Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MR11

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Playing with a back 4 with a DM in front, my passing percentage in defence seems wrong. I haven't checked other percentages (att and mid), since these numbers are quite expected and logical, so I didn't have the need to compare them (although I can't say they are accurate after this). Someone could check it, though. Juventus 109/168 64.8% (not 48%) Palermo 155/187 82% (not 75%) Sassuolo 97/136 71% (not 69%) Napoli 122/158 77.2% (not 68%) Cesena 176/211 = 83.4% (not 78%) I have included passes from GK, DR, DC, DC, DL and their subs (A. Cole). I haven't included DM in the count, since I think he is a midfielder, but including DM would only bring the percentage up, not down. This is just plain wrong.
  2. As I sad, it would be very, very, ...., very nice to see an engine where overly attacking tactics tend to fail, compared to current state of the engine (in previous 2-3 years). Even if it means waiting for FM16, it would be an improvement that would actually make FM16 worth the money.
  3. Dear SI, would you please fix the ME, even for FM16, so that overly attacking tactics are torn down to ****, and not producing results such as 33-5-0 league score? It is becoming really boring to see utterly unrealistic tactical systems produce bloody fantastic results, even though those systems have almost no logic. Attacking + Higher tempo + Close down more + More expressive = destroy the AI. It just shouldn't be that way. Thank you.
  4. Bayern Munich conceded only 18 goals in 2012/13, so, they actually played defensively? Yeah, right. Nope, I just realise that there is a difference between possession football and defensive one.
  5. I find this thread pretty constructive, it's just that this isn't defensive football. 30 shots, 70% possession rate, it's not defensive, although it uses Defensive mentality and keeps clean sheets. Playing defensively isn't the same as keeping clean sheets. That being said, the possession-based system you are creating is really good, players' positioning is as good as the base shape allows. Could you post Average positions from any match statistics?
  6. I think that the whole Fluidity concept needs an overhaul. Instead, we should have separate instructions for vertical compactness, creative freedom (in some way, maybe not as it was earlier) and other instructions affected by Fluidity. Also, horizontal spread (narrow-wide) should be looked into, teams should still be able to play narrow formation (narrow 4-4-2, for example) without focusing the passes through the middle. Fluidity just isn't right. Instructions for controling space between the lines and width should be improved. Think of Sacchi, whole team in 25x25m.
  7. Maybe it wasn't actually a flaw. Maybe there should be on/off option for tracking back. It would solve many problems. And, no, I am not forcing my interpretation, I am saying that my interpretation was good on 15.2.1, and I have screenshots to prove it, and now it looks like rubbish, because someone thought that strikers shouldn't defend that much. Great.
  8. It's interesting that now I showed you evidence that "normal" 4-4-2 could look like Atletico, you say that it shouldn't look like that at all. I wanted it to look like Atletico, I wanted it to be so deep. You could make totally different 4-4-2 variations, possession, attacking ones, that make strikers' positioning totally different. That's what I'm talking about. Options. And this can't be replicated in 15.3, at least not with 4-4-2.
  9. Same tactic, before 15.3. This is way more like Atletico, I'd say.
  10. I've given you my instructions just below the picture. No PIs. 2xFB(A), DC(D), 2xWM(A), CM(D), DLP(S), DF(D) F9(S). Doesn't look imbalanced, does it?
  • Create New...