lied90

Conquering Europe with a route one tactic would be much more unrealistic than the balance of the current ME.

I can do that when I'm back home tomorrow. How many do you need ? Asking because it sounds a bit time consuming.

Thanks for making the effort. It's quite frustrating as it's a very key part of this playstyle.

Report away obviously. I'd like to point out that I kinda expect even deeper crosses in the context of crosses under Tony Pulis. FM might consider it a long pass, which is why I also look at passes done by fullbacks.

Limiting their options so they are forced to play it long makes sense, the drawback would be that a 4222 shape would no longer make it look like a Tony Pulis team.

Tested for one match (vs Forest) with my default tactic, just changed mentality to attacking (se previous post to see the default tactic etc) Fullback crosses: Passes: The long pass highlighted was indeed a very deep cross directly from Tete to our TF!!! But it was a free kick.

I appreciate the overall tactical advice, but I'd prefer to stick strictly to the topic of increasing deep crosses. This is the default tactic: FB (s) PI's: Cross from deep, dribble less, take more risks, cross more often. Added trait: Cross from deep Removed all other traits Crossing vs Everton: Only two crosses in total from my fullbacks, both from left fullback, both blocked and both high up the pitch. I then tested the same tactic with WB (d) (cross more often): Bournemouth vs Forest All byline crosses except from one by Kerkez, but not really deep either(?). I've also looked at the passes done by fullbacks, and none of them qualify as a deep cross.

I've tried on balanced mostly, haven't gone as far as attacking but I'll give it a try. It will make my fullbacks take more risks, but it will also make them get further forward. This will make them cross more, I just don't think the increase in crosses will be deep crosses.

Question in title. Looking for suggestions. As can be seen when watching old Stoke matches under Tony Pulis, the fullbacks would launch very deep crosses towards their forwards almost instinctively with a very high frequency. I can't manage to recreate this, and I'm watching on full highlights to make sure I don't miss anything. When testing I've used a 442 DM formation, with a TF (a) suppoerted by a PF(s). Instead of launching it to my strikers, the fullbacks tend to just pass it to the wingers or to my central defenders. I've tested the following roles and instructions for my fullbacks: In possession TI's: Much more direct passing, Higher tempo, Hit early crosses. FB (S), Cross From Deep, Cross more frequently. Tried with both Take more, and take fewer risks. Tried with dribble less. FB (D), Cross more often (deep crosses+take fewer risks hardcoded) NFB (D), default PI's. FB (S) with added PI's seem optimal to me in theory, when observing I see very little difference (in terms of deep crosses). Things I've tried with the editor: Removing all traits. Adding Crosses from deep trait. Increased crossing, technique and vision attribute to 15. These changed yielded no visible results. Other observations: My fullback find my striker more often when my strikers roam wide.

Is this stream clip uploaded anywhere?

It's just a game, if I draw the wrong conclusions then worst case scenario I will get whopped in my current online save

Because I find tests that are open to be interesting. When I can see the result, method, and flaws myself. This makes it possible for me to draw my own conclusions based on that, which again influence how I play the game. If no such tests exist then the thread can just die it's natural death.

I'm not asking anyone to do tests, I'm asking if anyone has already done it. FM has a very large fan community so someone might have without me being aware. I'm looking for something that is not closed to us players. Sorry if I was not clear about this in the opening post. I never expected them to either, so that's fine.

Yes, I understood this from your first comment.

I haven't asked SI to do anything, please don't put words into my mouth. Yes, the rest of the comment was not relevant to why I started the thread. What I want isn't very deep. I see a lot of tests pop up that all indicate the same thing, so I'm asking if anyone know of tests that contradicts this. I find these tests interesting and they influence how I play the game.

Anything that is equal to or better than the various test already floating around would suffice.

Ok, I'm not really looking to discuss these things, it just ends up going in a loop in every thread regarding this topic. Simply looking for test that contradicts all the other test floating around about attributes, that is open for everyone to look at. I think maybe start a different thread about this if needed, cheers.

Ok, but what about anything that players can gain detailed insight to?

Reddit non meta attribute test In short, another test with some obvious shortcomings, small sample size etc that indicates how some attributes have little to no impact on results. I'm not here to discuss another one of these test in detail, I'm simply wondering if anyone have knowledge of tests done that contradicts these results? Admins can move the topic if this is the wrong place to ask. Thanks.

I'm not sure what this would even be this year as there are so many set piece routines that work. Not necessarily from direct headers, but goals that just happen because of poor defending after the initial corner kick.

I understand the point of delegating it to someone because you don't want to deal with it yourself, but that's not really what I wondering about. I'll give an example to describe it better. A) I set up my own set pieces, but just have any guy of the street have SP responsibility in training. B) I set up my own set pieces, but have a 5 star SP coach doing SP in training with the players. I would assume that the effectiveness of SP would increase with option B, because the coach should be able to teach my players how to execute routines better than a bad SP coach. I have tried option A and B and can't really observe a difference, maybe someone has looked into it a bit deeper?

You yourself said it's important, and that you should train routines every week. But what I get from your response is that you think it's important just because it's in the game? There is an endless amount of things you can micro manage in FM, but I'm not gonna waste time doing it if it makes no difference. At the start I didn't pay attention to it at all, never trained routines, had no SP coach. Still scored lots from set pieces and defended well. Hired a SP coaches and trained routines so that SP familiarity was maxed. I haven't noticed any difference myself, so was wondering if anyone has.

For those of you saying that it is important, how did you reach that conclusion? I don't even have one and still scoring lots from set pieces.

I think you are generally reasonable but I find this silly. They also conduct tests and publish data, so are they researchers or data analysts? They run a website, are they website managers? Communication managers maybe, since they post on the forum and speak on the groups behalf. They main function of their site is testing other peoples tactic on request, so they themself barely even produce any "content". Calling them content creators is just wildly inaccurate.