lied90

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.

But they aren't really content creators, and to my knowledge nobody has directly encouraged them to post here, so how are they even suppose to know? Regarding transparency, they always clarify when someone asks. I understand why a small group of guys doing this in their free time don't prioritize spending god knows how long to write down their entire testing method in detail with a detailed explanation of exactly how they've done it and why, especially when they don't know if anyone will even take the time to read it. It's easier and more reasonable to just answer when they are asked.

Yeah, agree. The intent of the FM-Arena isn't to expose anything or improve the game. It's simply to find the optimal way to win, with a heavy focus on tactic testing. You might disagree but I don't think they should be held responsible for visitors of the site taking things out of context. There is only so much you can expect from a website run by a few people in their spare time. I agree, it's very much set up to test what works best over one match. Obviously anyone who does a minimal effort to rotate and adjust training intensity know that it does work over the whole season, but I get your point. I honestly don't think anything should have to be answered here. They have their own forum. Cross posting on different forums to "defend" something posted on their own site sounds like such a mess. It's not like SI devs gets heavily involved in discussions here anyway, they would have to file a report.

As I've replied to others, this forum is not the right place to ask. I've hesitated to answer too much because I simply don't know enough to sufficiently answer follow up questions like these.

The disrespect part is that you wrote that I "don't want to see". This indicates not only that I don't understand you, but also that I purposely don't understand you, as if I have sort of agenda. They need to accept criticism and feedback, agree 100%. Which is why anyone who actually want to understand how and why, should engage with them directly. There are so many in here that use time and effort to criticize them, but few if any actually interact with them. I can't fathom why, it's so easy.

With all due respect, you haven't done anything expect asking for second hand information. I do find it disrespectful that you claim that I " don't want to see it". I have no such intent, I have no skin in the game. Just like you I have been very skeptical and had loads of questions that I've asked on FM arena, and they've been answered to my satisfaction. The opportunity is there for you to, if you are genuinely curious and want to engage with them to understand why and how.

I don't think you understand. NOTHING from game to game changes, everything is the same every game (except that each team use their own tactic). Morale doesn't change, attributes don't change, fitness doesn't change, no players change clubs, there are no injuries, team cohesion doesn't change etc. The amount of games do not influence the results, because all variables are frozen.

Ok, but nobody on this forum will be able to prove that having it checked or unchecked is irrefutably better. There is too much RNG in FM, so to limit that you would have to test X amount of tactics with/without "Play out of defense" over thousands of matches to get accurate results. This one is easy. All you have to do is to insert "Play out of defence" into any meta tactic.