Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About akkm

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3,670 profile views
  1. Great post as always but just wanted to highlight this as well...it absolutely has existed since then and as you point out it just become more evident
  2. yeah I think reasonable stuff there tactically and especially as you say playing cautious lower line of engagement means you'd see as you say you drawing opponent and hitting them on the break with pace and power..that will leave space behind which is essentially what the engine needs to be able to produce more open play goals in a manner which is kind of what you'd expect and like to see with those tactics so it would look normal. That would definitely explain why you're not seeing the issues others are. I think what @Weller1980 and others are trying style wise is different with attempts to play more controlled slower tempo possession based game where space is more condensed and creating chances and goals is then more reliant on their teams players skills such as vision, technique, passing, movement, off the ball, decisions, agility and all that but that's the real issue. These are underutilised with the engine and the value of them is way too low to determine outcomes in terms of style of play...essentially the match engine isn't currently simulating creativity and the tools to unlock defences is fairly severely lacking and that's why you see so many complaints...all of which are justified...pass decision making isn't executing choices to mirror how things work in real world football...there's too much of a bias towards passes out into large spaces usually out wide or from deep and often when there are better options inside and shorter. Yeah it's harder of course but not as hard as FM depicts it and as said when pass decision making isn't right then it just exacerbates the issue. Complementary movement is then required as pass decision making gets the crucial bump that's needed but pass decision making is the starting point and the fundamental issue which needs a lot of work to enable multiple styles of play to be attempted and subsequently rewarded in the right way...the frustrating thing with attempting to play centrally is the patterns become too repetitive and the chance creation and goals become too disconnected to the inputs tactically and that's because the engine just cannot play that way properly in a consistent or sustainted way. Of course there'll be intermittent moves/goals/chances which are great but they're more anomalous to the overall attempted style which basically deems it pointless to attempt that way of playing. So really a fundamentally significant way of playing is missing from the engine for the last two years so people's frustrations despite SIs best efforts are warranted. It really needs to be addressed asap. It's great that your way works and you're getting the most out of it and enjoying it but obviously it needs to cater for most and ideally all ways of playing at least to be attempted and then let the relative success be determined by quality of players and use of tactics to get the most out of said players. That way the engines simulation of real world football would be on point
  3. you realise just because you're not seeing certain issues which your use of tactics might just mask underlying issues isn't an implication that the issues aren't there. So just because you're not seeing them is academic to them being a fundamental issue for the integrity of simulation in terms of what the match engine can produce. Whether you don't want to acknowledge them is fine but they're still there. What way do you try to get your teams playing just out of interest. The match engine can produce certain styles but not others so you might be just using a style that the match engine has a bias towards...it could be that simple
  4. actually it's not my opinion at all...my point which you've misunderstood spectacularly is beyond contestation...i haven't expressed an opinion anywhere above...merely how recency bias drives the polls here...everything i said is factual Nowhere did I suggest fm17 was the best rather that fm17 when the dust settles will likely be the non recency bias winner of the poll...it may be fm12 either...we will see Google how recency bias works. Last year fm19 won the polls. the poll here so far has just 4% of the poll...so last year it won then down to 4pc. Each year the winner of these polls is generally it's current or the most recent at that point in time version...then as the years pass by the version settle down and lose appeal. Were Fm19 as good as last year's poll suggested then it couldn't possibly crash so low...it should really be polling second then...especially given your own logic of how you rate them that the game gets better every year. The thing is yeah its a poll and it's subjective and exposed to how people view it and feel about it years after but the trend of the polls is that the most recent one wins it...were the polls to follow your logic of each version is better than the previous one and the voters vote accordingly then that would be reflected in most recent one highest rating, second place previous one, third place one two years prior and so on...thats not happening but that can be influenced by subjectivity of course. However the way the winner of the previous year can tank in the polls the following year suggests recency bias is the primary driver of the poll at the current point in time...any other conclusion given the historic trend of these polls is actually expressing an opinion where bias overrides logic. It can actually happen that on occasion the actual current version IS the best but as said the trend of the polls is that a winner one year can crash the following year so recency bias is the driver. anyway this poll is favourite as i alluded to above...not even the best. just correcting you on not being my opinion and explaining how recency bias drives these polls...the evidence back that up Just on fm20 as it happens everything bar the match engine is in my opinion the best i've seen it...so agree on that. However the match engine as a simulation is so weak it detracts significantly from this year to the point i just won't play it...so it simply isn't the best overall...if you want me to back that up can of course do so lol
  5. yeah that's your opinion...the poll is fav game...the polls each year generally though not exclusively churn out the current game as the winner of those polls and then the years after the those same versions poll very differently...fm19 being a prime example of that. That's recency bias...whether you acknowledge or accept that or not is completely irrelevant...it's still recency bias
  6. that's recency bias....last year was it fm19 that won the poll yet see where it's featuring in this one. when the dust settles it seems fm17 will be the non recency biased winner...there's plenty to take away from that
  7. thanks for that...thats really what you see trend wise within FM match engine...play is unfortunately directed towards the wings from the centre or from the outside along the wings and rarely good play otherwise. Of course it's difficult to go through the middle in the real world but that key passes tab essentially highlights the deficiencies of the engine as the simulation of good pass decision making and complementary movement isn't done to allow consistent attempts to play a certain way and that way is with proper creativity guile and vision and good pass selection to enable quality and even sometimes basic pass choice. there's currently too much rudimentary pass choices being executed to rely too much on passes directed out wide for something to happen from that
  8. yeah but your impression is factually incorrect...it's literally that simple. If you want to see for yourself...do that exercise I talked about, If you don't then no need...just keep drawing the wrong conclusion about fm17 and the last two iterations then
  9. This thing of that defence in middle was rubbish was the reason for central play giving impression of realistic skill or decision making is nonsense. basically fm17 had decision making coded better. if you create a dodgy set up to give even more space through the middle in fm19 and fm20 that defence won't be exposed properly the way it was in fm17...essentially pass decision making and movement to expose that was vastly superior in fm17 to the last two years...any other suggestion is factually incorrect. in fm17 weakness was attacked and exposed with better fundamental passing and movement than last couple of years. any other conclusion is absolute folly...if you don't believe that to be the case control two teams in fm19 and fm20 and remove all the players from central positions and see how that plays out. it's remarkably revealing...and not in a good way lol it is correct to say defending through the middle in fm17 was weaker relatively but completely incorrect to suggest central attacking decision making was because of that. central play pass decision making in fm17 was easily better than last two versions. that is beyond contestation. people may conclude otherwise but they'd be very simply wrong lol. its very easy to see for oneself with a quick test. people may posit that is because of enhancements to defending and the enhancements are there for sure but central pass decision making and movement is simply inferior in the last two versions of fm regardless of better defending. again same exercise definitively proves that. for purposes of the thread...fm19 and fm20 have severely limited on the ball decision making and limited movement. they are more pushed towards wide play and longer passes/long shots/set pieces. They're more directed at an interpretation of football the match engine produces and directs you down rather than the user being able to produce a style of their own choice for example if you want slower creative possession based central quality especially. you just won't get that in last two years and the goals and success you may earn feels less rewarding and you're not getting rewarded for fundamentally sound reasons more what the match engine regurgitates to give you a result. unless you like attritional football in fm19 and fm20 so far more either long balls over the top or set pieces or long shots don't go there. Depends on your footballing tastes basically. i'm gonna go back and go for fm17...fm18 is decent as well to be fair
  10. pointing out exceptions to try and support any argument is essentially an exercise in confirmation bias. the year leicester won most other teams level dropped a lot. there's plenty of examples where lesser players can succeed...can they sustain that success is where conclusions can be properly drawn. You're example of leicester players...how many more leagues/cups did they win...calais how did they fare consistently....similarly sweden and norway. You've basically made my point...quality players is what determine consistent success certainly medium and long term which is what i said. Any other conclusion is simply incorrect and subjective interpretation of what happens in real world football on your personal coaching...yeah i said you likely added something to them and as you say likely were being used terribly prior but heres the kicker if you played with that team and played against a consistently better team using a system which fits the better teams players which gets the best out of the other teams better players then they'd consistently be better despite your system...you'd have occasional good results and performances but the consistent medium long term outcome would be they'd achieve better results and performances than your team. thats not to undermine your efforts...you've clearly done well...but the better team utilising a solid suited system would be better in general
  11. your initial post said when facing a superior system so that read like the system will beat superior players which of course it can occasionally but ultimately and consistently it's players quality which prevails...a klopp mourinho or guardiola system using non league players will get relegated from the premiership likely every single season. on ozil...he has been given more licence to operate more centrally under arteta which suits his skillset and effort rates better. emery didn't like his application off the ball not in kms covered but pressure put on opposition and thus as a team unit ozil meant their shape was disjointed and pressing as a unit was the same. wenger it transpired never made that transition to emulate the barca method as he didn't understand how it really works but ozil was effective at times under wenger but ultimately under him arsenal lacked purpose, shape and organisation which was his downfall...well plus lack in instilling discipline on and off the pitch lol. so it wasn't ozils fault arsenal failed then but he was a symbol of it given his languid style even though as you say he is an incredibly gifted footballer and given the proper launchpad can be brilliantly effective with a system which uses him well. on your personal coaching I'm sure you had some good and very useful input but the players were obviously better than were thought by everyone. It's like saying the bottom team of the premiership who kept getting whacked changed their system and then started whacking teams then. That's not how it works. Yeah if system used was terrible and underutilising players to the detriment of their talents and making them play badly...that's plausible but it would be indicative of them being better players than perceived. Even then being better players but being used in a better system the only way they start to whack teams of consistently better players is if the other teams tactics severely hamper those teams with better players. Essentially systems and tactics help out of course especially with head to head matches but unless its woeful tactics being used then it's quality of players which will dictate medium and long term success and certainly consistently that's the case
  12. what do you mean when you say about the quality of the players not mattering when playing a superior system cos in the real world it's the quality of the players that matters most basically
  13. could you post pkms showing extended quality central play not availing of long deep through balls where you show prolonged central movement with patience probing and threaded short passes along the ground into small pockets of space into the path of runner vertically or diagonally...thanks...it would be great to see it
  • Create New...