Real World Tactical Approaches

[eplkewell]

I think it's obvious that no team plays the same way every game. Sometimes this is due to intentional instruction by the manager, and other times it's the players adapting to the situation. I play college soccer in the US, and every game we come out in a standard 4-4-2. As the game progresses, our coach will instruct us to player wider, to man-mark a certain opponent, or will push a defender up into midfield. We've never played a game where our coach doesn't give us some tactical instruction during the game. Similarly, we have unlimited subs, so he'll put different personnel groups on the field to better control the midfield, or to be more creative, or to win more balls in the air. The team plays differently every game. I'm not sure if you want to count this as the manager changing tactics, or if you would consider this making in game tweaks to existing tactics.

[cruyff14]

I think it's obvious that no team plays the same way every game. Sometimes this is due to intentional instruction by the manager, and other times it's the players adapting to the situation. I play college soccer in the US, and every game we come out in a standard 4-4-2. As the game progresses, our coach will instruct us to player wider, to man-mark a certain opponent, or will push a defender up into midfield. We've never played a game where our coach doesn't give us some tactical instruction during the game. Similarly, we have unlimited subs, so he'll put different personnel groups on the field to better control the midfield, or to be more creative, or to win more balls in the air. The team plays differently every game. I'm not sure if you want to count this as the manager changing tactics, or if you would consider this making in game tweaks to existing tactics.

Evidently you have never seen Barcelona play then who never change their style of play and that progresses right down to their youth teams. Also the Ajax of the 70's never changed from it's total football. Both of these teams play/played one way regardless of opposition!

[Zebedee77]

Evidently you have never seen Barcelona play then who never change their style of play and that progresses right down to their youth teams. Also the Ajax of the 70's never changed from it's total football. Both of these teams play/played one way regardless of opposition!

I watched the Barca vs Real Madrid match tonight. It was interesting how their goal came from pushing a centre back up front and leaving just three at the back.

[cruyff14]

I watched the Barca vs Real Madrid match tonight. It was interesting how their goal came from pushing a centre back up front and leaving just three at the back.

Pique often move into the box as he is a potent goal threat from the air, they actually mentioned this in the match previous to the goal. And lets be frank here he didn't really have anything to do with the goal he just ran into the box. And after that he returned to his normal posititon

[Zebedee77]

Pique often move into the box as he is a potent goal threat from the air, they actually mentioned this in the match previous to the goal. And lets be frank here he didn't really have anything to do with the goal he just ran into the box. And after that he returned to his normal posititon

Oh sure about it not being uncommon to see a Barca centreback carrying the ball into midfield, laying it off and then continuing his run forward; Puyol did it to great effect in the CL final. Baresi was brilliant at it at AC Milan. But it's not something they do all the time - it's used sparingly.

But I'm not sure that it didn't play a role in the goal. If you have chance, watch it again and look how Pique being that far forward changes the positioning of the defence and allows the Swedish fella to get around the back of the fullback for an uncontested volley on target. Even prior to that, his move forward with the ball led to a Madrid midfielder moving to challenge him and so when he layed it off, the Barca central midfielder had the time and room to sweep a really lovely ball to the wing, which meant that he then had time to put in a good ball into the box.

I guess what I'm trying to highlight is just a minute of something different overloaded the Madrid defence and led to a goal being scored.

[Zebedee77]

Pique often move into the box as he is a potent goal threat from the air, they actually mentioned this in the match previous to the goal. And lets be frank here he didn't really have anything to do with the goal he just ran into the box. And after that he returned to his normal posititon

Oh sure about it not being uncommon to see a Barca centreback carrying the ball into midfield, laying it off and then continuing his run forward; Puyol did it to great effect in the CL final. Baresi was brilliant at it at AC Milan. But it's not something they do all the time - it's used sparingly.

But I'm not sure that it didn't play a role in the goal. If you have chance, watch it again and look how Pique being that far forward changes the positioning of the defence and allows the Swedish fella to get around the back of the fullback for an uncontested volley on target. Even prior to that, his move forward with the ball led to a Madrid midfielder moving to challenge him and so when he laid it off, the Barca central midfielder had the time and room to sweep a really lovely ball to the wing, which meant that he then had time to put in a good ball into the box.

I guess what I'm trying to highlight is just a minute of something different overloaded the Madrid defence and led to a goal being scored.

[Vekaz]

Real life vs. Football manager ?

It can't be compared. In real life a manager can tell his players to let the shooter with 4 in longshots shoot at goal from 50 yards and only once in a blue moon that said shooter would score. in FM that said shooter scores 99 out of a 100 at present.

each passing ME "upgrade" brings new mistakes that makes the game uncomparable to real life football. I know you like to pass your little fantasy chess game off as football but in reality wwfan why don't you just call a kettle black if that's what it is ?.

at least a good way to not be annoyed is just to turn on commentary and hope next patch will be better and more easy on the eyes. Gamebreaking bugs still in a game which have undergone immense "testing".

I still have hopes for my favorite game of all time but it just gets more and more annoying to get ****ed on and told it's raining each passing year. At least bring back Wibble/Wobble, but I guess current ME tactical savants wouldn't want to be upstaged by some random of the street. Guess that's why it was taken out.

Beyond the pale really, no ?

[furiousuk]

I feel Vekaz is being a little harsh on FM. I'm from a rugby background (which, admittedly, is a totally different game) but I've played at the highest level and top-sport is top-sport no matter what it is. The simple truth is that the hardest thing for a manager to take is that, come game day, they have very little influence on what happens on that actual day. Football is far more technical than rugby, but I have a couple of decent footballing mates (not top standard but Championship players and they're honest, top blokes) and, barring the odd influential team talk (which is not tactical, but motivational in nature) and, very rarely, an inspired substitution (again, motivational rather tactical in majority) the manager, unfortunatey, has little to do on game day. His job is done is preparation for the match.

Unfortunately, SI makes no allowance for this. As FM managers, we have sparingly little control on pre-match prep and, in my experience, as manager, that is ALL you have control over in real life.

This means that, whilst we all, me included, would like to believe that our FM in-game changes make us a tactical genius, in real life, they wouldn't. As Lombardi, arguably the greatest *coach* ever implied, its more a motivational game on game-day, tactics are sorted out in the week (or, in footballs case, the preparation)

[Mitja]

none of the above

managers change and tweak their tactics, there's no doubt about it. there are many different types of managers, some more motivational others more tactical types. some will adopt tactically to opposition others preffer to stick to their own team. etc.

but real managers don't change the playing style as drasticlly as in FM. imo the way how tactical wizard makes tactics and different playing startegies is unrealistic. every manager and every league has it's style, the wizard doesn't employ that thinking unfortunatly, and the tactics it produces are too general and universal. I think the old slider system did it more accuratly.

in real life tactics are done in training sessions, practising the style of play is long lasting process. you don't see Arsenal changing their game from quick one touch football to slow time wasting, direct football in one game, like in FM. imo real life managers' different strategies won't be as different as they are in FM, they won't (and can't) change all instructions.

many of 'FMs team instructions' (like mentality, tempo, closing, down, time wasting etc), in real life, are more dependent on league in which you're managing (different football traditions), manager's prefferences and players you have at disposal (team quality). in FM these instructions depend on the strategie you're using. and that's something I totally disagree with.

[SFraser]

I would have to say that the answer is the last one but I don't think FM accurately replicates real life tactics at any level.

As others have said football is a simple game all about players and yet FM turns it into a hugely complex game based on controlling behaviour. Likewise the huge tactical diversity that arises from understanding player behaviour and how to link that behaviour together is reduced to a hugely simplistic contest based on entireally unrealistic degrees of control.

If we start from the top then the tendency to play defensively skilled players between the defence and the midfield has ultimately resulted in most of the best Strikers and Forwards in the modern game playing from the flanks. Barcelona swapped one of the last remaining "pure" outright strikers in Eto'o AND 40 million Euro for Ibrahimovic. One of the most bamboozling transfers in history untill you realise where it is that strikers actually play in the modern game, and what kind of player is needed in the central position when you are playing modern strikers. No convoluted forcing of a players natural tendencies into an unsuitable role, just simply a straight out purchase of a guy suited to playing a simple position naturally, and playing it with skill and intelligence.

Where is this in FM? Wingers cutting in and forwards dropping deep have been the absolute bane of football manager for several years now, despite being the absolute mantra of Champions League Football for an equal length of time. While Ancelotti had his rhombic "magic square" dancing around the holding midfielders of Europe and shattering flat back fours, FM barely even supports the most vulgar of false 9's. Sure you can setup something a bit similar that doesn't really work, with weeks of effort studying pdf's, while Ancelotti was telling Shevchenko to simply run from deep while everyone else played their natural games in their appointed positions.

You will struggle to properly employ the incredibly basic but hugely potent Barcelona formation from the last couple of years, you can forget about Ancelotti's Milan of 2-5 years ago, but what about Manchester United this season?

They play a pretty basic 4-4-2 which you can setup quite easilly now thanks to the Tactics Creator which removes about 3 months of trial-and-error from the game, but what happens in Real Life when Ferguson picks Giggs, Rooney, Berbatov, Evra and Valencia in the side?

Giggs likes to tuck in, Berbatov likes to drop deep, Rooney demanded the top striker spot, Evra and Valencia are hard working, pacey, powerful, direct players that get up and down the flanks, and now all of a sudden you have a W-M with an unmarkable narrow attacking trio, with 2 AMCs that also like to drift wide and create space for the direct Wide player to charge into the box hitting shots or looking for penalties.

Ferguson more or less just had to pick the players and the formation plays itself out naturally. You could spend the rest of your life trying to develop that way of playing in FM10 and you will still fail.

What do the top teams around the world do to completely change a game? Swap Berbatov for Owen, bring on Ibrahimovic, swap Deco for Joe Cole and tell Drogba to stay through the middle, take on Nani for Giggs to simply give your Central Midfielders more passing options across the pitch. What do you have to do for a similar effect? Change every last detail of every players behaviour and micro-manage key players 5-10 times a game.

There is far too much complexity involved in designing far too few realistic and working tactics. That does not mean that limiting the quantity of design options and turning the game into some weird football boxing match with the AI is the way to go, but considering the game cannot ever be completely realistic then perhaps that line of play is the best we can hope for.

[marksandygill]

Maybe players should come with their own 'inbuilt' instructions, ie glen johnson would naturally attack more than carragher if he were at right back, so could there be an option that when you pick them it automatically changes on the 'advanced' tab in tactics?

Whilst the manager could change the way the whole team plays (tactics), players and their skill would determine how they play individually (player instructions)?

[Mitja]

I'm very interested in hearing some extra information from those who selected the 'always play exactly the same' option.

Does this mean you believe that Man Utd, for example, play equally aggressively at home to Hull as they would do away to Barcelona? Do you also believe that they will not target opposing weaknesses or try to contain their strengths? Or, as some others have mentioned, are you actually talking about basic tactical principles (i.e. Man Utd always line up 4-4-2, spread play to the flanks, aggressively contest the centre of the pitch, look to counter at pace)?

no it won't be the same tactic but it will be the same philosophy, the same style. SAF would have plan for every situation (when loosing, winning, end of the game when loosing/winning etc.) no metter the opposition. you might say that different wizard strategies are these plans I'm talking about. they're not, they are totally different styles, making tactics probably even more complicated than in real life. total lack of managers' styles and different football cultures, and generalization of tactics is most obvious FM tactical weakness.

I'm sure SAF (or any other manager) won't change his philosophy and playing style no metter the opposition. but he will adjust his tactics and more importantly he will have plan A, B and C. he will use different players for roles he thinks that will benefit the team, depending on opposition. he might attack Hull much higher than Barca. maybe he'll think he needs to attack Barca very high like Real did this Sunday, to disturb their build up play from defense. surely players will stick to the position much more against Barca than Hull, maybe full-backs won't be overlapping from the off, maybe he'd want full-backs to provide width against Hull, but being much more cautious and reserved against Barca etc.. he won't change his tacics from super attractive, one touch, high tempo, zero time wasting football against Hull to something totally different against Barca.

imo moving from wizard strategy to football style, FM would improve in realism and make things much less complicated and more logical.

[Drake]

Hugely manager dependant, thus I didn't vote for any of the options above. As many people stated, there are managers who do not pay too much in-depth attention to how their opponent plays. On contrary there are tacticians who analyze each and every opponent and allways try to exploit all their major and minor weaknesses while playing to his team's advantages. Tacticians tend to be more successful IRL, I think that is hardly arguable. After all, you can't play without noticing how your opponent plays and the more understanding you have of your opponent, the better chance you have of getting the right result. But different managers make different notices and changes, depending on preference, circumstance, e.t.c. Some are more willing to adapt and use their team as a means to counter the opposition, some want to dictate play, build the team style, and seek means and necessary changes for different opposition to do so.

I also agree with those who say that current FM is too much drastic in changes necessary to make every match. Not always, no, but sometimes it is. For example, I'm always getting ****ed off with ass manager's pre-match "advices". I play with very fluid philosophy, usually attacking (I always play with my favourite club, and it's traditionally much stronger then 90% of the league), and, let's say, play against 18th placed team at home. They are awful, do not have any kind of quality in all lines. Yet my ass man notices "they struggle to play against ... ... .." and recommends... playing with a very slow tempo, very deep defensive line, e.t.c. It would be laughable, if it didn't occasionally work. Out of interest I followed his advices a few times and they really do work, so it appears any opponent has a "right" way to play against them. One time I played an all-important europa league match, and followed the ass man's advice to play counter (!!) at home from the very start until the end (we had no option but to win to progress). Won 3-0 and basically dominated through and through for 90 minutes.

This game is sometimes over-dependant on opposition, which also results in rock-paper-scissors battle in many serious matches. Furthermore, as it has already been noticed, there are hardly any famous managers IRL who would dramatically change their style of play to counter certain strategy adopted by opposition. They may change one or two things, maybe three, but they won't be playing two times narrower, two times slower, two times less closing down, two times lower mentality, e.t.c. Ok, perhaps sometimes, particularly in the last 5 minutes when in dire need to protect one goal lead. And still there are people who'd play attacking even against Barcelona, no matter how much of a risk that would be.

[rschprs]

I agree with cruyff14 “players know when to push or control the play and begin to defend ect..” . I like adjusting my in game tactics (while the system/formation stays pretty much the same).

Players (especially the more experienced/influential ones) should have an effect on tactics in terms of when to “push or control the play and begin to defend ect”. I hate the fact that I have to spoon feed very good players (I do not mean cristiano ronaldo types, but players like for instance John Terry).

Now I do not mean that these players should be able to set all the sliders for people. But in certain moments during matches, tactics (mentality, defensive line, tempo, closing down, RFD, passing) within a formation need to be changed by maybe just 1-4 slider values. An example would be, leading by 2 goals with 20 minutes to go. At the present moment I have to tell my whole team to play more controlled football. While as we all know teams who have organisers in them will do this automatically, especially late in games. Sometimes a real life manager will just empathise this more or initiate the above example earlier or even tell the team to not change their current tactics.

I imagine it will be hard to implement, but would make it easier if properly implemented.

(I have not voted as the wording and initial staring post made it unclear what was meant. As some people have already mentioned, “tactic approaches” could mean formation, philosophy to some. For others it could mean tactic approaches within a certain formation.)

I absolutely agree with this. The 'extension' on the field of the manager. In the old days you had Cruijff, Beckenbouwer, Rijkaard, Blind... Nowadays of course Terry, Puyol.. and so on. They are the ones who make sure the team sticks to the game-plan and adjust the game-plan in-game when things need to be changed.

This might not be difficult to implement in future upgrades because those players have a high tactical knowledge, and can be designated in-game to play such a role (captain).

However in certain situations they can take the game out of your hand when you don't really want it to happen, f.e. you want to up your goal-difference in the league.

[7Bestie7]

For me you have three types of managers, both in FM and out; those who never change (Benitez), those you can adapt and change (S.A. Ferguson) and those who change everything for every game. For me the two extremes are the weakest of the three options, you're stuck either hoping that your players can play you out of any situation (Manager A) or that you're smarter than the other guy and you have all types of players to counter-act everything that comes at you (Manager B). The managers who succeed are those who adapt without making total shifts in their personal style. Take someone like Sir Alex, using FM terminology he likes to have a rigid defense with the full-backs interchanging on who goes forward and back. He likes at least one ball-winning midfielder but does know how to use two (Keane-Ince/Keane-Butt) when he comes up against tough opposition and needs to get "stuck-in". He prefers using wingers but when the game or situation requires can go 4-3-3 with forwards instead of wingers (98-99 season onwards he was using Solskjaer as a RW/RFL at times when Beckham was injured or not up to the game) and even though he likes to have two forwards he has always used the split-kind.

So all we know about Sir Alex is that he likes to have 4 defenders, rigid, and plays attacking football. Two midfielders or three, wingers or forwards, two up front or "one", all of that is interchangeable depending upon his squad makeup, the opposition and the situation at hand. After United sold Ruud they stopped playing with a Target man and went to the fluidity of 4-2-3-1 with Tevez and Ronaldo. This season with both of them gone that's not an option because the squad isn't able to play that way. This type of fluidity in tactical setup allows a manager to sign players from a larger pool of options, bring in an exciting talent and shift your system around to work him into the team. That's the beauty of being flexible whilst being true to your "style" of play.

Bestie.

[Mitja]

This game is sometimes over-dependant on opposition, which also results in rock-paper-scissors battle in many serious matches. Furthermore, as it has already been noticed, there are hardly any famous managers IRL who would dramatically change their style of play to counter certain strategy adopted by opposition. They may change one or two things, maybe three, but they won't be playing two times narrower, two times slower, two times less closing down, two times lower mentality, e.t.c. Ok, perhaps sometimes, particularly in the last 5 minutes when in dire need to protect one goal lead. And still there are people who'd play attacking even against Barcelona, no matter how much of a risk that would be.

exactly and that's my biggset problem with Wizard produced tactics and thinking it uses. I already wrote above how I think some manager will change it tactics when playing against weak/strong opponent. he would tweak only 'a couple of things'. but with Wizard, going from let's say Control to Standard tactics, we're talking about new system and different style, not just new tactics, becouse every instruction changes.

I don't think there are many teams in the world able to play different styles succesfully. and I don't think there are many managers who will try to employ many different styles. but in FM changing between Stategies is alfa and omega of tactical success. in real life teams play to their strengths, managers buy players which will suite their system, teams learn, tweak and practise it's system on training ground, it's a long lasting process. you can't play high pressing, fast tempo, direct game one half and then change to posessional, Barca like in the other. mostly becouse you will have players suitable for only one style. yet in FM, Bolton will be equaly able to play both styles, becouse that's what changing to different Strategy does. I'm not saying that any team will play the same in 1st minute, after they score, after they concede, in 85th minute when loosing or winning etc.. but managers in real life cannot and will not change their style as drastically as it happens in FM (when changing between Strategies).

in FM terms, real life manager will use one Strategy as his team's system and will tweak from there to adopt to different situations and opposition. or at least he will use the same playing style in diffrerent Strategies. he will still play fast and direct/posessional/one touch etc. these combinations of sliders are what makes a system in real life, so if a team plays fast, direct football the combination of sliders which determines fast and direct football, should stay the same.

imo the Wizard should include such systems just like it includes Player Roles. we should be asked what kind of attacking play we want to employ, what kind of defensive system we want to employ. and then the combination of sliders would setup accordingly. in such situation we wouldn't be asking ourselves whether we should combat AI's Control tactic with Standard or Counter. we would be thinking about what kind of system we want to employ to our team, do we have the right players for such system, how can we beat Chelsea wit such system, what are the strenghts of our team, what should we tweak to make it better, do player roles fit the system, what players should we sign to improve the system etc.. what's also worth saying here that tactics should be linked to training. everything starts on training and it's probably the most important factor to make any tactic or system work.

in FM at the moment, all we have in tactical Strategy setup is the degree of how defensive/attacking we wish to play. and if we want to attack a little more all sliders will increase by x. compare that to what I wrote above section. which Strategy and it's tweaks employs one touch football? how can we play deep and tight at the back but still relly on fast balls when opportunity comes? can we employ real life tactics with the way how the Wizard works?

I also think the tactics the Wizard produces are too general and universal and don't distinguish between different football traditions at all. that's something which could easily be improved. right now every 'Counter' tactic produced by Wizard will be more or less the same. there should be a little more managers individuality in it (system again). and what I would really like to see is to take a liitle more regard to different football cultures when producing tactics... or systems of tactics even better.

I'm not for complicating the game even more, I believe the things I wrote would make it more simple. and what's even more important, more logical and far more realistic. I like Wizard but it should improve a lot and tactics should link to training.

[jascko]

There is nothing that prevents you from playing this way. It's not that you need to change the framework every time the AI change it. If you find a nice balance and a framework that suits your team, you can successfully play this game and make changes only by using the shouts. This is what I do and with reasonable results.

My strategy has always been the way you describe the real world. I select a team, take good look at my players and what they are capable of doing, then I choose a framework that suits my players. Then I use shouts to correct if I see something wrong in ME. The only time I change the framework is at the end of the matches, the last 10 minutes, depending on whether I need goal or not. Then I go either more defensive or more attacking. Of course I buy only players that suit my style of playing, or the system that I have implemented. I won a promotion to PL with Nott Forest playing counter-attacking framework both home and away, only changing things with shouts. More simple cant be done.

All that you mention here can be done in FM. But of course, if you want to complicate things more than necessary, so be my guest. This game can be played as simple as possible, but still many choose to over complicate. I've never understood this need for complexity, thus it is not surprising that many do not see that the game can be played as you explain RL.

[Mitja]

agreed and that's very similar to how I play. my complain has got to do more with how AI aproaches the game and the way how TT&F wuold want us to play. I was talking about the direction to where FM is going. it's becomming unnecesary complex and if we want more realism, imo, we should deal with different tactical aproach than the game offers now. with all the unnecesary tactical tweaking, we (or AI) still don't have much control over player movement (wingers moving centrally, or full-backs overlapping when the Wizard needs to change half of the team's instuctions to make it work). some very basic things like team's style of play (one touch football, posessional football etc.) are missing in the game.

basicly what I'm looking for is less complicated tactical system, which would mirror real life tactics and system more accuratly. with more emphesis on squad managment and training. I'm not sure if I was clear enough but I wouldn't want the tactical aspect of FM to become even more complicated as it is far too complicated and time consuming now. just to become more realistic and logical.

of course I'm not claiming that I'm right. I just doubt that any manager would change every single instruction if he wanted to play a little more attacking, like going from Control to Attacking in FM, for instance.

[cruyff14]

agreed and that's very similar to how I play. my complain has got to do more with how AI aproaches the game and the way how TT&F wuold want us to play. I was talking about the direction to where FM is going. it's becomming unnecesary complex and if we want more realism, imo, we should deal with different tactical aproach than the game offers now. with all the unnecesary tactical tweaking, we (or AI) still don't have much control over player movement (wingers moving centrally, or full-backs overlapping when the Wizard needs to change half of the team's instuctions to make it work). some very basic things like team's style of play (one touch football, posessional football etc.) are missing in the game.

basicly what I'm looking for is less complicated tactical system, which would mirror real life tactics and system more accuratly. with more emphesis on squad managment and training. I'm not sure if I was clear enough but I wouldn't want the tactical aspect of FM to become even more complicated as it is far too complicated and time consuming now. just to become more realistic and logical.

of course I'm not claiming that I'm right. I just doubt that any manager would change every single instruction if he wanted to play a little more attacking, like going from Control to Attacking in FM, for instance.

I agree here the training module has needed a major over-haul for a few years now and it needs to be implimented in with the tactics some how I also think this should go down to youth level aswell as if you take the Ajax or Barcelona academies for example all their players are tought to play a specific way from a young age so that when they do make the first team they fit straight into the teams philosophy. I for one would love this to get a whole team playing my way. but back to the tactics I do believe that training needs to be taken into account as if you play a 4-4-2 for example and want to employ a 3-5-2 for the next match then you need you team to begin practicing that formation and the way you will play in the build up to that match.

[Mitja]

I agree here the training module has needed a major over-haul for a few years now and it needs to be implimented in with the tactics some how I also think this should go down to youth level aswell as if you take the Ajax or Barcelona academies for example all their players are tought to play a specific way from a young age so that when they do make the first team they fit straight into the teams philosophy.

I'm not sure how much Pep gets involved in working with youth teams directly, but what you wrote shows how important the philosophy and tactical system is for teams like Barca, Ajax, Man Utd, Arsenal etc.. it would be teriffic if we could play this game in such depth. they employ their philosophy to their players since very young age. who knows what kind of players Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Bergkamp, Seedorf, Beckham etc. would be without the right guidence.

the philosophy and the system, the consistancy is as much important for senior players as it is for youngsters. the most succesfull clubs in recent years, like Man Utd, Milan, Lyon, Barca all have defined systems from which they never withdraw, no meter the manager.

such features are desperatly missing in FM imo.

[DanTheMan999]

Just quickly, I'm not sure what the point in this thread is. Just wondering how people play, or something else?

I can see why people love to play the game very tactically with all the sliders and such, but on a personal level, the whole tactics thing bores me to death. The tactics creator was a great addition to the game, sliders confused me beyond complete belief. I've been playing the game since 01/02 and I loved how some aspects of the game have been improved, but I miss the simplicity and the pick up and play part of the older games. I didn't have to spend 30-40 minutes setting up a tactic that worked really well. If I wanted to, I could download a tactic that would do well if I had a good team. I have much more fun grooming my team, finding the best players and building up my youth players. I find that much more exciting.

If I wanted to be an actual football manager, I'd go out and do some coaching and go from there. I don't have the time or relevant skill to do that, but I love football, and I like to think that I know a little bit about the game. Should the game be catered to both sorts of players? Probably. Is it at the moment? Not sure, maybe. It's become a lot easier. However, I feel that at the moment the emphasis is on tweaking tactics and constantly changing formation based on a goal or a substitution. Football managers get PAYED to do this, they also have 90 minutes to do it in. They can see how this will effect players. They have been given instructions by mouth, not told to go attacking 19 (which however you view the TC, is still what they are being told). I wish the game was more general in this area, and I personally feel it would be more realistic this way. Even if you have to hide the underlying code and sliders. I don't feel these are realistic.

Then again, if you are lucky enough to be good with tactics, then I not only applaud you, but I totally understand how people wanting to play with the same tactics week in, week out and successfully can seem totally implausible. But that is apparently how 1/5 of the community base (And i reckon more as this will not include the casual players who won't even know these forums exist, don't patch their game etc.) view the game.

Hell maybe having some sort of skill levels wouldn't be the worst I idea ever.

Sorry if I repeated myself there at all. Struggling to get my thoughts in a coherent form.

Now back to the Leighton Town game (it's not going well )

[Lincoln Imp2]

There is nothing that prevents you from playing this way. It's not that you need to change the framework every time the AI change it. If you find a nice balance and a framework that suits your team, you can successfully play this game and make changes only by using the shouts. This is what I do and with reasonable results.

I think we all accept that playing the game with a "balance and a framework that suits your team" can work TO SOME EXTENT.

But jascko...you make the key point when you admit you do so with "reasonable results".

I have no doubt that FM10 is the most incredible real life sim of football management on the market. If you play as a mid-table prem side and spend quite a lot of time analysing the game and opposition during extended highlights you might get higher than the board expectations.

But you know the fun of the game used to be how IMPLAUSABLE it COULD be.

At the core of its satisfaction was knowing that you could take Forest to the top of the premiership and European glory within four years using a good tactic - even if you didn't devise it yourself.

That's not real-life or realistic. It's fun and enjoyable.

Where's the enjoyment of spending untold hours reading a tactical bible and then hundreds more in front of a computer screen, twiddling with sliders in order to revel in the joys of a 10th place finish when you were predicted to be 15th three seasons running??

I know this is heresy but a lot of players are NOT looking for a "career game" they are looking for some fun and enjoyment for a couple of hours a week.

Sadly FM no longer provides that and we have to accept that most people on this board are the "serious players" and the opinions will be weighted in that way.

I know this kind of post is usually followed by the cries of "if you want something easier don't buy it" and I accept that.

But life is serious enough as it is. I have lots of challenges in work and life that require time and effort and do provide satisfaction when I get it right.

With a computer game I want at least some element of escapism. I want to think I have a reasonable chance of runaway success.

Part of CM's charm was to live the dream of a fan by taking his own club to ridiculously dizzy heights without a degree in "match engines".

I just want some of that joy back...!!

[crouchaldinho]

Lincoln Imp - take a look at Dafuge's Challenge. Plenty of people are achieving what you appear to want from the game.

You don't need a 'degree' in the match engine to enjoy the game. Just use common sense and roleplay as a manager.

C.

[Lincoln Imp2]

Lincoln Imp - take a look at Dafuge's Challenge. Plenty of people are achieving what you appear to want from the game.

You don't need a 'degree' in the match engine to enjoy the game. Just use common sense and roleplay as a manager.

C.

Where do I find this wonderous Holy Grail?

[crouchaldinho]

What Holy Grail? :confused:

[crouchaldinho]

I really do recommend the new podcast from FM Britain, which is all about reading the match engine and making simple changes.

They do talk about the myth that you need a degree or even a PhD to understand the game (which seems to crop up everywhere). They also explain why they think that isn't true and what sort of simple changes you can make. I think it might help you to understand that it isn't that complicated and that it can be fun to 'roleplay' as a manager and make simple tactical decisions before or during a game.

Regards,

C.

[crouchaldinho]

Also, you will find Dafuge's Challenge here, where you can see plenty of people reaching 'dizzy heights' with non-League clubs! So it is possible to achieve the unthinkable in this game, which is part of the fun, but of course there has to be a challenge too.

C.

[Lincoln Imp2]

Also, you will find Dafuge's Challenge here, where you can see plenty of people reaching 'dizzy heights' with non-League clubs! So it is possible to achieve the unthinkable in this game, which is part of the fun, but of course there has to be a challenge too.

C.

mmmmm...had a look through Dafuge's Challenge and I think your definition of "plenty of people" and mine are somewhat different. Some people are having success - though details on how and over what time scales are a little harder to ascertain. Many others aren't.

As evidence that the joy of can be achieved without hours and hours of tactical know-how it provides next to none.

And I saw hardly any posts relating to whether people actually "tweak" or not and that was the point of my original post.

[crouchaldinho]

mmmmm...had a look through Dafuge's Challenge and I think your definition of "plenty of people" and mine are somewhat different. Some people are having success - though details on how and over what time scales are a little harder to ascertain.

On just the last page (where there are only 20 odd posts at the time of writing), there are the following examples of 'unthinkable' success:

- Kingstonian in the Championship after eight seasons

- Merthyr Tydfil beating Man Utd in the Premier League

- Guiseley in League One after seven seasons

Plenty of other people who haven't identified their team are talking about their successes too.

If that isn't evidence that what you want from the game is possible, then I don't know what will prove it to you!

As evidence that the joy of can be achieved without hours and hours of tactical know-how it provides next to none.

And I saw hardly any posts relating to whether people actually "tweak" or not and that was the point of my original post.

Try having a read of the T&T'10 on the tactics forum or try listening to the podcast I linked to earlier.

Take it from me that it is definitely possible to achieve success without hours and hours of tweaking.

All that is needed is common sense. The tactics creator has made things even quicker and more accessible than ever. All you need to do is to make simple decisions relating to real life football.

For example:

1) 'Oh I'm 2-0 up now, perhaps we should "take a breather" and "retain possession"'.

2) 'We cannot seem to break down this defence, perhaps we should become more attacking and play with more width'.

3) 'My team aren't taking enough shots, perhaps I should tell them to "shoot on sight"'.

4) 'My team are taking too many shots from distance, perhaps I should tell them to "work it into the box"'.

5) 'We're 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, perhaps now is the time to settle for the result and become more defensive'.

These are some of the basic things to do each game. As you can see, it is nothing terrible. Just basic and simple decisions you can make on a game-by-game basis. It's stuff you probably already know from watching real football matches! Probably stuff you say to your Dad, best mate, Wife or whoever you watch football with all of the time.

It's good fun as well, making these decisions for yourself, and it takes no time at all. You don't need any in-depth theoretical understanding and you don't need to tweak every five minutes. All you need is a basic understanding of football and the ability to click a button on a drop-down menu!

Regards,

C.

[Red_Army1903]

They change tactics for opponent, scoreline and how their own team is playing. However, the majority of FM users are used to the Diablo tactic from yesteryear. Seems like they just want to buy players and go from there. Hopefully, SI does not cater to them and continues to improve on the sophisticated engine.

Surely the easiest thing is to provide two detail levels for the game. Last time I checked, the fella who makes the game was vehemently against difficulty levels.

Personally, tactics is the least interesting part of the game. Coupled with my terrible temper and inability to lose with grace, the actual matches are a chore for me, rather than enjoyable.

I'd much rather win every game without trying, and concentrate on youth development, and unearthing gems.

[crouchaldinho]

I'd much rather win every game without trying...

Where is the fun in that? :confused:

Maybe FM simply isn't the game for you then.

C.

[DirtyACE]

Where is the fun in that? :confused:

Maybe FM simply isn't the game for you then.

C.

Why the confusion? Is it not possible for players to have various ideas on how they derive enjoyment from FM? Shouldn't the game be versatile enough to accommodate different approaches to management? The game is called Football Manager after all, not Football Tactician.

[SFraser]

Why the confusion? Is it not possible for players to have various ideas on how they derive enjoyment from FM? Shouldn't the game be versatile enough to accommodate different approaches to management? The game is called Football Manager after all, not Football Tactician.

It is called Football Manager, not Tic Tac Toe, not Snap, not PES Level 1.

Players cannot expect to derive infinate variations of enjoyment from a computer game, and they cannot expect their individual sense of enjoyment to be supported at the expense of the quality and purpose of the product.

Football Manager has no easy and simply and obvious "I Win Button" because SI are not interested in supporting that kind of entertainment. They are attempting to develop an enjoyable simulation of Football, not an encyclopaedia of fun.

For every "I Win" button added to Football Manager for one users enjoyment, another user is disappointed in either the simplicity and shallowness of the game, or the lack of development of superior management simulation features.

[DirtyACE]

It is called Football Manager, not Tic Tac Toe, not Snap, not PES Level 1.

Players cannot expect to derive infinate variations of enjoyment from a computer game, and they cannot expect their individual sense of enjoyment to be supported at the expense of the quality and purpose of the product.

Football Manager has no easy and simply and obvious "I Win Button" because SI are not interested in supporting that kind of entertainment. They are attempting to develop an enjoyable simulation of Football, not an encyclopaedia of fun.

For every "I Win" button added to Football Manager for one users enjoyment, another user is disappointed in either the simplicity and shallowness of the game, or the lack of development of superior management simulation features.

I understand what you're saying, but that's not exactly what I was trying to project with my reply to crouchaldinho, and that's my fault, I should have expanded more on what I wanted to say.

You're right, the game can't generate an infinite number of variations/scenarios of what could be perceived as enjoyment by any random player. However, there is a general consensus on what approaches to FM are typically employed by the large majority of players. These approaches are not infinite at all. The three most common and most used are the tactic-focused approach, the approach focused on all other aspects of management besides tactics, and the mixture of the two. I think though that the players who prefer the approach that's is non-tactics-based are sometimes mistakenly labeled as wanting to have a "I win button".

Overall, my main argument would be that the game needs much more balancing to allow for these three type of approaches. In my opinion, and just my opinion, the last few FMs have been balanced a bit too much towards the tactical approach. Again, I'm not asking for any "I win button", but what I'm asking for is a balanced game experience, so that if a player wants to be a tactical mastermind, then they can, but if they want to be a man manager and motivator, then they can be that also, while being able to achieve very similar success with either approach.

[SFraser]

I understand what you're saying, but that's not exactly what I was trying to project with my reply to crouchaldinho, and that's my fault, I should have expanded more on what I wanted to say.

You're right, the game can't generate an infinite number of variations/scenarios of what could be perceived as enjoyment by any random player. However, there is a general consensus on what approaches to FM are typically employed by the large majority of players. These approaches are not infinite at all. The three most common and most used are the tactic-focused approach, the approach focused on all other aspects of management besides tactics, and the mixture of the two. I think though that the players who prefer the approach that's is non-tactics-based are sometimes mistakenly labeled as wanting to have a "I win button".

Overall, my main argument would be that the game needs much more balancing to allow for these three type of approaches. In my opinion, and just my opinion, the last few FMs have been balanced a bit too much towards the tactical approach. Again, I'm not asking for any "I win button", but what I'm asking for is a balanced game experience, so that if a player wants to be a tactical mastermind, then they can, but if they want to be a man manager and motivator, then they can be that also, while being able to achieve very similar success with either approach.

The last few games have tended towards hiding every necessary detail under obscurity and lack of documentation. The game AI is not particularly clever and the game itself seems to think football is still in the 1980's, but the only way to realise this and play this game at it's own game is to spend an large amount of time experimenting with mechanics, for the simple reason that the simplistic mechanical understanding to actually play the game is not explained by those developing the whole product.

The average player is looking for an "I Win" button because they are sick fed up of trying to figure out the gameplay impact of mentality and closing down and marking.

We have now reached a stage where detail is completely absent from the intended usage of the game, and where particular contributors can explain 3 to 5 options that revolutionise a teams play and performance in specific contexts.

We are as close to an I Win button against a feeble AI as you could possibly imagine, but because this is a Football Management Simulator, the lack of detail in the Tactics Wizard and the lack of understanding of gameplay beyond tactics still manages to gnaw huge chunks off the arse of SI.

Everyone wants an enjoyable game and this Football Management Simulator is hugely simplistic once you understand the mechanics of your choices. Failing to adequately explain the game has already resounded deeply throughout the Tactical Options and Match Engine, and it is going to do exactly the same in every other area of the game, while still failing to address the problems the userbase has with this game.

So much work for so little gain.

[DirtyACE]

The last few games have tended towards hiding every necessary detail under obscurity and lack of documentation. The game AI is not particularly clever and the game itself seems to think football is still in the 1980's, but the only way to realise this and play this game at it's own game is to spend an large amount of time experimenting with mechanics, for the simple reason that the simplistic mechanical understanding to actually play the game is not explained by those developing the whole product.

The average player is looking for an "I Win" button because they are sick fed up of trying to figure out the gameplay impact of mentality and closing down and marking.

We have now reached a stage where detail is completely absent from the intended usage of the game, and where particular contributors can explain 3 to 5 options that revolutionise a teams play and performance in specific contexts.

We are as close to an I Win button against a feeble AI as you could possibly imagine, but because this is a Football Management Simulator, the lack of detail in the Tactics Wizard and the lack of understanding of gameplay beyond tactics still manages to gnaw huge chunks off the arse of SI.

Everyone wants an enjoyable game and this Football Management Simulator is hugely simplistic once you understand the mechanics of your choices. Failing to adequately explain the game has already resounded deeply throughout the Tactical Options and Match Engine, and it is going to do exactly the same in every other area of the game, while still failing to address the problems the userbase has with this game.

So much work for so little gain.

What you've written is very interesting, at least to myself. I would have never thought of FM being in this state of simplicity as you have said. I suppose if one knows the mechanics very well, then it is quite simple. One would have a figurative "I win button" in that case.

[ShirazS]

On just the last page (where there are only 20 odd posts at the time of writing), there are the following examples of 'unthinkable' success:

- Kingstonian in the Championship after eight seasons

- Merthyr Tydfil beating Man Utd in the Premier League

- Guiseley in League One after seven seasons

Plenty of other people who haven't identified their team are talking about their successes too.

If that isn't evidence that what you want from the game is possible, then I don't know what will prove it to you!

Try having a read of the T&T'10 on the tactics forum or try listening to the podcast I linked to earlier.

Take it from me that it is definitely possible to achieve success without hours and hours of tweaking.

All that is needed is common sense. The tactics creator has made things even quicker and more accessible than ever. All you need to do is to make simple decisions relating to real life football.

For example:

1) 'Oh I'm 2-0 up now, perhaps we should "take a breather" and "retain possession"'.

2) 'We cannot seem to break down this defence, perhaps we should become more attacking and play with more width'.

3) 'My team aren't taking enough shots, perhaps I should tell them to "shoot on sight"'.

4) 'My team are taking too many shots from distance, perhaps I should tell them to "work it into the box"'.

5) 'We're 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, perhaps now is the time to settle for the result and become more defensive'.

These are some of the basic things to do each game. As you can see, it is nothing terrible. Just basic and simple decisions you can make on a game-by-game basis. It's stuff you probably already know from watching real football matches! Probably stuff you say to your Dad, best mate, Wife or whoever you watch football with all of the time.

It's good fun as well, making these decisions for yourself, and it takes no time at all. You don't need any in-depth theoretical understanding and you don't need to tweak every five minutes. All you need is a basic understanding of football and the ability to click a button on a drop-down menu!

Regards,

C.

I have tried a few of the shouts based on the above and I've got to say, it works really well. I have so far beaten Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool in quick succession as well as thumping Burnley 6-0. I have a question though, if I have a very low cross completion rate probably because I do not have strikers that are strong in the air. What shout would you recommend to play the ball on the ground more?

[ndebergerac]

None really apply to me. I only change my tactic mid-game if what I'm doing clearly isn't working over-all, regardless of scoreline. If I'm playing okay, but losing or drawing with a weaker side I'll just make a couple of like for like subs, usuaully attacking midfield and/or forward.

Occasioanlly I may completely overhaul my tactic if I hit a bad run of form (usually around the 3rd quarter of a season, if at all), but will resort back to my favoured tactic by the start of a new season.

I'm quite surprised to see that most voters change their tactic for every game (I'm assuming that's what the last option is basically getting at), I just don't have the patience for that.

[pauly15]

The poll is flawed so I won't vote in it.

If I could vote I would vote: normally play the same tactics regardless of opposition, but change for scoreline. That would be the most common.

Also I think Cup games with a home and away leg generate more changes.

[nazarene04]

What about changing roles in each tactic?

[Pedrin_FB]

I change according to the opponent and the score. But only change the mentality and strategy game, not change the formation.

[SCIAG]

What about changing roles in each tactic?

It's still a tactical change, you effectively make a new tactic with every minor change you make.

I disagree with the notion that it's impossible to get a narrow formation working well like the ones top teams are using. I have a 4-2-3-1 with Liverpool and my wingers switching flanks. On their stronger flank, they stay wide, and give the attacking midfielders room to work. When they switch, they come inside, and support the striker. It works quite well, as both players are good at both jobs. I also have a 4-2-2-2 (that's not a Brazilian 4-2-2-2, it's with AMCs and MCs not MCs and DMs) that works very well. Each of the three attacking midfielders has a role within the side and does it. Regardless, the game is hardly "stuck in the 80s". The 80s saw increases in the use of the sweeper, and more flexible formations that went with it. If anything, we've probably returned to greater rigidity, bar the very top sides.

[nazarene04]

I know it`s a tactical change I am just curious about how people approach the tactical aspect of the game.

I just can`t understand how it`s possible to play different tactics when players have the same role.

[SCIAG]

I know it`s a tactical change I am just curious about how people approach the tactical aspect of the game.

I just can`t understand how it`s possible to play different tactics when players have the same role.

Philosophy, strategy, and the adjustments? Shouts?

For example, you could change passing, but keep all the roles the same. This is a pretty major change.

[nazarene04]

So you wanna say when chasing a goal you don`t change your limited defender into a ball playing defender for example? Goalkeeper into a sweeper keeper to support the attack?

[CaptainPlanet]

What do the top teams around the world do to completely change a game? Swap Berbatov for Owen, bring on Ibrahimovic, swap Deco for Joe Cole and tell Drogba to stay through the middle, take on Nani for Giggs to simply give your Central Midfielders more passing options across the pitch. What do you have to do for a similar effect? Change every last detail of every players behaviour and micro-manage key players 5-10 times a game.

This encapsulates the problems with FMs tactical wizardry 100%.

[SCIAG]

So you wanna say when chasing a goal you don`t change your limited defender into a ball playing defender for example? Goalkeeper into a sweeper keeper to support the attack?

Generally, limited defenders are limited defenders because they're not very good. I don't see the point of a sweeper keeper in FM.

Your posts seem to be going nowhere. You asked if changing roles were a change, when I said they were, you asked if it was possible to change in other ways. I named some, you tell me what roles one could adjust? :confused:

[Octavianus[GER]]

Have chosen the last option. I think it's really important how your own team is doing and what opponent comes along. You can't just play one tactic if things aren't running so fine. It also is a big difference if Real Madrid is coming to town or if you are playing against a lower league team. And of course tactic depends on scoreline. Does my team leading with 2 or more goals? Then I advise them to play slowly and keep the ball within the own rows. Are we one goal behind and only ten minutes left? Of course should we try to equalize and so I would let the team playing much more offensive.

[nazarene04]

Generally, limited defenders are limited defenders because they're not very good. I don't see the point of a sweeper keeper in FM.

Your posts seem to be going nowhere. You asked if changing roles were a change, when I said they were, you asked if it was possible to change in other ways. I named some, you tell me what roles one could adjust? :confused:

You understood me wrong i guess:). I didnt asked you if changing roles are a change. Dont wanna be rude or something but everyone knows that.

Since wwfan is doing a little research here about opinions from users the only thing i here people about is tactical changes and shouts etc. So i asked ``what about changing roles in each tactic?`` It`s a research right?

I am curious if people changing roles in each tactic. You obviously dont see the point of it but thats your opinion and thats ok:thup:. But what about others?

[Loversleaper]

Am I the only one that is under the impression that the T&TT is a miserable place to be these days? The lack of any constructive debate/thread with (minimal) depth is quite downheartening, it's as if people don't have the energy as there are so few out there and seems as if they pass through without much notice. Is this all coincidental, or...?