Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About MBarbaric

  • Rank


  • Biography
    match analyst at InStat

Recent Profile Visitors

4,764 profile views
  1. So, if you want Sacchi defensive style, the game indeed interprets it well (although naming it FLUID for some reason), as it provides minimum mentality splits between players which ensures the players stay closer to each other creating short and narrow defensive shape. However, how does that work during the attacking phase? Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but does that imply that, in FLUID, CB's stand in same line with an aim of being a regular part of any other build up? Frankly, that makes no sense because: If you want to encourage the build-up, then you want players in different vertical lines (translated to FM terms, it would mean different mentalities, I guess STRUCTURED). Not in the same (or staggered lines) like in FLUID as it makes easier for the defenders to cover the passing lanes. So why was the decision made to keep fluid/structured during both phases? What good does it do to be fluid (in FM terms) during the attacking phase or structured during the defensive phase?
  2. So to sum it up STRUCTURED: DEF PHASE DEF TRANSITION ATT TRANSITION ATT PHASE CD FB FB DM DM CM? AM AM W W S FLUID DEF PHASE DEF TRANSITION ATT TRANSITION ATT PHASE CD CD AM AM FB FB W W DM DM S S Am I reading it right because, if you, I.E., take 4-4-2 in both cases you get 5/5 split with the difference being the transitions? FLUID all players contribute to transitions while STRUCTURED only FB,DM,AM,W contribute to transition. If you think about it further, the difference would actually be that, in STRUCTURED, strikers and central defenders don't get involved in transitions. i'd like to ask what is the common understanding of, i.e. "defensive transition" if CD's in structured shape do not get involved in defensive transition? How is it even possible since they are the deepest player on the pitch by definition? this might be counterintuitive, but this is how I see it. The defensive transition isn't really about players in defensive positions, they are by default a part of the defensive transition (and defensive phase, if not directly by coming towards the ball, then indirectly by their off the ball positioning). It is more about players higher up the pitch and defines how many "attacking" players participate in defensive transition. Same with attacking transition. Those that are high up the pitch will participate by default (if not directly by coming towards the ball, then indirectly by their off the ball movement), the real question is, how many players in deeper positions participate in attacking transition.
  3. In 2005, the Paris Saint-Germain Academy began expanding its network as part of the club's international development strategy.[2] To date, the PSG Academy has centres open in the Métropole du Grand Paris, elsewhere in France (Clermont-Ferrand, Dijon, Grenoble, Limoges, Montpellier), and in several other countries worldwide (Brazil, United States, Canada, Morocco, Egypt, India, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Portugal).[3][4] The Indonesian academy opened at the beginning of 2017 in partnership with local club Bali United.[5] This is just PSG, but almost all top clubs all over the world have international academies. To be frank, their aim isn't really to poach top prospects but to raise the profile of the club in the region/country and generate more profit. That being said, I am not really sure FM needs something like that, besides, we have something similar already with commercial affiliates.
  4. ok then, apologize. Hopefully that is a bit more clear now.
  5. correct me if I am wrong, but I got an impression you were saying there should be counter attacking style. Rashidi basically tells you the same thing I did. Counter attack isn't really a complete strategy as counter attack is used alongside other means to break the opposition (hence barcelona/liverpool examples). purely counter attacking side would be pinned down and unable (or deliberately unwilling) to do anything else than counter attack. And usually not out of its choice but as a consequence of inability to set up any other meaningful way to threaten the opposition. That is also (oh so elusive) difference between the counter attacking style and a counter attack. It is a fevered debate only because people who debate have a limited knowledge about the topic.
  6. I belive I've explained what is a counter attack, can we agree on that? Assuming we agree... indeed, what would the team do when the counter isn't on? Would they just give the ball to the opposition in order to get a chance to play their style? Some teams pay more attention to counter attacks than others but they all counter attack when they have a chance. A team that sets up prepared counter attacks can be called a counter attacking team. In that sense Barcelona or Liverpool can be called counter attacking teams. But would you really say that is predominantly their style? Not really. It is just one of the ways they try to deal with the opposition. They have many others. A team known for counter attacking? For whole period of three years? Predominantly counter attacking, each match? Really? Who says this? Media? I have no doubt they counter attacked, but all teams do so. I'd say they did what Barcelona (or anyone else) does, counter attack when they can but play something else when they can't. The real counter attacking style I'd consider genuine would be sit deep and hoof direct balls into space. Anything else is just one tool from the toolbox and not a particular style. The level of emphasis on counter attack differs from team to team, from match to match. But to have pure counter attacking style you'd need to look for underdog v the favourite scenario. Anything less than that isn't really a counter attacking style but just one of the options the team uses.
  7. this. Really? Let me try then: A counter attack starts after the opposition has lost possession and begins defensive transition. It can be executed short handed or with numerical advantage. the key is that the defending team is not in their defensive shape resulting with space that opposition can exploit. As per occurance, counter attacks can be divided in circumstantial or prepared. Circumstantial usually happen on turnover while prepared counter attacks occure as a deliberate plan (i.e. as a result of pressing trap), on opposition set pieces, or when the goalkeeper regains possession. Depending on where the possession was regained, it can start deep, medium or high. Execution of counter attack is a bit more diverse and depends on one's ideas but let's not drag it that way. How about that as a definition? It isn't really a phase more than corner kick is a phase. Agree on second bolded part.
  8. however, as they put the TC in the game with roles and styles and whatever, the game already implies you can do things you really can't. The game represents football on so many levels competitions, players, staff, stadiums, referees... ME and tactics follow in footsteps of other well represented modules and wants to convince the player it is on the same level as the rest of the game. so it is understandable people want to take it for what it wants (but largely fails) to offer.
  9. precisely, and SI delivers in spades. Whole tactics debate is just out of place as the ME doesn't represent football but FM. It behaves according to FM laws, not football laws.
  10. the whole point of the game from 90s onwards was to take your team to the top with some elements of simulation. But the most backward part of the game is match/tactics simulation. Yet, it is still the best we have in this point of time.
  11. Just the fact that there are tons of pages written about concepts that never existed in football, only in FM, is really saddening. How much better the game could be if all this energy was used to actually talk about football and how to translate that to FM? These things should be kept under the hood and never see the light. The player doesn't need to know how to translate football into FM. The player needs to learn about how football works and the game needs to provide the way to translate that into the ME without the player knowing anything about shape/mentality. Shape in football doesn't mean anything close to what it means in the game. The trouble with the game has always been translating the football knowledge into the game as you don't play football in FM but FM itself. true. However, it isn't so straightforward. The way the offensive phase works atm, it could never cope with proper defensive phase. A proper defensive organization needs to be developed simultaneously with a proper offensive organization. @tacticsdude has a point in that respect. Barca doesn't play anything like themselves. That is one of the goals of FM. Without it, you just play against a generic AI and aren't really a part of football world. The other side of the coin is, does SI really need to address this? The game makes as much money as always, as far as I know, so to the majority of players that isn't an issue. I bet Mourinho wouldn't where to start if he had to set up his tactics. Some things are completely disconnected from football lingo, others give ambiguous descriptions, the TC lacks the basics of football (offensive/defensive phases) I bet it would be a nightmare. However, what I and many others frequently forget, this isn't a game for football managers. It is meant for those two brothers who support ****** team that never wins anything so they can take their team and put it where it rightfully belongs. On the other hand, if that is really true, I wonder why did SI ever try to expand it with the complexity of the TC? At some point, they decided to (tactics wise) create something that resembles the real thing. This, in the end, frustrates people like tacticsdude and myself as the game teases you with an attempt to be something it simply isn't. It isn't a sound simulator of football tactics. @themadsheep2001 Saying they don't know enough to create Guardiola is still insulting it is clear Man City in FM doesn't play as Man City, why would it be insulting to say so? The question isn't does the SI know how Man City plays, but do they know how to transfer it in the game. The answer is obviously "no". Not at this moment, hopefully they get it done.
  12. 1. correct, not only tactics but movement, body orientation, ... Then again, a lot of footballers don't understand it either I do match analysis as a daily job and I am not the only one to say that much of what happens in ME makes no sense. However, I sincerely doubt that has anything to do with lack of football knowledge within SI itself (or their reach). The difficult part, I guess, is translating a complex game of football into computer language.
  13. this. never had problems going up the leagues as a human player is able to assemble much better squads and wiggle more profit from transfers.
  14. I remember back in times of PES 6 there was this "Legends" patch. A community made patch that replaced original clubs with database of legendary teams. You had Liverpool of 70's, 80's, 90's, Man Utd... basically, all historical teams in their golden age. Not only that, but you also had all national teams from THEIR golden times. So, you could basically set up a mini league with all the best teams from Europe in, let's say, 70's. You could do an international tournament, World Cup, or EURO from '96. Sure not all the teams were there, but you had THE BEST teams. It was probably the best fun I ever had with any football game. Don't know anything about licences, but that didn't bother anyone in PES6 as it was a community update. So, SI, unlock that please.
  15. SI I is aware how defence and its implementation work in football as much as they know the pitch is rectangular so I don't see the need to point out obvious. It is on them to implement it in TC and ME.