GrahamL

Members
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GrahamL

  • Rank
    Amateur
  1. Ouch. Maybe your keeper was tired after the effort of going 15 games without conceding??
  2. I'd not really thought about this before, but I'd find it kind of odd to spend my spare time playing a game related to my day job. Although, to be fair, nobody's come up with a game called "Insurance Manager". But if they did....
  3. Yeah. While it would look cool to sign 2 players at exactly the same time, imagine how annoyed you'd be if the double deal fell down because one of the players wouldn't agree terms. And it was an hour before the tansfer window shut. Nice idea, but I suspect I'd continue to negotiate 2 seperate deals even if it was there...
  4. Pretty much. Women have more insurance claims, but they tend to be for superficial damage - scratches, reversing into walls and the like. Men have fewe claims, but are more likely to really mangle the car. Yes. The statistics do back up the stereotypes!
  5. Explains why he was so keen to join Arsenal...
  6. This. My approach in the past has always been a fairly uninspiring tactic (typically a default one with a tweak or two to match how I think football should be played) - and then much wheeling and dealing to get really good players in to the team. It seems that this approach to the game in FM09 has been deemed "wrong" and we now all need to put a lot more thought into our tactics. Which is OK for those who have been into tactics in the past, but for those of us who more or less equated "tactics" to "formation" have found it pretty tough going. This doesn't seem right to me, I'd taken my approach to be a Harry Redknapp style of management. Which seems to work in real life...
  7. You should get bigger crowds now you've been promoted, I tend to find that - even after the promotion wage rises - I turn a profit in a higher league unless I buy a load of new players. If the board aren't worrying about it, I'd just plough on as you are - if you do well, eventually you'll get promoted further up, or be able to sell off a player to clear the debt. And a high profile friendly or two usually help as well.
  8. The Rangers & Celtic comparison is, I think, a good one. These 2 clubs probably do have a continental (pushing worldwide) reputation, and they've pulled up the profile of the scottish leagues. So, yeah, a dynamic reputation would make sense - a successful team or two could pull up the reputation of the whole league and hence the reputation of an "average" club in that league. Who could then attract a slightly higher standard of player (assuming they have the money). I guess it needs no restriction on the reputation of a single club, the leagues reputation to be based on the average reputation of the clubs involved, and players to take into account club and league reputation when decidign if they'll join. Simple as that!
  9. Naming no names... *cough* Romanov *cough* Would be an interesting development though, especially if you could throw a strop about the new signings...
  10. A bit harsh I think. There is a danger of going round in circles on these discussions, but IMO it is worthwhile getting as many views as possible. We're all using the same ME, but we're all seeing it from different views and have our own opinions on why what we think we're doing isn't what's happening. Is it a problem with the ME? Is it a problem with the on screen representation of the ME? Is it a problem with some tactics in the ME? All these things will lead to my tactics looking like they don't work, someone needs to get to the bottom of what's going on. I wouldn't expect SI to defend every single criticism, they're meant to be developing the game after all! But we're all effectively testers of the current ME and I hope, if we're able to get to a general consensus, SI will listen to that. I hope...
  11. Totally agree with this. I've said elsewhere that the tactical side of things is too hard to get your head round, and part of the problem has to be the match engine. Until watching the ME feels like watching a proper game of football it'll be too hard to see whats going wrong. If you saw your full back constantly miles away from the winger, you'd make him less attacking, or get him to close down or man mark the guy. But even when this is sorted you still see the pair of them running along together and the winger emerging with the ball, or just plain running through your guy... Well, why's he done that? Is the defender not good enough at tackling, or anticipation, or composure, or pace, or acceleration? Or his he annoyed because you said your midfield was your best position? Or did you wish him luck at the start of the game instead of telling him he could win? Watching a real game, we could tell where the players weaknesses are - and more importantly the player would know and adjust his game, any full back who knows he's beaten for pace by a winger will try to make sure he's always in the wingers way, rather than consistently getting involved in sprints for the ball. Even if the manager has told him to mark closely he'll know enough about football to know "we'll get hammered if I mark him too closely", and adjust his game. Or he'll have a word with the captain, or the manager. But until the ME looks and behaves like a real game we're left wondering whats happening. We can just about work the tactics to get our players in the right sort of position most of the time, but even then there's something else where I can't explain why the players do what they do. It may just be that we're half way to a proper match engine at the minute, but until we get all the way the effect of the tactical and player interaction side of things needs to be toned down to reflect the limitations of the visual and written feedback we're getting on the game.
  12. When I saw this topic, a bell rang at the back of my head that I'd seen someone low down in the English league with a preference... That was him! So is a preferred shirt something players are "born" with, or can it develop over time? And has anyone seen a regen with a preference, or a player suddenly have a preference they didn't have before (I'm pretty sure Beckham didn't always prefer #23...)
  13. This may be the vaguest post in the history of the world, but someone posted some other player doing something similar. I think it was on youtube... May have been ronaldo. Maybe. Definitely a bug though, went more or less from his own goal line into the net - airbourne most of the way.
  14. It's strange. If I'm reading all this right, it seems that - to an extent - the ME will try to combat really stupid tactic designs (you tell your CBs to never go forward, the ME decides "that wouldn't happen in real life" so they end up standing at the half way line and getting beaten by a long ball). But only slightly stupid designs get through fine. You tell your strikers to be not quite attacking enough and they'll happily spend all day standing 30 yards out watching your wingers ping balls into the box. It adds to the confusion, if players did exactly what they were told, maybe we'd have more of a chance of building a workable tactic it's a balance of doing partly what they're told, and partly what the designers think they "should" do... It all comes back to what wwfan has said, several times, and much more eloquently than I...
  15. The longer this debate goes on, the more convinced I am that the game is simply between two stools at the moment. The ME may be a little bit buggy, but I don't think it's bad - although the bugs add to the frustration a lot of us are feeling. The problem is that the swathe of tactical options are baffling to me, the ass man feedback is useful to an extent - but even when he has nothing to remark on about the tactics, things still aren't working. Is it a case of tweaking little bits? Or do the tactics not fit the players? Do I need a complete revamp? Or is it just a spot of bad luck? If there's 5 possible ways to change things, and an element of randomness in the outcome, it's ridiculously hard to identify the correct change to make - unless we have enough time to thoroughly explore all possible paths, which is beyond me as a casual player. Unless we get better hints at what we're doing wrong, from the ass man, from players, pundits, whatever then we're firing into the dark on this. Or how about a more user friendly front end to the tactics. A tactic wizard perhaps? Pick a formation, style of play etc and have the system produce a workable tactic from that (I'm thinking about the level of detail that the old CM93 gave you - 5 styles of play, directional arrows for players). Just something to get started that works OK, with as much underlying detail/manual changes that the players want. That doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility, and provided the tactics it produces are sensible and not world-beating, it'll give the people who like to build super tactics the chance to do so. In the same way the start game wizard gives you a sensible start game, but if you really want all the players from barbados in the game you can go in and do that too...