that there are systems in place to deal with pretty much all of them. They might not be perfect, but if SI really took the time to fine tune them, I think they can work. That said, if I were to change anything, it would be the following: 1) Staff should not be able to see PA, but instead judge a player based on CA and the personality traits important for CA growth (professionalism, ambition). (Possibly those that can be detrimental such as injury proneness.) 2) CA growth should be less linear and include more sudden (dramatic) bursts (possibly both up and down). That way, we would be left to judging players based on the same criteria we are IRL - current performance and willingness to improve. It would also be less obvious which players could become stars and which couldn't. Couple that with a rebalanced and better documented training module, and I think we'd have a very fun game.
  3. I agree with Deserter that has expressed in several posts what I interpret as a skepticism against unnecessary complexity. I think we should look to create the simplest model possible which captures the spirit we're after. If it's deemed too simplistic, SI can add features to it in time, but to start out with loads of complicated models and options will most likely result in a concept that is 1) too hard for new/casual players to wrap their head around 2) too complicated to work into the game for SI to think it's worth it Basically, all I'm saying is that instead of looking at all that is and isn't possible in real life, we should focus on boiling down the player development to some clear concepts. Then we should try to come up with the simplest possible models that captures the spirit of those concepts. Only then will we come up with something that is actually feasible for SI to implement in such a short amount of time that they are likely to have. I don't have a clear view on what I want from the player development part of the game yet, but will try to contribute as much as I can.
  4. Here we go! I was happy to see Västra Frölunda take the step up to the 2nd Division WG of the Swedish league system. They are a classic team who has seen much better days, and are now bouncing back and forth between the 2nd and 3rd regionals. They are also based just a few kilometers from my home, so it's easy to identify with them. Here's my manager profile and information. I haven't had time to do much more than just fire up the game and holiday to reset date (which I can confirm to be Dec 15th), but I will get going with the challenge soon.
  5. I'll be joining in as soon as the official release is out. Will be playing in Sweden, hopefully as the manager for the local team from my hometown. Update: that team was promoted last season, so should already be in that division at the start of the game. Oh well, I'll guess I'll go for a team from the city I currently live in.
  6. Sounds very similar to what I do. I personally much prefer a pragmatic approach to management over an idealistic one. If you are too locked into a particular way of playing, you could overlook superb players because they "don't fit your current system", or play right into the hands of the opposition by playing a style that suits the league poorly, for example. I always look for ways to get ahead, and to maximize the potential of the players at my disposal.
  7. For me it's definitely both. I start out with a model based on the team, try to sign players that can help evolve the tactic towards a certain direction, but if I get the chance to sign a real quality player, I try to adapt the system to suit the new star. It's a constant process.
  8. Either he says it "tongue in cheek", or he just likes that role very much. I doubt there's some inherent mechanism in the ME that makes BWMs better than other roles.
  9. Last but not least, I noticed that two of my central midfielders played much more like I wanted than the rest. They both have "Plays One-Twos", so I decided to teach all (!) attacking players (DLs, MCs, STs) the "Plays One-Twos" PPM. Hopefully that will have a big impact once they learn it.
  10. Thanks for your comments. I played a fair few games yesterday evening, and to my surprise the previous setup (seen above) was not too far off what I've ended up with after the first testing session. I began by cranking up the tempo and shortened the passing range by adding "much higher tempo" and "shorter passing". This, combined with the Control mentality, caused the players to try too many high risk passes. The defensive players passed quickly forward and the front trio (MCc and STs) became isolated and tried to attack quickly against a compact defense. The high tempo also caused the players to make rash decisions. I decided to tune it back a notch and changed to "Standard" strategy, "higher tempo" and removed "shorter passes". This led to very interesting play, and I started to see a lot of good passing moves with lots of movement. However, the team was slightly too far from eachother, and I decided to also remove "Play Wider". Finally, I felt that changing "Control" to "Standard" had caused us to be too cautious in defense (remember, we have a very strong side for the league), so I added "Hassle Opponents".
  11. I'm managing IFK Göteborg in the Swedish top flight, and I'm mid-season the year 2020. I've slowly but surely strengthened the squad, and I'm now at a point where the team is pretty much ranked 1st in all categories in the league comparison screen. Simply put, we have the best squad in the league, by far. Consequently, we win a fair bunch. As my teams get stronger, I usually adopt a more controlling (possession) style to dominate games and prevent the team from conceding silly goals and drop points to weaker sides. This, however, often result in rather dull football where my team pass the ball around endlessly until the opposition makes a marking error or looses the ball in a dangerous area. At this point, I feel that it's vital for me to have something "fun" to do while playing the league games, as the game otherwise mostly become a quest to succeed in Europe and the domestic competitions become something that you just have to trudge through. So, what I want is to try to stamp a specific brand of football on my team, and try to make them play attractive (and effective) football, namely a high tempo, fluid, pass and move type game. My current setup is probably not ideally suited for that, but I do feel that I have a good squad for such a strategy. To kick things off, here's my current formation/settings: So, what I want from you all is some notes on what the most important aspects of a pass and move strategy is, some broad brushstroke changes that could be tried out, and so on. Just help me get started, and I'll provide more information as I test it out.
  12. Personally, I'm never really satisfied with how AMR/L on IF/A works for me. I'm sure it's possible to get right, but I often give up and just do what I always do; play them as Strikers and have them specifically mark the opponent fullback. That way they fall back and defend the flank in defense, but act as a striker in offense - which is what I would want from an IF/A. If you want him to be more of a part of the build-up (as opposed to "just a finisher"), I'd suggest IF/S + sit narrower + roam from position.
  13. 1&2 - Since the CM/A will push up quite high (usually act more or less as a second striker), there will be space for the IF to cut into. Since I use an ML, he will be slightly further back which means he's got more space and provides better cover for the advancing DL. I think you should be fine though, but it's probably a good idea to keep track of that side and see if you have too much defensive problems there. 3 - Maybe. Give it a try and see if it helps or not. The point is to try to reduce the space between the AMs and the CMs, so try any and all possible solutions until you find something that works. I used play narrower and roam from positions. 4&5 - I set ML to WM/S + sit narrower, MR to W/A. I added play narrower and roam from positions to the team instructions, not on any specific player. EDIT: Also, I would argue that a balanced philosophy would be better than a very fluid one with the current setup, as that will "increase the asymmetry" - that is, make the CWB/A and the WB/S behave different from eachother. It also goes better in line with the amount of specialist roles you have currently (i.e. will make them perform the roles you've asked them to do, rather than more generic ones).
  14. Well, actually, I find that the game itself is very much part of the emphasis on strikers scoring. If a striker is set in a supporting role and supposed to create more than score, the press suddenly start to nag on about that guy not scoring for so and so many minutes, and they start to loose confidence cause they're on a goal drought etc. Which is very annoying sometimes.
  15. Haven't read the entire thread, but from what I can see from looking at the screens, the midfield setup looks dramatically improved from the first to the latest screen. The last setup DM/D + AP/S + CM/A with a fluid strategy is my absolute favorite the last couple of FMs. It creates a lot of movement, good passing angles and is still balanced defensively. I would argue, though, that you'd be better of with the AMR on an attack duty (most likely W/A) and swap the two MCs around so that the more attacking CM/A is on the left and the AP/S on the right. That way the MCl will push up towards the opposition d-line and open up space for the IF/S to roam into, which in turn will open up space for the attacking DL. On the other flank the AMR will push up leaving the right flank for a more cautious DR to cover and the CMr will be the attacking hub of the team with a lot of movement going on around him. I have it like that (although my wingers are withdrawn to MR/ML) and the movement and use of space in attack is often excellent. Maybe goes against what you're trying to achieve (as I said, I haven't read it very carefully), but from a first glance that's what I'd do. EDIT: Also, from the average positions it looks like your wingers are quite far from the central midfielders. I would add "play wider" to promote the MCs to split up a bit more, or conversely "play narrower" and maybe "roam from positions" to try to get the wingers to play a little closer to the central line. Otherwise you run the risk of having your central players running out of passing options.
  • Create New...