Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

deserter

Members+
  • Content Count

    625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by deserter

  1. I did some UI modding in FM2014 that I was pretty happy with: - Replaced my numbers with coloured rectangles, essentially moving from 1-20 scale to 1-5 scale. That would basically give me a list of a players strengths or weaknesses. - Changed the octagon to a nonagon (9 sides) with renamed 9 categoriea. (Goalkeepers had 7 I think.) Also I chose for myself what attributes were taken into account and at what weight for each of the categories. - Turned the 1-10 scaled star ratings (half stars and full stars) to a 1-4 scale. This was all to make the transfer market harder and more interesting and also to make opponent players harder to gauge. My own players I was pretty familiar with regardless, and I'm very performance based in my selections in any case. Anyways, to get back to the OP... I think it would make sense to use a number of categories like in the octagon and use some scale (1-20, 1-8, 1-3, Rubbish - World-class; I don't care) to give an absolute value for each set of attributes. Then for each category, list the players relative weaknesses and strengths.
  2. I watched the game against Man U. From what I can see, you need one of your midfielders moving ahead of the ball. That didn't happen very often, but when it did you were much more dangerous. This movement needs to be consistent. I'm not telling you how to do that, but it's what you should be looking at, in my opinion.
  3. Sounds like you have fairly unprofessional players if they just want to hide in the background at a training session. Cleon isn't making any sense to me either. In FM14 (I'm opting out this year) your changes to team training schedule would come into effect only at the end of the week. Maybe that's what is happening here?
  4. What role are you using for him? You could try using him in a deeper role from where he can make runs to break the offside trap.
  5. I'd be very careful with that. Surely the roles are becoming more and more specialized or having less and less shared code with other roles. That's what the current system allows SI to do and the half back role is testament to that. It seems that you have two options. Trust the in-game descriptions or do some testing (but don't take anything from FM13 for granted).
  6. It used to be so that the throw in instructions didn't matter with the long bullet throws. Instead your corner setup would be used. Is it not so anymore?
  7. I wouldn't think retain possession, shorter passing and low(ish) mentality amounts to efficient use of possession. Have you tried to play without these instructions to see how it plays out? I think it's good to know exactly what the baseline is for passing. Then you know if you need to pass it shorter or not. The same applies to all TI's. You might exploit the middle (or flanks) naturally when the opponent leaves space in the middle (or flanks), so you may be already exploiting their weakness without ever instructing your team to do that. Defensively you need to leave more players back if you want to be more solid. That shape in itself is pretty solid, but now you might see everyone but the centre backs wandering upfield.
  8. Sounds like your team having a good day, gaining in confidence after the goal, while your opponent experiencing the opposite.
  9. Normally I try to control the game and limit my opponent's chances. When the time is running out it's a different matter. I try to force my opponent to do attacking actions with the ball. Through ball, cross, long shot, counter attacks. I don't really care if they get a decent chance every now and then. I let them. If they score, I lose. If they don't I get the ball back that much sooner. The game spins out of either teams' control and becomes unpredictable. This is exactly what I want at the last minutes if I'm trailing. I'm not sure about the 70 minute mark though. Depends on how the game is going and how much I'm trailing.
  10. Also to really make it a big deal the player that has been on fire in the training for a while, and still hasn't got any game time and maybe wasn't completely professional, should confront you and demand a chance because he feels he deserves it. And if someone is doing poorly, then it would be nice if you could get an explanation out of him, like "I feel a bit down as I feel that you don't appreciate my talents" or "I think our captain is an a-hole and I'm finding it affects my training performance."
  11. So he's not doing anything extra individual work? Then I'm not sure what's up, but with team training your changes will come into effect on the next week. The ongoing week is locked into whatever you had it set at previously. It doesn't look like that's the case though. For you the case is perfectly clear though. Your player has average workload from general training and on top of that does an average amount of individual work. Average+average > average, right?
  12. Should it? Or should we just say how much they train like we do now? This and many other things are something that you can decide on in real life, sometimes by yourself, sometimes with your coaching team. But what difference would this make in FM? I'm not sure anyone knows what is the right number of sessions and how long they should be. They need to be set in real life, I understand that, but to what end would you decide these things in FM, and how is it better than setting the overall workload? I'm just saying that adding stuff because it exists in real life is only good if it has a real effect in the game and it's communicated well enough to the player. I agree. As I said above, things that exist or are added to the game, should really have an effect. And what I said earlier in the thread about the number of coaches and the related capacity for more focused training still holds. The lack of coaching numbers should boil down to more general training sessions as opposed to more individual focus. The quality of a coach for me should affect a few things. - Player happiness - Rate of development, maybe, but to a small extent. - The amount of development. Any coach can set up drills that will improve passing skills. A great coach, however, will be able to rise a player to another level, to not just set up basic drills but really teach a player better passing techniques and correct his bad habits. Stop the passing drill, give a little instruction, then let the player work with that. In FM the difference would be a player whose passing attribute stalls after 15, and a player whose passing reaches higher level of, say, 18. You really need that push from a great coach to reach the highest level. Perhaps the star rating of a coach should correspond to the max level a player can reach in relevant skills? Oh yes! I'm not sure how far you should go with this, but slowing down mental attributes at least until the player starts to play in the first team at a high level at consistent basis would be good. A mechanical problem could pop up though, with players filling their potential with technical and physical attributes and so in this scenario something needs to be done. Mental attributes ignored by the CA/PA-system (no cap?) or splitting them up into their own separate CA/PA would be contenders. The latter would add a couple of entries (quite frequently accessed too) for each and every player into the database, so I can't imagine the database guys being thrilled about that. Communication A fancy training module with intricate workings is all but useless if the game doesn't communicate well with the user. The player needs to understand the system or (s)he will mostly ignore it. Think about team blending for example. It's hard to know what is going on if it's not well communicated. There is info about this (I don't know how it is in FM15) but it's a bit buried. There's assistant report that says something like "team is well and truly blended." There's match feedback from assistant that says things like "X has trouble communicating with others", "has serious trouble blending into team", "isn't used to so direct style", "is looking complacent"(before match). These things need to be forced on the manager to let him know that these features exist and that they matter and have an effect. Team selection screen for example would be a prime candidate for the bits I just mentioned. And of course they actually need to have an effect. If in a backroom meeting your assistant says that "since you have bought 15 new players for the first team and only 2 regular starters remain from the last season, everything is not going to go swimmingly, so be prepared for an unsteady start to the season", it needs to actually be true. (I'm not sure if it works like this or not. I try not to take too much advantage of the transfer market and integrate new players slowly because it's sensible.)
  13. I have to say that I don't have any idea what goes on in a professional football club's training sessions. But this might be how I would organize it: Team Training The whole first team, the whole coaching staff. You work on general stuff, a little bit of everything. You play some 5 vs. 5's, attacking unit trying to break down defensive unit, a group trying to play around or through a pressing unit, rondo, set pieces, keepie-uppies (is that what you call it in engilish?) that kind of stuff. The whole point is to work on football generally and as a team. Also to bind the players together, blend in new one's, have a little fun as well. I'd expect to see improvements across all the attributes, but more so in the attributes relevant to a players natural position. This is the training you can do even if you don't have many coaches and it won't affect their workload that much. After Team Training Focus groups The team splits down into groups. The groups all need a coach to lead them so the number of coaches might limit how much of focus group training you can do. Scoring, Technical abilities, Defensive skills, Tactical understanding. I'd see these groups as an important part of education of a player, mostly giving players the tools and understanding to perform their tasks on the pitch. The general training, where defenders train with the strikers and so on, would be where you'd then put these ideas into practice. You'd just be better prepared for those sessions after taking part in your focus group and getting to know what exactly you're supposed to get better at. A Scoring group would construct situations where they need to move into a good position, the ball comes in, you try to score. Balls over the top, cut backs, floated crosses, low crosses, first time volleys, trap the ball and shoot, dribble and shoot, where to aim, when to shoot with power, when to place it etc. Finishing, long shots, composure, flair, dribbling, crossing, passing, off the ball, agility, balance, jumping, heading etc - some attributes would see a little bit more action than the others. Technical group would concentrate on ball handling skills, controlling the ball in every situation, honing different kinds of passing techniques, shooting techniques, crossing techniques. Defensive group would work on how to defend in certain situations, what to do when there's 2-on-1 situations, 1-on-1, 1-on-2. Do you follow your man wide/up or do you hold position. How to cover for others, when to move as a unit. Where and when to clear the ball. How and when to tackle. Defending skills will improve, some mental abilities will increase, some technical abilities to a lesser extent. Tactical group will spend time on understanding the game in itself. Vision, decisions, team work, anticipation, positioning, off the ball. Goalkeeper training I'd expect goalkeepers to train their own things (who knows what they do ). Fitness training Being fit is so important that I would always want my players to train fitness. The question is how much and what. I'd expect (in a big club at least) to have a fitness team consisting of fitness trainers (not necessarily football coaches), someone from the other coaching staff, physios, doctors. I'd require everyone to train everything, but on top of that have individual fitness program. So for each player you could set the amount of fitness training and what they will work on individually. Sometimes you want to develop strength or pace, sometimes a player might need a program designed to help him recover in time for the next match. Match preparation I'd certainly have a little session a day before the match, or in the morning, to educate the players of what to expect and how I want them to play in the match. Also let them know who will be playing and what our strategy is going to be. That way my players would know what to expect and could get ready for the match. And if I felt like we need to work on something specific, I would. Set Pieces, attacking movement, passing, whatever. I don't know what the effects are exactly in the ME now, but if viable I'd maybe go simple and boost decisions in relevant match situations and if for example we trained defensive cohesion, then possibly concentration. If we trained defending set pieces then also bravery. Preferred moves I'd keep the system where you ask your coaches to do this. But they should decline if they have too many players under their wing already and it should be almost obligatory to move the player to a relevant focus group and preferably to that particular coaches focus group. That's all that I'd expect from the coaching department. Then there's: Match Experience From what I understand playing gives your player a general development boost. What I'd like to see is something more specific. When a player does something a lot in a match, then he should get a boost on the relevant attribute. For example if a player makes tackles very often, he'd eventually get better at tackling. And maybe even start to like it, thus getting a PPM dives into tackles. So, simply by using someone as a defensive winger he'd develop into a better defensive winger. Better at tackling, dribbling, crossing, maybe gains PPM's dives into tackles or runs with ball down left. I'd just like to see the match experience tied to training in a more specific way, so that the things that the player does a lot in matches get the CA instead of more general distribution of it. And for PPM's to develop on their own if a player does something successfully in matches on consistent basis. It's only natural that they'd start to prefer such things. So, I don't know how detailed training system we should be having really. But the stuff I wrote above boils down to setting up these things in-game: Team training General training: low---------------------high Focus groups: low---------------------high (can be capped by lack of coaching personnel) Fitness training: low---------------------high Match preparation: low---------------------high + focus: _____(choose) Individual training Focus group: ______(choose) Fitness focus: _______(choose) (one focusing on recovering faster, essentially less workload) New position: _______ PPM:______ Overall workload shown somewhere. Match experience: essentially using a player in a certain role would lead to him shaping into a player that is better in the role that he plays and could help develop PPM's organically. EDIT: I forgot to cover the tactics familiarity. I think you'd gain that in the general training where the whole team is together. So you'd just gain the familiarity by sticking to your preset tactics and playing with them, times the amount of general training and the quality of coaches. Also, what is needed is the staff making a racket of these things. More feedback from the game about how things are going and what is working well, what is working badly. This will make the training seem more important.
  14. This is a separate matter from the earlier post there. Lets say I have a nimble footed striker, an advanced forward type. I'd like him to play like the advanced forward, only from deeper. I'd like him to play like a complete forward, only not with hold the ball. I'd like him to play like a trequartista, only not as a playmaker. I'd like him to play like false 9, only more laterally and not that deep Do you see my dilemma? I just don't see a role that lets you use a general non-hold-up supporting striker role that bases his game on running at defence and lateral movement. Now if we have deep-lying forward/attack, can we have advanced forward/support? Or something else to that effect? And an inverted winger for wide midfield. For everyone's and AI's convenience. And why not a central winger for AMC position while we're at it.
  15. Contain, Defensive, Counter, Standard, Control, Attacking, Overload. All of these strategies have their place, I won't deny that. These are some obvious basic game plans. What's the problem? Well, I think there are two basic ways of playing counter attacking football: - There's the cautious Counter that we have already, that's good. - The other way is the aggressive Counter in which you defend deep, draw the opponent to your half, then you attack at pace whether or not the counter is 'on'. I think many want to play like that, but they choose the Counter that we have and often see their team build up frustratingly slowly and not taking positive enough actions to try to create something, just because the counter isn't 'on'. They'd want the players to try to create something without fear of losing possession, but end up controlling the game with neat little passes and winning the possession battle that they cared nothing for. They get confused. Why does my team play possession game when it says Counter? I'm aware that there are ways you can make this thing happen, and it's second nature to me, but it is a little tedious. You can choose Attacking and drop deep, close down less, get narrower, shorten passing except for defenders who you make pass more direct or clear to flanks. That will do it. But it's tedious and many don't know how to do it. Wouldn't it be better to have this basic way of playing as an option? Then there's two basic ways of playing possession game: - We currently have Control that seems like it should attempt to do just that. But I think Control sees your players be too optimistic with ball, trying to find opportunities, except for defenders who'll just pass it short to the midfield. And you try to control the game by closing down high up the pitch. Much like Attacking, just less so. We need possession strategies. - First there's the "Positive Possession" game that Control seems to hint at. You're active with and without the ball, pass crisply, but favor keeping the ball instead of trying to pull off those low percentage moves. This is what I'd expect and it's not terribly far from what Control does. - Then there's the 'Cautious Possession" game where you want to build up slowly and safely from the back, then probe the opposition defense in their half patiently until there's an obvious opening. I think this is another one that people get confused about. They want to control the game like this, having hundreds of passes per player, starving the opposition of the ball. They might choose Control because it sounds like what they want and then they get frustrated with their players trying to force the issue. Instead they should be choosing Defensive or Counter with a simple play out of defense instruction, perhaps be more aggressive without ball, maybe wider, restrict the end moves (crossing, long shots, hopeful through balls). Again, that's tedious and confusing. They want to take control of the game by keeping the ball, not defend or counter-attack. Ok, let's leave that jibber jabber behind. What I actually propose is condensed here: - Rename mentality to game plan. - Offer these options for a game plan: (I grouped them like that on purpose) Contain--------------Cautious Counter---------------Cautious Possession Defensive------------Aggressive Counter-------------Positive Possession Standard Attacking Overload - Left column game plans stay as they are now. - Cautious Counter is the old Counter, just renamed. - Aggressive Counter is like Attacking, except for defensive characteristics of Counter, and less width. - Cautious Possession is like Standard, except for Defensive-like mentality, lessened inclination to execute end moves, slower tempo and shorter passing. - Positive Possession is like Control, except for Standard-like mentality, lessened inclination to execute end moves and less direct passing for more attacking players. - Work ball into box should not only limit long shots, but to a lesser extent crosses and through balls. - Lessened inclination to execute end moves can now be achieved by implementing the effects of the new work ball into box into the possession game plans. Final word: I'm always thinking about the AI's benefit as well. Wouldn't this larger diversity of base game plans offer some nice tools for the researchers and developers?
  16. Something like Defensive or Counter mentality would be worth a try. You can push higher and close down more to make you more aggressive without the ball, but with ball your players will want to take less risks and your wing backs won't get up so early and so on.
  17. I would just use counter without any TI's as a base. Counter mentality can be used for possession based side or a counter-attacking side. For possession, play out of defense should be enough. The counter just means that you'll switch to a much more aggressive mode when there's a good counter-attacking chance on. When it's not on, you'll play fairly cautious defensive minded game. For counter-attacking, leaving 2-3 guys up front against an attack minded opponent, will let you do what it says on the tin. Absorb their attack, the counter is on, yay. You won't really try to force the issue when the counter isn't on, but when it is you'll pounce. You don't really need any TI's here, but I'd consider ways to make your midfielders get more interceptions and winning tackles. Get stuck in, higher closing down with staying on feet or simply using more aggressive roles like BWM and DW; whatever works in your situation. You have to remember though, that this only works when your opponent is being fairly adventurous. Now, if we're talking about counter-attacking strategy where your team always plays with great urgency, even when the counter isn't really on, my choice for mentality would be attacking. Now your players will look for more attacking options, play with urgency, width, high line+high pressure, make more daring runs etc. But it's just super attacking, not counter-attacking. To transform attacking into counter-attacking you absolutely need some TI's. First and foremost I'd drop much deeper, possibly adjust the closing down and finally consider using more direct passing PI's for your defensive players. Edit: These are my bases for certain game plans. Yours might be different and that's fine. And I was not really responding to roggiotis, just taking off from his use of a word base.
  18. When you have a kid who isn't good enough for first team, I'd just play him when it was relatively safe. (against a weak side, when you're leading by many goals...) But I wouldn't want him to learn new positions as that is away from other training that he could be doing. No, I'd rather wait until he's first team quality. You can afford to slow his development a bit by training a new position for him, seeing that he's good enough to perform for you now. So, it's more important to get those attributes up fast than the new position is. The quicker he gets good enough, the earlier he will have more appearances. The earlier he has more appearances the earlier he'll get to benefit from the game time and develop faster. Now that he's playing more, it's good to teach the new position. That's just what I think about player development.
  19. I'll admit that I don't look at the development graphs when I see the arrows, but they used to show up exactly when there was a change in a attribute. I doubt they have changed it. The changes are fractional so the numbers won't usually change in the player profile. Or rather they aren't but the actual attributes range from 1-100 but are shown in 1-20 range so 1 actual point shows as 1/5 point. This is good because even though you know that the player you scouted has 15 for dribbling, you don't know if it's 14½, 15 or 15½. For your own players though, you can take a look at the development graphs to find out if it's a good 15 or a bad 15. I'd expect thomit with his epic posts count to know this. So it's for others' benefit mostly.
  20. Yeah. I would simply control the midfield area and push them deep into their own box. When they clear the ball I'd have several players hanging back to reclaim the possession after any clearances. Grind it out and they will eventually make a mistake under a constant pressure and never even let their front 3 see the ball. That would be my game plan. Prone to your players losing concentration after becoming frustrated and them scoring from their only shot and you losing 1-0, but apart from that I think that's pretty solid.
  21. There are specialist players that are only good enough for a single job. (I love them.) Then there are specialist that can do anything, but are really good at something specific. (Love them even more.) I would like to think that Lambert would simply love to have the latter kind of specialists, if he could get some. Someone like Di Maria for example. Good at everything, but simply brilliant in dribbling. As opposed to Gervinho, a brilliant dribbler but otherwise quite frustrating. So, my advice is to get a couple of key players in your attacking positions. All-rounders, except for being exceptioonally good at something. Things to try out tactically: much higher tempo, more direct passing for your central midfielders only, attacking mentality with restraining TI's like drop much deeper. All to make your transition more "zippy", the last one to also make defending a bit more aggressive. There's of course a balance to be found between trying to make something happen right away and actually making things happen as fast as possible.
  22. I'd prefer to do that when he's good enough to be an asset to your team in his new position.
  23. First of all, there's no right or wrong. If you're happy it's good. If you're not happy then it's bad. Maybe right is what gets your team doing what you want see and wrong is what doesn't. Anyways, you seem to attempt to stand off with a solid deep shape. A BWM is going to step out and compromise that shape, that's a problem. That being said you are passive and dropping very deep, so sometimes you'll put your team under too much pressure. Then you need to step up, and be more aggressive without the ball. With ball I'd get at least one of the full backs to join the midfield area. When your attack breaks down it won't hurt to have more players in deeper midfield area to fight for the clearance. I'd expect better defensive displays with these changes.
×
×
  • Create New...