It's time for a leap of faith

[Blacksquare]

Lets time I suggest to do something besides with tactics, everyone yelled this is football MANAGER not football DIRECTOR.

[crouchaldinho]

However, at the higher level we meet very good players. The manager can just throw a talented player into the pitch, with minimal instructions, and sit back to watch (a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). Of course, we all always learn and those players do not by all means know everything, but they definately don't need the tactical guidance that lesser players need.

Carlo Ancelotti would seem to disagree with you. See the following quotation:

... a coach has to say what kind of movements he wants and should give clear indications. These are 'guides' for the talent, but it will be up to the talent to enrich the situation. But a 'guide' is always necessary.

(Note, I have added italics).

I'll ask you again, have you ever read Inverting the Pyramid or any other tactical books? I would thoroughly recommend it given your lack of knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game.

[crouchaldinho]

Lets time I suggest to do something besides with tactics, everyone yelled this is football MANAGER not football DIRECTOR.

What did you suggest?

[tak]

Crouch can you post my quotation again but this time highlight what is in the parenthesis? I like the fact though, that Carlo backed my argument about higher leagues.

I have read the book, and indeed my knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game is indeed very good. However (and this comes with maturity) I realise that tactics are a) overrated in FM and b) overrated by some analysts.

I think what Blacksquare used the word director in its literal meaning (someone who directs). He points that there is more in football manager than directing your players.

[crouchaldinho]

I never said that tactics play zero role. They do not. I said, firstly, that the higher you go in the world of football the less important they become

In this case, how would you explain the tactical innovations going on at the top level of the game, in particular the fact that 4-4-2 has been more or less superseded by 4-2-3-1 at the very top level of football? Futhermore, how would you also explain the 'death' of 3-5-2 at the top of the game?

Compare this to the lower leagues. I'm not sure if you watch a lot of lower league football (it sounds as if you don't) but basically 4-4-2 is still very much in the ascendancy. You also get a number of sides employing 3-5-2 variations also. How can you account for this if, as you suggest, tactics are not important at the top level?

Of course, you still get some sides who play 4-5-1 variations and even 4-2-3-1, even at non-League level. I actually thought this was an extremely interesting point though and it is something that I have often wanted to start a discussion thread about in the tactics forum. It is my understanding that Luton Town, a Conference National side and one of my local teams, have recently been employing a 4-2-3-1. However, at the level I most often watch football at, which is the Conference South, I have rarely seen this system employed by a manager, apart from one time when the St. Albans City manager seemed to deploy his side in a 4231-cum-433. A quick glance at the non-League paper every week shows a plethora of 4-4-2s but very few 4-2-3-1s or 4-5-1 variations.

Anyway, I seem to have gone off topic slightly. Coming back to the point...

Given that you feel tactics are such a small part of the 'pie' at the top level Tak, I would be interested to know how you can account for this?

and, secondly, that tactics take a disproportionally big part of the FM pie.

Haven't we already had quite a good counter argument to this point of view from Dafuge, WWFan and also myself? Are you going to continue to ignore it?

[crouchaldinho]

Crouch can you post my quotation again but this time highlight what is in the parenthesis?

Regardless of what you said in parenthesis, you still argue that a top player needs minimal instructions. Ancelotti's quotation is in direct opposition to what you are saying.

I like the fact though, that Carlo backed my argument about higher leagues.

No, that quotation hasn't backed up your argument at all. A tactical guide is always necessary. The player 'enriching the situation' might be seen as 'creative freedom' and 'roaming from position' in FM terms. They are freer than lower league players perhaps, at least in some cases, but a player, no matter the level, always needs tactical instructions. It's exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

I have read the book, and indeed my knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game is indeed very good.

If you have read the book, and indeed your understanding of tactical theory is so good, please could you explain the proliferation of specialist roles in modern football at the top level in light of your argument that tactics are not important for elite players at the top of the game?

[edgar555]

Crouch can you post my quotation again but this time highlight what is in the parenthesis? I like the fact though, that Carlo backed my argument about higher leagues.

I have read the book, and indeed my knowledge regarding the tactical side of the game is indeed very good. However (and this comes with maturity) I realise that tactics are a) overrated in FM and b) overrated by some analysts.

I think what Blacksquare used the word director in its literal meaning (someone who directs). He points that there is more in football manager than directing your players.

Carlo hasn't backed your argument. Tactics are crucial in football. If they weren't then teams would still be run by commitees (ala England in the 1900's to 1950's). They are not overrated, good tactics can get great results out of mediocre players.

Tell you what, you go off and make your game and have less tactics, I'll contine playing FM for my dose of football reality.

[tak]

No, that quotation hasn't backed up your argument at all. A tactical guide is always necessary.

I disagree. A tactical guide is always unecessary. Sorry, I'm joking. I never actually said that.

More answers to follow.

[RBKalle]

I didn't read the whole thing, but here come my two cents on that...

* I agree FM isn't "too much about tactics", but "it's your tactic" is pretty much the easy answer any FM'er has been getting around here for the majority of complaints about underachieving, poor performances, etc.

So it's no wonder many tend to think FM is heavy on the tactical side of the game when it comes down to success or failure.

* On the other hand, the Tactical Wizard has introduced a cosmetic façade to the infamous Slidermania the tactical section was and still is.

See, I can play my Midfielder as Supporting Box to Box, but under the realistic-like terminology, the sliders are still there, alive and kicking.

The point is: I can use a 5-options method, but what's the difference if, in the end, the ME and possibly the AI, work on 20 options?

It's like playing on a guitar with only 4 strings or 12 frets... it's "easier" but the music still requires the whole instrument...

* Also, the non-tactical side of FM can still be improved by leaps and bounds...

A very underlooked (ignored?) side of the manager-players interaction, related to the tactical side is the "positional issue".

To this day we can evaluate how our tactic is working just by match results and ratings.

What we're lacking is a specific, personal evaluation of the playing system.

E.g. how many threads asking "how should I play ____?" or "is _____ a Poacher or a Target Man?" are we having?

In real life, the player himself will most likely bitch and moan if used in the wrong way, or even if asked to play in a position he's technically able to play but which he doesn't like.

What about MC/AMCs you can totally switch from Box-to-Box to Trequartista without a noticeable drop in performance or morale? That doesn't happen too often, and not without consequances.

Instead in FM I can totally use my offensive MC as DM with little or no penalty, in total spite of his attributes [and of logic]

The biggest "flaw" with so-called SuperTactics [or even with a rather standard but successful tactic] is that it almost looks like no matter who you play in it, it'll work...

Actually I half-think we should get Player-specific instructions instead of Positional ones... E.g. in my 4-4-2, Andrea Pirlo will play Defensive Playmaker, but if I put Steven Gerrard in THE SAME POSITION, he must play Box-to-Box, or Ballack will play Offensive Support.

As things are now, each one will "inherit" the player instruction set in the tactic, but surprisignly enough the performance won't drop much.

* I appreciate morale being such an important part of FM, too bad more often than not I don't understand why morale changes...

And Press conferences and team talks shouldn't monopolize the Morale factor.

We need a total revamping of the player interaction, with feedback about tactics and more.

Then scouting and transfer market, but that's for another topic.

[tak]

Some very interesting points were raised by RBKalle. If FM is released from the tactics tyranny, there is a whole new world that can be explored.

But I think crouchaldinho has asked me a few questions (without swearing once, what a progress!)

I read the articles you provided crouch and they are a interesting discussions on formations. You are very quick to suggest books and blogs I should read, because I "lack knowledge of the tactical side" but I increasingly think you urgently need some training in logic.

I will repeat my thesis: In FM the greatest part of the manager's duties is tactics, whether you choose to use them or not. Just look at how deep you can go in altering tactics compared to what choices you have in player interaction, for example. In contrast, in real life, tactics is not a big part of management, although, of course, they are a part.

You, crouch, linked me to two blogs talking about formations. How on earth, I ask, is this a logical answer to my thesis? Your question was, how do I explain the tactical innovations. I explain them by natural football evolution, physical and technical evolution, mental evolution, new training methods, new psycho-analytic developments, television, sponsors, gossip magazines, other changing external factors and, yes, of course, certain managers' intuition. Yes crouch, there are intelligent football managers that understand the dynamics of all those factors and adapt, sometimes by introducing something new in tactics, sometimes by changing the time of training sessions (and I intentionaly put something trivial sounding here). The point is, managers make many decisions that you and I don't have a clue about, reacting to hundreds of factors you and I don't have a clue about.

The higher a manager is, the force and number of those factors increases. That is why tactics become less important (but not unimportant). You asked me how could I explain the proliferation of specialist roles in modern football at the top level in light of my argument that tactics are not important for elite players at the top of the game? The proliferation of specialist roles is a development that occured through financial pressures, not tactical. Many footballers are a product these days and they have to a) be protected (stricter rules about fouling) and b) attract audience (freedom to show technical skills). So here is a development in football that wasn't initiated by a tactical need.

Honestly, crouch, I think you have to sit down for a moment, forget about formations and think of football in other ways, as a business for example. If you grasp the size and influence of some organisations you will realise why tactics is a secondary task in a football manager's job at these levels.

[iacovone]

I honestly despair. This is the most blinkered, ignorant, arrogant OPer around. Open your eyes for a second. Stop trying to ram your "thesis" down our throats and accept that your argument has been disproved about 20 times in this thread. You are not a revolutionary thinker. You are deluded.

[tak]

Please let us all return to a civilised conversation and leave the trauma of reading iacovone's contribution behind...

[robbert_o154]

You asked me how could I explain the proliferation of specialist roles in modern football at the top level in light of my argument that tactics are not important for elite players at the top of the game? The proliferation of specialist roles is a development that occured through financial pressures, not tactical. Many footballers are a product these days and they have to a) be protected (stricter rules about fouling) and b) attract audience (freedom to show technical skills). So here is a development in football that wasn't initiated by a tactical need.

Honestly, crouch, I think you have to sit down for a moment, forget about formations and think of football in other ways, as a business for example. If you grasp the size and influence of some organisations you will realise why tactics is a secondary task in a football manager's job at these levels.

Nice try, but the task of a manager as spearhead of a business organisation is not primarily to attract an audience by having technically skilled players perform tricks, like circus monkeys. It's to win matches. How, in your opinion, does viewing football as a business (has anybody denied that it is a business?) correlate to reduced importance of tactics? You do not even bother to attempt explaining, but none of your patronizing "listen to papa" posturing will obfuscate that.

[crouchaldinho]

But I think crouchaldinho has asked me a few questions (without swearing once, what a progress!)

Not this again.

I don't swear and I haven't been swearing. I wish you would stop this constant attempt to drag my name through the mud by repeatedly insinuating that I have been swearing at you. It is soon going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Now, as you well know, my answer was directed not at this new 'thesis' of yours (which is constantly changing, I might add) but at your insistence that tactics are less important at higher levels. You have neatly sidestepped the points I have made (I suppose I should at least be grateful that you have even acknowledged them for once! ) and made a quick U-turn by claiming that I was addressing a totally different point! Then you have the audacity to claim that I lack logic.

I've tried to contribute to your thread in a pleasant and constructive way but all you have done is targeted me throughout the thread. If you spent as much time explaining your ideas for this 'leap of faith' (which, by the way, appear to be non-existent) as you do trolling then we could potentially have a very interesting read here. Instead, you reach conclusions about things you appear to know very little about, and you make outrageous claims about your opinions being the 'truth'.

All I will say is that I am glad that the future of FM is safely in the right hands. I trust the footballing knowledge of the Collyer brothers and their many fine colleagues at SI, and also the knowledge of WWFan and Millie who know football as a passion, as an object of study and as an object of pleasure. I also trust the opinion of people in the game, from non-League level to the very top. I note with interest that you are quick to rubbish books and writing on football - which is made explicit from your very first post on this thread where you talk about 'books of gibberish' - but I would much rather trust the writing of Jonathan Wilson, Brian Glanville, Massimo Lucchesi and so on and so forth. Finally, you were quick to name drop that you know Alex Ferguson earlier in the thread. Next time you see him, let him know that you believe that tactics aren't very important at the top level, I'm sure he will be pleased to know your opinion and to set you straight.

Anyway, I've tried to be friendly, but it clearly isn't working. You've been 'trolling' me since my first post and so I give up now. This attempt to make it look as though I have been swearing (and you have even decided to call me a bully for no reason) is the final straw. Anyone who has read my posts in the past will know that I do not swear and will know plenty about my character. I have no interest in what you think and I have no more time for your games. Obviously it is time to put you on my 'ignore list' and for me to leave the thread. Something I should have done from the very start, no doubt, but we all live and learn.

[tak]

Lol, this comment about swearing was a joke, crouchy, my way of accepting your apology earlier (it's difficult when we communicate in writting).

Haven't I addressed your questions?

[tak]

Nice try, but the task of a manager as spearhead of a business organisation is not primarily to attract an audience by having technically skilled players perform tricks, like circus monkeys. It's to win matches. How, in your opinion, does viewing football as a business (has anybody denied that it is a business?) correlate to reduced importance of tactics? You do not even bother to attempt explaining, but none of your patronizing "listen to papa" posturing will obfuscate that.

Well, if you don't view the team you're managing as a business, you might make some very bad decisions. Would you ignore profitability, for example? As other factors become bigger in your agenda, other become smaller.

[robbert_o154]

Well, if you don't view the team you're managing as a business, you might make some very bad decisions. Would you ignore profitability, for example?

The ultimate objective of an organization is continuity. Profit is a means of achieving said objective. Usually, long-term profitability will be a result from continually winning matches. You can gain short-term profitability by selling your best players, but that might well endanger the long-term sustainability of your organization.

Frankly, I don't see what point you're trying to make with this post.

[muncherdave]

tak - How specifically should the interaction with players and so on be improved? How about coming up with a few solid suggestions instead of just bickering the importance of tactics. There was some promise in post #1 but I am not seeing it anymore. Why not leave the arguing about the importance of tactics aside for a while and focus on the improvements that can be made to actually help water this down? After all, if other things get added into the game that can affect how your team performs then this will in effect should lessen the importance of the tactical sliders anyway.

[gunner86]

My hope is that the tactical overhaul of this version means that for the next few versions the other aspects, media, training, scouting etc can be fleshed out or overhauled where needed. I don't have any specific ideas or requests yet, but the tactical side now is very good so lets leave that aside now and find something else to improve.

[tak]

tak - How specifically should the interaction with players and so on be improved? How about coming up with a few solid suggestions instead of just bickering the importance of tactics. There was some promise in post #1 but I am not seeing it anymore. Why not leave the arguing about the importance of tactics aside for a while and focus on the improvements that can be made to actually help water this down? After all, if other things get added into the game that can affect how your team performs then this will in effect should lessen the importance of the tactical sliders anyway.

Yes you are absolutely right. I will try to put something together tonight if I find some time.

[tak]

The ultimate objective of an organization is continuity. Profit is a means of achieving said objective. Usually, long-term profitability will be a result from continually winning matches. You can gain short-term profitability by selling your best players, but that might well endanger the long-term sustainability of your organization.

Frankly, I don't see what point you're trying to make with this post.

Sorry, I misread your initial posts. My point is, as we go to higher levels the means to win matches become a lot more complicated than finding the correct tactics. Other factors play a more important role.

[Heisenberg]

Sorry, I misread your initial posts. My point is, as we go to higher levels the means to win matches become a lot more complicated than finding the correct tactics. Other factors play a more important role.

To be honest tak I'd disagree with this point. How many times do we see football pundits covering the top leagues discussing how Manager X got their tactics spot on for the game being covered and credit that for the victory? Obviously you have a point when you say that other factors such as motivation and other aspects of man-management have a role to play as well, but the individual instructions given to players (which I would consider to fall under the general heading of "Tactics") and the overall tactical instruction to the team will have a greater bearing on performance.

With regard to your original post, I would like to see more depth in the non-tactical aspects of the game as well, but I feel that drastic improvements are unlikely as the ability to code AI is not at an advanced enough stage. I am more than happy with the way the game is now, even with the repetitive aspects of certain areas like press conferences. I'm sure if one of us attended a manager's press conferences for every game of the year (between 40 and 60 per year, depending on the competitions they are competing in) we'd see a fair bit of repetitive question asking.

[Blaupunkt]

as an example, how can you so readily dismiss the following, i have highlighted 1 important bit.

When Kevin Keegan admitted he was simply not up to the job of England coach, it was one of the most painfully and searingly honest resignation speeches imaginable.

Having just quit in the wake of his inability to alter proceedings as England lost 1-0 to Germany in the final game at Wembley, Keegan characteristically wore his heart on his sleeve. "I've just been a bit short in what it takes. Tactically at this level, results will tell you that I have struggled," he said candidly.

[Les Girondins]

Couldn't agree more. In fact I have been carping on about this total lack of any immersion/depth in the game since 2007 ..

FM needs to broaden its scope and provide something for everyone not just the tedious micro management game it has become.

Huge chunks of the game experience have been continually neglected for years now in favour of ever more complex tactical modules - the result? Less fun. More confusion, more angry rants, never ending cycles of bugs/exploits and their resultant fixes producing more etc.

The transfers are rubbish, the media is rubbish, the ui lag is rubbish, the job/contract system is rubbish, basic staples that create and perpetuate a sense of achievement, progress, dynamism, realism, long term reward are either half baked, missing or simply not finished.

I don't think SI realises just how much of a polarized affair the game has become in recent years. I think they believe that the ME is FM and thats just not true - nothing could be less fun. In fact how many times have you fired up the game to play a career and realised after about half an hour you are just waiting for the next match and not even looking forward to that? Oh well.

FM is a good game, but its no longer what I want in a football management simulation. Its become far too nerdy and micro intensive. I don't want to spend 15-20 mins on every match, I just want to have fun. And the game has increasingly in recent years forced me to have less and less whilst demanding more and more of my time and time spent 'working' the spreadsheet before I can even think about how much fun I am having.

Frankly its become extremely shallow/one dimensional, tedious and far too complicated.

[dankrzyz]

So much of the game, especially at the highest levels, is MAN MANAGEMENT... which could probably read "ego" or "personality" management. Making sure everyone's happy, playing to their best, in the right place in the lineup, getting along with teammates, getting the training they want, managing to get the media or national team recognition they think they deserve, happy with contract, happy with club performance... if the player interaction were bumped up to the level of realism and complexity that the tactics have been, this would be a totally immersive game.

I think this goes for relationships between managers, and between managers and their Board, and between managers and their staff. Also between the club/manager, media, and fans.

[tak]

Excellent post Les Girondins and excellent point by dankrzyz. Unfortunately, this thread has been immediately attacked but, hopefuly, as the dust settles down we will have an good discussion. Actually, I have to gather all positive contribution so far when I find some time and write a little brief.

The game, as said above, is one dimensional. Because its largest chunk is tactics. How did I come to that conclusion? Simple: How many tactical combinations are available? Just multiply all formations X all diiferent roles per position X all different position clicks X all different creative freedom clicks etc. etc. If someone is good enough in mathematics to calculate all the different tactical combinations available he will probably find that there billions of them. Let us compare that now to the different combinations of team talking, for example. About 125 combinations of pre-, during- and post- talk.

This is an awkward example but it shows how much more developed the tactical side is compared to everything else you can do in the game. So other aspects of management are not "excellent" as I was told at the beginning of this thread, they are very underdeveloped to the point that they look and feel like a gimmick. The other problem is that there is a thing called morale that is largely out of the manager's hands BUT plays a very important role during the game.

Other things that are out of the manager's hands are "player can't settle down", "wants to move on", "things player A takes himself too seriously" and many many more. Now, how is it realistic that you can do absolutely shag all about them?

Anyway, I am drifting off topic. Like I was saying, most available tasks for an FM manager are tactics. By contrast, the available tasks for a real life manager are a lot more diverse. How many times did you want to tell something to a player that did not exist in the list? How many times you wanted to do a tactical thing that was not available? See what I mean?

If SI works with the same intelligence and innovation on management issues like they worked on tactics and attributes in the past, we will see something really great.

[Matt123456]

Though I disagree with your points about the unimportance of tactics Tak, I do agree with the idea that the man-management side of FM needs to be drastically improved. However to call the game "one-dimensional" is frankly insulting to the developers and researchers and coders who have put a lot of time and effort into making a game that his fun and engaging for 95% of the consumers. And as for Les Girondins lambasting most of the game as "rubbish", well it is safe to say that that is a gross overreaction. It is also frankly wrong to say that the game has become more like a spreadsheet and more micro-intensive. Especially in 2010, SI have worked to make sure that the game is accessible to a wider audience than the die-hard FM fans who have played the games for 10 years.

The answer is, I think, not to reduce the tactical options and the role of tactics, but increase the amount of man-management options. At the moment they are, to be totally honest, terribly under-developed in FM. I have always wished that there one day would be a way to actually talk to your players, coaches, scouts etc, and though I know that that is not feasible in the near future, the closer we can come to emulating that the better. But I will be interested in hearing your suggestions Tak.

[tak]

I don't want to be pedantic Matt but I didn't make points about the unimportance of tactics. I said that tactics are disproportionaly more important in FM than real life, where they are not as important as some people would have us think. Thanks for the support on the management changes though...

[Wee Aja]

Excellent OP tak. I really like what you've said and there have been some very good points made in the thread so far by other users.

I do feel that tactics have become the be-all and end-all of the game, but there are so many more facets to 'real' football management that are, as you've said, basically not represented in-game. I'm pretty much just agreeing with/reiterating what you've said tbh.

Odd how there is yet to be a post in here from anyone at SI.

[RBKalle]

Can't we try to go past the tiresome "tactic is everything! no it's not!" argument for a moment and concentrate on WHY the perception of the tactical aspects being so overwhelming did grow so much?

As The Girondins put it, sometimes the funniest part of FM is the off-the-pitch one, and the matches almost become a burden.

I do have fun scouting, buying and selling, tutoring etc... Then on matchday I suddenly find out my squad, despite Superb morale and superior skills, inexplicably struggle to put two straight passes together, or to score simple chances, or to defend at a Sunday League level etc etc etc. [then the following they hammer 4-0 our main contenders]

All of that will most likely get the typical "it's your tactic, you're a crappy/lazy manager". But that's not my point.

I WANT TO UNDERSTAND why an EPL-level striker can squander like 3 good chances against a League 1 keeper, or why my Poacher will not run straight on goal but will instead point to the corner flag on open field.

Moreso, I want my players to give me actual feedback... I bet a MC/AMC won't be as comfortable in playing either position, much less if I toss him around every other game.

I want my players to ask me if I'm drunk at work or what, when I keep switching back and forth from 4-4-2 diamond to 4-2-3-1 wingers, while fielding more or less the same players [AMLC can surprisingly play on wednesday as wingers and on sunday as Trequartistas...]

Also, training... While I'd rather NOT have more micromanagement crap, like personal schedules with Cross-Country Run, Pig in the Middle and other puzzling activities, I definitely want to be able to train my players, even by role, but with more power over what I want them to learn/develop...

I need Fullbacks to CROSS, not to become world-class Long-throwers or to gain 2 useless points in FK taking (if their base attribute was 5)

And don't get me started on transfer market... Top Clubs buying mediocre players, obscure players leaving their country to join fourth-rate clubs in second-tier leagues, older players being chased by half Europe, while perfectly good ones rot on Free Transfer, Youth system being in need of [more] tweaking.

And with the Youth System, Scouting needs an overhaul too.

Ditto for media interactions.

So yeah, tactical-wise I think we're set for some years to come... Just decrease the number of sliders and of sliders' "steps".

And then let's focus on player/manager interaction in order to help us to UNDERSTAND what works and what doesn't with our tactic!

[Tafse]

Also, training... While I'd rather NOT have more micromanagement crap, like personal schedules with Cross-Country Run, Pig in the Middle and other puzzling activities, I definitely want to be able to train my players, even by role, but with more power over what I want them to learn/develop...

I need Fullbacks to CROSS, not to become world-class Long-throwers or to gain 2 useless points in FK taking (if their base attribute was 5)

This!

I couldnt agree more. I want my promising right winger to improve on his crossing ability. Not to get better at long throws. And I want my young, gifted attacking midfielder to work on his free-kick skills, not improve his crossing. This lack of control of specific training need to be looked at.

[grade]

Well I have to agree with Les Girondins.

I said many time, this is computer game, not a course of Football manager wannabes. (sorry, people, no matter how much knowledgeable you get you will never know more then Alex Fergusson, Carlos Anceloti or José Mourinho on football, unless you are full time manager then I'm sorry).

The thing is the game lost its fun 8at least for me, when tactics and morale became too much important factors in the game, that seems sometimes to some users have sensation that the AI is cheating with the last minutes comebacks.

Despite agreeing that tactics hold some importance in football, but doesn't have that in real life. There are so many factors that is difficult to simulate like luck or unlucky (Man United last game for one of the Cup, that no matter how much you tried the ball doesn't want to get in. But - and i need to make a note - this doesn't happen that so often like in the game, but yes it does happen from time to time.

One of the things i say that tactics haven't much importance and prime example of that is José Mourinho. He knows tactics like every manager, but what gave him the edge was that he learn how to communicate, motivate and bring the players as team. You want to know the key to his success? it is very simple and basic. "I don't teach the players how to play football, I teach them how to play as a team." This have earn him to win two or three english premierships, one Italian title, one Champions League and one Uefa Cup titles.

One thing that Si need to remember no matter how much close to reality, they can't forget that this is computer game and its main goal is to provide hours of fun.

I think FM series would vastly improve if SI would interview managers, coaches and players to get more deep inside the works of football management to get more realism and maintaining the fun. FM would greatly benefit from that.

PS: It would help if graphical improvement (not referring the 3D), and less text that help the users get the same information but taking less time.

[wwfan]

I don't want to be pedantic Matt but I didn't make points about the unimportance of tactics. I said that tactics are disproportionaly more important in FM than real life, where they are not as important as some people would have us think. Thanks for the support on the management changes though...

The main problem I have with your posts is that you make this claim but defend it with remarkable ignorance about real world tactical innovation. Your discussion on Greece's Euro tactics misses the following points:

• Greece didn't just man-mark a few players. They man-marked everybody bar the opposing centre backs, having one floating central player to pick up anybody who had temporarily escaped his man
  
• The liberalisation of the offside law has severely handicapped the high pressing zonal marking systems that predominated in the 80s and early 90s (Sacchi's Milan, Taylor's Watford).
  
• Greece didn't press in this traditional 'hold shape/win the offside' style, but pressed players on a man to man basis
  
• A combination of heavy pressing on a man to man basis is extremely unusual and highly innovative in the modern game
  
• During the Euros, no team could work out how to play against it as the questions it posed were completely different than players and managers were used to
  
• Because the competition involves so few matches, Greece held the tactical advantage for long enough to win the competition. Given time, they'd have been worked out and relative player quality would have begun to tell
  

This is a form of tactical innovation that, for a short period of time, allowed an average side to overperform. In FM, innovative systems like this are never worked out by the AI, so allow constant success. This is unrealistic.

However, knowledge of basic tactical strategies are a 'must have' requirement for any modern manager. A quality manager must know how adapt a game plan for different conditions, formation shapes and specific player threats. If you are ignorant of these areas, you deserve to fail. Most of the tactics creator functionality mimics this type of knowledge requirement.

Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that tactical management is only relevant for less good players and that great players can be left to their own devices. In doing so, you miss out on how a manager ensures the donkey work is done so the great player has a platform on which to perform. You also miss out on the work done by opposing teams to try and stop said great player performing. These are vital parts of management.

Having said all that, this doesn't mean you don't have a point. You are just ridiculing it by arguing about things of which you have very little knowledge. If you stop trying to prove tactics are unimportant (which you are unable to do because you lack the necessary theoretical knowledge) and focus on what areas of the managerial experience are lacking, you might get somewhere.

Football management is about these things:

1: Understanding the theoretical side of football (strategy, tactics)

2: Ensuring your players are as prepared as they can be (technical coaching, fitness)

3: Ensuring your club has the best possible players available for how you want to play (judgment, tactics)

4: Trying to keep the squad motivated and happy (man management)

Let's look at how FM treats them:

1: Strategy & tactics: The new tactical creator has brought this to the forefront in a manner pervious games have ben lacking. However, it has also illustrated how many FMers were previously reliant on downloaded super-tactics and don't understand football, can't man-manage or both. This area still needs to be made clearer and it's something I am working on.

2: Technical coaching & fitness: Sorely lacking in detail and depth right now. However, how much can you do? We can change training regimes so the manager can tailor them more minutely and design regimes that start up for different points in the season, which would both be changes for the better, as would more detailed feedback. But what more can be done? Real time training would suck. Minutely detailed set piece creation is unrealistic and ME breaking as CM has proved. Needs work but cannot become the focus of the game.

3: Judgment & tactics: Again, areas of improvement are pretty obvious, but not all would make the game better. We could provide the scouts with details of exactly what type of player we need to improve our performance (Player x only has a couple of seasons left in him at this level. I'd like you to find a like-for-like player between ages 20 & 23 who'd be willing to be his understudy for a year or so before graduating into first choice), or we could have a scout recommend players and tactical changes we'd need to make to fit these players in (i.e. Player x would provide the creativity we are missing and provide us with some much needed dynamism in the final third. However, his unwillingness to track back and powderpuff tacking would require the rethinking of our midfield balance and shape). Both these I'd like. However, introducing aggressive agents forwarding details about their clients might become very tedious very quickly.

4: Man-management: Currently it is all about morale pre-match and confidence/complacency/anger during the match. I think the motivational in-match information needs to be made more obvious and have more importance, and possible extend into non-match management, with managers having options to work with a player with a crisis in confidence or lacking in motivation to play for the club. However, in the end, there are not that many methods in which we can simulate confidence/morale/motivation management and make it interesting. Given that this is the area of management you believe is most important, can you expand on how you think it could be done while keeping it fun?

[wwfan]

One of the things i say that tactics haven't much importance and prime example of that is José Mourinho. He knows tactics like every manager, but what gave him the edge was that he learn how to communicate, motivate and bring the players as team. You want to know the key to his success? it is very simple and basic. "I don't teach the players how to play football, I teach them how to play as a team." This have earn him to win two or three english premierships, one Italian title, one Champions League and one Uefa Cup titles.

= I don't try to make them technically better, but I do get them to follow a game plan.

Mourinho famously researches and prepares minutely detailed tactical dossiers on all his opponents. How anyone can use Mourinho as an example of how tactics don't matter is beyond belief.

[Les Girondins]

= I don't try to make them technically better, but I do get them to follow a game plan.

Mourinho famously researches and prepares minutely detailed tactical dossiers on all his opponents. How anyone can use Mourinho as an example of how tactics don't matter is beyond belief.

Mourinho gets paid £200k a week to do it. I don't.

[tingting]

Well I have to agree with Les Girondins.

I said many time, this is computer game, not a course of Football manager wannabes. (sorry, people, no matter how much knowledgeable you get you will never know more then Alex Fergusson, Carlos Anceloti or José Mourinho on football, unless you are full time manager then I'm sorry).

One thing that Si need to remember no matter how much close to reality, they can't forget that this is computer game and its main goal is to provide hours of fun.

This is the most important point that has been forgotten by many in the last couple of versions. I think all the realism bandwagon started from 08 (i think..) I understand where all those who want realism in the game are coming from. They have a very good understanding of how the ME works and have applied logical strategies for them. When you take an unknown lowest division club and make them consistently win the Champions League, the game really starts to become boring.

I am all for realism in the game. However there is a difference between actual realism and game realism. You cannot use actual realism for a game whose ME is far from realistic. FM's ME is the best in the market by a long way, but it is far from perfect. Using actual realism to an unrealistic ME leads to a number of problems.

[tak]

I think it is time to re-visit some of the ideas given so far:

Anagain talked about development of the media side, while Shanksie pointed out how poor press conferences are.

The Perfect Fmer asked for realistic analysis of the opponent by the scout and ass-man, to improve on the few cliché phrases we get now.

SuperStriker intelligently realised that the game, in the last couple of versions, made player quality less important than real life, to present more of a challenge.

Seabeast said that it would be nice to come into a new FM that feels fresh, new, exciting, because lets be honest, not much has changed over the last few years. Press, training, transfers and medical were his areas of concern. Many interesting ideas were proposed for the training revamp. He also explained how the transfer system does not reflect reality and proposed changes. Finaly, he made some realy original observations on the poor medical information.

Tingting asked some good questions about the tactical side of FM and made some good proposals for the media interaction.

Jcafcwbb also criticised the tactical system but what was very interesting was the need for individual shout remark, which will make the manager’s role during a match a lot more realistic.

Oypus rightly pointed out that the current responses to situations are hard coded. They happen, you get a message, maybe a few choices based on that. He agreed that we could get more choices but life imitation would require infinite choices.

Ezequiel Lavezzi said that tactics need to be toned down a bit. Player intuition needs to be heavily buffed. Motivational skills need to be heavily revamped in a way that a player just won’t become angry or unsettled by little team talks or heavily motivated in the same manner.

Djwilko does not think the players should be AS influenced by a good team talk, for mundane games

Matt thinks there is room for more development in players’ instructions and that revamping the training system could help this, by adding training for certain set piece combinations.

InterWolf brilliant observation in full: “ I think one of the main problems SI face is the amount that a manager on his own can achieve. While they get the blame, much of the success is down to pre-existing and external situations. In a manager game, the influence of a manager clearly has to be exaggerated, hence much of the tactical focus.”

RBKalle:

* I agree FM isn't "too much about tactics", but "it's your tactic" is pretty much the easy answer any FM'er has been getting around here for the majority of complaints about underachieving, poor performances, etc.

So it's no wonder many tend to think FM is heavy on the tactical side of the game when it comes down to success or failure.

* On the other hand, the Tactical Wizard has introduced a cosmetic façade to the infamous Slidermania the tactical section was and still is.

See, I can play my Midfielder as Supporting Box to Box, but under the realistic-like terminology, the sliders are still there, alive and kicking.

The point is: I can use a 5-options method, but what's the difference if, in the end, the ME and possibly the AI, work on 20 options?

It's like playing on a guitar with only 4 strings or 12 frets... it's "easier" but the music still requires the whole instrument...

* Also, the non-tactical side of FM can still be improved by leaps and bounds...

A very underlooked (ignored?) side of the manager-players interaction, related to the tactical side is the "positional issue".

To this day we can evaluate how our tactic is working just by match results and ratings.

What we're lacking is a specific, personal evaluation of the playing system.

E.g. how many threads asking "how should I play ____?" or "is _____ a Poacher or a Target Man?" are we having?

In real life, the player himself will most likely bitch and moan if used in the wrong way, or even if asked to play in a position he's technically able to play but which he doesn't like.

What about MC/AMCs you can totally switch from Box-to-Box to Trequartista without a noticeable drop in performance or morale? That doesn't happen too often, and not without consequances.

Instead in FM I can totally use my offensive MC as DM with little or no penalty, in total spite of his attributes [and of logic]

The biggest "flaw" with so-called SuperTactics [or even with a rather standard but successful tactic] is that it almost looks like no matter who you play in it, it'll work...

Actually I half-think we should get Player-specific instructions instead of Positional ones... E.g. in my 4-4-2, Andrea Pirlo will play Defensive Playmaker, but if I put Steven Gerrard in THE SAME POSITION, he must play Box-to-Box, or Ballack will play Offensive Support.

As things are now, each one will "inherit" the player instruction set in the tactic, but surprisignly enough the performance won't drop much.

* I appreciate morale being such an important part of FM, too bad more often than not I don't understand why morale changes...

And Press conferences and team talks shouldn't monopolize the Morale factor.

We need a total revamping of the player interaction, with feedback about tactics and more.

Les Girondins said: FM needs to broaden its scope and provide something for everyone not just the tedious micro management game it has become.

Huge chunks of the game experience have been continually neglected for years now in favour of ever more complex tactical modules - the result? Less fun. More confusion, more angry rants, never ending cycles of bugs/exploits and their resultant fixes producing more etc.

The transfers are rubbish, the media is rubbish, the ui lag is rubbish, the job/contract system is rubbish, basic staples that create and perpetuate a sense of achievement, progress, dynamism, realism, long term reward are either half baked, missing or simply not finished.

I don't think SI realises just how much of a polarized affair the game has become in recent years. I think they believe that the ME is FM and thats just not true - nothing could be less fun. In fact how many times have you fired up the game to play a career and realised after about half an hour you are just waiting for the next match and not even looking forward to that? Oh well.

FM is a good game, but its no longer what I want in a football management simulation. Its become far too nerdy and micro intensive. I don't want to spend 15-20 mins on every match, I just want to have fun. And the game has increasingly in recent years forced me to have less and less whilst demanding more and more of my time and time spent 'working' the spreadsheet before I can even think about how much fun I am having.

Frankly its become extremely shallow/one dimensional, tedious and far too complicated.

RBKalle would like TO UNDERSTAND why an EPL-level striker can squander like 3 good chances against a League 1 keeper, or why his Poacher will not run straight on goal but will instead point to the corner flag on open field.

“More so, I want my players to give me actual feedback... I bet a MC/AMC won't be as comfortable in playing either position, much less if I toss him around every other game.

I want my players to ask me if I'm drunk at work or what, when I keep switching back and forth from 4-4-2 diamond to 4-2-3-1 wingers, while fielding more or less the same players [AMLC can surprisingly play on wednesday as wingers and on sunday as Trequartistas...]

Also, training... While I'd rather NOT have more micromanagement crap, like personal schedules with Cross-Country Run, Pig in the Middle and other puzzling activities, I definitely want to be able to train my players, even by role, but with more power over what I want them to learn/develop...

I need Fullbacks to CROSS, not to become world-class Long-throwers or to gain 2 useless points in FK taking (if their base attribute was 5)

And don't get me started on transfer market... Top Clubs buying mediocre players, obscure players leaving their country to join fourth-rate clubs in second-tier leagues, older players being chased by half Europe, while perfectly good ones rot on Free Transfer, Youth system being in need of [more] tweaking.

And with the Youth System, Scouting needs an overhaul too.

Ditto for media interactions.

So yeah, tactical-wise I think we're set for some years to come... Just decrease the number of sliders and of sliders' "steps".

And then let's focus on player/manager interaction in order to help us to UNDERSTAND what works and what doesn't with our tactic!”

Tafse: “This!

I couldnt agree more. I want my promising right winger to improve on his crossing ability. Not to get better at long throws. And I want my young, gifted attacking midfielder to work on his free-kick skills, not improve his crossing. This lack of control of specific training need to be looked at.”

Grade: “Well I have to agree with Les Girondins.

I said many time, this is computer game, not a course of Football manager wannabes. (sorry, people, no matter how much knowledgeable you get you will never know more then Alex Fergusson, Carlos Anceloti or José Mourinho on football, unless you are full time manager then I'm sorry).

The thing is the game lost its fun 8at least for me, when tactics and morale became too much important factors in the game, that seems sometimes to some users have sensation that the AI is cheating with the last minutes comebacks.

Despite agreeing that tactics hold some importance in football, but doesn't have that in real life. There are so many factors that is difficult to simulate like luck or unlucky (Man United last game for one of the Cup, that no matter how much you tried the ball doesn't want to get in. But - and i need to make a note - this doesn't happen that so often like in the game, but yes it does happen from time to time.

One of the things i say that tactics haven't much importance and prime example of that is José Mourinho. He knows tactics like every manager, but what gave him the edge was that he learn how to communicate, motivate and bring the players as team. You want to know the key to his success? it is very simple and basic. "I don't teach the players how to play football, I teach them how to play as a team." This have earn him to win two or three english premierships, one Italian title, one Champions League and one Uefa Cup titles.

One thing that Si need to remember no matter how much close to reality, they can't forget that this is computer game and its main goal is to provide hours of fun.

I think FM series would vastly improve if SI would interview managers, coaches and players to get more deep inside the works of football management to get more realism and maintaining the fun. FM would greatly benefit from that.

PS: It would help if graphical improvement (not referring the 3D), and less text that help the users get the same information but taking less time.”

To all the above helpful inputs I would like to start adding some:

A lot of football successes are a win of “mind over matter”. Greece showed that camaraderie, hard work and sheer will power can triumph over skill, technique and flair. How do we see that in the game? (Apologies for returning to the same example. I will also stop arguing with wwfan on that because next thing he will say is that the Greek bench was man marking the opponent bench and they couldn’t make substitutions). There are mental attributes like determination, concentration, composure, bravery, aggression etc. that are static in the game but heavily influenced in real life, in certain occasions.

So firstly, let us think how is the manager’s personality (extremely important in real life) portrayed in the game. Well, it is not, or at least it is very shallow. Some players will dislike you based on what you say on match day or press conferences and some will like you if you say how good they are (a few more factors exist in the game but I won’t mention them). I believe the personality of every player and staff should be worked on, like their attributes. Personality attributes is not my expertise but I am sure a psychologist will give a comprehensive list. Many of the current “mental attributes” can be used there. Then a lot more real life interactions and circumstances should be added and a lot more reactions should be introduced. The manager then should be able to work on issues like mental toughness, work ethos, drive, energy, self-discipline, nerve, courage but also values, beliefs, learning abilities, imagination etc. There must be opportunities in the game for the manager to show how just he is, how decisive, enthusiastic, how much information he shares, how much integrity he has, what are his mental endurance thresholds. Also, what organisational structures does he put in place. I am sure I am leaving a lot out but you get the idea.

That is not to say that his technical knowledge and proficiency are not important. I regret saying that tactics play a tiny part in my original posts. It is definitely not tiny, but I was trying to make a point. However, I still believe it is a lot less important than what a certain school of thought tells us.

That’s all for now, let us begin discussions on the points of previous posters but also how what I humbly suggested can be implemented.

[ldktalin]

In fact how many times have you fired up the game to play a career and realised after about half an hour you are just waiting for the next match and not even looking forward to that? Oh well.

This pretty much sums my feelings up.

I got into this series during CM2/CM3 days, when you were able to glide through a season during a single playing session (4 hours or so), just playing match after match until the season ends.

FM became too radical and demanding in the recent years. There's only so much realism and depth a game can take before losing its raw entertainment value.

[robbert_o154]

That’s all for now, let us begin discussions on the points of previous posters but also how what I humbly suggested can be implemented.

So what is it you suggest? A page and a half of this, and we still haven't seen anything tangible, anything solid. In all their convolutedness, your posts suggest the dawn of a new era, a quantum leap forward, to boldly go where no footie sim has gone before. But what is it? What's the plan? "Tactics aren't the be all and end all of football management" is not a plan.

[tak]

So what is it you suggest? A page and a half of this, and we still haven't seen anything tangible, anything solid. In all their convolutedness, your posts suggest the dawn of a new era, a quantum leap forward, to boldly go where no footie sim has gone before. But what is it? What's the plan? "Tactics aren't the be all and end all and football management" is not a plan.

I know what you mean. In the first part of my post I summarised what other people suggested up to now. You will find my suggestions in the final paragraphs.

[wwfan]

Repeating poor arguments doesn't actually improve them. Have you actually argued with me about Greece? All I've seen is blanket ignorance about the system they employed plus a highly biased assertion that their manager's motivational skills were amazing and enough in themselves to win the Euros.

You also seem to have swallowed a book about 'strong culture management' which arguably doesn't have a huge amount of relevance to managing a sports club. Whereas you have a few good points, your complete failure to engage on the importance of tactical management in a sporting environment kills them stone dead.

You further have a profound lack of knowledge of FM's development cycle. The tactical system has been static for a number of years. FM2010 is the first shift in tactical implementation for about 5 years. How does that equate to 'focus on tactics at the expense of other management issues?'

As for the rest of the post, most of it is already in the game and can already be managed:

1: Determination, concentration, composure, bravery, aggression: most can be shaped by technical coaching (long-term) and motivational management (short term) already. They are most certainly not static.

2: Mental toughness, work ethos, drive, energy, self-discipline, nerve, courage: Can all be worked on through coaching and tutoring

3: Values, beliefs: corporate theories and practices that might or might not be relevant to a football club. I'd need evidence of a club running a 'strong culture' system, and being successful by doing so, to accept these should be in the game

4: Learning abilities, imagination: Again, relates to technical coaching

5: Organisational structures: Coaching development, feeder networks, scouting networks, delegating control etc

6: Manager personality: Here you do have a point and I believe it could be expanded, but am not sure how. How would you do it?

I'm quite happy to debate with you and try to brainstorm some areas of the game that could be improved, but you need to accept the limitations and biases of your argument for us to get anywhere. If you keep on dismissing actual tactical plans with an assumption that is was only the manager's motivational skills that mattered, you fail to understand not just football, but all sports strategy in any field. Yes, motivational skills matter, but only as a supplement to understanding the game itself.

[gunner86]

Given that this is the area of management you believe is most important, can you expand on how you think it could be done while keeping it fun?

1 thing that I would like to see implemented revolves player disputes - "Player a is finding it difficult to work with player b", "player c dislikes player d" etc etc.

What I would like to see in this instance is the option in each players interactions to try and resolve his issues with each other. Current players can go on having little tiffs for seasons on end or until you sell one of them - something you may not want to have to do.

Obviously this would not be 100% effective and I think in some cases it would make it interesting if it actually made the situation worse.

This is just one idea and I'm sure there are other ways this can be improved upon as can other aspects of man-management.

[muncherdave]

Thinking about gunner's post I think more could also be done with the interaction also when a player wants to leave a club. You sign the guy and have high hopes for him, only for when the first club comes sniffing around he's looking to jump ship. It's all fair enough, I'm sure there are plenty of players like that, but at the same time you feel powerless, either choosing to keep a hold of an unhappy player to the detrement of your squad and/or performances or flat out having to sell one of your prize assets.

You should be able to have some sort of interaction with the player to convince him now is not the right time to move, because say you are pushing for european football, or you are still playing european football, or that you just feel the club is heading in the direction of the club he wants to leave for. The second part would be whether to ask him just to stick it out until the end of the season and then if he still wants to leave then let him, or try to convince him to stay entirely. It's annoying when you've brought the kid up from your youth only for him to not show one ounce of loyalty, so perhaps something like this which could help him stay on that bit longer and add another zero to his value sounds good to me.

[bigdunk]

1 thing that I would like to see implemented revolves player disputes - "Player a is finding it difficult to work with player b", "player c dislikes player d" etc etc...

This sort of stuff is all well and good, and I have no problem with it being in the game, but it's not a 'leap of faith' as requested in the original post. All the interaction in the game at the moment (team talks, player interaction, board interaction, press conferences etc) basically boils down to a limited list of options with it almost always being obvious which is the 'right' option to pick. You can add more and more options to more and more situations, but it's always going to feel flat and repetitive. Added to that, there's the issue of how strong an effect any interaction should have - too much and it overpowers everything, too little and it becomes a waste of time - with the added bonus that nobody knows or can even agree on what effects it has in real life (hence the wwfan/tak argument over the greek team). Plus the fact that it's very difficult to actually judge the degree of influence a comment has had in the game - do you make it explicitly clear (i.e. a bit of text saying player X is unhappy with comment Y) which feels fake, or do you leave it hidden which leaves the player confused as to why a player is playing badly.

I don't have any suggestions for how to genuinely improve interaction beyond expanding what already exists (mainly because I don't think there are any practical solutions out there at the moment). But any genuine leap of faith is going to have to deal with these sorts of issues or the game will simply become bogged down with repetitive interaction where it's either clear which option to pick (and hence boring) or unclear what the effect of each option will be (and hence confusing).

[tak]

Repeating poor arguments doesn't actually improve them. Have you actually argued with me about Greece? All I've seen is blanket ignorance about the system they employed plus a highly biased assertion that their manager's motivational skills were amazing and enough in themselves to win the Euros.

You also seem to have swallowed a book about 'strong culture management' which arguably doesn't have a huge amount of relevance to managing a sports club. Whereas you have a few good points, your complete failure to engage on the importance of tactical management in a sporting environment kills them stone dead.

You further have a profound lack of knowledge of FM's development cycle. The tactical system has been static for a number of years. FM2010 is the first shift in tactical implementation for about 5 years. How does that equate to 'focus on tactics at the expense of other management issues?'

As for the rest of the post, most of it is already in the game and can already be managed:

1: Determination, concentration, composure, bravery, aggression: most can be shaped by technical coaching (long-term) and motivational management (short term) already. They are most certainly not static.

2: Mental toughness, work ethos, drive, energy, self-discipline, nerve, courage: Can all be worked on through coaching and tutoring

3: Values, beliefs: corporate theories and practices that might or might not be relevant to a football club. I'd need evidence of a club running a 'strong culture' system, and being successful by doing so, to accept these should be in the game

4: Learning abilities, imagination: Again, relates to technical coaching

5: Organisational structures: Coaching development, feeder networks, scouting networks, delegating control etc

6: Manager personality: Here you do have a point and I believe it could be expanded, but am not sure how. How would you do it?

I'm quite happy to debate with you and try to brainstorm some areas of the game that could be improved, but you need to accept the limitations and biases of your argument for us to get anywhere. If you keep on dismissing actual tactical plans with an assumption that is was only the manager's motivational skills that mattered, you fail to understand not just football, but all sports strategy in any field. Yes, motivational skills matter, but only as a supplement to understanding the game itself.

I have argued with you about Greece, saying that man-marking is a common tool used by teams that do not have sophisticated players, good at marking space and by many teams that attempt to disarm dangerous players. I thought it was enough to dismantle the argument that international footballers lost their marbles because of man-marking. However, you increased the craziness and went from "re-introduction of man-marking" to "highly innovative 9 player man-marking". Tell you what: Why don't we both watch the games again and discuss this in about ten days. What do you say?

Now:

1: Determination, concentration, composure, bravery, aggression: most can be shaped by technical coaching (long-term) and motivational management (short term) already. They are most certainly not static. I apologise about that. I used the word static meaning they can't be tought in training. I quote from the ingame advice: "Players will naturally develop their mental attributes through experience as they get older." What I argued is that determination, for example, can in a certain occasion increase dramaticaly (as happened to the players of Greece). Many of the mental attributes should be influenced by the web of internal relationships and external factors I am talking about.

2: Mental toughness, work ethos, drive, energy, self-discipline, nerve, courage: Can all be worked on through coaching and tutoring I disagree but if you prove it I have no reason not to believe you

3: Values, beliefs: corporate theories and practices that might or might not be relevant to a football club. I'd need evidence of a club running a 'strong culture' system, and being successful by doing so, to accept these should be in the game Arsenal

4: Learning abilities, imagination: Again, relates to technical coaching So a player's ability to learn is improving by what type of training?

5: Organisational structures: Coaching development, feeder networks, scouting networks, delegating control etc I am very very sorry to say that but here it is: This is a desparate answer.

6: Manager personality: Here you do have a point and I believe it could be expanded, but am not sure how. How would you do it? Hard to say, because the personality will be reflected in decisions and actions in general. This requires some thought.

I do not dismiss tactical play by saying that only motivation matters. I am saying that tactical play is overrated in FM compared to real life, where is not as important as some people think. I am saying that success comes through working in tactics but mostly because of managerial and leadership skills.

I don't think there is any point anyway in arguing what's more important: tactical knowledge or leadership. Do we agree, however, that there is a lot of room for improvement on the leadership front?

[Heisenberg]

Thinking about gunner's post I think more could also be done with the interaction also when a player wants to leave a club. You sign the guy and have high hopes for him, only for when the first club comes sniffing around he's looking to jump ship. It's all fair enough, I'm sure there are plenty of players like that, but at the same time you feel powerless, either choosing to keep a hold of an unhappy player to the detrement of your squad and/or performances or flat out having to sell one of your prize assets.

You should be able to have some sort of interaction with the player to convince him now is not the right time to move, because say you are pushing for european football, or you are still playing european football, or that you just feel the club is heading in the direction of the club he wants to leave for. The second part would be whether to ask him just to stick it out until the end of the season and then if he still wants to leave then let him, or try to convince him to stay entirely. It's annoying when you've brought the kid up from your youth only for him to not show one ounce of loyalty, so perhaps something like this which could help him stay on that bit longer and add another zero to his value sounds good to me.

This is something I would love to see in the game. The player interaction options (or lack of them) seems to be one of the biggest issues this thread has discussed, so having the chance to convince a player to stay or even to tell him to play better to increase his chances of a move would be an excellent addition. Likewise, a range of options available to solve internal disputes between players is something which real managers can employ but are not present in FM.

An expansion of pre-match team talks would be good, so that when the team is playing a derby or an important cup match the options could be more varied and more strongly worded. An option to say something to a sub as he goes on to the pitch (as mentioned earlier by tak with regard to Solkjaer and Sir Alex) would be good as well, though I could see some players being annoyed at this popping up every time they make a sub. A tickbox option in the manager preferences might help.

[shwan]

The turn of a decade is usually followed by dreams and new hopes and we, FM players, are all dreaming and expecting wonderful things. I think there is a real chance for our favourite game.

I always believed that this game takes tactics too seriously. In essence, this game is only tactics' tweaking. Nothing much else. It still amazes me that there are, for example, 20 different settings on how much should a player close down. Or, 20 different levels of time wasting?! Fair enough, they have tried to simplify but just for the player. The machine remains as big and complicated.

I've read numerous angry posts defending realism when someone dares to ask if he could repeat a game, I've read experts coming up with important conclusions after reading two libraries of statistical jiberish, but we have all failed to observe the most important thing: There is too much concentration in tactics. Unrealisticaly much. Real life football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things. If the game continues to chanel its energy to tactics it will become less and less realistic and at the end it will have no connection to reality but the players' names and attributes.

What is football management about? What distinguishes a succesful manager? This is what SI must concentrate upon now, take a leap of faith, take our game to the next level and trully create something legendary.

A lot of work needs to be done on personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players). Revolutionary ways have to be discovered to simulate those relationships and how they define a team.

A lot of work and real out of the box thinking needs to be done so that the game can capture the personality and managerial skills of the manager and how they form the culture of the team.

I know this post will shock many people, who will deliberately shut their eyes and try not to think of those things ever again. Most of the people who know and love football will know immediately what I am talking about (tactics is a very small part of management). I am counting on the really forward thinkers of SI. On those who want to take a chance and dare create a "simulation" rather than a "game".

Please, SI, will you attempt to start a revolution?

will shock you further, when will tell you that tactic in FM is not as much deep and need improvement

i played CM and FM this year, and despite AI match and some other issues, CM has better tools tactically, as main problem with FM, is movement and positioning of players, you just seem able to twick them but not ask them where to run where to go back when defending ..etc .. it just feel it is more limited than CM tbh.

and although I agree that tactic is not only area of management but the main one tbh

and in that sense i think SI need to work more in tactic for hard core tactic people, i know some think twicking is fine as they want to play 5-10 matches a day ... but for hard core like me, i play one match a day and spend lots of time analyzing and studying before starting the game .. so twicking is not enough for me tbh

[wwfan]

The more I read your posts, Tak, the less I think you know what you are talking about.

In the Euros, Greece man-marked on a man to man basis. No coach had tried this for a good 40 years. It was a calculated gamble which paid off as modern players/managers didn't know how to react to it. There has been a lot written about this by very sophisticated students of football. You can't just wish it away.

As soon as one questions that Greece won the Euros because they were 'super-determined', your whole argument re the importance of man and motivational management falls flat. Yes, Greece were motivated, but to determine they won because of this is ridiculous. For determination to be the crucial factor for success would require all the teams they played against to be less motivated and less determined. Determination did not increase dramatically for Greece while remaining low for other nations. It was not the sole or most important cause of their win. The tactical questions they posed were of far more importance, which you fail to realise as you haven't researched into this area at all. I'm assuming you have some theoretical or practical experience of motivation which you are basing your opinion on? That's fair enough, but you cannot use that experience to displace other elements of managerial practice and need to balance out your assertions with tactical research.

In FM, training and playing improves nearly all the technical, physical and mental attributes in your players. Pretty indisputable. Furthermore, pre and in-match man-management can increase or reduce player nervousness, complacency, confidence, arrogance, fear etc. A better team usually only requires a solid tactical base and confidence to win, whereas less good sides need to be tactically and motivationally excellent. In your opinion, are these not developed enough or not obvious enough (i.e. do you know they are part of the game but feel they are largely cosmetic or are you largely unaware of their existence)?

I need proof that Arsenal operate under 'strong culture' principles. You can't just state a name and assume that does the job.

A player will learn better by improving his professionalism. You can improve a players professionalism by giving him a mentor. You can also judge which PPMs a player is able to learn by reading his attributes. If you want a young player to develop in a certain way, you can try to mould his attribute growth through general training and then get him to learn the PPMs you want. Not always possible, but certainly not impossible.

Given you think an organisational structure of managerial delegation, networks and partnerships is lacking, what areas are missing? You can't just dismiss and offer no reasons for the dismissal. What other organisation structure should an FM manager have control of?

Leadership is a corporate buzzword that slipped into fashion after the technical managerial excesses of the 60s and 70s. Employees were perceived as no longer having loyalty to organisations as management had become purely technical and employees were treated as parts of the system rather than human beings. This caused a crisis in confidence in America's ability to keep up with rising Asian competition (which was based on far more loyal employees) and resulted in the development of strong culture organisation and the cult of leadership.

This was in marked difference to traditional leadership of charismatic personality and was instead turned into a set of skills one could learn (the modern MBA being a prime example). This set of skills was supposed to be facilitate the organisational management of people on a technical and emotional level, thus tying them firmly to corporate values and beliefs. Since then, it, in conjunction with culture, has become an overused buzzword that supposedly explains great/poor organisational performance.

This peculiar modern form of leadership has little in common with traditional charismatic leadership, which is personality rather than knowledge driven. It assumes that good leadership equals loyal employees. When paralleling this with football, we have a problem. For a football club, the base assets are the most important employees, who are traded like stock. For many clubs, their loyalty is not important, but their resale value is. That means managers must paradoxically treat them as loyal to the team and objects of potential profit.

Many, certainly at the top level, are exceedingly wealthy young men. Modern methods of leadership do not have the answers when posed questions of how to control independently wealthy people who know their inherent market value and pay others to improve and act on it. This is a shift back into the management of previous decades, in which the managers job is to improve the technical ability of his employees in order to make the product (in this case the very same employees) viable and profitable. The modern football manager must first and foremost know how to win matches, as this is his shop window and bread and butter, but also know how to best improve his assets technically.

To sum it up, we have the following:

Leadership: Trying to keep employees motivated to work for and emotionally attached to the organisation (to try to win)

Management: Ensuring the organisation runs smoothly on a technical and profitable basis (to improve resale values)

Specific: Being deeply immersed in the practical requirements of the organisation (to understand football at a deep theoretical and practical level)

Traditional management texts, which you seem to be drawing from, have consistently focused on leadership or management and the skills required to perform either or both. These form the basis of many MBA programs. Contemporary analysts strongly argue that management and leadership skills must be heavily related to the practical requirements of ones vocation and management must be learnt alongside specific practical considerations. In football management terms, that means, first and foremost, knowing the game at strategic, tactical and technical levels.

Without this knowledge, management and leadership skills are irrelevant and can do more harm than good. You can end up with highly motivated people working very hard in areas that handicap or hurt the organisation. Once you are deeply immersed in the practical elements, then you can hone your management/leadership skills in relation to the specific requirements they throw up. Good management emerges from practical knowledge. As such, whereas motivational and man-management skills are important, they are useless if the manager is strategically or tactically inept. They are secondary elements of football management, not primary. Yes, they might need more development, but no, they should not become more important than deep knowledge of the game itself.

[robbert_o154]

I would also like to ask Tak: since you believe that the importance of tactics and the level of football are inversely proportional, how do you explain that tactical innovation has always been done at the top, not the bottom?

[tak]

Wwfaf, just watch Greece's games and we will talk about that again. By the way, I suspect you have never watched them. Could this be true? (No intention to offend or be sarcastic, it's an honest question)

Your dismissal of the trait of leadership as a buzzword is, of course, your prerogative. You are also entitled to dismiss the concept of culture. Since you like books, I am sure you will find thousands that show that leadership and culture are very real and very important. (By the way I hold an MBA and what I learned was not what you describe. It is from a highly-ranked university as well and I am only saying that just in case you reply "there are many MBAs these days"). Culture is not something that "supposedly explains organisational performance". It does explain it and I confirm that every day. Same with leadership. Far from being a buzzword, I observe its presence or absence daily in a few organisations.

Later, you point out correctly that a good manager has to have very good knowledge of the technical issues. I know that, and you know I know that so why do you construct your arguments on the basis that I dismiss that? Do you want to discuss or do you want to speak? Anyway, good management does not necessarily emerges from practical knowledge. I have seen brilliant managers who started on the factory floor and I have seen brilliant managers who switched to a completely different industry and still thrived.

In football tactical knowledge and management competence are necessary but as you go higher the former becomes less important and the latter more so. This is what I am saying and you think it is the other way around. Like I said, that is fair enough.

OK, about FM:

In FM, training and playing improves nearly all the technical, physical and mental attributes in your players. Pretty indisputable. Furthermore, pre and in-match man-management can increase or reduce player nervousness, complacency, confidence, arrogance, fear etc. A better team usually only requires a solid tactical base and confidence to win, whereas less good sides need to be tactically and motivationally excellent. In your opinion, are these not developed enough or not obvious enough (i.e. do you know they are part of the game but feel they are largely cosmetic or are you largely unaware of their existence)? I am largely unaware of their existence which means that, in essence, they are not there. There are no indications of their existence or hints about what influences them or ways to do so or... you know what I mean anyway.

I need proof that Arsenal operate under 'strong culture' principles. You can't just state a name and assume that does the job. Isn't Arsenal operating under the philosophy "we rarely buy stars and constantly developing youth"? Isn't that a statement according to which all (or most) Arsenal decisions are made?

A player will learn better by improving his professionalism. You can improve a players professionalism by giving him a mentor. You can also judge which PPMs a player is able to learn by reading his attributes. If you want a young player to develop in a certain way, you can try to mould his attribute growth through general training and then get him to learn the PPMs you want. Not always possible, but certainly not impossible. Mentors are largely gimmicky and with completely random effects. PPMs are not relevant to what I was saying there.

Given you think an organisational structure of managerial delegation, networks and partnerships is lacking, what areas are missing? You can't just dismiss and offer no reasons for the dismissal. What other organisation structure should an FM manager have control of? Managerial delegation does not exist in the game with the purpose to enhance building of organisational structures but to relief the player of boring clicks. There are no scouting networks. Affiliations are cosmetic.

Anyway, let us discuss about what personality attributes should be there and how they should be influenced...