Jump to content

akkm

Members+
  • Posts

    1,005
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by akkm

  1. Yeah agree completely...the improvements came at the detriment of good creative football so that wouldn't be for me to endure a return to the dull and stale version fm19/20 offered up. All going well things can be addressed for this year
  2. Hi...great play there for sure but at any level of football a player can have the vision to play those players in even in that split second. The issue would arise playing further up the ladder where other factors would prevent lower ability players from being able to do it...mostly technique and ability to use technique and vision under more pressure and playing in games where time on the ball is much reduced then
  3. Hey...no one is saying central playing isn't existing on this years engine and @SebastianRO post above gives a well balanced view of the current state of the unbalanced engine. It is heavily reliant on wide areas for creativity...overly reliant in reality. Of course teams block central areas as in real world football but pass decision making in FM isn't up to real world standards and centrally it requires very apparent or large spaces where real world football players and teams CAN and DO operate centrally in tight spaces to thread short along the ground passes into players to try and probe for openings. In FM its much much harder and unrealistically the case to try and pass and probe through middle. Also notice players aren't actually making themselves available positionally in pockets of space inside and in between the lines much and moving dynamically to react to defensive structures to either make themselves available for either a passing option or to drag opposition out of position. So at the moment this year spaces are out wide and as team move the ball better out wide and crossing isn't blocked as much as last year creativity for chances and goals is heavily skewed towards the wings and its much more akin to FM19/20 than last year. Thats not to say there isn't some great play and good build up currently in the engine. Agree as @kiwityke1983 mentioned the ebb and flow of a game has been captured like never before however in terms of creativity in FM its heavily skewed the toward the wings so its essentially the opposite to how the real world works. In real world football teams essentially teams will attack the centre or want to...there's a reason team block the centre of the pitch first and foremost...by blocking there teams will clearly move the ball out wide inside and back and forth buts it's with a view to dragging opposition defensive set up/players out of position to slot them in back inside...of course they'll cross and score that way but in FM teams are too happy to get it wide and cross it from...lazily so in that they take rudimentary option to cross instead of coming back inside to keep probing there...its unrealistic and currently not simulating real world footballing behaviour and decision making. Players in FM need to have a bump up to their creativity vision and propensity to play threaded passes inside along the ground and through balls along the ground inside and movement needs ehancing as well to give them options. Space inside is too restrictive to passing and moving there...of course it should be hard but in FM its unrealistically hard and it's currently not reflecting how teams and players get around that as they do in the real world in central areas and in the attacking third If anyone is not seeing that all one has to do is check out the analysis tab in FM to see where key passes are played from and do the same on whoscored website and they'll see FM is HEAVILY skewed towards key passes from out wide which is the OPPOSITE to real world football. Its GLARING the difference between FM and real world and proves current engine is lacking quite a lot. Should this be addressed then that combined with much improved ebb and flow, better animations, improved wide play then the engine will be a magnificent simulation of football and the best yet...without it then the most basic fundamentals of pass and moving will be missing and it will be far too rudimentary and interpretation of football is played...ie crossing trumps all...which just isn't either good or even realistic football
  4. Thats interesting in itself and actually showing its not central play but emanating form the wings which isn't good play either to be fair
  5. But the thing is the way FM categorises through balls is loose enough plus a ball from a keeper over the top is likely classed as a through ball so in FM that assist breakdown isn't necessarily indicative of quality play at all
  6. Yeah but that's not quality play...just long balls through the air which in itself is indicative of issues in that the ball isn't getting moved up the pitch centrally into the top third to pass and probe from there for threaded passes. Was it a build in fm19 that resorted to long through balls to make up for lack of centrally play but it's a bit of a cop out really and lacking sophisticated build up play then
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. sure thing . was just pointing something out huh
  17. 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
  18. So I see that quote differently. Firstly the xg will show that the 30 shots producing 0.2 is clearer to the user that the shots his team are generating are in effect not high quality chances. Assuming improvement of the creativity in the engine is better then that should be more indicative of tactics not trying to break down the opposition better. Admittedly in the past the engine is often lacking creative tools to open up tighter defences and then you have the 'engine' taking the shots despite instructions to work the ball into the box...in that instance then it's fair to conclude the engine is 'broken' in your scenario and I wouldn't argue against that conclusion. However if the engine is cleverly leveraging xG within the engine's calculations to create better chances through decision making/passing and movement and a user is still getting that scenario then that's tactical issues. Similar in the one on one...SI should be able to factor xG into calculations to ensure that one on one are recognised as the relative quality of chance that they are and are finished accordingly...they won't need to reduce chance conversion on these to keep scores in check and in theory even the instances of these should be reduced at least in instances of inferior teams. So all in all with xG being used as a driver of how teams work the ball into positions and chances being converted in relation to same this should improve creative/quality play in the engine thus reducing disconnected ways of scoring/playing then you shouldn't be getting instances as described of excess shots and very few goals/xG numbers and one on ones and any instances of those massive shot numbers/poor striker conversion will actually be valid issues to address for a user making it more fundamentally football related issues as in tactical instructions need to be changed to work the ball better/less long shots/buy more creative players and the one on one conversion of a striker...more finishing training or buy another striker instead. Yeah xG has a huge amount of potential to improve the match engine to make things happen for the right reasons in it
  19. agree with your splits of open/non open play shots breakdown in and out of box and the aerial/non aerial attempts...they will provide a qualitative breakdown to analyse how team's play including your own team to see where to address needs for improvements and also opposition's with how to deal with their strengths and weaknesses to counter/expose them. All those things will be very useful as a management/analysis tool. They'd also be very informative and revealing as to the engine's ability to provide quality creativity which has been sorely lacking for the last two years. It would be very insightful in that sense. The creativity issue is what needs addressing for this year and it would be terrific if this has been addressed over the last year. I think Xg could and should be a game changer in that respect. With as you say the likelihood SI will use existing data from the game to plot this then that means they have all the data to show up what constitutes a good 'chance'. With that data they should be able to 'reverse engineer' how to create good chances from there making better use of players' technical/mental attributes to increase the probability of a de bruyne/ozil/isco type player being more creative and creating higher Xg chances as well as a teams so you should be able to enable higher quality players/teams play being reflected on the pitch using higher quality football to make that happen. I saw some reference to MIles saying it takes into account defensive positioning so all this would suggest SI could use it to have better 'control' as to how teams should create quality chances reflective of a teams creative qualities and higher abilities of teams without creativity escalating out of control and overwhelming defences as they have the data of what are better chances than others. This is powerful data and of course I don't know what SI have done to eventually get an 'output' Xg number but to use this data and what information within the game they have used to compile the Xg number (assuming its a lot lol) then that should really be a great way to identify high Xg/quality chances and work backwards tapping into the plethora of things that trigger decisions within FM but things like probabilities of passes being played to produce high Xg chance and players moving into positions where a high Xg could be finished from again triggering and interlinking to the player in possession...then you have the higher ability/higher attribute attacking players using mental attributes to move more frequently into these positions and higher technical/creative players have a higher propensity to play these passes. This is a layer/trigger which hasn't really been there before. Would help out risk/space evaluation issues the engine has had up until this point as well. Lots of opportunities to leverage Xg within the engine to produce more realistic patterns of play and higher quality decision making. Course not sure how it was all layered up Xg wise by SI but certainly there is a huge opportunity to reflect real world decision making better and have a more discernible difference between quality creative players and teams and you should be able to have said quality play/players more rewarded for fundamentally better play rather than the disconnected experience of having high quality players in a team and them relying on 'gamed' goals (set pieces/long range shots/crosses) by the engine to produce a win rather than having organic play producing goals/chances/openings to win games as you set your team up to play. It would be absolutely awesome if this is the road SI has already gone down but it's certainly one that should be explored as a way to move away from the curtailed experience of the last two years of the engine.
  20. So you've hit the nail on the head there product not delivering then people shouldn't buy it. That's the messaging that will ensure any disconnect between customer satisfaction and SI decision making directionally is identified. very interesting thing is FM is for many an addiction which they struggle to wean themselves off therefore even though the product may be not satisfactory and even not enjoyable especially relative to other year's releases then they'll still make the purchase adding to SIs overall sales numbers and thus nebulising the feedback customers convey through their ultimate action about the game. How then will SI infer they are matching back to customer satisfication. So yeah essentially customers expressing themselves with a non purchase is the key message on it
  21. hey some fair points there especially people will like engines that can enable a style of play better and obviously one they prefer will bias their opinion favourably and fm17 enabled better passing through the middle with passive defending and the wide players thing but thats a small picture view of pass decision simulating real world football as fm17 in the whole simulated pass decision making much better than fm20. as well fairish to suggest biases are there targeted towards high pressing but the bigger point of how that is enabled in fm20 misses the overall point of how its happening. With the dearth of quality pass decision making/movement overall and in the top third and from quality creative players pressing can't really be played around with fm engine so its relative success is not enabled or unfolding for the right reasons. Then throw in then poor stamina/fitness decline effect within matches/periods/seasons/by player standard and fitness wise then the implementation of pressing is a poor simulation compared to real world to enable improper success within FM added to poor pass decision making then you actually have more quirks enabling an easy to beat and for the more wrong reasons within FM. It shouldn't be a linear pressing = success without factoring other elements which Fm happens to not simulate to get to result of making pressing more effective which is the case. Also playing out of defence is to retain possession at times and move opposition around the pitch to move the ball into positions to play threaded passes up in the top third so again having cosmetically good passing out from the back is ultimately futile unless the passing decision making (and obviously complementary movement) further up the pitch will engender a better outcome for why the passing out from the back is utilised in the first place. so really whilst there's passing out from the back and much improved pressing to be fair the success and use of both is misleading because of lack of fundamental football aspects being simulated to firstly make full use of passing from the back and secondly to ensure people garnering success from pressing have a false sense of achievement from using same. So really your points about fm17 apply to fm20 for the reasons you uphold fm20 as being good lol just from different aspects of football. As for the balanced angle FM20 cannot be at all deemed to be well balanced with the absence of proper pass decision making...at times it resembles the opposite of football in passages of play. The simulation of pass decision making to not value space adequately in the top third and in tight spaces and often to overvalue space out wide and over a higher line deem this engine a failure as a simulation of simple basic entry level passing which even playground football would see. Add in the need for improved movement then FM20 really falls down heavily in the basic fundamentals of football which have been prevalent since football began. The basics of football within FM should be to have passing and movement simulated as well as they can be. After that comes team structure/defensive shape/pressing and all the other things which would ultimately make fm more challenging and realistic but without the proper simulation of those basics of pass/move then you're really just haven't simulated real world football at all well. Without those basics you'll have incessant and circular balancing exercises where you squeeze one air bubble to just move that air further around the tube causing air bubbles elsewhere. FM19 and FM20 have unfortunately been weak that way...the basics of football aren't up to scratch. Everyone also likes match engines where the latest shiny object appears within the simulation and satiates their need to have that 'hit' from having the latest thing lol
  22. technically you could make a crap football game and call it the best game you ever did as well lol
×
×
  • Create New...