furiousuk

Members
  • Content count

    2,298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About furiousuk

  • Rank
    Semi Pro

Biography

  • Biography
    After horrific computer death I haven't had much time to play recently (massive sadface)

    You can catch up with my FM related thoughts on twitter - @furiousukFM
    You can catch some of my vids on YouTube - http://bit.ly/KBMI7n

About Me

  • About Me
    Twitter - @furiousukFM YouTube - http://bit.ly/KBMI7n

Interests

  • Interests
    Photography, Music, Maps

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Gillingham / Arsenal
  1. Yeah, it was always tied to height. Dont think that has changed. I cant recall ever having seen it move, if it has then only by a point or so.
  2. Yeah, SFraser was also a great thinker/philosopher on footy and was good at translating it into FM. He was also a great writer, which helps.
  3. I think the top 2 are extremely important but, in reality, its the quality of playing time that matters most. I've had defenders who with high NF & Professionalism, who play regularly (not all the time, but very regularly) progress well into mid-30s without too much trouble, particularly if they had high physical stats to begin with. When you stop playing an 'older' player, or they get injured, expect big unrecoverable losses. A 6/9mth injury at 32 is often game over (although not quite always, there are always exceptions). If you want to know if a low NF/Pro can retain his stats if he is playing and playing well then probably, but they will still drop.
  4. I like a bit of two-footedness in the middle yes, beyond that I'm not too fussed which side they are on. I'd rather decide which side AP and DLP should be on based on the rest of the formation i.e. I'd put the AP(A) on the opposite side to an IF(A) in the AMR/AML slot as they'll probably want to use the same space (particularly if that IF's stronger foot is his inside foot).
  5. Things like playing deep, narrow and getting stuck in is normally a good way to go, but, and this is the crucial bit, it entirely depends on your team. If you've just got promoted and you play a fairly stoic direct game, you have solid big lumps in the CB, a decent goalie, quick attackers and a bit of luck then playing on the break is still very successful. The problem I sometimes hear about is when managers are trying to build a smart, intricate team who play the 'best' football in the world but at present they are just off the top tier then when they come up against a top tier team, who basically want to play the same way, then they are butting heads. It becomes very much a case of both teams playing the same way and when both teams play the same way then invariably the best team comes out on top and as the teams you are playing are better than you with better players then they come out on top. Nothing in this paragraph is in any way surprising or novel, but it is often overlooked. Of the 4 examples you give I'd expect only 1 to have any sort of consistent traction (by consistent, I mean you may get a few draws and even a few wins but you should still be losing more often than winning against the big boys, if you are winning more often then you are a big boy and things are different again): Both top two options are basically playing your 'normal' game, where, as a good team you expect to be the better team on the pitch most of the time. It almost relies on you just being better than the opposition and when you are it works and when you arent you lose. 'Bland' tactics are great, dont get me wrong, I normally play with a fairly neutral setup (augmented with shouts, so I guess a little more complex), but it does mean you are reliant on picking the players to get the job done, if the opposition are just better than you then its tricky. The bottom option, with Fulham as an example, sounds like suicide. You'd need luck to absorb pressure for 90+ mins. Teams in the cup, playing vastly superior opposition, can get away with this occasionally but the result normally relies on sloppiness by the better team. What normally happens in a 'normal' game where the weaker team is ultra negative is that things get edgy when it is still 0-0 after 70 mins but if the better team keeps their nerve then it'll end up 2 or 3 to 0. The 3rd example, with Inter, is the example I'd expect, logically, to have the most appeal. You sit tight and put pressure on the opposition and then strike when/if that pressure creates some weakness. It is sometimes misconstrued as negative (as Mourinho often is) but it is far from it.n Negativity entails creating nothing, it is purely reactive - a negative team is only attempting to negate the attacking prowess of the other team. If they get a goal then that is great but the negative team does not set up to do so, it is purely opportunistic (and often contrary to the setup) if they do score. In contrast, the setup you describe with Inter does attempt to 'break' the opposition, it is not only negating their threat but also applying pressure in order to 'open them up' or create a moment of weakness. When we think about beating the opposition we normally think of a 'perfect' setup that constantly hits a weakness in the opposition but the game is transient. Another way of looking at it is that you only need to create openings for very short amounts of time in a game, but you need to make the most of them. So you absorb and absorb, but apply pressure (through both negating the opposition, the Rocky Balboa style, but also through putting them under pressure), this pressure is supposed to create a weakness which you then exploit. If you are playing against better opposition you can expect to be 'dominated' by them (of course, they may be off their game, and you on yours) but that is fine so long as that domination is not total. In the moments when you have the upper hand, and that may be only 5/10 mins total in the game, you need to strike. I can only guess that in your 'Inter' test your team weren't equipped to play like you wanted or the opposition just played better on the day and surely you'd expect to lose if a better team plays better than you. Sure, you might get lucky and win, but thats it, luck. Its about hitting weaknesses. Always about hitting weaknesses and negating strengths, whilst negating your own weakness and harnessing your own strength.
  6. Nah, dont bother, waste of time. You can take it that the players arent being flogged days before and after games. Resting is only really useful if players are jaded, and sometimes if they have really poor condition (which is often a sign of being jaded, as is morale).
  7. First up 4231 is difficult to get right, so too can be very fluid. But, dont worry too much, you'll get it working. I'd be very wary of starting with attacking, even against weak opposition. It pushed your chaps up, plays very fast and can contribute towards some very rushed and awkward play (not really traditional Arsenal stuff and it sounds like you'd rather play 'prettier' football). AP is a curious role for one of your 2 midfielders. Given that there is a guy sat right in the spot your AP wants (and that guy is your most creative role) where do you reckon he should be making his plays? I'd consider using Arteta as your DLP (possibly Wilshere or at a push Ramsey) and any of the other three as a B2B or a CM. I quite like a DLP/s paired with a defensive role but you dont have the players to do it really well. You still may want to consider limiting DLP to def as your other midfielder will have more movement and getting caught with both midfielders too advanced is deadly, they need to do a decent and responsible defensive job. Yeah, counter is always far better than a lot of people give it credit for. The lower mentality structure, deeper formational position and slightly more expressive passing length with smart players is a fantastic combo. With a bit of tweaking it can produce some really clever and intricate stuff with the right players.
  8. I've never noticed a drop and I tend to rotate a fair amount where I can. Players are different though, if you have a temperamental guy who is the 'big dog', you then rest him, well, maybe he'll whinge about it quicker than a consummate pro. Things like morale and form don't tend to immediately switch from excellent to poor so one game out shouldn't affect players too much, if at all, particularly if you are resting them when their condition is low(ish).
  9. Yeah I think pele has a good point, no worries in dropping back to your 'frustrating' original setup. Plenty of big big teams (possibly all) play differently when breaking down a team compared to when they are 1 or 2 up. Have a look at motivation too. If you're hitting them with a stick to make sure they are motivated against 'weaker' teams then try patting them on the back and see how that works and vice versa.
  10. Link works fine for me too, try it again, or PM rob.
  11. Bear in mind that Cleon is very good at watching games and reacting! Something mentioned earlier; by all means listen to your AssMan if you feel you need some help but be very wary of his comments. This is particularly pertinent if you know your AssMan isn't up to much. Tactically I'm the same as Cleon, never listen to him. Occasionally he throws up some motivational things about players (mine or opposition) that I'll think about. But, I'm always wary of him.
  12. Have a look also at your motivational strategy, a good tactic at home doesnt suddenly fall apart away from home so there may be more to it than just tactics. On the tactics front though, certain setups work very differently against negative and aggressive teams. Some are great at smashing negativity but struggle when put under pressure, others thrive on counters but struggle against teams parking up. Tweaking and finding a balance is difficult. Where are teams beating you when you're away? What sort of things are you facing away but not at home? Which of those are causing problems? Just out of interest, do you score many counters? I'm not being glib and suggesting you need one to play away, just interested in whether your team are effective on the counter and if so, how do you score on the counter? This is pretty much as much about players as it is about tactics.
  13. Yeah, I'm a fan of FMC. Partly because I dont have much time to play anymore but mainly because it retains what is a major part of the game for me, tactics and selection. FMC as your 'only' save game is a perfectly fine option, no way it should be relegated to FM-junior status for noobs and the non-committed. It's a full-on game mode that offers a great experience of playing the game. Player progession, tactics, selection, squad building, its all still there and just as fun.
  14. It would be great if loads of other people thought like this too! I know exactly what you mean. Normally when I get into this situation pulling deeper and/or playing very patiently seems to work. Sometimes its a case of battering the opposition before 60 minutes and staying at 0-0 only to run away with the game in the last half hour when you've finally broken them down. Sometimes it does take that long, the key I guess is holding your nerve! Not easy