Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dannyfc

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Regarding Striker movement, agree with what you say but I'd argue it's regressed rather than lack of progression. In previous games you'd frequently see a F9 or DLP drop into the half space to link the play. Or floating around the box if free role was ticked. The only major issue was a lack of lateral movement, but even then it was better than now. The tendency in the last two games to stay static and central almost seems like a glitch in comparison. I'm not sure what's happened as there's clear evidence of good movement in older games so the code must already exist.
  2. When you phrase it like that it puts into perspective the task at hand as the decision tree for each attacking moment must be huge. I do have sympathy for SI as you can't knock the frequency of patches over the last couple years. My fear now is they simply do not know how to address this issue of central play, rather than refuse to acknowledge it. The long balls at the start of release almost seem a compromise to remedy that. That Giroud example is bang on, but also applies to highly technical players who thrive in tight spaces. That reluctance to engage with the opposition really limits how you distinguish attributes like composure, first touch and strength. There was a post a few pages back that discussed how it feels like each player's radius or sphere of influence feels to large. Hence the reluctance to operate within less than 5 yards of a defender. Almost like the players are too big for the pitch.
  3. In context of youth players or new signings though, like Tanganga, you already immediately know his value despite never playing a professional game.
  4. Definitely agree with you that the archetypal playmaker AM -> poacher ST ball probably isn't as prevalent as it used to be, or at least how it's perceived. That said you do see much more tight, intricate inter-play between players than you currently do in FM. No necessarily through balls, but a pass into a strikers feet with his back to goal. Or just square balls and 1-2s in and around the box to open up space, which aren't necessarily always in behind. I keep banging this drum but I just want players to make more risk or intuition in attack. Yeah the striker might be marked, but it doesn't completely rule out him out of the phase. You don't always need to hump it out wide just because that's where the space is. You don't want to see these high risk moves come off, but you want them attempted to a varying degree of accuracy depending on the player's attributes. I have no issue watching long-ball percentage football if I know I could at least instruct my players to do otherwise and watch them fail doing so. I'd also argue the lack of distinction in attributes go further than the elite level. These long-shot efforts are banged in by every player, regardless of whether they're proficient shooters or not. Similarly the cross-field 60 yard passes are regularly completed without error by tier 6 players, which isn't right.
  5. It isn't that Tanganga suddenly hugely progressed, he was probably always ready to step in but no one actually never truly knew the extent of his ability. The problem with FM is you can immediately assess whether a player isnt good enough without ever playing him. The only way around this is adding ambiguity to how attributes are viewed. It's been discussed previously, but similarly to the attribute masking with how scouting works you should only learn the 'true' value after 30+ games.
  6. I agree defending is fine in this example, they just get beat to the ball and caught out of position by a great pass. Without defensive lapses the vast majority of goals in real life wouldn't happen. Tbh I'd prefer more defensive errors and incentive for play in tight spaces rather than the mind numbing passes into wide spaces you see again and again.
  7. This nails my feeling toward the game. It's not so much ME errors or flaws, but how disconnected it feels to tactics or attributes. I want to review the game and witness my slow fullback getting continually burnt by a pacey winger, then adapting by dropping deeper. Subbing in a bigger CB to deal with an aerial threat. Utilising an older playmaker to make the most of the space in midfield, but at the cost of more defensive exposure. These are the decisions I want to have to make, but at the moment I genuinely cannot distinguish neither teams or players. It's a game of attrition where you stay tight and compress the ball into areas more likely to return goals. Makes it very difficult to build any affinity to a player or team when they all lack any sense of individuality.
  8. Subjective, but I'd say generally better however not significantly enough to enjoy if you didn't like the previous build.
  9. I'm 100% with you on this, this is the main issue I have with the ME. Just a overriding reluctance to iniate any move that doesn't utilise acres of space. A phobia of contact, or like you said too wide a 'hitbox'. Would be interested to know the developers thoughts as it's all speculation on the coding until then. For me there's a fundamental problem with how the ME interprets and deals with tight spaces. In older games it wasn't interpreted at all, so you had the problem of strikers constantly 'ghosting' through defenders. Since 2013 this has been addressed, but too far the other way where players are too adverse at interacting with opposition players. The thing that stands out to me compared to real football is lack of physicality, or a reluctance to play through the opposition. This is why central players lack involvement, as there's always a defender close by deemed as a 'threat' meaning an out ball to the wings is always the preferred option. You very rarely see tight interplay or jostling between teams. One of the core aspects of a targetman is being able to play the ball into him with his back to goal, for him to then lay off to deep runners. Or even just basic 1-2s into the box. These movements should be high risk / high reward, so more often than that not you see a player dispossessed around the box. But they need to be attempted much more regularly, as it's these moments that allow those really technically gifted players to stand out. Or alternatively those with high physical attributes able to bully their way through to goal.
  10. I know possession isn't everything, but I just can't imagine a scenario where a team absolutely dominated the ball without a single attempt. Reckon FrazT is correct and the source just mistakenly reversed the stat. Be interested to see the perception of anyone who watched the game.
  11. Out of interest how do you distinguish between Wolves and Man City in-game?
  12. Maybe my terminology is over simplistic - but then again I don't think FM is sophisticated enough to represent all the different types of pressing you've outlined. I was using Gengenpress as a byword for a 'high counter-pressing' system essentially. My point is while it's difficult to implement in real life, this isn't well represented in FM and most if not all teams can play this way regardless of attributes in work-rate, teamwork and fitness .
  13. Agree- but it's not just fitness but also uniform levels discipline and tactical awareness as well. It should take a lot longer to design and implement a true gegenpress tactic really. Every team in the world wants to play this way, but it takes the right players and months/years of training to make it successful. If you've just taken over a non-league side, switching on 'Gegenpress' should result in a mix of messy team shape, certain players ignoring it entirely, and the rest gassed after 30 minutes. To properly implement it you should be reliant on first getting in the right players with high work-rate/teamwork, slowly building tactical familiarity through training and match-time, and only then should it come together and resemble an effective tactic. At the moment it doesn't seem relevant whether your Dulwich Hamlet or Liverpool. That's my main problem with FM at the moment, I don't feel player attributes and tactical decisions correlate enough to what actually happens on the pitch. Visibly being able to see the difference between different playing styles would be much more immersive and rewarding. In my currently Bromley team I've got a highly technical CM with good vision/passing, and an absolute clogger with huge work-ethic but Sunday league technical ability. Without the player names/numbers in the ME I honestly don't think I could distinguish them in terms of passing range and ability. It limits the number of tactical decisions or substitutes. I know all my CMs can play cross-field 60 yard balls, so why buy a good passer? I know all my AMs are liable to smash in a long-shot from 30 yards, so why invest in one with good long-shots? I know all strikers will struggle to convert clear-cut chances, so let's ignore finishing/composure when scouting. Obviously there's degrees of effectiveness between all players, but it's not clear-cut. The biggest markers are physicality, number of mistakes (decisions/concentration), and how likely they are to react to the ball. (anticipation) Overall I get the sense the match engine is 'restrained' to give realistic results/statistics at the expense of any team or player individuality. I see very little difference in terms of ability or playing styles, and it's just the same patterns of play with varying levels of effectiveness. Yes, the better more cohesive team will more likely win, but it's in the exact same manner up and down the pyramid with no distinguishable features. Just makes the game feel a bit dull and lifeless in comparison to the older ones.
  14. Still don't feel like players are following instructions, or that their actions are representative of their attributes or tactics. BWM - short passing, take less risks: continues to drive 50 yard balls to either flank despite a player stood next to him. Goals are still feel very attritional; set-piece, wing-back arriving late far post, or long-shot after some pinball. There's very little incentive to sit deep. The game is essentially press high, box them in, then hope to score off a scramble after a series of aerial bombardment.
  15. I'm comparing it to FIFA Manager, LMA, TCM, Eidos CM 2005, Premier Manager. They've been an abundance of management games that haven't even come close. What do you mean by 'make properly'? Again there's no other competitor so what's your benchmark? If it's real football then FM will always fall short, it will never be a 1:1 representation. I don't like or enjoy the current ME, but I can't stand the entitlement of wanting SI to beg forgiveness or stop production because they failed in your expectation.
  • Create New...