Football Manager 2014 - Update 14.3.1 Update FEEDBACK THREAD

[Yohann88260]

Nothing WILL happen. EVER.

Because the transfers are also as buggy as they get. It's almost impossible to sell majority of players for anywhere near their values.

Yes Yes before it was well before that patches destroy all...

[HUNT3R]

Nothing WILL happen. EVER.

Because the transfers are also as buggy as they get. It's almost impossible to sell majority of players for anywhere near their values.

I sold my 40k Value 29 year old star player for 250k. How did that happen?

[Svenc]

opponent / my CCC+HC / their CCC+HC / in total / result

vs. IBV - 3+4/0+3 - 7/3 - drew 1:1

vs. Stjarnan - 4+6/1+1 - 10/2 - drew 0:0

vs. FH - 2+4/4+1 - 6/5 - lost 0:1

vs. Breidablik - 4+7/3+3 - 10/6 - lost 1:3

in total: 13+21 / 8+8

That's 34 chances created by my team and 16 from my opponents. In four games I scored 2 goals compared to 5. Won two points.

I'm not even asking for an explanation regarding lots of CCCs and HCs created, but I can't help to notice how AI gets much, much better results when the player is the better side in a match.

You're only looking at matches you didn't win, which immediately skews statistics in its favor by definition. In every loss there is a good chance for matches in which you had the better statistics, but still came out the loser, as in real football. In every win, it's the other way around. By omitting all of your wins of the equation, you deliberately omit matches in which conversion rates might have went in your favor. It cannot work that way.

One thing is that superior sides tend to dominate matches in terms of statistics, but that doesn't guarantee them anything, which is why the first thing I do to look for real-life scenarios (of which there are many) is looking at results of sides that dominate their league or play very attacking and push towards a goal. You kind of did the reverse, to an extent, deliberately looking for matches you didn't win, and concluded that the AI was better in conversion by very definition and regardless of your doings.

In any case, I do look for these scenarios not because it never would happen between evenly equipped sides. It's just more likely to happen if their is a gulf in quality. In the above scenario the superior side frequently dominates many a play, facing many a side sitting deep deliberately or being pushed back by force and being outplayed, and every time the inferior side still gets away with a result there is a fat chance it had a much superior conversion ratio (something you also see reflected in the Opta stats I linked to a couple posts above, where some relegation fodder is amongst the top teams in terms of big chance conversion). There weren't many matches Bayern didn't win this season, but statistically, they were the "better" team in all of their draws and losses, which more recently included yesterday's match against Arsenal, but also more pronounced examples in which they did comically so.

http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/723798/Live

http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/723763/Live

And as shown on the last page, similar applies for any decent to good team in any league. No matter how many chances you get going, on average football will remain a low scoring game, which is why amateurs against professionals on "their day" stand a fighting chance in the first place as opposed to pretty much any other team sports. And even two dozens of serious attempt are no guarantee for anything: your examples are mostly nowhere near that kind of .... footballness, in my opinion. Two CL seasons ago Chelsea build their entire tactics around that realization for at least their four final matches, and defied statistics in each of those four ties.

The consensus has always been that if the AI has a better conversion ratio consistently, it is typically an issue that relates to player input, as the AI cannot work magic and doesn't do such. For that you need to also take your wins into account, though, that is all the matches, and not deliberately omit them to auto-confirm your suspicions. There is another issue, which is that "half chances" don't even need to be on target, but that's the main one so far.

[TIR669]

You're only looking at matches you didn't win, which immediately skews statistics in its favor by definition. In every loss there is a good chance for matches in which you had the better statistics, but still came out the loser, as in real football. In every win, it's the other way around. By omitting all of your wins of the equation, you deliberately omit matches in which conversion rates might have went in your favor. It cannot work that way.

One thing is that superior sides tend to dominate matches in terms of statistics, but that doesn't guarantee them anything, which is why the first thing I do to look for real-life scenarios (of which there are many) is looking at results of sides that dominate their league or play very attacking and push towards a goal. You kind of did the reverse, to an extent, deliberately looking for matches you didn't win, and concluded that the AI was better in conversion by very definition and regardless of your doings.

In any case, I do look for these scenarios not because it never would happen between evenly equipped sides. It's just more likely to happen if their is a gulf in quality. In the above scenario the superior side frequently dominates many a play, facing many a side sitting deep deliberately or being pushed back by force and being outplayed, and every time the inferior side still gets away with a result there is a fat chance it had a much superior conversion ratio (something you also see reflected in the Opta stats I linked to a couple posts above, where some relegation fodder is amongst the top teams in terms of big chance conversion). There weren't many matches Bayern didn't win this season, but statistically, they were the "better" team in all of their draws and losses, which more recently included yesterday's match against Arsenal, but also more pronounced examples in which they did comically so.

http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/723798/Live

http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/723763/Live

I should add you also found only two games Bayern has drawn this season. They lost two and won the rest. That's not the case with my save we're speaking of right now.

And I should clarify (and repeat myself): I do not criticize the game using only the games I've lost and omitting those I've won or the ones I deserved to lose.

Here are five games from current season, 4 wins and one loss. In 3 of them I dominated and had a bit of luck in fourth one.

As you can see, I'm not selectively showing only the games I want you to see.

The consensus has always been that if the AI has a better conversion ratio consistently, it is typically an issue that relates to player input, as the AI cannot work magic and doesn't do such.

How can AI's better goal chance conversion ratio be a player's fault? It only shows how the game is unbalanced, nothing more...

[HUNT3R]

How can AI's better goal chance conversion ratio be a player's fault? It only shows how the game is unbalanced, nothing more...

What it shows it that the human player needs to improve his tactics or man management. Or both.

[TIR669]

What it shows is that the game is unrealistic.

No matter what tactic, team or league I've played with/in and with absolutely no regards to my sides' strength as opposed to the AI's team, I've had dozens of games where I would lose out 1-0 (or 2-0, 2-1, 3-1 etc.) with the AI's goals also being their only shot(s) in the game, whereas my players act like amateurs in front of the goal.

And we both know there has been many issues concerning this topic on this forum as well as on many other forums. With injuries, it is one of the most irritating things this patch has brought us.

[Svenc]

As you can see, I'm not selectively showing only the games I want you to see.

But what do these matches tell you? Personally they don't tell me much, little in terms of conversion catches my eye. The sample size is much too small anyway. This being August of 2017 and your side likely being a bit developed, I suspect you're one of the strongest, if not the strongest side in your league. You dominating possession on quite a few of away games would be also telling of that. You thus getting outplayed isn't a regular option, unless you chose to do such: I don't remember whom, but one of the moderators made it a mission statement to play completely negative anti-football, deny goals and scoring super efficiently on the break, kind of like Chelsea did successfully those two CL seasons ago, completely defying the "match stats" four times in a row against some of Europe's best teams of the season. As again, points in football are awarded for goals, not for attempts or possession, and goals are rare on average. If you're a strong team, the reverse scenario is less likely to apply: teams will play cautiously against you, and you probably had to pull all the way back deliberately for being "outplayed" statistically with some regularity.

Again, not arguing that the game wouldn't possibly be faulty. But questioning the logics, and being curious, as I've never looked immensely deeply into this myself. However, to back a point, one needs to have solid evidence.

What it shows is that the game is unrealistic.

No matter what tactic, team or league I've played with/in and with absolutely no regards to my sides' strength as opposed to the AI's team, I've had dozens of games where I would lose out 1-0 (or 2-0, 2-1, 3-1 etc.) with the AI's goals also being their only shot(s) in the game, whereas my players act like amateurs in front of the goal.

Similar to one of the mods, do you ever sit back in a way a negative, game killing AI would that only gets a couple shots going all game and focuses on denying space instead? There are very few human players who do from my experience, as they focus on dominating possession and shots instead. If you do such with regularity and have the side to do such, naturally each time you loose or draw a game your opponent is likely to have a better conversion rate also.

[themadsheep2001]

But what do these matches tell you? Personally they don't tell me much, the conversion looks about samey for you as well as the AI. This being August of 2017 and your side likely being a bit developed, I suspect you're one of the strongest, if not the strongest side in your league. You thus getting outplayed isn't a regular option, unless you chose to do such: I don't remember whom, but one of the moderators made it a mission statement to play completely negative anti-football, deny goals and scoring super efficiently on the break, kind of like Chelsea did successfully those two CL seasons ago, completely defying the "match stats" four times in a row against some of Europe's best teams of the season. As again, points in football are awarded for goals, not for attempts or possession. If you're a strong team, the reverse scenario is less likely to apply: teams will play cautiously against you, and you probably had to pull all the way back deliberately for being "outplayed" statistically with some regularity.

It was Ackter, and he was extremely successful.

[HUNT3R]

What it shows is that the game is unrealistic.

No matter what tactic, team or league I've played with/in and with absolutely no regards to my sides' strength as opposed to the AI's team, I've had dozens of games where I would lose out 1-0 (or 2-0, 2-1, 3-1 etc.) with the AI's goals also being their only shot(s) in the game, whereas my players act like amateurs in front of the goal.

And we both know there has been many issues concerning this topic on this forum as well as on many other forums. With injuries, it is one of the most irritating things this patch has brought us.

No. It shows you're not as good a manager as you thought. The ME cannot tell the difference between AI and human players. If it was the way you're making it out to be, everyone would be struggling due to unrealistic conversion rates. A few are, but that doesn't mean a thing.

If you feel this strongly about it, start a separate thread. Show your tactics and team talks before each game. Show the changes you make in-game, if any. Maybe upload the pkms. It will be proven that either the conversion rate is as good as the AI or that you need to better your tactical or motivational side of the game.

Every single thread opened over the years, where there were actual information given, has gone the same route. This will be no different.

[TIR669]

That matches tell me that the game sometimes awards the final score in random order. Sometimes there are no rules. I agree football is unpredictable, it is why we all love it, but sometimes the game itself is highly predictable. Sometimes I simply know no matter what changes I made during the match, I will lose. And yes, more often than not, it happens as I predict it.

It is 2017, however, I started in 2nd league so I am not as developed as you might think. Comparison screen ranks my team in 3rd-5th place (out of 12 teams).

[RTHerringbone]

What it shows is that the game is unrealistic.

No matter what tactic, team or league I've played with/in and with absolutely no regards to my sides' strength as opposed to the AI's team, I've had dozens of games where I would lose out 1-0 (or 2-0, 2-1, 3-1 etc.) with the AI's goals also being their only shot(s) in the game, whereas my players act like amateurs in front of the goal.

And we both know there has been many issues concerning this topic on this forum as well as on many other forums. With injuries, it is one of the most irritating things this patch has brought us.

Are you, Dreamerko and jimbob1000 the same person?

Seriously, this issue is almost certainly tactical.

Dreamerko and jimbob1000 posted similar observations again and again and again, and yet never took the opportunity to post their tactical set ups - which were requested again and again and again.

As HUNT3R has suggested, I would head over to the Tactics forum and just entertain the notion that perhaps the issue is with you, and not with the ME.

Post how you are are playing, how you respond to going ahead in games, or going behind, and let's see if there is any way the people over there can help you out.

[bleventozturk]

What it shows is that the game is unrealistic.

No matter what tactic, team or league I've played with/in and with absolutely no regards to my sides' strength as opposed to the AI's team, I've had dozens of games where I would lose out 1-0 (or 2-0, 2-1, 3-1 etc.) with the AI's goals also being their only shot(s) in the game, whereas my players act like amateurs in front of the goal.

And we both know there has been many issues concerning this topic on this forum as well as on many other forums. With injuries, it is one of the most irritating things this patch has brought us.

The opposite happens quite often too. I even had a match where I had 2 shots on goal myself and the opponent had 20+ shots, around 10 on goal, and I won 1-0. It would be quite boring actually if results like this won't happen in ME.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Nothing WILL happen. EVER.

Because the transfers are also as buggy as they get. It's almost impossible to sell majority of players for anywhere near their values.

I just sold a 16-yr old in my U-21 team (SPL) who hadn't played for the first team and was valued at 14k to Stoke for £1million. They initially offered 500k but I eventually got them up to a million.

The only time I have trouble selling players is if I play as a top team (which is rare), and I'm trying to punt someone who is on ridiculous wages. But that's understandable why not many clubs would want these players.

[Jimbokav1971]

Something I seem to be noticing is that "Grey" players seem to be slightly too strong.

I am managing the San Marino NT, (and club side), and as such I interested in the results of the San Marino U19 NT results.

They have just been beaten by Gibraltar, (for the 2nd time this season), who have not a single non-grey player. Now I would have thought that these teams might be reasonably evenly matched, and indeed the games have been close, but to lose both of them and also the corresponding U21's fixtures sort of caught my eye and so I have been looking at it more closely. Even ignoring San Marino games, (where I might be biased), and Gibraltar games, (because to be honest who knows how good they will be and my suggestion is significantly better than the likes of San Marino), then it still seems to be highlighted elsewhere.

Only the Italian structure was loaded, (although I have recently activated the Serbian league), so I find it strange that Denmark U19's beat Italy U19's. When I looked, Denmark had 0 non-grey players but both their goals were scored by a 17 year old who didn't look "quite right" to me.

Hos technical attributes seem reasonable and his physical attributes seem ok, (if a bit strange in that he had acceleration of 1 but pace of 11. That doesn't seem quite right to me). What really caught my eye though was his mental stats. Every single one of his mental stats is between 12 and 15 inclusive. That's not right for a 17 year old is it? The Italian U19 squad had a player from Arsenal who us currently valued at £4.1M. His mental stats are nowhere near as good. There is anothe rplayer valued at £3.6M and while he has some mental stats that are very high, (flair is 17 for example), he also has aggression and bravery down at 4 and 5 respectively and another 5 attributes in single digits.

I have just done a search and there is not 1 single player in the whole of the database that is under 18 years old and has every mental stat at a minimum of 12.

When I have then gone back to look at Denmark U19's, Lars Bo Klarskov might be the only one who has every single mental stat at 12 or over, but he isn't alone in looking too smart for a 17yo footballer, (even a gifted one).

They have a centre-back who just has 3 below 10, (creativity, flair and off the ball), so he isn't hindered at all by it. Contrastingly, he appears like a God to the young Italians he is playing against.

Some of the Danes look like I would expect, (like the Italians), but then we have another one who seems super-intelligent, (this time a MC). Decisions and Leadership at 9. Everything else between 10 and 14 inclusive. He is a 17yo grey player and this just isn't realistic.

OMG. I've just seen the next one, (a bit of a utility player).

This is just wrong guys. I have no idea how this is calculated bit this is wrong.

[CityAndColour]

It's the same in the English lower leagues Jim. I've lost count of how many times an all grey team from the 10th or 11th tier has destroyed me in the cups with incredible, one touch football.

[Jimbokav1971]

It's the same in the English lower leagues Jim. I've lost count of how many times an all grey team from the 10th or 11th tier has destroyed me in the cups with incredible, one touch football.

I can imagine it's a really hard thing to balance, but it's not the 1st time the balance has been wrong. I remember back in about FM08, all the N.Irish Cups were being won by grey non-playable teams because they were too strong. This is different though. The players in those N.irish teams looked rubbish. They just performed better than expected. This is a grey 17yo player who looks to have mental attributes that even a wonderkid wouldn't have after 3 or so years development. I have a wonderkid actually, and while some of his mental stats are obviously better than 15, he still has 2 in single figures, (aggression and flair). He looks "normal" if that makes sense.

The issue isn't so much that these Danes were too good, (even though they were), it's that they are not "normal". All mental stats between 12 and 15 in a 17yo whether he is grey, white, green, blue, black or whatever is just wrong.

If I do a search for players who have all mental stats at a minimum of 10 then.....

17yo gets me 0.

18yo gets me 0.

19yo gets me 0

20yo gets me 3, (and one of them are mine), but even then none of them have minimum stats of 12.

It's actually not until I include 25yo that I find players who have all mental attributes at a minimum of 12. It's no wonder than having 1 player like this, (and 2 or 3 other similar players), skew things completely at U19 level.

[Sussex Hammer]

Is it just me or is defending extremely poor? Whipped in crosses ending up in own goals and constant diagonal balls played behind your full backs (especially one on attacking) where your defender just watches it!! I have tried having full backs sit narrower, mark tighter but no matter what I do they play exactly the same. I would rather not have a FB on attacking anyway but the 12 Step Guide advises one defender to be on attacking. Anyone know how to stop this?

[Cougar2010]

Just because the 12 step guide advises one defender on attack doesn't mean you should tbh.

With a back four the closest I come is a stopper as a DC, for the style of play I want having a fullback on attack just doesn't work.

As for diagonal balls behind the fullbacks its maybe a bit more clinical than IRL but it is a weak point in a back four and an area a team looks to attack IRL.

[CityAndColour]

Attempting to avoid relegation with a weak Canvey Island squad in L2, predicted 24th and by far the lowest budget in the league.

First six goals conceded on the season:

1) Mishit cross rebounds off crossbar, hits GK and goes in for an own goal

2) Mishit cross rebounds off crossbar, tapped in

3) Defensive clearance puts striker through after defender inexplicably sprints forward under the ball

4) Through ball to winger as full back stands still

5) Mishit cross flies directly in

6) Mishit cross rebounds off crossbar, tapped in

All in the space of four games. Apologies for the whinge but the sheer frequency of crappy goals is really starting to get to me. Could the AI at least beat me with well worked goals? It'd be much easier to accept.

[borobadger]

Attempting to avoid relegation with a weak Canvey Island squad in L2, predicted 24th and by far the lowest budget in the league.

First six goals conceded on the season:

1) Mishit cross rebounds off crossbar, hits GK and goes in for an own goal

2) Mishit cross rebounds off crossbar, tapped in

3) Defensive clearance puts striker through after defender inexplicably sprints forward under the ball

4) Through ball to winger as full back stands still

5) Mishit cross flies directly in

6) Mishit cross rebounds off crossbar, tapped in

All in the space of four games. Apologies for the whinge but the sheer frequency of crappy goals is really starting to get to me. Could the AI at least beat me with well worked goals? It'd be much easier to accept.

It might just be a coincidence but it seems like this year there has been far more "dodgy" goals than before. The amount of times I've scored or conceded from crosses is a bit ridiculous. As for defending, while it's getting better it's still a long way off being anything close to a simulation of real life defending. Defenders act like statues half of the time, or stand on the ball turning in circles before getting dispossessed

[Jimbokav1971]

Is it just me or is defending extremely poor? Whipped in crosses ending up in own goals and constant diagonal balls played behind your full backs (especially one on attacking) where your defender just watches it!! I have tried having full backs sit narrower, mark tighter but no matter what I do they play exactly the same. I would rather not have a FB on attacking anyway but the 12 Step Guide advises one defender to be on attacking. Anyone know how to stop this?

I'm with Cougar on this.

I can accept that the people that wrote the 12 step guide know what they are talking about. I can even accept that they are better at the game than me, (It's not that hard). What I can't accept is that there are FM reasons for doing it, but that there are not football reasons for doing it. As a result, despite me knowing it will be putting me at a disadvantage, I have never done it, (actually very very very rarely is more accurate). I occasionally go from (s) to (a) with full-backs but if I have a centre-half filling in at full-back, (usually the right), then it seems silly to get him more out of his comfort zone than he already is so I just leave him alone and.

Don't feel forced to do it if you don't want. I'm doing ok, (better than ok even), and I don't do it.

The other thing is, (as well as real footballing reasons), I have having problems with getting my head around exactly why this works within FM. The idea given was something along the line of "it encourages movement within the lines". Now what that means exactly is anyone's guess but I took it to mean that it encouraged the full-back to initially support the midfield, but then actually push on and get ahead of them, linking up with the attack. Now the stupid question that I have been unable to answer when thinking about this is..... If it works so well, why don't I want both full-backs on attacking rather than one? After all I have a DM sitting in front of my 2 centre-backs so what;s the problem?

In real life you might encourage your full-backs to be disciplined in that they take it in turns to go forward, but you would never say for 1 to attack and the other not simly because. (I mean you might tell them that bit that would be down to more individual tactics rather than some over-riding all-encompassing strategy. I don't understand it therefore I can't use it. If I am using it without understanding it and it's not working for me, hoe on Earth am I meant to tweak it?

[CityAndColour]

At the end of the day though whether your full back is on support, attack or defend duty, if he's in a correct defensive position then he should react accordingly. Right now he doesn't, and that really shouldn't have anything to do with the mentality because the opposition has the ball and he's marking the winger.

[Svenc]

Seriously, this issue is almost certainly tactical.

Dreamerko and jimbob1000 posted similar observations again and again and again, and yet never took the opportunity to post their tactical set ups - which were requested again and again and again.

out.

Looking solely at numbers it is easy to see how someone could fall into that trap and conclude that tactics shouldn't influence chance conversion, be it CCC conversion or half chance conversion or whatever. By reducing something to mere numbers, everything is reduced to be the exact same. Beyond the numbers that is not the case. The only line of flawed reasoning that would see anyone jump to conclusions that conversion ratio's wouldn't be influenced by tactics is this:

The ME doesn't go through sequences of play, it arbitrarily drums those up to suit statistics it calculated. So that beneath the numbers, unlike in real football, everything would actually be the same. Which officially stated is wrong. The ME produces sequences of play, goes through the 90 minutes of match action, and this turns into statistics, as in football, not the other way around. Therefore by your tactics you influence firstly what type of chances there are created, how they are created and from which position and angle, and then who finishes them off from where: If all you focus on is one finisher for instance you risk your conversion taking a bit of a dive each time he is out of form, grows complacent, nervous or is not fit, for instance.

Remember that even a category as rigidly defined as Opta's CCC is a category of many attempts being lumped together in an attempt at classifying finishes:

[...]The data is very subjective as their a lot of variables involved when measuring a clear cut chance and Opta do not distinguish one clear cut chance from another. For example, both a penalty and a one on one with a goalkeeper are recorded as clear cut chances and the distance away from goal is not taken into consideration.

I've never personally taken much into the "half chances" being created. Firstly, what the heck is even a half chance? Secondly, it evidently doesn't even need to be on target. Trying to judge efficiency by purely looking at statistics I'm much more inclined to look at shots/shots on target statistics. A shot that went on target is typically indicative of the finisher finding enough time and space to get that shot on target. A half chance to me could be anything, and as it often evidently misses target, is not telling of much except maybe the distance to goal or whatever is taken into account.

I've personally had many countering sides in FM myself throughout the years, and what you typically get by sitting deep and inviting pressure whilst trying to hit on the break is a better Shot/shot on target ratio thus, which is also frequently reflected in matches in which one side sits back and the other is "dominating". If all of the fewer shots of such an opponent are suddenly on target (or your own are all off), that's a much better means of assessing to me than looking at any of those dubious half chances. It could mean that you play far too risky, or in the latter case make things rush far too much (or don't create a multitude of chance types, but rather channel play in exactly the same way to always the same finisher; or force your players to bad options by compressing space and denying options in the final third).

In any case, it has been shown many times that a human player cannot only match but outperform the AI in terms of chance conversion regularly. FM 2014 would be a first, as far as I'm aware.

What I can't accept is that there are FM reasons for doing it, but that there are not football reasons for doing it.

There is a 100% football reasoning behind the general advice to have an attacking fullback. He will be regularly one who will provide wide means of ball retention in the final third, support the wide player and provide balls from angled positions. Without him this is gone. Still it's but a rough guideline, and if you know why this is advisable, you can break that rule. I think the standard advice is exactly given to combat the many frustrations faced by FM players throughout the years: the problems of breaking down a team parking the bus should it not concede from set piece or early on but rather hang on by giving advice to provide movement and wide options also (hence in the latter case that FB(A)), but also the channeling of play to a single, possible isolated forward which can also prove problematic similarily. It's all fairly vanilla, but just by following it to the T you have most of the basics covered, which is movement in between your lines, various types of chances, etc.

[BiggusD]

Whan a player is set to Attack, his movement is set to Run From Deep Often (in old terms). This is a setting that is meant to make the player look to push forward into an attacking position asap after the team gains possession. The players on Attack are "leading the lines", so to speak.

Now, why would a wide defender be among those who lead the lines in attack? That makes no sense! In real life, attacking full backs like Ivanovic join the attack on longer build-ups, providing wide options or overlap options once the initial chance to launch a quick break-away is gone and the team instead opts to build up pressure and fill the box with more men.

The way FM makes a full-back/wing-back on Attack behave, there are some very specific requirements for roles and player types around him that is necessary for that to work. Since he bolts forward like Forrest Gump the nano-second you get hold of the ball, players around him must be set to use that early option either first time, or at the very least before he reaches the offside line. Defensive roles meant to play simple, risk-free passes won't use him, and "simple" players won't know how.

What I mean to say here is; set him to Automatic. He will then likely be set to "attack" automatically when you click on the Attacking strategy - and knowing that this is such an aggressive philosophy that it should be used with care and consideration in FM14, I'd say that nobody should EVER simply set one FB to Attack and the other Support (or whatever the guide proposes) without a thought-out plan for how the space behind them should be covered when they're "Gumping" forward.

[Svenc]

Whan a player is set to Attack, his movement is set to Run From Deep Often (in old terms). This is a setting that is meant to make the player look to push forward into an attacking position asap after the team gains possession. The players on Attack are "leading the lines", so to speak.

The timing of the run is being connected to the "mentality". The "Look for overlap" instructions makes use of this, by amongst other maximizing mentality settings for your FBs, which encouarges him to time the run ASAP to create that overlap. This wasn't intuitive in any kind of way, but it's gone.

[Cougar2010]

Now, why would a wide defender be among those who lead the lines in attack? That makes no sense! In real life, attacking full backs like Ivanovic join the attack on longer build-ups, providing wide options or overlap options once the initial chance to launch a quick break-away is gone and the team instead opts to build up pressure and fill the box with more men.

There is no way I would describe Ivanovic's role as an attacking fullback in FM speak, he is much more akin to a supporting fullback.

For an attacking full back you need to look more at a typical Brazilian tactic from 10/20 years ago, 4222 was fairly common then as a general shape with two DMs & two MCs leaving the fullbacks to provide the width going forwards. Someone like Roberto Carlos was much more of an attacking fullback.

[Guest El Payaso]

If you think there are half chances, and other chances, not being marked correctly, then certainly raise them.

It's really hard to go back to your played matches and find them but in my recent game, there was atleast one.

The game didn't count this chance even as a half chance. Torres easily scored from this. There were also few more occasions: like Torres setting up Willian to take a free shot from five metres which was described as a half chance because there were two Stoke players between Willian and the goal after the shot was taken, the fact is though that the shot was free and from easy position and no-one blocked it. Van Ginkel also had a free header from three meters but that was from narrow angle. Also some free shots from somewhere like 10 meters weren't even HCs.

Has anyone else noticed how bad defensive players are inside their own penalty area? Stoke should be dominating me inside their own area but I got something like 15-20 shots from inside the penalty area and only 2 of them were blocked:

Stoke also played short passes to inside my penalty area and you also see some passing combinations inside the area when there are loads of defending players inside the area and these plays often end up to shots that aren't even blocked. Not to mention the marking errors inside the area...

[stevemc]

As for diagonal balls behind the fullbacks its maybe a bit more clinical than IRL but it is a weak point in a back four and an area a team looks to attack IRL.

This is something that is really bugging me, the fullbacks seem to "sleep" when the ball is played diagonal in behind them. You can see the move opening up, yet I seem to be screaming at my full back to notice what I can see in front of me, yet they don't react, or react too late, and the winger is in...

Tried tweaking my tactics, but I presume its just bugged?

[penza]

I don't get why SI went away from fm12 - it was balanced and if people wanted to exploit the match engine and have some fun they could.. miss those days!

[milnerpoint]

I don't get why SI went away from fm12 - it was balanced and if people wanted to exploit the match engine and have some fun they could.. miss those days!

You know you can still play it, yes?

[penza]

People don't have time to spend 6 hours a day to spend on the game (the people who succeed are the ones who tinker the game constantly) plug and play should still exist and it doesn't ... this game is not flawed it just requires too much 'experience' and if you are a newbie you have NO CHANCE! if SI would allow exploits or 'difficulty' setting no one would moan cause at the end of the day - if you want to spend your life on it you put a hard difficulty, if you want to play a few hours and have fun and win then you put it easy mode...

[BenSammy]

People don't have time to spend 6 hours a day to spend on the game (the people who succeed are the ones who tinker the game constantly) plug and play should still exist and it doesn't ... this game is not flawed it just requires too much 'experience' and if you are a newbie you have NO CHANCE! if SI would allow exploits or 'difficulty' setting no one would moan cause at the end of the day - if you want to spend your life on it you put a hard difficulty, if you want to play a few hours and have fun and win then you put it easy mode...

There are exploits in this game.

Full backs don't defend or track runners, so many goals are conceded to simple through balls exploiting that area. They do however, because of the previous get themselves into absurd goal scoring positions, more so if you don't use wingers.

So, pro tip. Because they don't defend anyway, put strikers in the full back positions. Profit

[BiggusD]

There is no way I would describe Ivanovic's role as an attacking fullback in FM speak, he is much more akin to a supporting fullback.

For an attacking full back you need to look more at a typical Brazilian tactic from 10/20 years ago, 4222 was fairly common then as a general shape with two DMs & two MCs leaving the fullbacks to provide the width going forwards. Someone like Roberto Carlos was much more of an attacking fullback.

Yes but even Roberto Carlos' role was not to launch quick attacks and lead the transition stage from defending to attacking. He overlapped and cut inside on longer build-ups. The point is that setting a full back or wing back to Attack as a rule is a very extreme measure that requires specific countermeasures to limit what is a huge risk.

[forameuss]

People don't have time to spend 6 hours a day to spend on the game (the people who succeed are the ones who tinker the game constantly) plug and play should still exist and it doesn't ... this game is not flawed it just requires too much 'experience' and if you are a newbie you have NO CHANCE! if SI would allow exploits or 'difficulty' setting no one would moan cause at the end of the day - if you want to spend your life on it you put a hard difficulty, if you want to play a few hours and have fun and win then you put it easy mode...

Not good at the game, declare it impossible, blame the game, sorted.

Really, it is not impossible to play, and you certainly don't need to spend that amount of time on the game. I've seen plenty of people succeed without tinkering.

[HUNT3R]

Yes but even Roberto Carlos' role was not to launch quick attacks and lead the transition stage from defending to attacking. He overlapped and cut inside on longer build-ups. The point is that setting a full back or wing back to Attack as a rule is a very extreme measure that requires specific countermeasures to limit what is a huge risk.

That's precisely why you either have a DM covering or a CM on defend.

[HUNT3R]

There are exploits in this game.

Full backs don't defend or track runners, so many goals are conceded to simple through balls exploiting that area. They do however, because of the previous get themselves into absurd goal scoring positions, more so if you don't use wingers.

So, pro tip. Because they don't defend anyway, put strikers in the full back positions. Profit

Fullbacks defend. The problem is that watching the game on Key or even Extended, is that we see these "sleeping" moments often and never when they actually do defend because it isn't highlight worthy.

It also looks worse because it looks like the fullback is completely unaware of the run. Not sure if he is, though. In those moments they don't react soon enough, even if they were asleep.

I also realise that through balls played between DC and FB are a little OP.

[stevemc]

They do sleep far too often though. You can forgive mistakes, the odd switch off on concentration, but its seems to happen regardless of who the full back is.

[Cougar2010]

They do sleep far too often though. You can forgive mistakes, the odd switch off on concentration, but its seems to happen regardless of who the full back is.

I personally wouldn't call it sleep at all. When you watch the games there are several reasons why the winger gets behind the fullback, sometimes he simply lacks the pace, others he has been dragged away from his position leaving the winger more space, sometimes the winger simply makes a good run when the fullback is focused on the ball/other players, sometimes he is tiring, sometimes he lacks the mental attributes etc etc.

Its not like this doesn't happen IRL either, its what wide players do constantly during games, trying to exploit the space in the channels and behind the fullbacks. It does seem like it happens a little more often in FM compared to RL but I don't feel its that excessive.

Looking at my own current tactic I play with a lone striker who drops off the front with one of the wide players looking to exploit the space created while the other holds his runs more. In one save my AMR scored 18 goals in the season which isn't miles out for what is the main goal threat in the team. I've also started using a tweaked version of the tactic for my new Hong Kong save and again last season the AMR finished as top scorer on 11 goals in around 25-30apps. Given not all of their goals are scored in this fashion and even the ones that are can differ in several ways I don't feel its that much of an exploit in bug terms.

[BenSammy]

Fullbacks defend. The problem is that watching the game on Key or even Extended, is that we see these "sleeping" moments often and never when they actually do defend because it isn't highlight worthy.

It also looks worse because it looks like the fullback is completely unaware of the run. Not sure if he is, though. In those moments they don't react soon enough, even if they were asleep.

I also realise that through balls played between DC and FB are a little OP.

They are indeed OP. I thought I would try out my theory though. I just won the FA cup final and Champs final with Rooney and Wellbeck in Fullback Position. So...

[stevemc]

They are indeed OP. I thought I would try out my theory though. I just won the FA cup final and Champs final with Rooney and Wellbeck in Fullback Position. So...

I presume they were set to FB(A) then?

I've never once played this version of FM with my fullbacks set to attack, always have them on defend or support.

[BenSammy]

I presume they were set to FB(A) then?

I've never once played this version of FM with my fullbacks set to attack, always have them on defend or support.

Automatic.

I didn't concede a goal in those games either.

[penza]

Not good at the game, declare it impossible, blame the game, sorted.

Really, it is not impossible to play, and you certainly don't need to spend that amount of time on the game. I've seen plenty of people succeed without tinkering.

Not good at the game I know I just won the CL with Frankfurt 2nd season... just took me ages as I had to watch all my games extended and tinker with my tactic constantly.. nice comment!

[stevemc]

Interesting, I just find it bizarre that you could play a striker at FB, and it be effective

I remember in CM97/98 I used to put a long arrow from LB to between the strikers, and he'd comfortably get 10-15 goals a season from it

[BenSammy]

Interesting, I just find it bizarre that you could play a striker at FB, and it be effective

I remember in CM97/98 I used to put a long arrow from LB to between the strikers, and he'd comfortably get 10-15 goals a season from it

It's darn bizarre. FM does kinda exist somewhere in it's own universe though. I've tested striker-less formations with defenders in 3 AM position have them score a butt load too. I might even try a season with defenders up front.

As long as a player doesn't take more than 2 touches, or if they hit the ball on the half volley, seems like anyone with any stat can score from anywhere.

[stevemc]

I presume that even though the FB is set to Automatic, you have specific instructions allowing him to push as far forward as possible?

[BenSammy]

I presume that even though the FB is set to Automatic, you have specific instructions allowing him to push as far forward as possible?

Absolutely no player instructions

Edit: That's a lie, I have PI on my counter strategy, but I rarely use that, otherwise none

[stevemc]

Stange I think I've seen my fullback score once

[Sussex Hammer]

I'm with Cougar on this.

I can accept that the people that wrote the 12 step guide know what they are talking about. I can even accept that they are better at the game than me, (It's not that hard). What I can't accept is that there are FM reasons for doing it, but that there are not football reasons for doing it. As a result, despite me knowing it will be putting me at a disadvantage, I have never done it, (actually very very very rarely is more accurate). I occasionally go from (s) to (a) with full-backs but if I have a centre-half filling in at full-back, (usually the right), then it seems silly to get him more out of his comfort zone than he already is so I just leave him alone and.

Don't feel forced to do it if you don't want. I'm doing ok, (better than ok even), and I don't do it.

The other thing is, (as well as real footballing reasons), I have having problems with getting my head around exactly why this works within FM. The idea given was something along the line of "it encourages movement within the lines". Now what that means exactly is anyone's guess but I took it to mean that it encouraged the full-back to initially support the midfield, but then actually push on and get ahead of them, linking up with the attack. Now the stupid question that I have been unable to answer when thinking about this is..... If it works so well, why don't I want both full-backs on attacking rather than one? After all I have a DM sitting in front of my 2 centre-backs so what;s the problem?

In real life you might encourage your full-backs to be disciplined in that they take it in turns to go forward, but you would never say for 1 to attack and the other not simly because. (I mean you might tell them that bit that would be down to more individual tactics rather than some over-riding all-encompassing strategy. I don't understand it therefore I can't use it. If I am using it without understanding it and it's not working for me, hoe on Earth am I meant to tweak it?

Having an attacking full back doesn't work hence why I posted the question!!! ;-)

Must say this was my point many hundreds of threads before that I feel like I am actually trying to play the ME rather than play logical football tactics. Unless you have Roberto Carlos I wouldn't play an attacking full back but kind of felt forced into using one because it seems that 95% of the tactics on this forum have an attacking full back and a supporting wide player usually coupled with a defensive midfielder on the attacking full backs side to cover that full back (See what I mean about playing the ME rather than football!!) . If you are looking at real life surely the most aggressive you would make your full backs if you are an average team with a back four is support. I mean what if you have two good attacking wingers ? Play one as support with a donkey performing an attacking full back role? I don't think so.

When I coached the game with regard to defending we used to tell kids to imagine they were attached to a very long rope. If one full back went forward the other tucked in to make a back three and vice versa. It's basics defending and I think it was Wwfan and apologies to him if it wasn't but he said that whilst he agreed with me (which was rare!) it was difficult to implement that in FM. So thus rendering one of the most basic moves in defending useless in FM!!

I might try just having the full backs on support or go for the automatic route on more players as specific duties aren't doing it for me.

I wonder actually how full backs on support or even defend would perform with "overlap" ticked?

[Jimbokav1971]

I have seen this reported before, but wrongly assumed that would have been resolved with the patch.

I'm trying to buy a young Brazilian right back but when I have an offer accepted by his club, he says...

my client isn't currently interested in entering into contract negotiations with your club.

So then I try to unsettle him and he says this in the media.

To play like a team like San Marino is what all players dream about. I hope this speculation results in a formal bid.

Great. Brilliant in fact.

Then I approach his club again, get a deal done on the value on for him to say this when it comes to negotiating his contract.

my client isn't currently interested in entering into contract negotiations with your club.

:confused:

[Jimbokav1971]

Having an attacking full back doesn't work hence why I posted the question!!! ;-)

Must say this was my point many hundreds of threads before that I feel like I am actually trying to play the ME rather than play logical football tactics. Unless you have Roberto Carlos I wouldn't play an attacking full back but kind of felt forced into using one because it seems that 95% of the tactics on this forum have an attacking full back and a supporting wide player usually coupled with a defensive midfielder on the attacking full backs side to cover that full back (See what I mean about playing the ME rather than football!!) . If you are looking at real life surely the most aggressive you would make your full backs if you are an average team with a back four is support. I mean what if you have two good attacking wingers ? Play one as support with a donkey performing an attacking full back role? I don't think so.

When I coached the game with regard to defending we used to tell kids to imagine they were attached to a very long rope. If one full back went forward the other tucked in to make a back three and vice versa. It's basics defending and I think it was Wwfan and apologies to him if it wasn't but he said that whilst he agreed with me (which was rare!) it was difficult to implement that in FM. So thus rendering one of the most basic moves in defending useless in FM!!

I might try just having the full backs on support or go for the automatic route on more players as specific duties aren't doing it for me.

I wonder actually how full backs on support or even defend would perform with "overlap" ticked?

Well I have (s) as my standard, but I am increasingly setting them to (a) at home, and it seems to be working quite well. I have looked at overlap, but I don't like it because I like my left winger to stay wide so it changes how he plays and I don't like that. When he doesn't play however, I like the overlap option because I have an IF on the right, and I don't mind my 2nd choice LW being forced inside. I'm about to play a game with my left winger suspended so this would be a perfect opportunity to test this, (except that I am playing away from home and fielding a much weakened team so I am expecting a beating anyway).