Jump to content

akkm

Members+
  • Posts

    975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

249 "I mean, funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you?"

Recent Profile Visitors

5,131 profile views
  1. Hey just fyi don't mean ur personal psyche @enigmatic more that England's style is more geared towards not losing after the many years of underachievement perceived or otherwise england are almost ok with not winning kind of thing
  2. Yeah even more emphatic proof. It wasn't personal at all. Just an observation...no need for a disproportionate reaction. Plus spending some free time on the golf course with the sun shining so I'll leave u to it. Its as I said it is re your subconscious choice of words plus ur small picture acceptance that it was the pen. Of course matter of factly it was in the match but there's so much more to it than that. You either see it or you don't. As for ur defence of mount that reveals a lot in terms of not losing instead of trying to win as well. Anyway back to the golf
  3. obv thats interesting choice of words framing it as having 'lost' as opposed to WIN it. essentially a subconscious recognition of england's approach and even broader insight into england approach/mentality and also as to why pens are a historical issue. Had you framed it as didn't win it would be more useful to have a bigger picture approach to being more of winning team/tournament team...southgate's cautious approach essentially was reactive throughout the tournament. instead of an attempt to win with a more proactive controlling possession to 'go and win it' with a higher percentage game as opposed to conceding possession/territory/ground to the opposition england should be trying to WIN by scoring more goals given such a fast start...you could argue by not front foot attempting to score more goals than italy they didn't WIN it therefore were left with situation where it went to penalties and lost it. obv very simplistic corollary is england didn't WIN it by not scoring more goals By having that reactive approach a team can have a subconscious negative mindset putting them on a backfoot approach which can feed into players subconscious mindset for pens where fear of losing/missing is more of a determining factor than trying to WIN it...all having being infused into their mentality had they been playing throughout the game/tournament to go out and win with a more positive/controlled approach (as oppposed to having possession by default of lesser teams sitting back). without realising it england traditional approach can be affected by that. as much as british bulldog spirit is a thing in football the domestic game week in week out year in year out isn't that which engenders a dogged approach like say more traditional italian teams to sit in and defend to grind it out just interesting on your choice of words where you chose 'didn't lose' as opposed to 'didnt win' there
  4. what do you deem effective...so you're lauding someone finding a pass from 2 yards in an open lane in a tight pen area...huzzahhhhhh...how wonderful huh
  5. obv depends on distance of pass, proximity of defenders to recipient, angles...open lanes even in tighter spaces. Nominally it sounds decent but anyone making an argument for a significant contribution by mount tonight especially in the top third and citing playing a third of his passes into the box with an 87pc pass completion...well (chuckle)....ahem...sure yeah...he was...well he was what he was lol
  6. Well they had 15 shots huh lol. Brentford got FMd there...soz about that lol
  7. Thing is as his screenshots show he was getting central play during beta and not after so that's indicative something has changed without knowing full story of tactics of opposition and all that but he's saying his tactics hadn't changed so something has quite what that is im not sure. I of course accept SI saying minimal changes to match engine. On central play there's nothing to suggest those tactics wouldn't generate central play in the real world. Yeah some element of potential clog but dynamic movement from two forwards to drag central defenders out of position and from AMP to find pockets of space even with DMs to play forwards or midfield runners should absolutely generate central play. Can depend on quality of players but well simulated movement and decision making would and should absolutely generate central play it isn't really something which requires tactical forum discussion. If its not generating that then thats an fm issue really there
  8. you're factually correct to say things have changed as jack joyce himself said that. minor as he said balancing but could have certain knocks on unintended even
  9. ah yeah...yeah it was though. simple as that wow the banality of the last two years must be sleep inducing if you found that tedious lol. last two years is fun to watch the ball go wide, over the top, flank to flank different iterations...corner/set piece/long shot/cross, poor movement even poorer pass selection, dearth of creativity, skill, vision and that all leads to quite the exhilarating visceral experience...edge of seat spectacle. Fair points on improved defending but in fm17 players in attacking phase would move a lot more dynamically come in and out move offside check themselves and come back onside better side to side as well. Openings in fm20 where attacker is enough of a distance from defender and passing option simply isn't taken the majority of the time...at least in fm17 the pass is attempted more often. Attacking movement in last two years is more rigid and 'samey' lacking varied patterns and they don't seem to react to defenders positioning to see space or react to their own team's positional attacking making darting runs to be slotted in or drag opposition defenders out of position for another player to be slotted in or even thinking ahead in a 2nd/3rd phase teammate movement where they in turn could be slotted in. Its all to rigid and structured. So what you describe as passing it around until marker gets a bit sloppy and leaves a gap is how peps barca used to play...wait for that switch off and use technique, vision skill and movement to slot players in that way...in tight spaces as well. plenty of teams have played waiting for defensive sloppiness waiting for that gap. could there have been better pressing/pressure on the ball yeah in fm17 engine but teams that sit back don't press as much as people think for fear of losing defensive shape/discipline. So yeah it was a lot more clever than last two years...did certain things make it easier for that creative play than last two years...of course but the creative play and attacking movement was just better in itself...any other conclusion is incorrect. In last two years despite more compressed space by defensive structures there have still been plenty of opportunites for players to slotted in/threaded in with guiled/crafty passes which aren't being taken. Thats beyond contestation. So whilst what you describe as lacking in fm17 is valid it's just the conclusion you've drawn overall isn't taking everything into account as to why it's different in it's entirety. The pass decision making in last two year's engines just isn't up to scratch to take openings that arise and that's sorely lacking. passing/movement from the back is overrated in fm20...patterns repeat quite a bit and players aren't as reactive as they should be once as you allude to pre patterned positioning is changed and exit strategies need to react dynamically to what defenders come up against. I absolutely like to see it nonetheless but its ultimately futile and a little bit of tokenism to present it as a nice to see but once the creative tools are absent top third what's the point of the passing from the back really So the backheels are what makes an Fm engine great...kidding...yeah way too many of those for sure. yeah stopped using iwbs early as it feels like a cheat crowding midfield and in some iterations crazy powerful forward surges by iwbs...could have been reduced since. Likely it was. So overall you've fair points just overall conclusion is off
  10. yeah see it was pass decision making that actually made it better than recent versions in terms of slow/possession/creative build up which enabled chances/opportunities to be created better in the top third so yeah whilst middle third was softer allowing possession in that area of the pitch that with what you say that's not what enabled more creativity in the top third so that's essentially where you are wrong about it . Why I kicked back is that pass decision making has regressed since...yeah pressing/better defensive positioning & structure etc have all impacted this but overall it simply isn't comparable engine to engine. Movement (which of course needs significant ramping up and be smarter and more dynamic) was incorrectly diagnosed in fm19 as main reason for stunted creativity and though worked upon didn't have the desired effect last year as bottom line it's pass decision making which in top third is sub par favouring passes out wide/big spaces identified to make a pass/risk...instances of builds last year hitting too frequent passes from deep to create through balls. Movement is complementary to enhanced pass decision making of course to bring in more in line with real world play. Perhaps xg model will enable better simulation this year which we will see shortly enough. So yeah incorrectly concluding what you have is stunting the conversation as the real reasons why the disconnect between fundamental footballing decisions aren't being simulated correctly within Fm gets lost that way Anyway can take it to PM seeing moderating this has become a thing lol. Interesting comment on the crosses from byline simulator in conjunction with your through the middle play. Crosses and directing play out wide is always an issue within FM again down to decision making which favours/is biased towards play out wide but each year it can be on steroids or on downers lol. Interestingly in fm17 i found in transition sometimes a defence was quite vulnerable to ball moving wide then crosses/cutbacks were almost 'undefendable' with that. Defensively much improved since then overall so i wouldn't ever make a case for fm17 engine defending compared to last couple of years but a lot to be improved upon going forward and all going well it starts with this years version next month. Fingers crossed that creativity/pass decision making will be the bump up it has required for a while. that would be awesome
  11. sure thing . was just pointing something out huh
  12. oddly u have a bias against fm17 match engine/fans of it for the same reasons you keep repeating...you've convinced yourself the advantage in midfield is the reason people enjoy it...that's myopic bordering on obtuse to keep repeating that conclusion of yours...slightly amusing as well. But yeah if you don't get it you don't get it. Course it had flaws as you point out but there's more to it than your crystallised and flawed conclusion on that. Whilst you point out valid issues your conclusions being incorrect can stunt the conversation developmentally as to what elements of that engine were stronger than we've seen in recent offerings...it wasn't for reasons as you point out singularly so its redundant to keep pointing them out. It's misleading and will only impede further conversation to identify flaws in the engine to throw such comments out like that
×
×
  • Create New...