warlock

That would be my guess . I'm sure I'm coming across as anti-AI in this thread but I'm really not. Almost all of my 30 years as an editor was spent in IT publishing, so I have a long-standing interest in the subject. I just don't see the applicability of ChatGPT to computer gaming in general, or to FM in particular.

Mate, the only reason I'm not an editor is because I retired after more than 30 years of being one. And the sentence is easily comprehensible - my complaint is that the two sections I quoted are saying exactly the same thing; one section is, therefore, redundant, something us editors are paid to eliminate from text. I'm genuinely curious why you've chosen this particular hill to die on.

I'm sure you meant to mention it, but you can't play any of the suggested formations because you only have 8 outfield players and the suggestions all require 10. So, not particularly helpful. Or intelligent. I'm staggered that this thing is still generating so much discussion. It's a parlour trick, designed to generate plausible-sounding text with no actual insight or intelligence. Probably great for call-centre applications or students desperate to beat an essay deadline. I mean: Great sentences, but utterly devoid of helpful information. How exactly might you "test and adjust your tactics" in the remaining 30 minutes since you had a man sent off? And what exactly is the difference between "adjust your tactics as you progress" and "adapt your tactics according to the situation"? If a human wrote that, every editor in the world would simply roll their eyes.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Lower mentalities will lower your lines a little anyway (as well as reducing passing range, tempo and width). So while there might be games where you want even lower lines, equally your tactical approach might suit a lower mentality (for eg, taking fewer risks) but maintaining slightly higher lines. Conversely, of course, you could stay on 'balanced' and drop your lines without affecting tempo, width and range. In the case of your CL campaign, it sounds like your approach made you harder to beat, but a slightly different setup might have allowed you to sneak a win. Maybe There's always more than one way to make a tasty bolognese.

@crusadertsar Good thread . If you haven't already, you might check out @MattyLewis11's Villareal save in the FMCU forum where he's using a box tactic based on Pellegrini's Villareal system:

You lost every game in the last 10 minutes. If you're not making tactical changes to see out a game from a winning position, that's on you. If you are making changes, they're obviously not good enough and you need a rethink. You're also committing a lot of fouls, which might indicate that your players are out of position and struggling to defend properly.

Result!

Like this? It's in the player's development tab.

Yes, a winger paired with a mez on the same side is one of my favourite combinations - winger-support with a mez-attack, or vice-versa. For me, one of the key things if you're playing a winger is to make sure there's someone in the box to receive the crosses. Also, you don't want a back behind the winger trying to do the same thing, so no WB-attack behind a winger. I'd go for a WB-support or WB-defend, or a fullback on support.

There is.

Yeah, that was my experience. Lucky - none of my unhappy players did. And by the time we got to the first pre-season friendly, I think all of the unhappy players had accepted transfer bids. On the upside, replacing them doesn't seem to have been too difficult, especially once you get past July 1 and clubs release their unwanted players. You'll probably be OK

And yet, somehow, over my entire experience with FM I've never felt that. It's almost as if, as in real life, teams lose games they "should" win, and win games they "should" lose. In my most recent season, we "should" have beaten Chester-le-Street Town comfortably. Struggling to a 0-0 draw could have knocked us off course: But it didn't. Even worse, a few weeks later we actually suffered a loss in another game we should have won, and followed that with a draw when we should have won both games: Did FM decide we were on a bad streak? Nope - we dropped only 2 points from the remaining 18 and ended the season as champions, at a canter. If you believe that the game "has decided" anything, you probably need to surrender the idea of managing a football team and rely on rolling the dice, consulting the tarot cards, or asking your favourite astrologer for tactical advice.

I'm afraid it does. In my save, in identical circumstances, the board wanted me to qualify for the playoffs, which seemed a bit ambitious. But when I checked the season preview, we're predicted to finish 2nd and that's before I recruit to plug the gaps in the squad. So it might not be too great a challenge. Did you swerve the squad meltdown over lack of improvements to training facilities?

Can't even see the point of a video. If you want to know what Neil would say, just read his posts in the feedback thread.

Disagree. The complaints in feedback come from a tiny minority of forum members, and forum members are a tiny minority of the users. If you want a more representative view of the game, look at reviews on Steam: more than 5,000 reviews and 'very positive' overall. I'm very happy with FM23 - of course there are things that could be better but I've played hundreds of hours since beta and encountered very few bugs. As for SI listening to users, I wish SI would listen less and stick to their own vision of the game. Every time the devs do listen it results in a downgrade.

@Stuniverse Hitting form at the right time

Title secured (and with two games to go). We also enjoyed a good run in the FA Vase but ultimately fell to defeat in the semi-final. Best attack and second-best defence in the league. My player of the year has to be Aaron Lomas - the striker only joined us in October but bagged 33 league goals in 19 starts, and added another 7 goals in the cup competitions. Keeping him around for next season will be my top priority.

Easington Colliery in the Northern League Division 2, tier 10 of the English pyramid. We're completely amateur - no contracts, no appearance fees, no bonuses. Playing as part of the Level 10 Challenge, my intro post is here: About two weeks in and haven't finished the first season yet, but an enjoyable change of pace.

Best should grow into the role if you keep playing him there. You should also be training him there, if you aren't already. He has the agility, dribbling and crossing you want for the role; about the only thing he's missing is some defensive awareness but if you don't *need* him to defend that doesn't matter much.

A week late but it looks like all your Christmases came at once And a happy new year to you, mate!

Sorry if I'm a bit late to be of help... For me, performances beat attributes every time. Go with the players who are performing. Having said that, I wouldn't hesitate to play Best at ML for at least 5-10 games and see how he does. A few years ago in a Man Utd save, I played Ander Herrera as a RW, even though he didn't even have a "red" capability in the role. He was my top performer in that save. I didn't need him to be a traditional winger - all pace and dribbling. I needed him to sit out wide and ping pin-point crosses to the forwards, which he did to a superb standard.

A harsh reality, I think. I've just had a situation, AML who looked to be one of my best, new signing... He rated an 8.1 on his debut, and then turned in ratings of 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.4. So he was benched for the next 3 or 4 games, then complained that I was destroying his career. When I pointed out that others were playing better, he said they were doing nothing he couldn't do. Well, yes - that's why I signed you. But they're actually doing it and you're not. He has now left the club. The problem I'm finding is that everyone who can improve the squad wants important player/star player status, which makes squad management difficult, if not impossible. Which leads inevitably to the question of squad size. For me, 23 players is ideal - first choice and backup for every position, plus one (maybe two) players who can cover a few different positions but are happy to sit on the bench for most games. I think the problem we all have is wanting to sign 22 first-choice players when half of them will be backups for most of the season. Which leads us back to the beginning . Edit to add: Like others, I'm enjoying this enormously. KUTGW

Alternatively, you could just not make promises.

That sounds odd. I've been able to offer - and had players accept - non-contract terms at level 6, even when the majority of players were on part-time contracts. Can you actually not offer them, or is it that the players you're targeting won't accept them? Well, I don't know that there's a hard rule in real life; I'd guess it all comes down to the board (and boards can be weird in game and IRL). Maybe they looked at your promotion and thought, "This is a club that's going places. Let's turn semi-pro", and then were confronted by the financial realities and could only find the money for appearance fees. I can't offer you a solid explanation, I'm afraid.

Yeah, that's part of the challenge. Often at non-league level you'll only be able to offer contracts in the VNN/VNS and even then maybe not to all of your squad. So you have to let some players go and replace them as usual. Down at the lower levels of the pyramid most if not all clubs will be amateur, so no contracts. When you get to EFL L2 level, all clubs have to be professional and *must* have all players on contracts. In between you have the semi-pro* clubs where what you can offer your players is entirely dependent on what the board will allow/can afford. * Some clubs will turn pro in the Vanarama National League and might maintain that status if they get relegated to VNN/VNS; ditto for clubs relegated from L2.