Jump to content

Cap'nRad

Members+
  • Content Count

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cap'nRad

  1. No problem . Philosophies like Guardiola's and Klopp's I view less as a formation/ tactic, and more as a style of play or philosophy which encompasses all parts of the club, ultimately culminating in distinct on-pitch performances. Thus when I attempt to replicate such managers the actual tactic is second to the style of play.
  2. Note that this is on fm15, but hopefully it should still translate to the newest version. I play a Standard, Fluid 4-3-3 with the dm in central midfield. 2 bpd(d) and 2 wb(s). The central midfield trio is cm(s)-dlp(d)-cm(s). The 2 wide players are if(s), and the striker is a false nine. Ti's are retain possession, play out of defense, low crosses, play wider, push higher up, close down more, mark tighter, offside trap. The "Guardiola-ness" of the tactic comes from a few things: i) The central midfield setup ensures that the 2 outer cm's occupy the halfspaces, and their interac
  3. I think it's important to remember Guardiola's flexibility with regards to roles and duties. The wide roles and the striker's role definitely change a lot from match to match, so making a one size fits all tactic might not be able to replicate that. The best thing imo is to make a base tactic which contains the core Guardiola principles, while being highly customizable. It works very well, and to me is a lot more fun as you feel more involved in every match.
  4. Another concern with this issue is that if SI plays & tests the game as much as they say, shouldn't they have picked up this problem already if it's this common? Do they still need additional help from paying customers via bug reports and pkms to fix it?
  5. Another thing to question is, is Adama really that good at dribbling? Or is he simply running into the spaces the opposite team allows? From the video alone, there are numerous clear instances of the teams simply forcing him into the wide areas, knowing his crossing is poor. Whenever he has to dribble through the center he often draws a foul or loses the ball, kind of indicating that his pace is the main contributor of his dribbling ability. Players with actual good dribbling ability and technique can manoeuvre through those tight areas rather than kicking it past the opponent then losing it.
  6. Perhaps this is down to the quality of keepers against the quality of shots? The Bundesliga is well known for having/making quality keepers, while I can't really think of many players who specialize in long shooting. And I'm not too sure of Ligue 1 keepers, but they do have quite a few good distance shooters. Or perhaps it's due to the Bundesliga generally preferring more defensive/ counter-attacking playstyles in recent years, thereby making it hard to find space for long shots?
  7. I don't think professional football is random in the way you say, if you've ever played or trained with pro's then you'll see that immediately. Especially at the highest level ,where the level of consistency and accuracy of the players is at it's peak ever in football history, it's far too simple to reduce it to a game of chance. In this particular case, finishing and shooting in general is not a trait governed by chance. It is influenced by the player's ability and amount of training put into it, and these form a consistent base from which the player draws their skill. Shots are not put
  8. In general I agree with you, however, some of the things I've seen suggested don't require waiting until a whole new ME is created in order to implement. For instance, look at this suggestion for team shape by @noikeee (which you recommended them for btw ): This is something that with some tweaks could be added to the next fm, (or dare I say it, could have been added to fm18) without needing to wait for every single other part of the game to develop first without changing it. These are the sort of things the people at SI should be thinking of. Aye, but this is because the
  9. We're talking about the current representation of team shape, which has always been poor. Then why not have only compactness as an option, and creativity as a separate set of options? Which btw, quite a few users have suggested before, some even taking the time to make visual representations of their ideas. Same thing with work ball into box, two instructions needlessly shoehorned into one. It doesn't take genius coding to separate them. In this case it's not a massive challenge like I said earlier. Simpy separate compactness and creativity and change the names, a
  10. Not @kandersson, but I think whatever the origins may have been, the implementation is poor, and has been from the beginning, which is quite a few iterations now. And in here lies the value of someone who can translate real world concepts to fm, which is what @kandersson was talking about.
  11. Aye, it's weird how the game has seemingly regressed in a lot of areas from older titles. I don't fancy any of the fm's from 16 upward so I've been playing the older ones again, and the amount of good things simply gone from the more current editions is quite surprising.
  12. I think it's because most pro footballers have had more than that amount of practice and experience throughout their lifetime. I would assume 10,000 hours isn't enough to guarantee becoming a professional I believe the left-right argument is inaccurate as it is definitely possible for both feet to have the same impact on the pitch. All it takes is practice. If you're right footed but you solely practice with your left, your left will be better at playing football than your right, despite your right dominance. Of course both feet being equal, you will still favor a certain foot b
  13. This isn't a proven fact, is it? It's an argument, nothing more.
  14. It's interesting, I think a lot of knowledgeable fm tacticians don't really know they are and that creates a misunderstanding as to the ease of the game. For instance, reading the in game description this info isn't really clear, but since you know the game so well it is a basic for you. Another example in this thread would be the reply by @Rikulec which seems basic but may actually be tricky for the non hardcore portion of fm'ers.
  15. I had initially expounded on my meaning of 'aforementioned genetics' before reconsidering and deleting it. Some of what you list was included, but then again a lot of them are not what pushes footballers to the next level. I was thinking more of things like mental health and predispositions which influence your way of thinking. Most of the examples are physical limitations which, as a few admitted above, are only a limited part of what makes a footballer. And in your David Beckham example, as you can see he is a household name despite his limitations. This is due to his hardwork
  16. This was never the problem. This is realistic. As has been stated before, the problem was the unrealistic upper limit preventing players from improving when they otherwise would logically. As I've said before, I don't really believe in this kind of P.A, so this is a difference of opinion. When I say P.A I usually mean the player's eventual maximum C.A. I understand this reasoning, however in real life there's no such thing. No one has to reshuffle attributes till they get too old to perform the same way they did previously. At that point they've hit their P.A, but only at that
  17. I understand what you're talking about, especially with defensive, central, and attacking mids in my experience. On the wings and at fullback I would usually go for the more physical player, although a lot of the time that is how it is in real life. As I've said before, this is a difference of opinion and I don't think my mind will change despite how many people bring it up. Aside from genetic differences, I don't think anyone was born with a better ability than someone else in such areas. I believe such differences arise as a result of aforementioned genetics as well as other e
  18. Having played for a while, I believe the difference in physical attributes can be seen more clearly in the M.E than mentals, due to the somewhat pre-programmed nature of things such as movement, passing options, decisions, etc. Whereas besting your opponent physically through pace, stamina, or strength is more straightforward. However I think that might be a bit off topic. In any case, my main point was that there are situations where players stop developing so early that they have to rely solely on reshuffling of attributes in order to perform at a level even vaguely similar to where they wou
  19. But I would assume, especially with fm's current engine, that physical attributes are quite important, at least as important as mental attributes, so a mental for physical trade off might not result in better performances on the pitch. Which means fm's peak age might be set a few years too low, restricting the development of players in the hopes that his mental attributes' trade off with physicals' make him a better player.
  20. I think this is simply a difference of opinion. I believe the former while you believe the latter, and I don't think debating about it will change anyone's opinion at this point. I am happy that at least the concerns with the limiting behaviour of P.A have been understood and the discussion is moving forwards. The suggestion by @ham_aka_stam is a good starting point since it is quite straightforward and effective, while the others might need further consideration due to their complexity.
  21. I'm sure 24 is much too young to be peak level, as mental attributes cannot develop that fast. Peak would be the point at which his mental and physical attributes combine for peak performance, which I usually hear is at 26 or 27 depending on their level of physicality. My definition of young would be any age below that. This isn't the type of development I'm talking about, although it is a nice part of fm's development cycle. The one I'm talking about has the potential to restrict growth where growth might otherwise be possible, at young ages.
  22. My personal reason for the advocacy of the proposal is that I feel the concept of P.A isn't very organic. It doesn't shift, fluctuate with time, anything. It's just there, something to be eventually attained and never overcome. And while some have argued that P.A works that way in real life, I don't think that is a scientific fact and more of a belief, the same way I believe dedicated people can improve on what their potential is perceived to be. However, I understand P.A, or some other sort of limit coming into play as a player gets older and experiences more factors influencing growth which
  23. Quite like this suggestion, if P.A can't be removed this would be a nice compromise.
  24. It would be harsh to blame such unforseen events on researchers, as fm has always had that sort of progression model where after a certain age players don't improve that much and thus their P.A is rated close to their C.A. I've read in this thread and others that more dynamic growth has been introduced to fm18, but I've never heard of being able to overcome P.A limitations. I assume the late progressions that have been introduced are for players who still have high potential, but it would be hard for the researchers to predict such growth from an already developed foot
×
×
  • Create New...