Ghost4928

UEFA has limited amortisation to 5 years (and I've heard rumours of Premier League looking at doing the same), so in terms of FFP, it won't change much from the current 4 or 5 year deals

In addition to this (since we're talking about how transfers work in the modern day), if we get a loan for a senior player (or someone breaking into the senior squad) can we then extend their contract like you see what Atletico did with Felix before his loan to Chelsea, Brentford did with Raya before his loan to Arsenal, Chelsea did with Hall before his apparent loan to Palace (but now it's changed to a permanent to Newcastle), etc...

If I want a player to be recognised as homegrown at club, do they need to be at the club for the whole 3 years, or can I still loan them out and register them as part of squads? I know, for example, Saliba and Martinelli are recognised as a player that are homegrown at club for Arsenal despite having numerous loans abroad.

Can someone analyse this injury for me please? Is this normal?

Title should be self-explanatory, but is there a fundamental difference playing with a high line vs a standard line with defenders stepping up?

So you're criticising the realism in a game that is meant to be realistic? I don't mean for this to sound dickish, and I'm gonna be perfectly blunt here (you have been warned), but wouldn't that be your own fault for choosing to manage a team who doesn't prioritise youth? It's like a manager rocking up to 20th placed team in the Premier League, expecting the owner to give them 500m to spend, but then realising that the club was just promoted and didn't have any money to spend. Or to use another example, it's like rocking up to Brentford, expecting to build a title winning squad through the youth academy, but then realising Brentford don't even have a youth academy.

Well, Boehly would need to hope that Mike Minihan's predication of a war with China in 2025 is false then.

Considering you've decided to continue the talk about Mark Goldbridge, I feel the need to reply considering what I said in my earlier post. I would tend to agree with you if this was 5 years ago, but (and I think to Goldbridge's credit), he has become a lot more balanced and nuanced when he talks about football these days. He certainly isn't a "toxic clown", as you put it, and I've seen quite a few of his recent videos. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he certainly raises good points in a space that requires nuanced discussions.

I see. Don't really pay attention to UEFA and what they get up to these days.

Assuming they can close it. The 'loophole' (if you want to describe it that way) is relevant to UK working laws, so unless UEFA has the power to override UK laws, then I find it hard to see how UEFA can achieve this. Within UEFA rules, it already states that contracts can be no longer than 5 years, unless relevant country laws says otherwise. As far as I'm aware, UK laws don't impose a max number of years for a contract, so therefore, Chelsea can offer as long of a contract as they want.

Mark Goldbridge makes a good point that once you're talking about morals in football (which we essentially are in the scenario of a club signing MG on), then you've lost the argument. **IF** MG is cleared to play football again, and a club in the relegation zone needs a goalscorer, for instance, who cares about morals and reputation when the club's status as a Premier League club and financial gain is on the line?

Apologies. More the former, where you're one of the big boys in a league, or you're a club like Southampton or Dortmund who find young talent and then sell on for profit.

Similar to the topic here, which attributes do you look at for players between 15-19 to determine if they're worth scouting or not. And before someone inevitably mentions it, I don't mean the hidden attributes from scout reports, I mean the known attributes that then determines if a player is worth scouting or not for the hidden attributes.

Thanks! The only player instructions I have is that the BBM moves into channels, both LW and RW stay wider, and the RW goes further forward. Since both Martinelli and Saka want to come inside, as well as Zinchenko/Tierney and White/Tomi are playing inverted, the team is naturally quite narrow. The starting positions for my wingers are set to be wider to help with stretching the opposition defence. This helps create space for my wingers to dribble into, or for Odegaard or Xhaka/ESR to exploit by moving into channels. Something else that I've noticed with the wingers with the Stay Wider instructions (and I'm not sure if it is directly caused by the instruction or not) is that in certain counter attacking scenarios where the opposition has pushed really high but loses possession that creates a 2v1 or 2v2 counterattacking situation (typically Jesus and one winger), Jesus would be able to drag a defender out to the wings which leaves one defender by themselves occupying the central area, and then my winger on the opposite flank still stretched wide and in acres of space. If Jesus can switch the ball in this scenario, this leaves either Martinelli or Saka in a 1v1 with the opposition keepr with no chance of any defenders to catch up. And no opposition instructions.

Continuation of my post from: Transfer window finished, with no notable outgoings. Nelson and Elneny will be joining Lyon and Celtic at the end of their contracts respectively. For the incomings, 4 players came in, with 3 loans and the 1 permanent signing loaned straight back out to Blackburn. Ashley Phillips was recommended by my scouts, and when you consider the Homegrown at Nation status, and potential to be Homegrown at club, could become a bargain for only 10m (the potential 3m are club and nation appearance clauses). Now, to the other players who will play a part in the rest of the season. Like I said, since I'm taking a more statistical route of signing players, all 4 players loaned in fitted into what I wanted to see from a statistical POV. First up is Arne Maier, my Partey backup. As the base of a midfield 3, there were two main roles I wanted from this player: 1) ability to make progressive passes from deep to advance play and dictate the tempo of the game, and 2) ability to shield the defence when we have lost possession, enough so that my defenders aren't being exposed too much. Elneny was doing the shielding of the defence very well, but as a team that wants to dominate possession and have my midfielders on the ball, Elneny wasn't adventurous enough on the ball, and wasn't safe enough on the ball (losing possession 9.41 per 90 compared to Partey's 7.65 per 90). Hence, why Arne Maier was loaned in. Despite playing for 18th placed Augesburg in the Bundesliga who only averages 47% possession on average (ranked 13th), Maier was making 4.38 progressive passes and 5.55 tackles + interceptions per 90. For comparison, the Premier League average for progressive passes per 90 is 3.89. With it being the end of January, and Maier making a couple of appearances in teh FA cup, I feel like Maier fits very well into the team, considering the small sample size. In Partey, I have my starting DM, Elneny being more of a destroyer, and Maier being more of a distributor. Rebic was the next player loaned in. For this position, I wanted a wide forward that would get me goals, so focusing on stats such as non-penalty xG as well as shots on target and conversion rate, Rebic ticked a lot of the boxes I wanted. The other player that I considered loaning in was Hlozek, and looking through the stats, Hlozek was a player who dribbled with the ball more than Rebic (3.97 dribbles/90 vs 1.64 dribbles/90), whereas Rebic was a player more accustomed with the ball into their feet (1.94 open play key passes vs 0.86 open play key passes). Considering Reiss Nelson was going to be on the opposite wing, and he preferes to dribble (3.5/90) instead of pass (1.85/90), I went with Rebic who offers a little bit more variety. Finally is Brian Brobbery. He was brought in from Ajax on loan as someone who was converting a high percentage of their chances, and was able to overperform on their xG when needed. In other words, I wanted another option who was clinical when given the chance to score. And finally, an update on the season post Jan: (Apologies for the lack of stats for the last two players, forgot to take screenshots lol, and their stats at their parent clubs disappeard when they signed on).

Only just noticed this post, so I might start posting what happens in my save. I typically disable first transfer windows, so no transfers until Jan. I also try and emulate tactics from real life in the first season, so this is what I am currently using. Obviously, Odegaard and Saka (both injured) take up Vieira and Nelson's positions respectievly. Results ain't too bad so far, but heading into October now. Something else to add, I've tried to take a more analytical approach to transfers (both a personal interest of mine, and it is what Arsenal do in real life), so most of transfers will be influenced by stats. And finally, even though SI said they fixed near post corners, I just wanna laugh at this game.

Not talking about the intricacies or specifics of tactics, which is why I'm posting here. It's been said by many people now that the AI managers will slightly change their tactics to counteract your own tactics as a season goes on. So how much would you change your own tactics to counter this? Is changing roles within the same formation enough variance to counter what the AI try to do, or would a complete formation change need to occur? Also, do AI managers just forget about what they've learnt at the end of each season, and is it linked with all stats being wiped at the end of each season?

How is it bizarre mental gymnastics when all the factors I mentioned quite literally contribute to the calculations of xG?

So if we're gonna unpack these responses from you that you claim to be highlighting why the survey is negatively skewed, then you're kidding yourself. The only gripe we can summarise from these 3 points posted at 3 different times is that you're annoyed that the survey is vague, not that it's negatively skewed. Nothing you've said in these repsonses actually highlight why the survey is negtaively skewed, you've just said so without evidence backing you up (quite ironically vague on your part). Again, quite an ironic statement considering the above point where you make a general statement without pinpointing why the questions are asking for people to "beat to death". If it is so, you would be able to explain why. I'm very interested as to why you left a one-liner on this topic, considering you've tried to psycho-analyse Ben's intent with the survey to the nth degree in other responses. You've tried to break apart questions in the survey and the relevancy of them, questioning whether it's for Ben to use to improve his content, or whether the datat collected is useful or not for SI, yet on this topic, you use a throw away line to show your dismay. Interesting. Still comments that you claim the survey is negatively skewed, but still no evidence to support it. Just some more vague lines of "...common points of discussion and the questions are written in the usual tone that people use when they're sitting at a more negative standpoint". Oh really? What language within the questions suggests this? A "common point of discussion" can't be inherently negative, so it can't just be the topic of the question that causes a negative skew, so it must be from the way the question is worded, would it not? Let's have a look at it then. How is a question such as "How much are you enjoying FM23?" or "Are you enjoying FM23 more or less than you expected?" written in a negative tone? I mean, the clear assumption in both questions is that there is a level of enjoyment from the player. If there was a negative skew in the question, why wouldn't it be something like "How disappointed are you in FM23?". I mean, when you compare the questions in the survey, and the question I just asked, an obvious skew in questionning appears, and it's not the one you're suggesting. Again, consider "How excited were you for FM23's new features?" vs "How disinterested were you for FM23's new features?" Which one has a more negative view on the game? You also seem to criticise the survey for "focus[ing] on the new features and how you've received them", and my question is, why wouldn't that be asked? Surely that's one of the most important aspects of the game that should be considered? Again, interesting point. Impartial, how? Does it suggest that SI is wrong for adding women's football? If you're influenced by Ben being the creator of the survey, and then perceiving the question negatively, then you don't actually know Ben's view on the matter. And why shouldn't it be asked if the topic when announced caused mass speculation as to how much time SI could then focus on other aspects of the game (which, whether rightly or wrongly, many have speculated as to why FM23 is so underwhelming as a release). Being impartial isn't to be quiet on potentially controverisal topics, it's to present the controversial topics in a balanced and fair manner. If a question along the lines of "Do you think the inclusion of women's football has impacted FM23", then I totally understand your point herre, but the only question raised was to merely gauge interest in it, nothing more, nothing less. How much more micro would you want the listing to be then? There's enough distinction between each listed object so that it's not at a macro level of listing, and where do you stop between distinction of features of the game if your aim is a micro level of analysis? Should corners be spearated from free kicks, and then furthermore, attacking corners on the left be separated with attacking corners from the right? Or is Set Pieces enough of an encapsulation for you to give an opinion? Also, interfaces also fall under the umbrella term of graphics. Furthermore, those 2 issues have been the 2 most vocally talked about issues that I've seen discussed since the launch of FM23, even moreso than the AI. I mean, I see plenty of praise for the majority of the ME, which is mostly AI based, and other issues with it are more specific rather than a general problem than AI. To a certain extent, sure, I agree that @doctorbenjy's decision to prevent comments or explaining of choices as odd (and I have heard the repsonse on his stream as to why he made that choice, which I still don't necessarily agree with), but there's an infinite amount of features one could request ranging from the macro to micro, and at what point do you stop listing them in a survey? Surely engagement on some of the more vocally heard features is better than nothing in this scenario? Also, again, a feature isn't inherently biased in some sort of way, you'll need language to prove if it is.

That's completing ignoring situational factors and going purely on ball, attacker and goal. Where is the keeper in this scenario, does he have a chance of stopping the shot, what about other defenders that might be on the line (less likely to stop the goal, sure, but still not impossible). I'm also unsure how FM calculates xG, and what stats they are using and how they are using it. To say it's an issue without knowing the inner workings of it and all the situational factors that the engine has considered, but not represented well graphically, seems over the top.

And what about the memes of players like Torres, Morata, Werner, Lukaku, Nunez, etc.. missing open goals from a yard out or just missing open goals in the box? Just because a player is close to the goals, and the goal face is open, doesn't mean that they will 100% convert that chance.

To put some perspective on this, I believe a penalty in real life has an xG of about 0.76, and considering that is a stationary shot against a keeper with no consideration of defenders or attacking movement and all the other factors, 0.6 xG for a cut back is very high in open play.

Hi there. I've been experimenting with holiday-ing into the future of saves with transfer bans on specific clubs to see FM would simulate it. However, I've realised that if a club with a transfer ban has a takeover (regardless of it succeeding or failing), the ban would disappear due to the transfer embargo being lifted from the takeover which also removes the transfer ban (regardless of the end date of the transfer ban). Without buying the in-game editor, does anyone know how to either a) prevent owners from selling clubs (and hence, no transfer embargo being put in place) or b) prevent transfer bans from being lifted after a transfer embargo. Much appreciated.