Jump to content

Jervaj

Members+
  • Posts

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jervaj

  1. Focus play through centre. Sorry, may have ommited it while poriginally editing the post given it was quite long lol. Will add it now to clear the confusion.
  2. Sorry for reviving this, but it was the newest that popped out when I was looking for this. I had never used focus play, but in my last saves I have been using the more extended highlights (short of watching a fullmatch) which has helped me learn a lot about tactics, roles and instructions through experimentation. I have been particularly iterating over a narrow 4-1-3-2 MC that I have been polishing over time in this last save where I look to play a succesful low block with a good team and have great defensive consistency. Overall working well with minor issues that over time have been polished, but one of the last thigns that caught my eye was how few attacks were tagged as central in the statistics despite the narrow formation. Main avenue was the right, which makes sense as I naturally overload that area (MEZs, CFs and FBa + central RPM which naturally gravitates towards the ball) but left wasnt far behind with only 8-12% of the attacks been central. I decided to tick the instruction to make use of my numbers there and maybe avoid some cuts outside which didnt seem favorable at times, specially by the 2 forwards. The change was very noticeable. only 2 matches so far but dit was clear in the first one already. The predominance of attacks on the right cotinued (or even rised slightly, from medium/high forties closer to 50%) but attacks coming from the middle became solidly the second avenue, doubling (or even tripling at times) the previous frequencies. Play wise, I wouldnt say overall positions changed much, so that may be a cause of how it is misleading people, though I also ask fullbacks to stay wide out of possesion in my main tactic, so it may counter that effect of pulling wider players more centrally. But the effect in game was clear. Players in wide areas really tried to pass the ball in to the centre much more (even though FB as opposed to WB tended already to pass more and receive further forward than run with the ball themselves to the end) and crosses notbaly decreased. Even when the FB ends near the byline with the ball htye will often tend to still pass back inside rather than cross. I have noticed them to cut in at times with the ball too, which before was very rarelly (if at all) happening. For the central players, the main different is that they seem to rarelly drift wide while on the ball, which was somewhat common before and its a change Im really welcoming as I felt it unnecesarilly made many chances/attacks less dangerous that they could have been, specially in the quick transitions that my tactic uses a lot. My main concern is if this will be viable as something to use consistently or it can be problematic against the packed defences and deep formations I face every now and then (specially with the save been in italy). I will have to test more and see. Its not like the team suddenly doesn't use width. Fullbacks off the ball seem to stay as wide as usual and at best 1/3rd of my attacks are central anyway as mentioned before. The main big change is the fewer crosses (and as such corners) which I see as a positive. Edit: The instruction used was focus play through centre as I didnt made that clear. Also, having played some more matches. Still very happy with the behaviour. I have noticed though that something I initially said was inaccurate. Wide players do come narrower (in my case the fulbacks) but its mainly those in the opposite wing to where the play is going. Does mean in practice that there is a bigger chance of the play been switched to them from the other wing. Fullbacks on the side were the ball is may make a combination which puts them further inwards (as in lay the ball off run inside and receive again) which was rare before, but off the ball will mostly still stay wide.
  3. In my case is the opposite. I tend to find that players that contribute more in attack have it easier to score higher. Striekrs tend to be on the highest average rating side, thoug still thats rarelly more than 7.3. Maybe is also easier for them to have an odd low score here or there if they dont get chances in a match. My defenders dont seem to ever even get close to an 8 unless they have scored from a header or something. I only saw one once getting above 7.5 on (mainly) defensive contribution alone. CBs do tend to easily get 7-7.2 when they do decent defensively. FBs tend to break into 7.4-7.5 easier too but usually tis because of a lot of key passes and offensive contribution, and also due to opponents been forced to the wings often. They are a bit like strikers that its more common for them to at the same time get the odd low 6-6.5 range. The positions I find the most problematic are the central CB in 3 CB defences and more defensive oriented midfielders. Those seem to score low quite often with a 7-7.1 here and there been their "good" matches. I dont seem to see the reason, I dont know if its jsut because they get less involved overall. I have seen 6.5 with the CB having both 100% tackles and headers, even if those only were 1 and 4 respectively. Its true that in many matches they mainly do off the ball work and headers away, but I dont see why that should mean a bad rating (and the game does consider 6.5 and below bad) and thats basically doing their job. I think the game can't expect this cb doing a lot of key passes or many tackles as opossition rarelly charges through the centre for that to occur. And sweeping (thinking of mdifielders too) seems like its not rewarded much.
  4. This is so true indeed from my brief experience. I tend to be demanding (as in "I expect you to win this one") in those kind of matches if Im doing good overall. Maybe Im coming from a streak, or I just served 3/4-0 someone in the previous match, maybe higher ranked. And I fear the complacency. Yet everytime if we reach the second half and are still tied, god forbid we are losing, I always have some players starting to become anxious, even with decent/good pressure. It made me consider toning down the demand in those matches but feels difficult to balance with the complacency. I feel like my problem may be that in press conferences I tend to be very positive about our chances (as reactions to these are very obscure and difaficult to asses) and maybe combined it adds up too much. I think this is one of the biggest issues and that leads to frustration in many cases when suddenly your team underperforms. The game gives you a lot of feedback and makes very accesible to see one side of the equation but hides away the rest. Morale is easiy accesibe at any moment between matches, and in those whenever you talk or shout most of the time you see motivated or inspired as a (good) rection, which to start Im unsure if its just a morale thing or it does touch the other mental factors. You do see things like confident or complacent but usually as the "passive" states and never as a direct consequence of your talks. You see some times that they are pressured by your comments but tis rare and always (in my case) after shouts during the game, never after a team talk. Yet it seems sometimes they are very pressured by your talk still. The combined fact that you don't see those efefcts directly when you take the action + the team talk feedback been so hidden away and only registering the last match means its very hard to keep track of this. Even knowing where it is and its importance I find I only remember to check it once in a while often missing reactions I was curious about to know more due to this. They should really improve the UI in that regard. Just saving a bigger history of reactions would go a ong way.
  5. So, one day after the final match of the season (24 May) when I got the new transfer budget, club vision review and all the option appeared. I was able to ask for both and they were promptly accepted. I dont know if its tied to the fact that club vision changed a lot. Club culture and 5 year plan had things added and removed, and objectives were updated. Not all I liked but I didnt seem to be able to engotiate much. Like, I could only seemingly suggest to add championship objectives or to remove the other things in the vision they were adding. with this so. Thing is some of those objectives were to maintain the best national youth system and down the line to get the world's best. So thats what it was connected maybe, or else it was jsut the season ending that triggered it.
  6. As it has been said, you have a big lack of penetration. You do play in different zones strecthing the defence but nobody is attacking the are often enoguh. And your 3 playmakers in the middle mostly mean you aren't exploiting their capabilities because play isn't realy been focused through them (as they are sharing the magnet effect) and there is nobody exploiting space to receive the potential rgeat passes from them. Just because someone has good passing, vision, anticipation and decisions doesn't mean he has to be a playmaker. The last 2 stats are great in almost all roles and positions, and passing and vision is good to have in many even if a playmaker may be more specialized. Also, nothing stops you from adding some PIs manually to exploit better a player's strengths. xG is a useful statistic to sum up things, but its also one that can be one that is easily misleading. When you watch the match do you actually feel like you are creating a lot of danger? Having better or worse finishers can make over or underachieving xG more likely, but the kind of chances you get matters a lot. When there are many low quality chances its much more likely to be a disparity and inconsistency in attack. While if the average quality per chance is decent, or you have a consistent number of high quality chances per match you will not only be much more consistent, you will also be more likely to exceed the xG. Or at least thats my experience so far. Mind you that sometimes there is danger created by the xG doesnt catch on it because there wasn't a shot for some reason (a 1vs1 where the GK gets the ball for example) yet it a sign that your atacck is working. Could be luck. And the AI does do tactical mistakes too at times, but even then given you got relegated I doubt it was that good. Was it really? Also, if you really felt the seocnd half was good yet you still got relegated it probably means your first half was terrible. AI teams renew their "view" on other teams twice a year. Between seasons and in the winter break. If your first half of the season was bad you were likely underestimated and considered a minor threat, so they are more likely to play with back ups, less intense while also trying to be more expansive and attacking, making them less desfensively solid. That may have allowed you more space to play through even without forcing it yourself open, and also give your players more time for the patient play you ask them. To answer it properly though you would have to answer yourself this, what kind of domination you were having? What did your scored goals aand other good chances you created look like? They seem to adress some issues. But if you change many things at once you will have a hard time evaluating the different changes and seeing what leads your team to play how you want it. The role/duty changes seem good though to both have a more balanced midfield while giving you some penetration. Depending on players attributes an IFat could also be a good idea given your striker role. I would hold off on changing the TI though, as what you suggest would change a lot the style your team will play. Formation, roles and duties are the core and most important part. In the long run I feel like it would be better if you first see how the new roles and duties play and then find problems (or unintended behaviours) and start tweaking TIs slowly to see if that puts you closer to what you want. Its not neccesarilly the best for short term success but it will allow to understand your tactic better and learn how to get towards your desired style of play more easily.
  7. Umm, in one hand I agree with Experienced defender. If you look for cotnrol/possesion the formation seems like a very odd pick, even if it can work for a top team. True that given your roles and TI its likely that most of your team will end quite far forward on their half when you attack. Still, you have a notable space between midfield and attack with a slightly higher tempo, so, while I will need to watch your matches to know, it feels like your transitions may very well look like totally different from your overall design and intent. May be compensated a bit by the fact that you defend high and may recover the ball further up the pitch, so the midfield starts closer, but in any case th tactic feels like it will lead to attack well placed defences all the time. This is something you may be able to overcome due to the quality of a top side but still, has other implciations. You are going full gegenpress (attacking mentality, and max pressing urgency and LoE) with agressive wingers, yet there is only 2 bodies really up the field for the initial press. Your midfielders will likely press a lot too, but this space I mentioned may hurt too in the transitions against you, rendering your press not that much effective as they are likely to always have passing outlets. You mention your defence problems, and I find normal that using the lower defence line as you tired hurts you even more in this case, as while it would help against through balls it will further increase the space for the opposition to get around your already undermanned press. I happen to be using a similar formation to yours (Narrow 5-3-2, basically like yours but with the SDs are in fullback position) with a top team, even if maybe not as much as Man. Utd (AZ Roma) and while I have needed some tweaks over the season is working really well. Thing is my focus is really different with big differences in roles and TIs. I mostly defend on my half, inviting my opposition to come forward while I hit them quickly and deadly, be it in the counter or been overall agressive when I have the possesion. Not neccesarilly hoofballing though. I have the lowest possesion of the league, yet I most certainly don't lack chances. I score both high in total shots and goals. Having specifically the most shots on target and the highest XG. Matches where I dont score are an oddity through there is always one odd match here and there where I get the feel (while watching the match) our attack struggles a bit compared to the norm, not getting many decent chances. But that's to be expected with any tactic I feel. You aren't going to steamroll every match. Both my strikers score plenty. None get to very high numbers due goals been shared, but they are quite consistent ad I do have matches evry now and tehn with 3-4 goals. I only had 1 out of the main 4 in the frist team that didnt scored as much for a while (he was also injured the most which didn't help), but he was still contributing a lot creating chances and giving out assists so I wasn't worried, and he still ended scoring more towards the end of the season. Now that the ideas are laid out my tips are the following: - First and foremost, have a clear idea what you want to see in the pitch and everytime you select a role or TI/PI think on how that works towards that objective in combination with everything else that you have set around it. - In matches notice the things you don't like and try to adress them with small tweaks so you can actually observe the individual changes repercussions. Keep in mind that a change in one place may easily require changes down the line due to the mutual interaction. - If you want a possesion based style and shorter passing, I would really consider using an AMC. You really need to reduce the space between your lines on attack. Probably one of the CDs is the most ovbious place to get it. If you really wanted to stick to the formation at least have the "deep" forward on support so he can make the connection better. I feel like even then you may have problems in the wings regarding the high press as there is likely to either be space in front or behind the wingbacks. You will have to observe how it behaves to see what are your specific problems. - Tied with the above, regarding the attacking pair that you comment. This is not a hard rule but I would avoid too similar roles/duties, specially in such a bottom heavy formation. I feel like combinations tend to work better so they move differently, stretch the defence better and pose different challenges to the opposition, specially if they are likely to be a bit isolated like in this case. Having them on the same job (specially spearheading focused ones) may disconnect them even further from the team and not support each other as well as both are trying to do the same thing. A very forward thinking one and a more holding/build up one tend to work well. - Consider lowering the LoE one notch. This while still make you press very high (due to the other TI) but may help compressing a bit your shape and reducing space. As everything you will need to osberve though, as some very attacking forwards like AF still can stay quite farther up from the rest even with lower LoE. - Remove prevent short GK distribution. First, because its unlikely your team can pull out this TI effectively. Its going to be mostly your 2 forwards and the GK is likely to have at least 3-4 short distribution otpions. And second, because even if you managed the GK to play longer more often I dont know if it will benefit you much given how high you are trying to press. Through balls tend to be one of the major threats of high lines even if you may be a bit better off in this case due to the bottom heaviness.
  8. I agree. Without been an expert myself (new this year) but after reading a lot here and there I created my own custom schedules aimed to be balanced thorugh the year and cover everything, and players develop great. I do have a like for complete players though, specially in some positions/tactics. I got to thank you, because your "Full" focus schedules have been an inspriation for me off lately. I recently started playing with a higher team which doesn't have many "free" weeks to train properly due to match congestion and that plays in a more specialzied system, so having training that maximized attributes and forgo tactical training was useful, and your base allowed me to tweak my schdules and play 3 more specialized ones compared to those I used prior. Which Im quite satisified with, specially because they tend to be somewhat lighter than my previous custom ones too, which helps in this situation where you play so many matches. Im curious about one thing though. Why do you feel like you need a specific one for "playmaking fullbacks"? I do tend to use relativelly agressive fullbacks that have contributed very succesfully to attack in my tactics (at least looks like when watching matches), and training wise with the when I use a tactic where I expect my whole team to move up together and thus the defence to be more ball playing, balanced schdules that included crossed sessions (like play from the back, overlapping atatcks and defend from the front) together with their individual focus training seem to do the job at achieving balanced players able in attack and defence. In fact I have to be cautious for them to be not too attacked minded if they attribtues start shifter that way already. Basically the additional focus is aimed at physicals (that need to be top for this kind of player I feel) at first and then at the side they started off weaker (be it attack or defence). In a more specialized tactic (like my current one) where I dont use those sessions, what I do is I move them to the attack unit for the "full attack" schedule weeks. Seems to work like a charm too. With this kind of tactic I also tend to move midfielders to whatever unit is the focus of the week. The difference is that the default unit for midfielders is the attacking one and the default for fullbacks is the defensive one for weeks with no specific focus.
  9. Umm, ok. I was a bit confused because I have seen no mention in game of such a thing and I was looking for it now to see the current one, but to no avail. Didnt remember any mails regarding the matter in my previous save. Will try to pay closer attention at the turn of the season this time. Thanks!
  10. Checked with editor. Coaching is at 15 and recruitment at 18. Given I was kicked out of the UEFA league Im likely ending the season soon this week as there is only 8 matches left. Lets see if it appears on the new season. The board has as part of club culture developing youth. Even if this wasn't the case though believe like this should affect the chance they accept requests though, not make them not appear in the first place. What do you mean about youth/training category? Like the "league" they play in?
  11. Certainly not. Mostly because before opening this I have been waiting to see if it appeared. Im about to hit April. I think I asked for the facilities upgrade in early winter (both were accepted), and by then its when I checked and noticed these other two were not visible. I dont think I ever requested this, but if I did (memory may fail) it had to be very early in the season.
  12. I basically alwyas hire the whole intake unless you are a very small club. Is very cheap and in a year or two you will be able to really sort out who is worth keeping and who isnt.
  13. The big leap can be not that big though. Like yeah on their own is more difficult, but as soon as one of the clubs drops an offer things might change. I received an offer from Arsenal for one of my strikers in my save the other day. Unlike for other players that there had been discussions about interests and such this one was a bit out of the blue. It was a good offer but I didnt wanted to sell because I didnt have a clear replacement, we were mid season and the player still had years of contract. Rejecting inmediatly made the player unhappy and its been like that for a few months. Its not terrible because the matter is kept internal and he hasn't asked to leave or anything. He just says he is disspointed by it, his morale is lcoked to a slightly downard arrow at best (no matter how positive he reacts to everything) and is moaning to other players. Only a fellow coutnryman supports him though and that one is able to keep good morale nonetheless, so its of limited impact for now. Im wondering if he will come around when the season ends specially if we get some good results. Whats your experience for these cases? And what are the best ways if any to at lest keep things in check for a while? I do have a couple of promising prospects that might be able to replace him, so selling him if a similar good offer is received feels like a good plan in the mid/longer term, but I may need at least 1-2 years more out of him depending on how quickly they develop. Im weary of jumping the gun too quickly, because the othwr strikers that plays on his same role has had vocal interest around him too and replacements or similar quality are very expensive so lets hope my youngsters progress quickly.
  14. While it is indeed a display and has no direct effect, doesn't fluidity potentially vary the default individual mentality of a given role/duty combination? I think I had read that somewhere but mabe it was in older FM.
  15. The benefit mainly comes from the first team having most likely better coaches, plus the squad influence. To be honest instead of doing that I would rather to move them into the first team proper, and them make them available for the lower teams, because that way you get the training benefits + can mentor them directly. The problem of either approach and having a player train with a different team that the one he plays is that if the lower team match schedule doesn't match the first team, it makes them lose some training days potentially. Also top team is likely to have more matches, so if he is not playing he is losing time he could have been training. So I would only do it with players that I would be playing with the first team even if sporadically, or that I have a lot of interest in mentoring even if that can slow their development a bit. or if the coach differenc eis huge and whatever is lost in training time would be recouped by better training quality.
  16. It does happen in FM21 too. In theory if they play a match they dont train, but the glitch is there and who knows if it affects training.
  17. I think this has to do a lot with player quality and the tactic employed too. In my current game I play a top/good team do have a defensive tactic, with a relativelly deep defence, and I use get stuck in to balance the agressiveness and not be too standoffish. With an average 42% possesion only my squad gets fould against twice or more than they foul thesmelves. Similar for cards, in fact I have the least yellows of the league by a fair margin. However in another save with a "good" second league team which used a more attacking and agressive tactic I got many more fouls and cards. In that case I was on the opposite end of the table for the league when it came to those stats despite my possesion was much higher (around 58%). I do watch the match in the second highest amount of detail, and its not like my defenders are not contesting (they slide tackle quite a lot) and this has lead me to the following conclusions regarding fouls and cards: First and most obvious, worse players are most likely to foul and get carded. Thats pretty straightforward. Mentals are probably even more important than the tackling attribtue itself in this regard though both surely matter. In theory this is supposed to be relative to the attacker too but I feel from experience that the defender matters more. I have seen a lot of risky tackles on the top league be executed cleanly by both my players and skilled opposition. However lower rated players do kick the opponent around much more often even when the attempt wasn't as risky by itself. Second, your tactic (and to some extent the opponets) and overall how you are defending matters a lot. Not only how much you ask your players to contest (Get stuck In TI and harder tackle OI). In the fist case, Im rarelly caught on the break. I defend mostly in shape agaisnt slower attacks while Im the one who attacks quickly and counters often. However in the second case the main threats against me are precisely quick transitions, while Im more likely to be the one camped in their half (even if I do get quick transitions every now and then). I have noticed in both saves and both in my own attacks and attacks agaisntme that is the quicker transitions which lead more often to fouls and cards. When you add up both factors I feel like is what caused the disparity. So overall the conclussion is that if you are a top team and specially if your tactic is going to hit the opponet often with quick movements you are to expect to be fouled a lot more than you foul the opposition. It does not neccesarilly mean that the the opposition is out t break you players legs, more than the pressure you put on them causes them to take higher risks and fail more. That been said, I will give you 2 points. First the amount of fouls against you feels outrageous. I dont think I have ever seen one match like that let alone several. And second, while Im not sure if it ever happened, as my memory may fail I am certain that its very weird for an injury causing tackle to be considered a foul, let alone a card. And I do use a mod that makes in match injuries notably more common instead of almost only training ones like in vanilla.
  18. I noticed one consistent irregularity when it comes to throw in routines. I have the DM set to receive short and the 2 strikers to go forward. But its always the striker on that side who comes to receive short. 90% of my throw ins in the opposition half are sent short to my striker which either touches it back and rushes back to his position or is then forced to stay wide and cross. Is this normal? I would much rather prefer them to stay up and the DM been the one that recives as he can put the long passes better, specially if the strikers are in/around the box to receive them.
  19. I don't have a PKM at hand to show it but I confirm this happens a lot. Deep throw ins tend to end in offside as the receiver often one touches back to the thrower and bam. This happens in corners too at times though is rarer as they aren't usually played short. I think the issue is more tied with the receiver touching it back instantly almost every time. They should try to wage mroe other options specially if there is risk of offside.
  20. I was aware of this point. Thing is here we are talking that main team with its schedule its only really "training" 2-3 days a week. And all that training is mostly very light days of match prep because it can't afford much more without sacrificing performance/player form due to the congestion. The thing is that playing "fairly often" with the main team tends to be in the best case scenario 1 match a week. Often less. So, weeks he doesnt play with main team, he gets full 1 match week training. If he plays with the main team but match days meet (not uncommon) he is not really losing any training and would again train with a full 1 match a week schedule. Even if the match days don't meet he is potentially not losing anything if the lower team plays on the "rest day" of the main team. And even if it matches a training day he would still be training 4 days, which is always at least one more than the main team, and without having in account that most of those days would be a more compelte training instead of just very light/match prep ones. Now, I would rather prefer that having them in the main team continuosly and just letting them play with the lower team some times is the best option as it simpler to manage and keep track of, plus allow to better mentor them. But I think the concern about if its the best idea when facing congested schedules its sensible to bring up. Thanks for the link. Based on what Seb says, if its mostly a rating thing I shouldn't be worried. I never play people that perform that badly consistently with the main team. So when discussing the aforementioned cocnern, assume the player is going to average at least in the high end of 6.X.
  21. Hello there! Just a quick question. Is there something that gates been able to request the board to improve youth recruitment and coaching? Like just early on the season or something? Its not a matter of them rejecting it, is the option not showing at all which confuses me. I was able to ask to improve both training and youth facilities, but regarding these two I can only ask to reduce the budget, despite they are not maxed, in fact they are lower than the ones I was able to ask for.
  22. This here. Basically when a player is developing "too fast" the game balances this by then lowering slightly attributes acrooss the board (0.1-0.2). Long term it should'nt matter. The only issue I have seen with this mechanic its that when it happens to some players, specially slightly older you may have quite a hard time to recover the physical loss as those are the hardest to raise once the player is not very young.
  23. I have a related question relating this balance. Can match experience replace training? Here Im not talking about quality of facilities or coaches. Its about time dedicated to one or the other. As in, does match experience continue scaling the more higher quality they get? Or is more important to achieve just a certain threshold and rather train more from there? With a top team that is up in all competitions you barelly have any "easy" weeks. In "rest" weeks most of your team is playing international matches and from the reminder 90% of the weeks will see you have 2 matche sa week. 3 matches a week can even be more common that 1 one match weeks. This means though that theres is very little training compared to other teams. Its basically rest, recovery and match prep as anything else would strain the squad. In such a scenario, would you rather have your promising 18 yo in your first team an enjoy the fact that the congested schedule wil mean he can still easilly get 20+ matches at "top" (he will be likely be lined up in the easiest ones) level or rather play him in a B team/loaned out on a lower team where he will be able to still play simlarly but train much more? What about having the youngster be in the youth/B team and train with them but bring him in to play in your first team matches when neccesary? It means no mentoring/squad influence, but could it be better development wise? Technically he could play as much as in the first team as if he was there but train much more at the same time. Specially true specially for positions like GK where condition is never an issue and he could still play most of the lower team amtches at the same time.
  24. Oh, in general circumstances yeah, yeah, but the case that brought this up was an ongoing match and I needed the subs in other places. Oh I know. It would be the role I would use and the attribtues would mostly fit. The problem is not about the attributes. The problem is positionay training, which will make him behave as if he had lower mental attributes because he has no training (or just the minimal red one, Im not sure speaking from memory). I haven't mentioned the circles, inf act I do forget they exist often. Yeah, thanks I basically wanted to know the options, I see basically what I wanted doesn't exist. Thats why I asked. I already opened the suggestion for future installments of the game as I find it would be a cool yet sensible tactical nuance.
  25. Greetings, Man marking is an instruction that I feel is rearelly used in the game. And while is true its something that has gone out of fashion in football with the years, is still a very valid tactical option that can be situationally useful for any teams, and some times do still use it as a base of their defence. The problem is that its implementation in FM is very black or white. Whenever you set a player to man mark, he will follow the target player anywhere in the pitch, no matter if its makes sense or not. I thought the best/simplest way to improve this feature, would be to have second drop down which can set a trigger to when this man marking should be attempted by the player. It could be static things like "Own half, final third, own box", or it could be tied to dynamic elements like the LoE setting. Ideally this instrunction would also be respected in set pieces, and the player that would have been normally marking the opposition player would also adapt his behaviour to make himself more useful.
×
×
  • Create New...