CAE82

Could add 'Minutes' to the squad view. Doesn't show %age, but if you compare the number to the highest in your squad it'll give you an idea.

I've come to believe that for a human-player, CA is pretty much irrelevant. During a match, then it all boils down to attributes (and relevant attributes for roles etc.) This has pretty much be confirmed by devs on the forum. The main use for CA (for human-players) is that is bascially gives the game a crude approximation/average of their 'overall' ability (based on their attributes). This is then compared to their PA to see if they have room left to develop attributes through training and playing (devs have also confirmed that increasing attributes cause increases in CA, not the other way around - I think that was the case in earlier versions of CM). This method is a fairly blunt tool, but much easier to implement than each individual attribute having a potential maximum. I'd also speculate that staff and AM make suggestions (line-ups, transfer targets etc) based on CA and not individual attributes. Presumably AI teams also use CA in that regard and it is probably used at the start of the season to predict league positions in the season preview and so on. I've not seen it confirmed but there are suggestions that the quick match engine just uses CA and team reputation to calculate results and not individual player attributes. As a researcher, you'll know for sure, but presumably researchers are given target CAs for squads to try and reflect real-life and then it is down to the skill of the researcher to design the players attribute values to match? Overall, I thought the test results were interesting but simply confirmed what we already know - physicals are king and can lead to OP performances. p.s. Height is not CA weighted and thus is 'free' - I'd be interested to see a test with the current EPL squads - all players at 5'6" and then Luton at 6'6".

If you look at the CA attribute weights, ‘Decisions’ is more highly weighted for defensive players (GK 10, DC 10, DM 8) compared to attackers (AM 6, AMRL 5, SC 5). This also holds true for other attributes that could be considered to contribute towards ‘intelligence’. Looking at the weights overall for all positions, I’d say AMRL is the position you can get away with ‘dumb’ players so long as they have good physicals (Pace, Acceleration, Stamina). I suppose the ME considers the position/roles as the easiest/simplest to play; get the ball and run as fast as you can up the wing, cross and do this repeatedly. ”Run Forest, Run!”

For the Premier League, EQP minutes will come from appearances in the following competitions: The Premier League Any UEFA or FIFA club competition, including qualifying rounds The quarter-finals and onwards of the FA Cup The semi-finals and final of the EFL Cup For EFL clubs, the rounds in which the domestic cups start to count is the round previous to stated above, i.e. the fifth round of the FA Cup and the quarter-finals of the EFL Cup. https://analyticsfc.co.uk/blog/2023/06/21/introducing-esc-the-new-gbe-guidance-opens-up-recruitment-post-brexit/ There is info further down that blog about the minute thresholds.

Well, that's their problem, not ours! Of course not! Even if the ME became 'perfect' then there'd still be some kind of weakness and exploit. That's just the nature of numerical simulations - there will always be boundary conditions or some edge case (i.e. bug) that is missed. In terms of the future, a lot will depend on what SI is willing to pay in terms of salary to developers (or how much their current developers will develop). The obvious answer is 'AI' but it costs a lot now to employ a real AI expert as someone who really knows their stuff can name their price. This also works both ways. It's already technologically possible that the game could become cloud-based and the AI becomes crowd-sourced and learns from the best tactics, training and transfers... Of course, I don't think users would like it despite all the complaints about poor AI squad building and so on...

@XaW The wording is typical now of any YouTube video (presumably to try and game the views algorithm) - "GUARANTEED BEST WAY EVER TO BOIL AN EGG" (coupled with a ridiculous 'The Scream' pose). "Only 0.01 xG Against!" It is what it is and it's always been the case. SI have developed the ME according to how they interpret football (within the technology and skill available to them). Users then have a choice how to develop tactics: How they see real teams play How SI 'want' the ME to play How to exploit the ME It's obvious (by definition) that trying to exploit and push the ME is the best way to get success, as is the case with all games/simulations. As I said above, it has always been the case. The following is from TFF '09: "Its first iteration originated from a series of experiments during the early days of FM06 that were undertaken in the belief that there were serious flaws in the Match Engine. These experiments disproved the hypothesis, showing the original writer that he didn’t know as much about football as he had previously thought and the first TT&F, posted in November 2005, which both praised and explained the FM06 engine. The thread was stickied in the GQ section of the SI Games forums and quickly became a significant player in the development of virtual tactical theory. With later versions of Football Manager, TT&F became more sophisticated, expanding its ambitions and tactical strategies and recruiting a large and knowledgeable following that significantly contributed to its development. Unfortunately, it began to drift towards jargon, heavyweight managerial references and excessive numerical detail, thus becoming largely inaccessible for the casual user. By FM08, while still being congratulated by contributors, it had lost direction and was being overwhelmed by threads promising super‐tactical solutions to the Match Engine. These ‘super‐tactics’ were not just in fundamental opposition to TT&F, but often generated frustration and anger for users, as they tended to produce unrealistic matches in which possession and chances were dominated by the losing team. Despite this seeming domination, the numerous chances created were often very poor and easily defended by the AI team. Many users failed to recognise the half‐chance nature of the attacks and some resorted to accusations of a random Match Engine, super‐keepers and a cheating AI." Clearly not much has changed in the last 15 years...

I agree in general and that is why I said testing needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. But I don't agree in that testing cannot be useful. It has its place just so long as people understand it's limitations.

Your point expands on my point below. The point of doing those things is to keep things consistent, so the test of the match engine is more fair and comparative. Tactics tested like this help to identify 'weaknesses' in the match engine that are possibly open to exploit and can lead to success. However, as we all know, the FM 'game world' is much bigger than just the match engine and so it takes the things you (and I) mention above (building and developing a squad to fit the tactic, managing fitness/rotation etc.) on top of the tactic to get success in a real save. Of course, there are still some users who may miss the point at the start and think it is just 'Plug & Play' but once they understand that, then using those meta tactics can be very successful.

I'd be interested in you expanding on this. In your opinion, what are the main flaws in testing? How would you improve on them? Overall, I'd say tactic testing has a massive and important place in the FM Community. FM is a very deep and complex game. Sure, some members have been playing CM/FM for 25+ years and so have kept up with the (often very minor!) increments between editions. But for a completely new player it must be extremely over-whelming and it's kind of a given that it will take several years/thousands of hours of gameplay to get a deep feel for the FM game world. Let's be honest, apart from the default Gegenpressing template tactics, has anyone had any success with the others? I'd love to see an example of someone winning the league, even with PSG, using the 'Park The Bus' templates. That is where tactic testing has come in useful. It has helped to identify the 'meta' formations and instructions that people can now use to help them get success. I don't believe full 'Plug & Play' exploits like Diablo exist anymore, but it is clear that certain 'meta' things do work and these tactcs are a much better starting point than the default template tactics. Of course, there are plenty of purists who turn their noses up at this approach. But FM is a game and if someone spends their hard-earned cash on a game then they are entitled to play it how they see fit. Not everyone has the time nor inclination to micro-manage each aspect of the game and play each match on comprehensive highlights. If someone wants to grab a 'meta' tactic and use it, then good luck to them and I hope they enjoy the game. I will say that testing needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. FM is pretty much a chaotic system and the same input can give wildly different outputs. But when a tactic has been tested with multiple teams and over hundreds/thousands of games, then there is some weight in the results. But a player needs to use that tactic and ensure they build a squad that suits it and keeps the squad happy and fit etc. Once you do that, then success will often follow. Another 'pinch of salt' that needs to be taken into account is the creator themselves. I'm personally a bit suspcious of creators who use their testing results to sell their YouTube channels/Patreons etc. Anyone who has a vested financial interest in their tactic doing well should be approached with caution...but the creators who have freely released their tactics to the community for years for no gain and consistently get positive feedback deserve all the credit and praise that they receive.

The ‘meta’ tactics are essentially a form of primitive machine learning. The match engine is obviously just a simulation of football. Tactics are then trained on this model and you end up with an ‘optimised’ solution of the match engine that produces the most points/GD (or whatever target you wish to define as being ‘successful’) There is no saying that this solution will work on a real-life model and resemble real-world football tactics. This is just the same as with all simulation software. Just look at the COVID-19 modelling that was used to decide government policy and how COVID-19 actually played out in reality. The match engine is clearly not a perfectly accurate model of football; but to be fair to SI, I’ve not come across or heard of a better one on the planet? Even other sports. Overall it does a pretty good job of simulating an 11 vs 11 team sport over a period of 90 minutes. If you want a perfect simulation of a game, then probably the best bet is a 1 vs 1 game of Chess!

Stuttgart, Atletico Madrid, Free Agent... I get that part (although as above, play as Getafe in the first season, then play as Utd in the second season and he can play for Utd again) . But neither Utd or Getafe have confirmed that he'll spend next season on loan there too. It is the fake transfer that I think should not be there.

Since I was 'triggered' I deciced to investigate further. Run a holiday season with Getafe. Come back just before the end of the loan. Don't make an offer. Greenwood returns to Utd. Retire the manager, Create a new manager in charge of Utd. Greenwood is available for selection and can play. Based on the results my conclusion is: Start a game as Utd. He will automatically spend a 2nd season at Getafe and then leave on a free transfer. You cannot stop this. Start a game at Getafe. He will spend a season at Getafe, then will go back to Utd (assumuning you do not sign him) and be unavailable for selection and not play. Start at game at neither. He will spend a 2nd season on loan at Getafe and then leave on a free transfer. Start at Getafe, play one season, let him return to Utd, then create a new manager to take over at Utd - he'll be able to play for Utd in the 2nd season but will then leave on a free-transfer. Happy for anyone (including SI-sympathisers) to post evidence to the contrary.

SI don't confirm anything 'under-the-hood' so I don't see why they would do for this either. Out of interest, I just went through all of my saves (including saves as Utd manager and saves as other teams) and Greenwood has always spent a 2nd season on loan at Getafe (despite the original loan ending in June 2024). Take that as you will. I'd be interested to see anyone to post a career history that shows otherwise. Since my interest was piqued, I've run a holiday season with Getafe. I ended the season just before the end of the loan, didn't try and sign him and he did return to Utd. The results are interesting. Once the season starts and the transfer window closes, he is shown as being 'unavailable' for selection. However, he does have a few sub appearances (ignore the injury - it's not long-term and doesn't explain his non-selection or unavailabilty). For me this means that there is some under-the-hood stuff going on to prevent him from returning and playing for Utd (apart from some buggy behaviour seen above - the EPL is not in full detail and so I can't check the line-up in those games and he doesn't appear in any of the friendlies or Champions League games that do appear in Utd's schedule). Again, I'd be happy for anyone to post anything that shows otherwise but as a CM/FM player for 30 years, software developer (numerical simulations), PhD in Engineering, Associate Prof. at a top UK University then I'm pretty sure that something non-standard is going on with regards to him. Enforcing this 'version of the multiverse' goes against what this kind of game should be. (Note, once again, this is not me in any way condoning what he may or may not have done - I am simply stating that I do not like that fact that SI have seemingly hard-coded in some behaviour that affects the FM universe when it has not [yet] occurred in reality).

Probably best to screenshot all of his editor data and then make a completely new player in the database with the same data. I'd guess that any under-the-hood stuff is based on his UID so a new player will have a different UID.

There is a (massive) difference between the assessment of players and future transfers. I can guess why SI have done it (no company wants to deal with a social media backlash) but as with all of these things, people lose perspective and the abilty to think logically and reasonably when confronted with an issue such as this as they are scared of the backlash. My (worthless) opinion is that SI should have just stuck to the facts - Greenwood is on loan and will return to Utd at the end of the loan. At that point, who knows? So why hard-code it? Why not make Mbappe 'Frt' and then get him to sign for Madrid?

Mainoo needs looking at. Even if his attributes don't change much, I feel his Determination needs looking at. I guess he's got a 0 in the editor as I've seen it have various values in different saves. Doesn't feel right when he rolls a '5' for Determination. I don't think an 18 year-old can become a starter for a massive club like Utd if they are not determined. I think Colwill and Evan Ferguson are similar too.

I suspect there is some hard-coded under-the-hood stuff going on. I’ve not tried on the new update, so may have changed, but on my save, after his initial loan ended Getafe offered a loan again and it was automatically accepted with no way for me to cancel. Which means it is likely to be hard-coded. Neglecting the off-the-field stuff, I feel it is a slippery slope for SI to get involved in the game in such a way. They are predicting the future and choosing a path for the save to go. Transfers, takeovers, sackings etc. are not put in until they are 100% confirmed and complete. So I don’t see why SI treat this differently. FM is a game and offers a multiverse of potential saves to the user. The manager should be able to decide how to manage their club as they please and not be forced to go down one path due to the thoughts and opinions of SI/social media ‘judge, jury and executor’ cancel culture. (Note, this does not mean I condone Greenwood’s alleged behaviour - I could have wanted to cancel the loan to sell him or cancel his contract - but it is rather unprecedented that SI have interfered in the game in such a way. No one, not even SI, can predict the future)

Player Marking I tried using player marking instructions to see if that will get the AMRL/AMC/SC to get closer to the opposition (particuarly trying to get the wingers to lock down the full backs) Unfortunately it doesn't seem to do much, even with PGSD. The Brighton AML (22) is still far from Kyle Walker (2) and similarly the AMR (7) and the left-back (24) I tried again without PSGD but kept the AML and AMR marking the opposition WB tightly. I also used the OI to always mark the WB tigher. The starting position was no closer at a goal kick but it does help once the kick is taken. Ederson once again passes to Gvardiola at left WB. March (7) then quickly closes him down, forcing him to play it back to Ederson. Ederson actually plays it to Walker at RB Who is quickly closed down by the AML (22) So it seems to stop the opposition from playing out of the back, it can be useful to instruct your wingers to tightly mark their opposite full-back.

After doing these different experiments then I agree. Although I've never seen Haaland get as close to the D as Brighton/Fati, I've come to the conclusion that it is basically randomness. There is no real difference in terms of their atributes (marking, work rate, pace etc. - indeed Haaland is better) and they are playing the exact same tactic/roles. When you watch the highlight, the players clearly do move towards the D. How close they get could be due to their starting position and the time is takes the goal keeper to take the goal kick. Obviously the closer they are at the start and the more time they have to get there, they'll more likely end up being in the D when the kick is actually taken.

Influence of Block Both teams are POOD and City have a low-block which seemingly has no effect. This is no surpise really as the block is classed as an out-of-possession instruction and here City are in possession. Below is when Brighton have a High Block/Press. It seems this does not really affect the Brighton positioning. Below is when Brighton have a high press, pressing much more often, PSGD and stepping up more. It's clear their defensive line is now positioned on the half-way line and the attackers are ~10 yards further upfield, with the striker inside the D. I repeated the above with City playing a much higher defensive line, but that did not affect the position of the defensive line and the Brighton were still just outside the box.

Adding POOD Not Preventing Short GK Distribution Both teams now have POOD enabled and are not preventing short GK distribution (PSGD). City players take up the positions that we have seen before. We'll use the pitch markings (boundary between dark and light green stripes) as an axis. Brighton's goal-line will be 0, so the keeper Steele is stood at about 2.5, their defensive line is about 6.5, and their furthest forward player is about 11. Preventing Short GK Distribution Both teams will now POOD and PSGD. The image below has been rotated so the teams are playing the same way as in the image above. With the addition of PSGD, the GK and Defence are in pretty much the same position and the furthest forward player is about 11.5. Based on the Brighton pitch dimensions, each stripe is around 7.5 yards, so about 5 yards further forward and closer to the DM. Probably the biggest difference is the positions of the wingers who are now probably half the distance (closer) to the full-backs. So it is clear that PSGD (rather obviously) closes down the DMs and WBs to try and limit the options of the GK when distributing. Interestingly it is the City left DM who steps up and gets closer to the Brighton AMC rather than him necessarily being closed down by the Brighton player.

New 'Control' Tactic/Match I've now taken over Brighton so I can control both teams formations and instructions. In the new control match, both teams are playing the same 'vanilla' 4231 DM. All instructions were removed (or sliders set in the middle). The City goal-kick setup is below. De Bruyne (AMC) pushes up to join Haaland and City line-up in a 442-like shape. Ederson kicked long to De Bruyne who knocked it on for Haaland to actually go on and score! Brighton have a similar setup (without the same outcome!)

@Bahnzo I’ll have a look at some point and investigate different combinations. It is clear in my example above, City do not push up as high despite having the ‘Prevent Short GK’ instruction enabled. So there must be something else involved. For example, the opposition defensive line. Maybe if they take up deeper positions at a goal kick, it allows the opposition to push further up. The strikers seem to align with the central midfielders, so may depend on if they are DM or MC etc. Basically it needs more analysis on how team instructions affect a teams positions when defending a goal kick.

Not yet. Plan to try different roles/duties and investigate other TI. The distribute quickly/slow pace down likely have effects here e.g. outfield players having more time to get back into the structured positions. Although I’d guess this is more likely for when the ball is still in play e.g. catching a cross. Some GK obviously just flop onto the floor for a few seconds wasting time while the outfield players push up. I may also look at PPM e.g. uses long throw to start counter-attacks.

I’ve not managed to replicate thus far. I need to check OIs and formation as even by using Prevent Short GK Distribution the City attackers where not as high. Brighton were playing 4231 so possibly the addition of the AMC makes them push up higher. Or maybe their front line had PI of Close Down More.