Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

akkm

Members
  • Content Count

    688
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About akkm

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

2,740 profile views
  1. akkm

    Too many assists from crosses

    You didn't refer to FM tactics but tactics and either way why refer to a computer simulation as a reference point for tactics...you should be referencing real world tactics which is what the simulation should be trying to replicate. Klopp has often employed an extremely high line of engagement and can do same with high defensive line as well. Where are you making the leap that that limits the space behind the opposition defence. That presupposes that the opposition has a starting low block defence to begin with...which isn't always the case. You only have to actually watch a game in the real world to see that !!! Gegenpressing doesn't imply a low block opposition defence in the real world so it shouldn't imply it in FM either and I'm not saying it does...but your assumption that that will work to limit the space behind the opposition is premised on a low block defence so that is a misguided generalisation as that won't always be the case. You're also making a leap on the original post that he wants longer balls from deep for his striker to run on to. He may well have done but from the information he provided it's illogical to make that leap. So he mentions setting up to encourage through balls by using inside forward and MC as playmaker. For starters the inside forwards position on the pitch is high up...so he wants them to play through balls from a position higher up the pitch and closer to the goal...so it makes zero sense to suggest from that he wanted longer balls from deep...he's implied the opposite in fact !!! Similarly he references not having the striker playing so far forward to encourage more through balls so this is definitely suggestive of not wanting longer balls from deep either as he's suggested not having striker as far forward and perhaps more isolated further apart as an AF so changing role to bring him deeper and closer to other players again suggest the opposite of deep long balls there as well. I do agree with you on and AMC playmaker in terms of what is should do but that's precisely the point is the AMC playmaker role isn't creative enough within FM to play and perform the short intricate defence opening/splitting passes so it's almost a redundant role effectiveness wise and that post by @Mensell76just illustrates that very well. Of salah, mane and neymar only salah is really the focal point of their teams attack and salah actually performs quite a creative role as well in that he averages close to 2 key passes per game in real world and has 26 assists in his last two full seasons...so even though he may be focal point he's actually scoring and creating which is the essence of the role. Cavani is more focal point at PSG and mane actually has through balls listed as one of his strengths on whoscored so again these are combining creative and goalscoring roles from the IF position which is how it should be. It's fair that on FM IF support may not get into as many forward positions as attack role but that's not to suggest IF(S) cannot get into advanced positions as well...they absolutely should just not as frequently as on attack duty. Also the overriding issue is even on support duty the IFs aren't getting into inside channels as much as they should to play the aforementioned through balls or even if they are in those positions they're just not playing them. Therein lies the problem. They should still be able to assist from inside central positions with threaded passes and not just the cutbacks/laterals you refer to inside pen area...essentially it should be both but the suggestion that their production is ok because you're seeing assists in pen area as balls across the box...this is too linear and only encourages overpowered play from out wide positions. Also, name 10-20 of the 'Like just about every other person who plays in that position aside from the three you mention and maybe a handful more.' you allude there lol Some through balls I've seen as assists in FM are broader than what whoscored would have them as.
  2. This is spot on. Barca avoid crossing it as it's inefficient and they've proved year in year out the their width is nominal width to stretch defences and drag players out of position to move the ball into advantageous positions centrally to manoeuvre the ball there with players cutting inside and playing one twos/threaded passes/dribbles etc or yes working the ball into position in the inside channels in and around edge of penalty area for cut backs. FM doesn't simulate the central guile/creativity that a barca/city do in real world so a lot of the goals are sourced form wide positions within FM...the cutbacks thing is reasonable though may well be overdone in FM...certainly in addition to crossing it is and essentially play and openings from wide positions are too easily manufactured in FM. I'm not saying one can't get teams to play through the middle but the decision making and pass selection in FM to enable chance creation through the middle is currently undersimulated. As @westy8chimpcorrectly suggests dribbling through the middle is currently undersimulated which again as a means to create/unlock defences is absent as way to open up teams trying to play through the middle There's a pattern which effectively favours play out wide last year Madrid scored 15% of their goals in la liga from open play crosses, so not exactly an enormous proportion.
  3. akkm

    Too many assists from crosses

    actually gegenpressing is counter pressing so using Klopps liverpool eg against the better teams who don't defend deep actually win possession high up the pitch leaving plenty of opportunities to play players in behind defences. The way Klopp uses it it's most effective form an attacking viewpoint to launch quick, direct attacks after his team counter presses to win possession back...so you'd want to evaluate your own understanding of how gegenpressing works The concept of needing a tactic that drops deep to encourage opposition defence forwards to play through balls is simplistic and not really how things work in the real world. On whoscored which has quite a specific narrow description for a through ball the likes of barca/city/chelsea who face deeper lying defences are the ones which average the most through balls. last year in prem it was the top 6 teams who average the most through balls per game and on average they'd face the most defensive low block set ups. Layered on top you'd have deft threaded passes being played by these teams to open up deep lying defences so the suggestion of lying deep to draw opposition defences out is a little rudimentary to say the least...what lie deep play balls over the top is nonsense basically. The suggestion that IF will provide their assists from wide positions is misplaced. The role of an inside forward as the 'inside' bit suggests means they should operate more in inside channels to both get on the end of things and also supply themselves by cutting inside and playing through balls or cut backs....you don't see mane or salah doing as you suggest or indeed neymar or whomever playing that role. Of course they can and will at times do it but that's not the primary role. The suggestion that 11 of the 31 assists inside the pen area mostly square balls across the box...FM captures that stat and only 2 are from square balls @Weller1980who is getting the majority of your assists corresponding with that screenshot of assists Those tactics should see players playing through balls from higher central AP, middle AP and even IFs should be cutting inside playing through balls so to suggest those tactics are not set up to do so is simply incorrect. So yes it is fair to blame the match engine seeing the 67% of assists coming from crosses/corners/set pieces as that screenshot suggests that compared with last year real world Liverpool in prem scored 15% of goals from set pieces and 13% from crosses according to whoscored so that's the reverse of what FM is producing. Perhaps there's more from cutbacks/square balls crosses wise if whoscored differs from FM it's not going to bring FM anywhere in line with real world so it's still a significant issue and correct to suggest that it IS a match engine and not a tactic issue
  4. Yep..they are dependent on distance from goal/angle of shot etc but i think it's only one model that factors in proximity of defenders (or very few currently) or pressure on the ball...it's more based on as you say and yes not all Xgs are the same which was point i was making about one on ones...I wouldn't classify some one on ones as per what Xg may do...so on that basis the one on one depends on how it's classified...if it's grouping together more difficult angles than centrally and not factoring pressure on ball/proximity of defenders then it's diluting the 1 in 3 stat for this.
  5. Just to give that one on one context @Svenc...re your example before of pedro on .35xg...tho technically he's briefly one on one with the keeper but from a bad angle...that's actually not a chance Id consider a one on one chance...so it depends on how you classify one on ones...personally i consider them player being slotted through centrally enough with plenty of time and space vs keeper...if I saw that pedro chance you showed before in FM i actually wouldn't remotely class it as a one on one chance. Most Xg calcs don't factor in proximity of defenders either...yes they weight it for a through ball but proximity of defenders and classification of what a one on one chance is may impact perceptions Vs Xg stats. I expect if you look at more central one on ones with certain aspects of consideration like time on ball to finish, distance from defenders and space to run in to would impact Xg of these chances...currently it seems the calculations of Xg for one on ones don't distinguish angle of approach/proximity of defenders or take into account quality of player in that situation...the xg calcs are more from generic examples...and are all pooled into one. Xg finishing rates show that better forwards consistently outperform Xg rates so one may expect that applies for one on ones as well. So all that in context could mean that players will convert more than 1 in 3 and if you narrow down classification of one on ones (to more central chances with further level of granularity to introduce proximity of defenders) could also impact positively (from a forwards point of view) an expected 1 in 3 conversion rate
  6. I'd go further and say most managers lack depth as well. No better example than mourinho. Reality is all managers rely on quality of players for performance and success levels but mourinho has shown from an tactical viewpoint he is very limited in what he can do and quite simple actually. He's trying the same tactics broadly speaking in terms of reactive tactics employed to nullify opposition (of course there will be slight differences within that to customise it for varying opposition) for years but his relative output is on the decline and his teams get worse quicker than they did. Yes he won two trophies last year which were not far off competitions where other teams plays second string so he won two reserve team trophies. Also the much pilloried van gaal won one trophy the year before and what team wouldn't get better adding pogba/mikha/ibra/bailly. Currently Jose is certainly not achieving the max out of that set of man u players but they will always get results as they simply have better players than most. Put Guardiola Poch even Klopp in charge of that man utd squad and their output would be better. What jose shows is he's far from tactically competent more so that he is able to set up a team to defend and nullify opposition. He currently is struggling relative to his early output as the quality of defending/defenders just isn't there again pointing to its not jose tactics but quality of player he had. His recent record against top 6 teams show him to be not up to much tactically and lacking the ability and willingness to adapt...more a case of setting team up and waiting to get breaks to his teams benefit but man u are playing increasingly listlessly/lacking purpose and cohesion...in essence they are being very poorly coached. One thing Jose seemed to have had was a strong motivational ability with his players to press their buttons but again it would appear his success there is the beneficiary of circumstances in that he had strong willed players who reacted positively to being barked at/siege mentality..all jose does these days is create a toxic environment in his squads...madrid, chelsea, man u which is counterproductive over time...so jose not able to adapt or identify this. Really I'd liken Jose to donald trump in that they are frauds...serendipitously happening upon success being the beneficiary of the confluence of advantageous circumstances which they rode the wave Jose like trump constantly disseminates self aggrandising propaganda talking themselves and their achievements up in an attempt to portray strength importance and successfulness while at an sign of adversity (jose losing game) deflecting and creating chaos to make people not properly analyse their abilities and causing the narrative to move away from portraying their lack of talent in a negative light onto anything else but them eg refs, players bottled it, players didn't carry out instructions etc...it's never them until it is...and it is when they win and they let everyone know. The purpose of their manipulative actions is to deflect from their incompetence...how successful they are in doing that depends on their audiences ability to see through that. Re tactics real football is being able to coach a team to move as a unit around the pitch keeping shape and compactness in a defensive situation while allowing creativity and fluidity in attack whilst simultaneously being able to control transitions defensivey and trigger transitions offensively depending on situational circumstances. The best examples of this are Lippi's Juve, Saachi's Milan, Van Gaal's Ajax and Guardiola's Barca. To be fair Guardiola Barca didn't have traditional fundamental defensive soundness but managed opposition transition through being so close together (more so than City currently) that when they turned the ball over their quick press was remarkably effective...so whilst the means by which barca played so cohesively was different to juve/milan/ajax it was no less effective and to be fair Barca probably took more risks offensively than the others meaning they may get stretched more than other examples. Bottom line is that is what good coaching is. Anything else is limited coaching and often just coaching either side of the ball eg jose defensively, rodgers offensively. Poch is not far off achieving it and what he could do with better set of player will be his real test. Klopp eg is ironically given his success from attacking transitions very poor at setting his team up to cope with when his team lose the ball and their initial press is broken but he seems to be improving this recently. Of course sometimes a coach will have to adapt to opposition or manage what players he has at his disposal and psychological/motivational factors play into how good a manager is but certainly tactically most managers are inept.
  7. akkm

    Favorite FM Series

    I guess that's one study and the models differ...though probably not that much. That pedro one on one rating is just for that chance itself based on that situation and to be frank...I don't consider that a strong one on one or even a great situation given the angle he's coming from and rate at which defenders can close in so that's a high rate of .35 which would imply higher ratings centrally from similar distance so of course it depends on situation. As far as I know most Xg calcs don't factor in proximity of defender so these stats are averages for situational football...a good one on one I would deem to have more time when through and ones I was referring to in FM certainly were more central and player more time than that pedro example which would all contribute to a higher than 1 in 3 calculation for Xg. As for ronaldo..they essentially play the same with with Ronaldo in the team or not early when they were struggling so that would indicate it wasn't actually ronaldo that was making a difference to their form rather madrid just weren't playing well (though I think I recall an article from ballague where he said madrid were creating chances just not finishing them and that didn't change when ronaldo came back into the team...that was earlyish in season...maybe late sept or so) and not suffering solely as a result of ronaldo missing chances...ie they were missing chances with him there and not there...and you'll see below his finishing rate Vs Xg isn't any better than other madrid players recent seasons...bar benzema...it's actually worse !!! If you look at ronaldo's goals scored on your expected goals panel you'll see most of his goals are inside the box and from watching games you'll see ronaldo benefits enormously from being in a dominant teams and gets slotted in to finish off moves. Another thing Ronaldo demands (ancedotally at least) is that players like benzema et al vacate the lanes he runs into as he wants to finish the chances...didn't he have javier hernandez shipped out as he was most likely to make runs ronaldo makes. Interesingly I've just looked at the expected goals thing and ronaldo over the 4 years of understat info and its revealing In la liga...he scored 120 goals his xg is 119 so 101% of his expected goals scored So I decided to check out other players stats... Messi 114% of xg scored Harry Kane 120% of xg scored Aguero 106% bale 117% benzema 96% scored 53 xg 55 morata 120% Also other madrid players of last few seasons jese 160% and javier hernandez 150%, morata at madrid in 2016/17 scored 157% of his xg So it's obvious madrid create high quality chances generally...while at madrid all but benzema outperform ronaldo in terms in finishing his chances in terms of Xg...so this indicates its madrid which makes ronaldo rather than ronaldo that makes madrid. These numbers are useful for making non perception based conclusions...madrid are creating the chances the finishing of the other players indicates madrid would continue to score and perform well in ronaldos absence. I do think ronaldo movement is exceptional but he's moving into channels other players are restricted from moving into by ronaldo so that's not to say others wouldn't score the quantum of goals ronaldo is doing but would ronaldo score the same number of goals at a team less dominate and less creative than madrid...it's highly unlikely Perhaps madrid over season ronaldo missing chances affected them in that ronaldo gets most of the chances (by demand) but ronaldo this season in la liga is 65% of his xg so down on previous seasons but benzema is at 34% of his xg or one third of his normal output...overall I don't think madrid have played particularly well and they may have benefited from letting other players run into channels ronaldo did (tho not benzema this season either)...so an element of ronaldo missing chances in fairness but at madrid ronaldo isn't really finishing his Xg at a rate any higher than any other madrid player just that he demands benzema, bale etc vacate his running channels so he ensures he gets the best chances and the most...so really they may have been more successful leaving ronaldo out of the team.
  8. akkm

    Favorite FM Series

    @Svenc Where are you getting the 1 in 3 in any study...that link to expected goal was based on that situation Did a quick search into expected goals and one of its main proponents suggests big chance conversion is 40% Also you mention keeper in one on one situation but also attacker has option to take a touch to improve his angle to finish...the forward has opportunity to make things to his advantage as well...it's not a one sided situation whereby the keeper gets to dictate things there. Also read where Michael Caley shows that top players and top clubs outperform their expected goals so this suggest top players will finish chances more efficiently than lesser players in general this probably implies they will finish one on ones more efficiently as well Another interesting takeaway is that through balls produce shots between 2 and 3 times as likely to result in goals than other shots taken from same areas in the pitch
  9. akkm

    Favorite FM Series

    Yes I know you were suggesting iterations prior to the rewrite were easier soak it up. And it should be hard to open up deep lying defences however the means to achieve that is done. Thats also an element of defending /attacking rather than all situations on the whole In the instance of the playmaker roaming...they can roam all over the place and receive the ball if they're not pulling the trigger to slot in players into advantageous positions/creating chances ultimately the benefit of the roaming and improved movement for whatever technical reasons is almost superficial to its ultimate functionality of creating chances Whats your definition of a one on one...of course angle of keeper/composure of forward/morale/situation within a match and importance within match and season/proximity of defender/space to run into/speed forward moving at amongst other factors will affect how a one on one is finished. I've seen you post on it before on a thread and suggested circa one in three of even better chances including one on ones but attached two articles suggest the number is higher and there is quite a deviation between conversion of 'big chances' between teams. One is for roughly half a season and one for just 6 games but the overall conversion rate of big chances is 50% for half season and 44% for 6 games. It would be interesting to see big conversion rates of strikers to compare deviation between them...i guess factors such as quality of chances may impact conversion rates as bigger teams and thus better strikers may face deeper lying defences therefore the 'window' for a one on one for top class striker may be smaller in terms of time and space to convert. Deffo there are differences in even quality of one on ones With regard to FM i was referring to (not sure) but maybe it was FM15 or FM16 where high lined defences giving up one on one chances players had space and time but conversion rates were very poor. Even within years you do see certain tweaking of conversion rates of one on ones within FM but I suspect conversion rates since rewrite are less than real world. @Svencdo you have other stats on one on ones ? http://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/ranking-premier-league-teams-shot-big-chance-conversion-rates/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/2627769/manchester-united-have-the-worst-clear-cut-chance-conversion-rate-of-all-the-premier-league-teams-this-season/
  10. akkm

    Favorite FM Series

    @tacticsdude reasonable explanation there of your conclusions post One thing on the hardcore thing and a more challenging match engine. The thing is the match engine providing a better challenge is one sometimes the result of 'reverse exploits' if you will which neuters attacking capabilities...since rewrite we've seen in fm13 the requirement for through ball through the air and (I don't remember specifically since that which one was which) we've seen other restrictive things such as - high defensive lines not being exploited - finishing from players being put on one on ones inadequate - play through the middle blocked most years bar fm17 - play forced out wide necessitating overpowered crossing - number of long shots too high - less varied finishing This in addition to under simulated attacking in general is what's made it more challenging...that's what I mean by the balance favoured defending @Svenc. So whilst it may be more challenging for hardcore users some of the reasons they find it so has been it has had attacking elements of the game diminished allowing the impression it's more challenging and a feeling of it's less exploitable...but it's just the exploits of previous versions (ie everyone's bug bear of through balls/speedy players which seems to have caused many all sorts of trauma) has been displaced to other less apparent 'exploits' or 'reverse exploits' So whilst people are making conclusions based on previous exploitative elements being eliminated they are benefiting from other 'exploits' such as the balance favouring defending but just not realising it ie they are actually exploiting the match engine's under simulation of attacking play to their benefit but concluding it's their tactics/input...not consciously of course but still by having attacking elements not as they should be they are tapping into that to benefit their teams output/performance...so in essence they are exploiting the match engine as it stands just not in glaringly obvious ways or concentrated way like speedy/no collision detection but at the same time they are exploiting it. This could be argued on all engines but that's where balance comes into it to avoid that conclusion...which is clearly tricky Last year was the first time since Fm12 that play through the middle was better enabled with more through balls more evident. Is it a coincidence that these are the two most popular series...I don't know the answer to that but I suspect it has some contribution towards it. I know @tacticsdudeyou suggest it was easy but all series are easy once you just start to move the pieces around the board but some success feels less rewarding and less realistic than others as of course can be more rewarding in others...just because it's more challenging as there are less obvious exploits doesn't make it better necessarily and if it's more challenging as attacking play is under developed then where's the real enjoyment/challenge in that...essentially you're just succeeding against an underdeveloped/latent match engine against a limited means to attack ...sometimes the challenge can be presented that it offers a 'different' means by which to win matches...ie hardcore users have generally played many years and have got used to certain elements of the match engine as it developed so being presented with something different than before is a challenge in itself. FM12 to FM13 was example of that...fm13 was horrendously under simulated from attacking point of view...goals/incisive play was almost an addendum to what preceded it in a move and required to produce goals rather than goals/incision being produced through organic smart/good/intelligent /nuanced attacking so some hardcore users may have liked it for the exploits it enabled from an underdeveloped attacking point of view in addition to exploits removed. The real question is is it more challenging in a realistic way and a more balanced way so you are being presented with a genuine challenge tactically for hardcore users whilst also allowing less invested (immersive wise) users to just pick up and play and want success. The thing is in the real world many coaches can pick up and play given a certain quality of player...you'd want to do something fairly badly to make a team of a certain quality play badly consistently...of course there's plenty who can and do do that but football is one of the few industries which consistently rewards consistent failure from a hiring of managers point of view so the only that really suggests its quality of player that dictates success in real world on a consistent basis rather than quality of manager's tactical input (of course motivational/psychological/human factors etc also contribute to how good a manager is to enable a team's success) so FM should be reflective of that. After all take Guardiola or any other manager and give them conference level footballers playing in premiership for a season employing the same tactics they do with high level teams and they'd finish last every time. The means to create a challenging isn't designing an exploit free match engine...it's inevitable that people will exploit it no matter how hard or how well SI code it...its to design an engine that realistically as possible reflects real world attacking and defensive behaviour and thereafter let the chips fall as they may...yes certain things can be tightened to mitigate any glaring exploits but that can only be done once things are simulated to the max on both sides of the ball. The hardcore users should enjoy the challenge more of trying to stop a fully simulated Man City under guardiola/barca side with all its attacking might and guile from winning a head to head from a tactical deployment of their players and having the attacking capability to exploit their vulnerabilities in a single match or running away with the league with the quality of their players...and I'm sure they would. Has the match engine got 'better' since the rewrite...on the whole remarkably so taking the helicopter view. Is it lacking in certain elements..most definitely but in the context of enjoyment in this thread it's incorrect to dimiss enjoyment of some users based on what is perceived to be easy based on using exploits where some are more 'challenging' but are actually tapping into match engine 'reverse exploits' which are just more subtle and numerous than the obvious speedy/non collision avoidance thing...people are getting enjoyment out of both sides of this but just tapping into variant forms and degrees of match engine exploits
  11. akkm

    Favorite FM Series

    @tacticsdude Whats your logic for deducing the current version suits the casual user...by that logic you're dismissing your own conclusion of what are best versions in that when fm08, fm13, fm15 were current versions the casual user would enjoy them but would not seek a long term challenge with them but at the same time they retrospectively offer a general sense of immersive fun for more than the casual user...they can't be both I always find it amusing when people make conclusions on the merits of certain engines...most engines since the rewrite were imbalanced in favour of defending...some of them more heavily than others. People who favour reactive tactics and who like to garner a sense of it's their 'tactics' and input that is making a difference to their team winning rather than the players on the pitch lean towards certain engines that essentially enabled this with under simulation of attacking play inducing people to like the perceived 'toughness' but really all that was happening was match engine was biased towards defending...people just didn't/still don't realise that's the case and concluded 'its tougher therefore better'...but it was tougher as it was biased towards defending with stunted attacking capabilities and that presented a challenge or actual lack thereof if they thought it through properly. The real challenge for anyone who considers themselves tactically adroit is to have attacking/decision making/technical skills/agility/movement to the max and then see how their tactical skills stack up to be able to stop that or the flip side of being able to tap into those enhanced attacking elements to break down opposing defences...of course defending will need to be on point as well. FM13 saw an almost exclusive through ball through the air 'fix' to create goals through the middle...it was one of the most underdeveloped engines yet but people liked it for whatever reasons they liked it.
  12. akkm

    FM vs RL

    @RBKalle I agree there on your distinction of finding game breaking/interpreting what is enjoyable as opinion/personal perspective Vs actual issues like crossing/width...you're spot on
  13. Pence has abdicated any semblance of any moral integrity/responsibility with how he's embraced and disseminated trump propaganda to the detriment of societal/institutional norms...he's not the only one obviously but his sycophancy is offensive
  14. akkm

    FM vs RL

    You misunderstood my post in a spectacular way...so that's all on you !!! I didn't mention anything about your 'facts' being opinions...that is just a certain bias/perspective on your part interpreting that to be the case kicking in with a vengeance as indicated by your spirited defence of something I hadn't even alluded to so relax lol...I guess you're still on 4 mentions of your facts vs your opinions I wasn't talking about your opinion re FM at all...as I said I actually agree with most of it (nearly all of it actually from a footballing perspective ). Many have posted similarly in the past so it's good that you're getting there and beginning to identify the issues and you're catching up. So no need to keep going over and over again in what you're saying which is fairly obvious especially where I wasn't even talking about your take on FM footballing issues which I agree with anyway lol. Haven't seen anything original there from you so not sure why you see it almost as a personal crusade in stating what is obvious to many to elicit change...by the way you're trying to effect change not 'affect' change . My point was about perspective/fact... You seem a little confused yourself above...and that's me being nice ...you acknowledge that a fact is something that has been proven so where you fall down is where you introduce 'perspective' into things...it's 100% incorrect to suggest 'It is 100% a matter of perspective particularly in complex topics'...if something has been proven as a fact then the complexity of a subject is academic to whether it's a fact or not...also if something is a fact whether the listener agrees or not that an issue has been proven to their satisfaction is also academic to it being a fact...so again your logic is fundamentally flawed there as well And when you actually start to talk of facts and perspective incorrectly the way you do you are diluting the presentation of your own argument...you just haven't realised it yet...funnily its like what you say above re people reading your ideas on FM and they don't get it yet...in the instance of facts Vs perspective...that's precisely where you are on it...you just don't get it yet. The penny will either drop for you or it won't. As I agree with most of your issues re FM I think it's good to have more voices on it the so it's better to not have any dilution of it by any misconception on your part of facts VS perspective...it will be for the betterment of the ideas which you talk of which many have agreed on and posted on long ago. Again your example of the community agreeing on something is you not grasping things...people in a community agreeing on something is not the genesis of a fact. By that logic people in a cult who agree on something implies that which they agree on constitutes a fact...of course not...but they agree on something therefore it is...that's nonsensical logic....you could re read your paragraph on the community thing from the perspective of a cult writing it and it would fit lol As I say...your views (and those before you who've posted similarly) on FM and what it simulates or not from a footballing viewpoint is something I happen to agree with for the most part so once you jettison your needy fact/perspective 'issues' then those ideas will be more impactful and resonate more with those who read them...you may not see that and may not get there with the penny dropping...but whether you get there or not is not relevant And I assume you're not implying the concepts you talk of footballing wise are complex as they're not...coding those concepts in a way in which they manifest themselves in FM which is comparable to real world football is the complex bit
×