glengarry224

I don't think so. For most of the advice, I learn what my AM usually advises and go from there. If he's always begging me to play 'balanced' and we're doing great on 'positive', I ignore it, but if we're conceding too much.....or if, for the first time, he suggests that we play narrower, I'll take a look at the opposition formation and players to see if maybe there is a reason to do that.

Agree. And seen much the same across the internet. I suspect that some are trolls, and enjoy disputing anyone and anything; some are defensive for various reasons; and some are just not good at expressing their views (e.g. my non-work emails and texts have a much better tone and are much better received if my girlfriend edits them!) It's hard but I try to just try to read the useful information in those posts and ignore the rest. I don't always succeed. I have enjoyed your questions, ideas and comments. The forum has died down a lot for various reasons, including natural fatigue and top-posters going to other outlets. I am no expert but have increased my posting because there are fewer contributors and because this forum helped me a lot and made the game even more fun, so I'm trying to pay it forwards. Imperfectly.

Thanks! I have lightened up my training for the first two months, with 3-4 friendlies per month, fewer physical sessions, more recovery and less intensity. Figure I'll have tactical familiarity and cohesion set and go more intense physically around eight weeks before the season kicks off. And good advice on the set pieces. I usually don't like using CBs as set piece takers, because I prefer they are attacking the posts, but Novrianto is so much better at FKs than everyone else is. Do you use him on wide FKs? His crossing is abysmal and I always wonder if crossing affects corners and wide FKs. What tactic did you use? I've initially set up a back-3 because PSPS is stronger in that area but I've been able to sign better depth in midfield and forwards, so thinking about changing to a back-4, and obviously PSPS has time to learn many formations. Yes, so many shorter and low-strength players in Indonesia. But stamina also seems to be in low supply so I'm thinking of a lower intensity system as well.

I have only a fuzzy idea about what is the difference between playing a "Roaming Playmaker" at CM, which has hardcoded PIs 'roam from position' and 'take more chances' versus playing a CM(s) and manually ticking the same two PIs. The game itself indicates behaviors for roles beyond just the PIs which we can see? Some places indicate that there are other behaviors hard coded into roles. For example, guidetofm states for Roaming Playmaker: That makes sense to me. But guidetofm is an unofficial source. But in other unofficial sources (videos, posts and maybe in these forums), I've heard that there is no difference, maybe so long as you train the same PIs. I play the game as if there are other behaviors hard coded which correspond to the game description of each role versus just choosing the role with no hard-coded PIs, or the fewest PIs, and ticking the PIs I want.

Well, certainly the game FM22 is not anywhere as complex as irl football. There is not enough computing power in the world to even begin to simulate irl. Even withing current computing power, I agree that we are limited. I can't tell my RWB: "generally after transition into the final third, stay wide but no closer than 30 meters from the endline but if we have the ball on the opposite flank and you see the opposition LB cheating out to mark our AMR-IF and their LCB drifting too far the other side, then invert and make a run inside, but only if our CM has not already made that run.....and tell our DM: if our RWB makes an inside run, switch 10 meters wider to cover his flank defensively," etc etc etc. But all that would make the game way too complex for all but a few players. IRL, managers and coaches and players do use roles as a shorthand for an expected set of behaviors, and young players are now brought up learning roles. They do modify those roles, depending upon the ability of each player to handle that. Maybe more modification should be available.

I started a new save with no badges or experience and was hired by PSPS in the Indonesian League 2. It's late December. Training camp starts at the end of January. First match: June 12. What do I do? [I get why] Of course, I can build up match fitness, earn some friendly money, do a lot of trials, get my team tactically familiar with multiple tactics and do some player development. But it seems too long and won't my players be tired by June 12? I think that February and March are monsoon season in Indonesia but I don't know that the game incorporates that into training.

Lots of great advice. I always started to think about how I might have to change my tactic, or create an underdog tactic (in your case I'd call it "Hund"), to compete against bigger teams. Like irl, last season, Fulham played a 4-2-3-1,controlled possession and dominated: Fulham are not going to control possession this year, likely will need a more defensive pivot and plan to be dominated and hope to counter attack. If I thought that I'd struggle the first season, a good keeper could make the difference between a 1-0 loss and a 0-0 draw in a number of matches. Of course, I always focus on my biggest weaknesses but keeper and central defense seemed the most important to me. I think that Forest loaning in Henderson is huge for them.

Depends upon what each player most needs and each team's coaching and personalities too. If your player has good talent but crap personality, you need to fix that first, even if it means promoting him to the senior team to be mentored by very strong senior players (if you have them). If it's general development, maybe slight personality improvements needed, and my U18 has good coaches - in particular, coaches and teammates with good personalities - and I have pretty good training facilities, I'd keep them there. If I can afford it, I'll keep around, and even sign, youth players without the requisite potential if they have great personalities. If a player seems to be stalling, maybe move him up.

That should help. FYI, 'hold position' is under 'when team has the ball' so should not affect defensive actions except that it will sometimes affect where your DM might be when you lose the ball. Your player has super high aggression and work rate, so I'm not surprised that he charges forwards to take on unmarked ball carriers. that's puzzling

Then in the control group, is it better to schedule a session with similar fatigue effects but without the match boost? Seems like that would introduce other factors. Maybe compare 'defensive positioning' with 'attacking movement' and measure attacking stats vs defensive stats? I really don't know. And, regardless, is it desirable to delete tactical familiarity from the results, by maximizing it for both the control group and the test group?

I don't think so. Neil's post does point out why the test might've been poorly constructed to test what it set out to test, but it was not constructed to test the overall module design, therefore it indicates nothing about that. As far as we all see different results with the same players/training, I agree and anecdotes are useful only to come up with ideas for objective tests. Though different results is variance and why it is important to properly construct a test, including with adequate sample sizes and statistical power, so that the effects of variance can be reduced (hopefully to insignificance). It's the same with any test: I might have a different overall clinical response to a particular new drug if it was possible to test it on me over and over again under the same circumstances (easier to retest in FM than in real life), and you and I would have different responses to that drug. Ideally, one would have a null hypothesis, for example: "training 'chance creation' does not train the attributes which the card indicates" and then properly construct a test to try to disprove that hypothesis.

Is it? [serious question] Counter argument: we want to test the effect of the 1-match boosts and not test how well each 'match preparation' session improves tactical familiarity, therefore we maximize tactical familiarity to take that out of the equation, otherwise the results of the test cannot separate out how much the results were influenced by TF vs. match-boost?

I've seen some bad runs but this is insane: And if you include the two matches the week before this, it's 8 matches in 19 days, two of them against my main rivals for the title and two UCL matches. LOL

A lot of good discussion here. A few concepts I use: when trying to maintain a lead after 70 minutes, be aware of the relative condition of each team's players: a lot of players are tired or exhausted. For example, if my CBs have adequate acc/pace but are exhausted and my opponent has subbed in a fast striker, I should probably drop my DL at least a little or bring in a fresh CB; make changes based upon the relative quality of your players and their individual characteristics if my players are not more exhausted, and are as good as or better quality, then I prefer to make slight adjustments to reduce the chance of counters but otherwise try to keep control of the game and not get passive; Players with poor concentration should suffer more when exhausted; players with higher leadership are more motivational learn where your tactic and your team is most vulnerable and make some changes to cover specific weaknesses. For example, if I concede too many crossing goals, maybe I'll defend narrower and/or have my wingers man mark my opponent's best wide-crossers; create a 'training tactic' which covers all potential late-match defensive changes: that way, your players have some tactical familiarity with those changes, even if you only make a few of them; if you want your team to 'hold shape' more, lower pressing intensity and tackling. If you bring in a fresh player, you can individually give him a more active role or up his pressing/tackling;

That makes sense, and I've used the bug tracker several times. However, I think that very few people read the bug tracker posts and if you want to raise an issue with the community, it needs to be raised here.

Particularly useful during matches, especially if you play on 'commentary' or 'key highlights' or even 'extended highlights'. For example, your AM warns you that an opposition wingback is getting uncontested crossing opportunities or an opposition AMC is running unmarked into the box: how else would you know that unless you watched more of the match?

A few more tips while watching and learning: start in 2D so you can concentrate on positioning and movement easier; start in 'Full Match' mode - at a higher speed - because you want to see all the usually boring stuff like build up play and failed passes, which even 'Comprehensive Highlights' doesn't show; pause at various points: for example, if your DLP has the ball coming out of your defensive third, but is facing some pressure, pause and see what your shape looks like, how many passing options he has, how many supporting teammates are in short/medium/long passing range: you are using 'shorter passing' so your players need nearby teammates to pass to, especially during transition (and one common problem with a 442 is the gaps between: DL - gap - midfield - gap - forwards, but using a DLP and DLF might cover that); look for things like: are players doing what you want them to? are players crowding the same space? or moving to open space? in attack, is someone providing width? in defensive transition, are your players contesting passing lanes? dribblers? too easy for opposition to advance into your third? in defense, where are opponents making dangerous runs or passes, even if those runs/passes fail? etc, etc Never watch 'Key Highlights' because you'll get the false impression that every situation or type of build up results in a chance or chance conceded (i.e. it cherry picks only the successful sequences)

If you want wingers to cut in, you might put one on IW. Usually, I'd do that on the same side as the AF, because you have the DLF dropping deeper on the other side. You could switch sides with the AF/DLF if you want to. If you want fullbacks to push up, consider putting one on WB(s) or WB(a), but it depends upon their abilities too and might open you up more at the back.

Great post. Adjusting for these factors, in pre-season and often during the first half of the season, especially if the schedule is not packed, I'll set something like this: If the first half of the season is more congested, I'll do something more like: In the second half of the season, especially if the match schedule is congested, I'll reduce to this or similar: I think that Double Intensity for the full green heart is ok until players start showing fatigue, especially if you still want to develop players who are not playing as much: for example, you have some young players in your senior squad who are playing rarely or only coming in as subs. For starters who are overworked, I'll individually give them days of 'no pitch or gym work' or individually lower their intensity.

Right, sorry, was not trying to steal your thunder (and I upvoted both of your posts!) but was instead trying to point out that Neil's response, which on the surface appears to explain away the problem as "variance", instead appears to concede the problem. Perhaps that was not his intent and his response was loosely worded but that's what it looks like. Of course, variance plays a large role in FM and irl, but that does not mean that the stated training effects actually work or that someone could not construct an experiment to test whether they do. I am not opining that the experiment was properly constructed, or that it was not properly constructed, but I know enough about probability and variance, and I've dealt with enough experts, to know that Neil's explanation is not an explanation but appears to be a concession. How large would the experiment sample need to be? And what do you think the test results indicate, if anything? Obviously, if he'd tested 4 matches with each training, we'd all realize that the results were not meaningful, but this has the appearance of a large enough sample size, but I admit my ignorance.

@Neil Brock but if that's true, then you are supporting @werogatda's claim that the tested match preparation sessions have de minimis (and perhaps even opposite) effects on match outcomes, because he ran each tested group 200 times. Basically, you are indicating that the effects of variance are so great as to render this type of match preparation insignificant. Now, irl, some would similarly argue that much match preparation is a waste of time and has little effect on results. note: I personally believe that variance plays a much, much greater role in football and in most areas of life than we are willing to accept and that all of us seek a level of control and narrative which turn out to be fictitious, if not comforting nevertheless.

Pass Into Space: It is under 'Approach Play'; mostly in transition, your passers will look to make passes which teammates can run onto rather than passing to a teammates feet; riskier and requires good passers and receiving players who have good awareness (usually good ant/otb/acc/agi/teamwork); even riskier if combined with 'more direct' passing - you will lose the ball a lot more (but can work as an underdog - see below); can work very well with 'shorter passing', especially with higher tempo, if you have the right players (think Pep's Barca); can create more through balls, or good on-the-run passes to attacking wide players; not so useful against teams which sit deep, because there is little space, in approach, to pass into; better against teams which sit higher and press more: for example, your speedy wingback breaks a little behind his marking opponent and you pass to him on-the-run; as an underdog: think of Tottenham playing Liverpool last season: play a deep box and hope for a few breakaways where you can make a few long, into space passes to speedy breaking away players

Awesome!

I have a more specific reason: all of the 'General' sessions, except Physical and Goalkeeping, spend time on Tactical Familiarity. So those sessions are useful when you need to build tactical familiarity but after that, you are wasting that portion of those sessions: SI has said that except if you change tactics or bring in new players, your team does not lose Tactical Familiarity (i.e. once it reaches Fluid, it stays Fluid). Note: most of the sessions under the Attacking or Defending tabs also spend time on Tactical Familiarity. To fine tune, especially in pre-season or early-season, I look at where I need to improve Tactical Familiarity and select the sessions which train those aspects: so if I'm lower on Trigger Press and Marking but Fluid on the others, I'll train the General-Defending or one of the Defending sessions. Also, after you reach Tactical Familiarity with your main tactic, you can then switch to train an alternate tactic or two or three, in which case you can still make full use of the General sessions.

@werogatda: have you looked at the data of how, for example, 'Attacking Movement' training affects 'goals scored' or 'passing stats' as opposed to game outcomes? Just brainstorming, I suppose it's possible that if you train 'Attacking Movement' and not 'Defensive Shape', then your team might become more attacking and less defensive? Not trying to put extra work on you, just wondering. Thanks again.