Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Troels Jensen

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Troels Jensen

  • Rank

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Real Madrid C.F.

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Real Madrid C.F.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Have you tweaked how other teams are unable to unsettle your players? Specifically, I'm talking about e.g. PSG, Man. City, Chelsea and all the other top clubs constantly expressing interest in my first team/key players who then quickly become unsettled and want to join the other club. The thing is I'm managing Real Madrid and the club is #1 in club ratings. I'm winning everything so I don't understand how or why my players constantly want to leave. When a player wants to leave for a new challenge it's fine, but a key player wanting to leave just because another top club keeps saying it's interested is a bit baffling.
  2. So this is ok?: ' If your conclusion from reading this thread is that Liverpool are giving everyone problems then you clearly weren't actually at all interested in reading the answers... ' I'm just curious, because to me that last part is not at all necessary - it serves only one purpose which is to provoke a reaction. I don't particularly agree with the OP, but there's no need for such replies .. ah well ..
  3. Pay him no attention. He reads your posts like the devil reads the bible and his only interest is to get you riled up. He did it in one of my threads too. Ignore the troll.
  4. Thank you. Finally someone who gets it. Valid point. The only thing I can ask is that you take my word for it - I know a lot won't but that's not really my problem. That's also why I posted images of the chances created etc. as well. But wattzy was spot on. My point was simply that the patch changed something that worked. Then it kind of spiralled from there. But you're right - this thread has run it's course. Thanks to those who went about it in a constructive way - those who jumped at the chance to make needless comments should probably find something better to do next time.
  5. I don't reload when I start playing "for real". With all the changes to each game, I won't start a serious game until I've figured out how the new ME works. The changes to the ME in 19.3.3 were pretty substantial compared to 19.2.3, which is the reason I reloaded once. Once. Get over it. And as stated in the beginning of the thread, this tactic was an attempt to do something else. It worked. Then it didn't. Now it works again. I think this dead horse has been beaten enough.
  6. Why do I even bother? Nope. I think I contained those arguments to one or perhaps to replies. And if you think it's hard to believe that SI have messed something up, you haven't been following FM. Just look at the bugs section. Nope. My argument was focused on the fact that it USED to work consistently pre patch and post patch it didn't. The team didn't suffer from lack of defensive cover before the patch, and now that I've adjusted the tactics to the new patch, the defensive cover is adequate. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Part of the reason I made the OP was that I have never before tried losing by that much, so I was kinda perplexed. If you look closely, you'll see that I've upvoted comments from those you had constructive criticism - that's not telling people they don't know what they're talking about. The fact that you: 1. Think I'm emotionally affected by your repeated attempts at trolling and 2. that you find it hilarious only shows that your intention all along was to troll. I also know that against trolls it's useless to argue that you're not angry, since they'll keep claiming the opposite to provoke a reaction. So believe what you will. But you kind of are. You're saying that it's only because I haven't played against any counter attacking teams that I can get positive results. Yeah, I reloaded. Once. Do you want to know why? I always play a test game/season when a new FM comes out, so I can figure out how the ME works before starting a 'serious' game. If something doesn't work, I keep playing the same match over and over until I figure out where I've made a mistake. This is what I did with the Valencia match - I tried to figure out what the problem was. Turns out the mentality was too attacking and that I had to make the WB's mark tighter. That's all. Oh, and as mentioned earlier when I removed the WBIB instruction, the team started scoring more. That's all I did to get this tactic working again. It's fine if you think the tactic is stupid. And when you say the Valencia result was because of a lack of defensive cover you are very much correct. It's been fixed, though, so what more can I say? You've obviously settled on an opinion that won't change no matter what I say, so I guess there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
  7. I don't think I've ever claimed that, now have I? No need to put words in my mouth. You just fail to to understand what the OP was about. - I made a tactic that worked in 19.2.3 - In 19.3.3, when I returned to the game, it didn't work. - I wrote that I thought that was a little annoying. Are you with me so far? - Some people started getting all clever and made certain to tell me how flawed the tactic was - Of course it won't work, they said - It's a stupid tactic with no defense, they said - Then I *tweaked* the tactic - when presented with a bit of proof that it actually does work it's being written off as luck (typical go-to excuse when logic fails) So, if you had read it all, you would know that I've made a lot of standard (and working, can you believe it?) tactics. I created this in an attempt to make something unorthodox - not knowing if it would work. It appears it did. 'But, but, but .. you lost 8-0 to Valencia lulz'. Yeah, I did - because SI changed how some of the various settings worked. Do you understand what I'm saying? The tactic worked, then SI tweaked the mechanics, which in turn changed the way the tactic worked. Is it so hard to understand that a change in mechanics will affect certain aspects of a tactic? Anyway, I've wasted enough time on your trolling. If someone has something constructive to share, I'm all ears.
  8. Ok. You're right, I'm wrong. My apologies. The tactic is horrible and it's only luck that that I'm winning. I will repeatedly lose 8-0 if I encounter teams trying to hit me on the counter attack I understand that now. Have a nice evening. Below are the results from using this daft formation. Only lousy opponents, I know, sorry.
  9. Cool. You obviously lack basic comprehension skills, so let me suggest you stay out of threads you don't really know the point of. You talk about stuff you very clearly are clueless about so do yourself a favour a go post useless one liners in someone elses threads. You're pretty good at it, I'll give you that. You have to be I guess, with the amount of posts you have to make to keep the numbers up .. I'm just curious - do the defensive formation in the above images look like it's only a two-defensive player setup? What do your eyes tell you? I already acknowledged that this particular tactic is vulnerable to counter attacks - I'm actually pretty certain I wrote it in one of my posts, so there's no real surprise there. The point, which you have apparently missed, was only that the tactics worked pre patch and they didn't post patch. Lo and behold - after a bit of tweaks they work again. Then I'm told from left and right that this particular tactic is stupid and doesn't work and whatnot. Why the need to bash something you could easily just pass by? Get it?
  10. @enigmatic Thanks for your contribution. Did you read anything in the thread or did you just drop by to make random smart ass comments? The 8-0 result was with the tactical setting pre patch, while the rest of the matches are after tweaking it to the new patch. I can explain it to you but unfortunately not understand it for you.
  11. Here are some images of how the team positions itself defensively and when attacking. To me it looks fairly sensible. As stated earlier, the forwards and central defenders stick to their own (more or less) while the rest of the bunch participates in both defense and offense. Attacking shapes and build-up: Defensive positioning:
  12. Which you can tell from looking only at the formation? Seeing a formation isn't the same thing as seeing it in action. But it's your opinion and that's totally fine.
  13. Ehm. What? Of course those are Real Madrid results, what's your point? Those matches are played with the 'go crazy' tactic - nowhere near the 8-0 defeat in the OP. Not sure if you are missing the point - what triggered me to post in the first place was that a tactic that used to work suddenly imploded. I wonder what you would have said had I posted it as a succesful tactic in the tactics section pre patch? As shown above, its performance is pretty consistent now that I've made a few tweaks (as in two or three minor changes). What's a little funny is that you seem to judge a tactic only by the way it looks. You have no idea about play style or any of the tactical settings, do you - apart from the obvious player roles already displayed? But in truth, I shouldn't really care since it works for me and provides we with some lovely matches. Nothing like the never ending ridiculous long shot goals from the previous matches.
  14. So, here's an overview and a more detailed look at the last ten matches played with the horrible, crazy and abominable tactic .. And no - the ass man didn't take the lead on any of these Stat wise it looks fairly good, I'd say. From the Girona match and onwards I played without the WBIB instruction. Edit: I should probably mention that these matches are played with a cautious or defensive mentality. Make of it what you will.
  • Create New...