kjarus1

As many have noticed, possession football has been nerfed a lot due to a higher number of interceptions in the middle of the park by the opposition in this year's engine - so you are left better building up via flanks or just hoofing up the ball. In real life that's kind of truth because teams have learned to be compact and protect well the middle, but in FM, it would be nice to have a balance where as long as I am overloading an area (whether middle or flanks) I can successfully dominate with the right set up and players. My bigger concern is mistakes by defenders and goalkeepers. You can have the best tactic and your defense will not make any mistakes even after playing years into saves, but once you change something that has nothing to do with how your back line behaves (i.e. mixed crosses to floated crosses) your goalkeeper will start making the stupidest mistakes. The feedback mechanism to a player is terrible - if I make a change to how we cross in the final third and my tactic is not as good now, I would expect to see highlights where we cross and that leads to opposition's counter-attack, but instead you see a goalkeeper with 20 Composure and 20 handling not being able to handle a simple header pass from your defender or GK colliding with CD in some unimaginable way. This is what really frustrates the players.

I see, then I was wrong... I must say that the description and terminology is really confusing: Mark tighter implies that somehow there are different levels of marking - tight marking, tighter marking, the tightest marking or whatever... which is not the case. It should be called something like "mark tight natural zone of defense". "to their assigned opponent" - this seems that this instruction will only happen if I assign something in the first place. It should paraphrased to "particularly tight to any opponent entering his zone in defensive situations so..."

I am not sure that's the case Os, but I might be wrong... There is another PI called "mark specific position" and it does what you said - whoever will enter that zone, the player will tight mark anyone there. My English interpretation of "mark tighter" is that they will stick extremely close to them but only if "tight marking" duty is assigned to opposition's player.

Hello, I am not really sure I understand how "mark tighter" player instruction interacts with "tight marking" opposition instruction in different scenarios. Let's consider I have a player A on my team who plays in AM position and the opponent has player B who plays in DM position: 1) I instruct "mark tighter" PI and "tight marking" OI on player B - this means that once player B enters the zone of player A, player A will be extremely tight to player B? 2) I instruct "mark tighter" PI, but nothing on "tight marking" OI - this means that my player is not going to tight mark at all player B even if he enters his zone. 3) I do not instruct "mark tighter" PI, but instruct "tight marking" through OI on player B - this means that once player B enters the zone of player A, player A will be tight to player B? Essentially "mark tighter" PI is only active when OI is instructed on that player, otherwise, it doesn't do anything. This is my understanding so a proper clarification would be really appreciated.

For those that are not very familiar how game/code development works in companies: I am pretty sure there is a team/person responsible for youth development attributes in a game. The bug was noted on Friday afternoon by forum moderators, it will be notified/taken a look at on Monday morning when everyone is in the office. Forum moderators probably would love to give us more insights but they cannot do that until the responsible team/person reviews and provides a feedback. Everyone need to relax a bit, developers are humans too and generally do not fix/review bugs over the weekends.

I think I found a solution thought, tried to experiment different combinations, simulate match and produce average with ball plots. Here is the one which seems to work nicely: Added player traits for both CMs to 'drop deeper to get ball' and changed from CWB(SU) to WB(SU) since this role doesn't have permanent 'stay wider' instruction I think they are more involved in possession while still maintaining that width.

@Tsuruthanks for the advices. The thing is that apart from strikers I want to keep at least 2 aggressive runners from deep centrally which means if I put DLP(SU) or BWM(su) it won't happen :/ What is MO-At? I think Libero on attack could be very interesting to experiment - I will see how much further up the field he is willing to go. You are right also on striker partners, but AM(su) being behind helps a lot and provides nice link up, otherwise I would have one striker dropping deeper.

Hello guys, I have build a quite successful tactic that is based around short/quick vertical tiki-taka. The idea behind is two attack with intensity through the middle where we have numbers while also trying to preserve possession and pick our moments for through balls. The reason for extremely wide pitch here is to make opposition's channels bigger, move into them, and then penetrate with a killer ball. Those CM(A) boys are getting loads of highlights and I really like how we attack. However, the issue I am facing is in a build-up phase where I cannot connect well my defense to midfield and our build-up play is not as good. This is average position with ball and you can see that no-one from CM's drops to link up with defense. Of course the solution would be to change CM(A) to something like box-to-box but then I am loosing one deep runner and they are key in penetrating those channels. Any ideas in how I could improve my build-up play here? I want to have at least 2 deep aggressive runners and 3 people pressing at the top. Some of my ideas: - Add 'come deep to get the ball' as player trait to CMs - Change CWB to WB or IWB. I would imagine that IWB would tend to tuck in more and offer more passing options for my defenders, but the downside is that I will be loosing width. - Change AM to AP, maybe he would come a bit deeper to get the ball? - Change one of CMs to a box-to-box and add 'Get Further forward'/'move into channels' PIs. - Change one of CMs to a box-to-box and then AM to a Shadow Striker, but then we would become too predictable for opposition as we attack with all 3 our most forward players? Any ideas are welcomed.

Hello, Currently playing with a 5212. First thoughts on your tactic: - Defensively you are not applying enough pressure to the opposition. You are neither counter-pressing, countering or trigger pressing with also bottom heavy set-up (most players are below half-line) which means that the opposition is just having a free-day against your team. - Defensively all above mixed with a higher defensive line I imagine results in opposition easily coming to your half and exploiting space behind defense. Offside trap can prevent that but in this case you have WCB(S) and other two on defend duties which means in transition they are not in the same line and, thus, offside trap fails. You could remove offside trap and change your CD(D) to CD(C). - Offensively what type of game style are you trying to achieve? Regardless of more patient or direct approach, I would swap Carrilero to a more vertical runner (box-to-box, mezzala etc.). Once your DLP receives the ball, he needs a runner next to him that can carry the ball into the final third in order to breach the gap between your midfield and strikers. - Offensively I see the logic here for using Carrilero in order to cover a very aggresive right flank, but what about moving WCB(S) to the left and in-possession have him occupy the space of CM(A) and WCB(D) to the right so he is a bit more protective for your bombing CWB.

Hi, amazing skin - truly the best with all those additional statistics, thank you so much. One question: when a player card comes to scouting normally they show recruitment team rating (scouting report + analyst report), is it be possible to change to just show the rating of scouting report? This is what I mean by example: You can see above it shows as A- player, however, if I go to scouting report his actual rating is: Personally I find it more useful only a scouting report, analytical reports and player stats' may be misleading especially if the player is playing for a dominant team or not such good team in the league.

Same here, joining 1900...

Thanks! Hopefully this will get fixed. I think the simple solution would be not to allow 'more transfer budget' requests after the board is dealing with new player signing request. Or other feature could be instead the board agreeing to buy a player - directly provide new funds to you? That would be more realistic I think.