Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Neil Brock

Football Manager 2016 - 16.2.0 Official feedback thread

Recommended Posts

That's clearly nonsense as the above heat map has just demonstrated. If you're unable to spot this, then I'm afraid this says more about you than the game. No offence.

You gotta be kidding me! You want to tell me that the heat-map is 100% reflecting the 3D-Gameplay. I would bet my house on it it's not. Someone should do a test, run 100 games and watch them in 3D, then guess the tactics of each team. If you get it 100% right, more power to you my friend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's clearly nonsense as the above heat map has just demonstrated. If you're unable to spot this, then I'm afraid this says more about you than the game. No offence.

If watching a match in 3D, on comprehensive, shows a different result than what the heat map is showing; which is the one with the correct information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we try and stay away from 'if' etc? D_D has shown (with screenshots, not speculation and hypothetical reasoning) that differences between roles are evident on the heat map. You can see it by watching a match too. The heat map and 2D/3D viewer should match up. So should everything else. If it doesn't, it's a bug and needs to be reported.

If you can't see differences between roles, that's probably more you not being able to spot it. Create a thread, provide detail and upload a PKM so that others can help you spot what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, if somebody doesn't notice the difference between a full-back on defend and an outright wingback, that sounds pretty weird or an outright broken installation/weirdly bug, to be honest. Like, there isn't even anything remotely subtle about it. Very generally speaking, the wing-back is the most aggresive wide defender option in the game, the complete one moreso, you'll notice it in the dribbling stats of a match and season too as they're meant to be dribblers and generally attacking players. As the wing-backs sit deeper than wingers, they start their runs with the ball frequently deep in your own half, which can prove dangerous if they are dispossessed. A full-back on defend will always hold his position and stay all behind the ball, not venturing far from the CBs, whereas a WB even on support has "gets further forward" activated by default, i.e. he is encouraged to move all the way up in the final third always, and he does. The FB/d is like these two chaps here in white, always. Two full-backs on defend duty (hold position activated by default, as with any role on defend duty) is in parts what used to make parking bus AI teams such a nut to crack. Unlike more balanced or attacking sides they are never caught out of shape when their move is intercepted/they lose possession and thus with every attack the opposing team has to work for the space rather than getting it handled on a plate.

jhZT6F1.jpg

I wouldn't put too much into the heat-map on occasion though, or at least outright ignore the entire match context. The above clearly shows in the map, as a fb/d or a limited fb never gets forward, like ever (except during set pieces, from corners to throws, depends on your instructions). However, you can go all out attack all you want plus push higher up, if the opponent is in control of the game, that will show in the heat-map as a very deep sitting team. And even attacking full-backs or wing-backs won't show up as highly up the pitch, naturally. Also the covering and stopper dutys on the CBs are primarily meant to show in the closing down, i.e. the one is meant to close down a ball carrier that is advancing towards that final defensive line of the two CBs whilst the other is encouraged to well, cover for him. It's not meant to show as a clearly positionally difference on the heat map, arguably it would be catastrophe if it did. Imagine a winger cutting inside space in front of the CBs from the your left flank, and the right centre back closing in because he's meant to be the "stopper" whilst the natural option, the left CB simply doesn'T because he's on "cover" duty.

As for the forward roles, some of the above also applies. You will pick up much more dribblings from say a complete forward than a target man, if any from the latter at all, which also shows up in the match and seasons stats under "dribblings" or "runs". Also off the ball some roles clearly drift wide and out and/or into the channels, whilst others not at all. However, as with anything, player preferred moves, if a player has some (always check the profile) plays into all of this too, from dribblings, to movement without the ball to through balls etc. Arsenal at the start of the game are a side for instance where almost every wide player has a PPM that encouraged players to make some forward runs, even on a defend duty. In some instances I wish the research was a bit more cautious with this as it "overrides" tactical instructions. No manager in the world would get Robben from cutting inside with the ball entirelly (same as you won't keep him even when not fielding him as an inside forward, for which this is part of the deal and a clearly difference to the winger role), but I highly doubt the entire Arsenal squad is made of players that "ignore" when Wenger wants them to hold their basic position as outlined on the tactical screen rather than venture forward from it. In other words apart of a manager's influence, players have natural tendencies, which has been an amazing addition to the game all along, however they need to be considered by players and research.

That said, FM 2016 seems to have implemented some (in my opinion) rather weird overhauls which also convult and complicate the game, in regards to duty in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re positioning take these examples. Same match replayed to get the examples -

Screenshot 1 - Standard Shape - Flexible - Balanced width. FB's on defend with sit narrower. IF's on support with sit narrower.

Inside%20Forwards.png

Screenshot 2 - Standard shape - Flexible - Balanced width. FB's on defend with sit narrower. This time though wingers on attack.

wingers.png

Screenshot 3 - Attacking shape - Flexible - Wide Width. FB's on defend with sit narrower. Wingers still on attack.

attacking%20wider.png

The wide attacking players are always pretty much in line with the full backs who are apparently tucking in. I would expect to see wingers far wider than a tucking in full back especially playing wide and having sit narrower added to the full backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, if somebody doesn't notice the difference between a full-back on defend and an outright wingback, that sounds pretty weird or an outright broken installation/weirdly bug, to be honest. Like, there isn't even anything remotely subtle about it. Very generally speaking, the wing-back is the most aggresive wide defender option in the game, the complete one moreso, you'll notice it in the dribbling stats of a match and season too as they're meant to be dribblers and generally attacking players. As the wing-backs sit deeper than wingers, they start their runs with the ball frequently deep in your own half, which can prove dangerous if they are dispossessed. A full-back on defend will always hold his position and stay all behind the ball, not venturing far from the CBs, whereas a WB even on support has "gets further forward" activated by default, i.e. he is encouraged to move all the way up in the final third always, and he does. The FB/d is like these two chaps here in white, always. Two full-backs on defend duty (hold position activated by default, as with any role on defend duty) is in parts what used to make parking bus AI teams such a nut to crack. Unlike more balanced or attacking sides they are never caught out of shape when their move is intercepted/they lose possession and thus with every attack the opposing team has to work for the space rather than getting it handled on a plate.

jhZT6F1.jpg

I wouldn't put too much into the heat-map on occasion though, or at least outright ignore the entire match context. The above clearly shows in the map, as a fb/d or a limited fb never gets forward, like ever (except during set pieces, from corners to throws, depends on your instructions). However, you can go all out attack all you want plus push higher up, if the opponent is in control of the game, that will show in the heat-map as a very deep sitting team. And even attacking full-backs or wing-backs won't show up as highly up the pitch, naturally. Also the covering and stopper dutys on the CBs are primarily meant to show in the closing down, i.e. the one is meant to close down a ball carrier that is advancing towards that final defensive line of the two CBs whilst the other is encouraged to well, cover for him. It's not meant to show as a clearly positionally difference on the heat map, arguably it would be catastrophe if it did. Imagine a winger cutting inside space in front of the CBs from the your left flank, and the right centre back closing in because he's meant to be the "stopper" whilst the natural option, the left CB simply doesn'T because he's on "cover" duty.

As for the forward roles, some of the above also applies. You will pick up much more dribblings from say a complete forward than a target man, if any from the latter at all, which also shows up in the match and seasons stats under "dribblings" or "runs". Also off the ball some roles clearly drift wide and out and/or into the channels, whilst others not at all. However, as with anything, player preferred moves, if a player has some (always check the profile) plays into all of this too, from dribblings, to movement without the ball to through balls etc. Arsenal at the start of the game are a side for instance where almost every wide player has a PPM that encouraged players to make some forward runs, even on a defend duty. In some instances I wish the research was a bit more cautious with this as it "overrides" tactical instructions. No manager in the world would get Robben from cutting inside with the ball entirelly (same as you won't keep him even when not fielding him as an inside forward, for which this is part of the deal and a clearly difference to the winger role), but I highly doubt the entire Arsenal squad is made of players that "ignore" when Wenger wants them to hold their basic position as outlined on the tactical screen rather than venture forward from it. In other words apart of a manager's influence, players have natural tendencies, which has been an amazing addition to the game all along, however they need to be considered by players and research.

That said, FM 2016 seems to have implemented some (in my opinion) rather weird overhauls which also convult and complicate the game, in regards to duty in particular.

After 9 seasons with the same club and mostly the same players i can really not see a distinguishable difference the way my fullbacks behave; as FB/D, FB/S or WB/D.

They do the same thing seemingly regardless of what they are instructed to do.

For reasons like that i have started using a different skin which provides more information during the game, like this:

a41d2d82be6808510f9096a46cd374c6.jpg

In order to hopefully spot the difference in numbers rather than in 3D.

Checking the positional heat map for my latest match, which was a friendly, i wanted to see the positional heat map for my WB/D.

I get this:

6fa342c1f9f5b9b5fc19c8fe6430e13a.jpg

Now, the prozone analysis i'm not used to using yet, so it doesn't really tell me much yet.

But, from what i gather here is that my rightback (my team is from left to right in that picture) is mostly in his own half and just over the half-way line occassionally, with an ok average position from the base.

My leftback is more often high up the pitch close to the line.

My leftback does not have any PPMs, while my rightback has the PPM of 'Gets Forward Whenever Possible'.

They both have the same instructions, duty and role.

They don't dribble, almost at all. During this game my right-back is noted with 1 dribble.

My left-back with none.

In general it's the same as when they are FB/D or FB/S. I see the same result.

They don't do anything different.

Their average positions isn't really what's bothering me though. It's the way they're playing. Passes, runs, crossing, closing down etc.

I have changed my Central Defenders from LD/D to DC/D, DC/D and DC/Stopper, DC/D and DC/Cover to DC/D and LD/D.

They still behave the same way. It annoys me a bit when i see my LD/D travel up the field to close down a player, even though he's not on specific man marking.

Passing my midfielders while doing it who are in position to close the attacking players down.

As CD/D they were still doing it. They're even given as little creative freedom as possible but will seemingly ignore it happily.

Different players have been in the DC but that hasn't given me any noticable difference. They all do the same.

And it's a real direct question about the other thing i mentioned, which is semi-related.

3D animation can be off.

Stats might not tell the entire story, or not correlate to what i see happening.

Average ratings are a bit wonky.

What do i trust the most? What gives me the most correct information?

At the moment i'm still watching the matches in 3D while having a look at the stats.

With a combination of both i still do alright. I don't try to look too much into details during a match.

It's when i start looking at it in detail i start seeing the discrepancies and the 'samey-behaviour'-style in the 3D representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team instructions aren't an on/off switch. If you instruct your fullbacks to sit narrower, they'll do so when the opportunity presents itself. If the opposition has a winger who plays wide, your fullback isn't going to keep 'tucking inside' and give him acres of room on the wing (not on this update anyway). On all three examples, you have your fullbacks set to defend, their overall average position will therefore not change much depending on how the game is going, as your team is up against the same side in all three games. As for your wingers, you're playing Man United away, in all probability, your wingers perhaps won't get as much scope to play wider more often, despite you setting that instruction.

People need to realise that setting team instructions are only a guide for your players. Depending on their mentalities, their attributes, their work rate/determination and probably a host of hidden attributes, as well as how the opposition are playing (and who they are), a player's position in a certain game might not be exactly as you've instructed them. This happens in real life all the time. I've been to most Sunderland home games this season, and I'm pretty sure Advocaat/Allardyce haven't instructed the team to do half the things I've seen from them (through gaps in my fingers usually)

EDIT - This was a response to Sussex Hammer, not the above post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Checking the positional heat map for my latest match, which was a friendly, i wanted to see the positional heat map for my WB/D.

I get this:

6fa342c1f9f5b9b5fc19c8fe6430e13a.jpg

Now, the prozone analysis i'm not used to using yet, so it doesn't really tell me much yet.

But, from what i gather here is that my rightback (my team is from left to right in that picture) is mostly in his own half and just over the half-way line occassionally, with an ok average position from the base.

My leftback is more often high up the pitch close to the line.

My leftback does not have any PPMs, while my rightback has the PPM of 'Gets Forward Whenever Possible'.

They both have the same instructions, duty and role.

They don't dribble, almost at all. During this game my right-back is noted with 1 dribble.

My left-back with none.

In general it's the same as when they are FB/D or FB/S. I see the same result.

They don't do anything different.

What's the heatmap of the opposition attacking player on the left hand side? Perhaps your wingback on that side didn't get the same opportunity to bomb forward as much as the guy on the other side. As always, there will be context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general it's the same as when they are FB/D or FB/S. I see the same result.

If it isn't PPMs or individual player tweaks, this is definitely one for the bugs forum rather. A FB/D never gets much involved anywhere as he just sits back (think he isn't even encouraged to cross much, which he won't be in the position in to do anyway usually). A FB/s steps up to support midfield but can push all up too if it's an option, same as a FB/a regularly would. This won't ever change until you switch this or swap a player in with different traits/ppms. Not sure at the moment but a WB/d previously was also set to "hold position".

As for the WBs, I found them doing most if they actually have space to boot, such as in formations where they're the only wide players where they are typically employed in. The dribbling stat picks up on successful dribblings exclusively though, not any attempts. As a point of reference, world class wingers in the game average about 5, 6 successful dribblings a game give or take, for a wb 1,2,3 wouldn't be too bad. Also central defenders tend to always close down if the line in front of them has been breached, i.e. they won't just let the ball carrier approach goal side unchallenged. That's football though and an inherent ME behavior often triggered by tactics that see players in front of the CDs getting dragged out of position. In a 4-4-2 it's also more likely to happen as a lot of burden is placed on the 2 CMs (in the game moreso as central forwards simply stay upfront rather than providing defensive support centrally... unless you give them a specific marking order). Needs a solution by SI.

What do i trust the most? What gives me the most correct information?

At the moment i'm still watching the matches in 3D while having a look at the stats.

It's the play making the statistics not the other way around. Matches in FM are "played out" second by second, move by move no differently to any other football video game. The caveat is that FM's library of

of the optionally 3d player models is limited, i.e. there's no "dribbling or celebration animation specificly locked to a specific Ronaldo 3d model, as Fifa has it, it's a fairly generic thing with every player "looking" much the same whilst running. And some more detailed optional animations might be missing, I think an animation for the models to "tuck onto a player's shirt" was added fairly recently. Prior to it players would just run alongside each other and the ref blow the whistle if he would punish such an incident (the only "visual" clue being a line of text commentary).

That doesn't relate any to general behavior or positioning or play, presentation issues is typically a case of out of sync or missing animations and glitches, to get a general idea, there's a specific subfolder in the game's installation folder with files named very tellingly, i.e. "player takes shoot with left foot". There was a bug regarding possession stats, not sure if it's been fixed. Talking about stats, the clear cut chance stat is another one prone to crack, which is natural, as that is a highly subjective stat in actual football too. Hence the suggestion to actually value the chance yourself, rather than becoming obsessed with it single key stats. Ratings are another thing, i.e. in particular on older releases it was not uncommon for a keeper to get superb ratings simply because he made tons of simple saves, so it's a weighting thing of actual actions. The actions and play is what matters though. Generally it's happening no more or less as in a match of Fifa or Sensi Soccer or Nintendo World Cup or anything. Seemingly downright "idiotic" player behavior can be down to bugs, intentional individual mistakes or oftenly a mix of those. Not sure who had ever brought that up that all the play would be an estimation of obscurely disconnected "under the hood" calculations but that's wrong.

The wide attacking players are always pretty much in line with the full backs who are apparently tucking in. I would expect to see wingers far wider than a tucking in full back especially playing wide and having sit narrower added to the full backs.

I don't focus hugely much on the heat maps. If you do you will occasionally see some really weird things, such as the opposition playing a 4-2-3-1 with wingers apparently not employing any at all. Which is a result of the AI manager utilizing the swap position instruction on the wingers. What this is meant to say that at the end of a day or match, positioning is a dynamic thing and the average comes from the play. The result of wingers not showing up like all wide is for instance the result of wide players centering in front of the goal once play has reached the final third. I think there was even a thread on this as there's players who would prefer them to stay all out wide all the time, but that's not happening in the game. The difference in the actual play of an Inside forward or a winger in the game for instance is bleedingly obvious though. The Inside Forward will cut inside all the time, the winger will go wide with the ball. However there's also footedness influencing this behavior some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the heatmap of the opposition attacking player on the left hand side? Perhaps your wingback on that side didn't get the same opportunity to bomb forward as much as the guy on the other side. As always, there will be context.

I would say that is the case for sure, in that specific match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it isn't PPMs or individual player tweaks, this is definitely one for the bugs forum rather. A FB/D never gets much involved anywhere as he just sits back (think he isn't even encouraged to cross much, which he won't be in the position in to do anyway usually). A FB/s steps up to support midfield but can push all up too if it's an option, same as a FB/a regularly would. This won't ever change until you switch this or swap a player in with different traits/ppms. Not sure at the moment but a WB/d previously was also set to "hold position".

As for the WBs, I found them doing most if they actually have space to boot, such as in formations where they're the only wide players where they are typically employed in. The dribbling stat picks up on successful dribblings exclusively though, not any attempts. As a point of reference, world class wingers in the game average about 5, 6 successful dribblings a game give or take, for a wb 1,2,3 wouldn't be too bad. Also central defenders tend to always close down if the line in front of them has been breached, i.e. they won't just let the ball carrier approach goal side unchallenged. That's football though and an inherent ME behavior often triggered by tactics that see players in front of the CDs getting dragged out of position. In a 4-4-2 it's also more likely to happen as a lot of burden is placed on the 2 CMs (in the game moreso as central forwards simply stay upfront rather than providing defensive support centrally... unless you give them a specific marking order). Needs a solution by SI.

It's the play making the statistics not the other way around. Matches in FM are "played out" second by second, move by move no differently to any other football video game. The caveat is that FM's library of

of the optionally 3d player models is limited, i.e. there's no "dribbling or celebration animation specificly locked to a specific Ronaldo 3d model, as Fifa has it, it's a fairly generic thing with every player "looking" much the same whilst running. And some more detailed optional animations might be missing, I think an animation for the models to "tuck onto a player's shirt" was added fairly recently. Prior to it players would just run alongside each other and the ref blow the whistle if he would punish such an incident (the only "visual" clue being a line of text commentary).

That doesn't relate any to general behavior or positioning or play, presentation issues is typically a case of out of sync or missing animations and glitches, to get a general idea, there's a specific subfolder in the game's installation folder with files named very tellingly, i.e. "player takes shoot with left foot". There was a bug regarding possession stats, not sure if it's been fixed. Talking about stats, the clear cut chance stat is another one prone to crack, which is natural, as that is a highly subjective stat in actual football too. Hence the suggestion to actually value the chance yourself, rather than becoming obsessed with it single key stats. Ratings are another thing, i.e. in particular on older releases it was not uncommon for a keeper to get superb ratings simply because he made tons of simple saves, so it's a weighting thing. The play is what matters though. Generally it's happening no more or less as in a match of Fifa or Sensi Soccer or Nintendo World Cup or anything.

I might roll back a couple of decades and go back to commentary and stats for a while, to really start from scratch again.

In order to reset my brain :D

A bug report might be coming up then.

As i usually do; i'll probably give it another season or two just to doublecheck, and triplecheck, that my eyes aren't deceiving me big-time.

What you explain about the roles/duties there is exactly what i expect as well. As the description is, for me, right there in those abbreviations.

Thanks for your input all. It's certainly helpful with different views and explanations :thup:

Back to what this thread's for, namely feedback!

This might just be a thing with the custom skin, as i've forgotten if the vanilla skin includes it or not;

but when a scout comes back with his report on a competition, the list might be very, very long sometimes.

I wish there was a scout all button that i could click. At the moment i have to click every single player in order to scout them all.

If it's already there in the vanilla skin then it's moot.

I'll take that with the skin maker in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link doesn't work. This one does though.

http://www.whoscored.com/Regions/252/Tournaments/2/Seasons/3853/Stages/7794/TeamStatistics/England-Premier-League-2013-2014

You need to play with the settings, but it comes to this...

1ObVspm.png

You'll see crosses are far more common than any other assist type apart from the mysterious 'other'. This will be because a goal recorded from a 'cross' will be a straight cross then goal. Any cross goal which includes a cut-back, deflection, knock down, keeper error, etc will probably be recorded as an 'other' in most statistical data, but they're all counted as crosses in FM. Hence the difference.

EDIT - Plus you see the difference in a team who played that season with natural width, ie Liverpool, having far more goals from crosses than a team who doesn't, such as West Ham. Tactics play a massive part in how assists are made for goals.

Are you being serious ?

That's tenuous at best.

where you say...

You'll see crosses are far more common than any other assist type apart from the mysterious 'other'

You can’t draw a conclusion based on unknown information…that’s ridiculous. Also I went into the website. Only c65/66% of all goals scored that season are accounted for by whoscored in that assist breakdown. So you really can’t draw conclusions from that…there’s another c380+ goals unaccounted for…I know you could think well percentages but even from your data alone and pro rata for unknowns then crossing accounts for c30% of goals which debunks your claim that crosses are an ‘extremely common way that goals are scored in real life too’. They’re simply not.

Also…your conclusion on Liverpool vs West Ham…whoscored stats show Liverpool attempted 17 crosses per game Vs 25 per game by West Ham..so that would suggest the opposite of your conlusion I guess depending on your take on what natural width is or how width is used within a tactic…ie is it nominal width positionally like Barca use or is it width used to get crosses in like West Ham for example?!! Interestingly West Ham had the most crosses per game that season…so that suggest they like to get crosses in. I guess the difference in goals conversion hints at more efficiency/quality by Liverpool Vs West Ham

I’ve re attached article

http://eplindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/1001.jpg

there which shows from 2011/12 EPL only 15% of goals were scored from crosses made from both wings.

Seeing attached

http://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.ie/2012/08/the-case-for-crosses.html

suggests that 21.5% of goals in 2011/12 epl come from crosses (I guess crosses as well not just from wings). That article also suggests that c40% of goals are coming from passes in the final third so again that completely debunks the impression goals from crosses are extremely common

The original article Vs assist location in FM also shows FM is a bit off in where assists come from location wise…ie more assists come from central locations in real life (and a lot more than what people think) where too many come from wider areas in FM Vs real life in latest build anyway. There was good variation in assists prior to it

See attached also which brings into question people’s perception of crossing in football and the inefficiency of same and also the passing game’s superiority as a means for scoring goals.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/are-outdated-soccer-tactics-a-cross-to-bear-keeping-possession-is-the-way-to-goal-1402007011

http://analysefootball.com/2012/08/30/passing-in-the-final-third-and-goals-epl-2011-12-mcfcanalytics/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SI has said somewhere in the bugs forum that IRL around 33% of assists are from crosses and that if you include corners and free kicks, it jumps to 40%. Obviously this is just an average, so there will be teams with higher and lower figures.

Edit: Using a balanced 442, I've both scored and conceded below half of all goals from crosses, so for me at least, it's pretty much spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sven, your posts are always very interesting and insightful, and always on point...but you're never going to win points for being concise, are you? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The original article Vs assist location in FM also shows FM is a bit off in where assists come from location wise…ie more assists come from central locations in real life (and a lot more than what people think) where too many come from wider areas in FM Vs real life in latest build anyway. There was good variation in assists prior to it

The vast majority of assists in my current save come from more central locations. In the last 50 games, I have scored 50 goals from either a pass or a through ball compared to 24 from a cross. That's because of how I play tactically.

You can't say that in FM, more assists come from crosses than in real life and mark that as a flaw in the game without any kind of context to back it up. If the majority of people who play the game play with wide players, and play a style of football that will exploit wing play, of course these people are going to see more goals from crosses.

As for the articles you've posted, they seem to make a distinction between goals from crosses and goals from the 'final third', that's too ambiguous to be taken seriously (I admit the link I posted was a bit like that too in fairness). What you'll probably find is that many of these 'final third' goals are also crosses. After all, it's very possible to cross a ball in the final third of the pitch.

It's perhaps fair to say there was a higher than usual amount of crosses pre-update, which was a result of the poor fullback positioning. Now this has been tightened up, different tactical set ups should yield different types of assists. If you feel it's still too skewed in one direction, upload your save and let the devs take a look under the hood. I'd be surprised if there was anything massively wrong with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats from 2011/12 don't reflect what's occurring now. In 2011/12, Premier League clubs averaged 55 through balls per round of matches. So far, in the 2015/16 season, that number has dropped to 29. Tactically, clubs are playing deeper and more compact with more players getting behind the ball (largely as a response to skillful sides adopting a possession style based on overloading the middle) which has naturally pushed play out wide.

I'd also point out that aggregate FM stats are going to be influenced by AI tactics which tend to be geared toward crossing when it shifts to more attacking mentalities. If the AI is using roles like FB-A/WB-A when it's going for a goal, it will tend to see an uptick in crosses attempted. However, human managers can still set up attacking tactics with IF/WB-S combos that will try to force play through the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best ratings in my Cardiff game.

In top 3- we have 3 right backs with absolutely brilliant average ratings.

In the top 10 we have 5 right backs, in the top 20 9!

If i look at have the fullbacks are defending it is quite impressive they all are playing so well, compared with all the topclass players in the league.

314DCE5DDCE6D0420F294FF87E2686043D2C99F5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is acknowledged by SI that player ratings, especially those of full backs, need work in future versions.

Ok, nice to know - just to many things not working properly at the moment after the patch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, nice to know - just to many things not working properly at the moment after the patch

To be fair, ratings have needed work for a few years and did not deteriorate post-update. As ever, it's a question of prioritisation when choosing what to fix now, and what to earmark for future updates or releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or... is there really something wrong with how fullbacks work in the me making them OP which is then reflected in av ratings that are so high but not because of flaw in their match ratings but the flaw in ME?

in other words, are the calculations for fullbacks match ratings fine, but fullbacks in ME are the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 of the top 20 assisters and 9 of the top 20 key passers in my current season, which I only started since the update, are full backs. None of those full backs are my team's either, so without 3 of my attacking midfielders appearing on those lists those numbers would be even more skewed. The AI seems to rely heavily on full backs to create chances through crosses.

The caveat to this would be that I'm playing in Serie A, where quite a few teams play diamond midfielders or 3 at the back and therefore naturally don't defend the flanks very well and are also more likely to use attacking fullbacks to create width.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite an important caveat, I'd say.

I'm in the Vanarama National league, and only 2 of the top 20 average ratings belong to fullbacks. 6 of the top 20 assisters are fullbacks, and ONE of the top 20 key passers is a fullback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this issue is specific to 16.2.0 (I had it in FM15 as well) but thought I'd post here instead of opening a new thread.

I'm managing France in the world cup and am having an issue with player condition. I played my first game of the world cup on a Sunday and then player my second game on a Saturday, so plenty of rest for the players, yet lots of a players still had condition in the low 90s. After that much rest, I'd expect them to to have condition in the mid to high 90s. Their match fitness is very high (between 95 and 100).

Is there a way to get my players more rest during an international tournament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite an important caveat, I'd say.

I'm in the Vanarama National league, and only 2 of the top 20 average ratings belong to fullbacks. 6 of the top 20 assisters are fullbacks, and ONE of the top 20 key passers is a fullback.

I wonder if that's simply due to the difference in ability between Serie A standard players and Conference standard players. Fullback is generally a position which requires quite a spread of attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i really enjoy Calabria and how he is playing - but he is far from being a world class player in my opinion

3A26A10458F2C60255EF993B9925CC455EDB7971

4BB0C7435735746077979B821E5D37487876E558

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The vast majority of assists in my current save come from more central locations. In the last 50 games, I have scored 50 goals from either a pass or a through ball compared to 24 from a cross. That's because of how I play tactically.

You can't say that in FM, more assists come from crosses than in real life and mark that as a flaw in the game without any kind of context to back it up. If the majority of people who play the game play with wide players, and play a style of football that will exploit wing play, of course these people are going to see more goals from crosses.

As for the articles you've posted, they seem to make a distinction between goals from crosses and goals from the 'final third', that's too ambiguous to be taken seriously (I admit the link I posted was a bit like that too in fairness). What you'll probably find is that many of these 'final third' goals are also crosses. After all, it's very possible to cross a ball in the final third of the pitch.

It's perhaps fair to say there was a higher than usual amount of crosses pre-update, which was a result of the poor fullback positioning. Now this has been tightened up, different tactical set ups should yield different types of assists. If you feel it's still too skewed in one direction, upload your save and let the devs take a look under the hood. I'd be surprised if there was anything massively wrong with it.

I'm basing it on the ‘goals analysis’ from my own save not on anyone elses/everyones/AI...and the reason I'm saying its an issue is that that's with a team playing narrow/work ball into box and with just full backs as width...crosses knocked off...essentially all instructions to encourage play through the middle yet there's a disproportionate amount of assists coming from wider areas than should be...even more so compared to real life stats.

The articles have no ambiguity whatsoever in establishing that what’s actually ambiguous is people’s perceptions of effectiveness of crossing :). Even more so if they don't get that from the articles themselves :)...seriously though...the articles are very clear...there's zero ambiguity in them !!!

http://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.ie/2012/08/the-case-for-crosses.html

Also that article is not ambiguous at all...its not goals in the final third and its actually goals from PASSES in the final third so that excludes crossing...it was very specifically making the distinction between crosses and passes so completely takes the ambiguity out of it. So the 'final third' goals will not be 'also crosses' at all...nothing even close to that I'm afraid Dave...the final third passes are specifically from passes as that was the purpose of the actual article...it specifically distinguished between crosses and passes

http://www.wsj.com/articles/are-outdated-soccer-tactics-a-cross-to-bear-keeping-possession-is-the-way-to-goal-1402007011

zero ambiguity there also…it was specific to crosses

http://analysefootball.com/2012/08/30/passing-in-the-final-third-and-goals-epl-2011-12-mcfcanalytics/

The key point on that article is that it supports the view that Liverpools use of crossing being highly inefficient source of goals.

All articles support what the point of ‘which brings into question people’s perception of crossing in football and the inefficiency of same and also the passing game’s superiority as a means for scoring goals.’ was

The real life evidence back that up

Ill post the thing on assist locations where appropriate on the forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm basing it on the ‘goals analysis’ from my own save not on anyone elses/everyones/AI...and the reason I'm saying its an issue is that that's with a team playing narrow/work ball into box and with just full backs as width...crosses knocked off...essentially all instructions to encourage play through the middle yet there's a disproportionate amount of assists coming from wider areas than should be...even more so compared to real life stats.

Well, I'm not seeing this in my save with the tactic I'm using. It's a pretty basic 4-4-2, but with instructions to play a more patient approach to attacking. Twice as many of my goals come from passes and through balls than come from crosses. As you can see here.

smVigIb.png

Remember that goals from 'wider areas' are not always crosses.

Anyway, so what. Even if there were more goals from crosses than real life, does it really matter? People set their teams up differently from real life managers. Everyone's save is different. People buy different players, have different tactics, TIs, PIs, PPMs, etc. Essentially everyone's game is different. Watching something play out in YOUR save that you perceive to be different from what happens in real life, then claiming the game is flawed on the back of that is a bit silly really. Upload your save, let the guys have a look at it, they'll tell you whether there's something amiss, or whether it's just you. I know what my money's on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is because you have effectively accepted his transfer request with the proviso of a reasonable offer coming in. He will be willing to be taken off of the transfer list if the interest in leaving is no longer relevant.
There is a big difference between telling someone you will let them go if you receive an acceptable offer, and telling them you will actively attempt attempt to sell them.

As had already been mentioned quite recently in this thread, the difference in transfer offers for players clubs want to sell and have listed, and players clubs don't want to sell can be huge. If this is part of the programming, and my personal experience suggests it is, this change puts the user at a serious selling disadvantage.

If player conversation options have built in automatic transfer status changes, there is absolutely no excuse for not telling the user. A tool tip when you hover over the option would surely be simple to implement?

Thanks Seb, I imagined that would be the explanation.

However, I have to agree with johnhughthom. What on earth is the rationale behind not telling users that the game now does something automatically that it has never done before and that nobody could reasonably want or expect it to do?

I had to quit without saving and replay a couple of games (something I don''t like to do) as a consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Seb, I imagined that would be the explanation.

However, I have to agree with johnhughthom. What on earth is the rationale behind not telling users that the game now does something automatically that it has never done before and that nobody could reasonably want or expect it to do?

I had to quit without saving and replay a couple of games (something I don''t like to do) as a consequence.

Sorry but its unreasonable to expect a 1000 manual explaining every single little thing in the game. FM has always been about trial & error, now you've used the option you know what to expect, thats not to say I wouldn't be against a tool tip either though.

As to why whilst I can see where John is coming from and would probably agree with him somewhat but having used the option myself in FM15 it bordered on an exploit. Moving forward and actually transfer listing the player should trigger more offers and increased transfer activity which is a good thing for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In FM2015 there was no mechanical difference between telling a player you'd sell him when you got a replacement or when you got appropriate value. They're both recorded as "will accept a bid from Team X as soon as they bid."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'm not seeing this in my save with the tactic I'm using. It's a pretty basic 4-4-2, but with instructions to play a more patient approach to attacking. Twice as many of my goals come from passes and through balls than come from crosses. As you can see here.

smVigIb.png

Remember that goals from 'wider areas' are not always crosses.

Anyway, so what. Even if there were more goals from crosses than real life, does it really matter? People set their teams up differently from real life managers. Everyone's save is different. People buy different players, have different tactics, TIs, PIs, PPMs, etc. Essentially everyone's game is different. Watching something play out in YOUR save that you perceive to be different from what happens in real life, then claiming the game is flawed on the back of that is a bit silly really. Upload your save, let the guys have a look at it, they'll tell you whether there's something amiss, or whether it's just you. I know what my money's on.

Yeah that was what I was saying…it’s more an issue of the position of the assists rather than just from actual crossing itself

Re the crossing thing I was just correcting the false perception/impression that ‘It's also an extremely common way that goals are scored in real life too’…as its not !

It’s interesting that you now say ‘so what’ to real life information where it doesn’t back up your original impression where you were using real life to actually back up/reaffirm what happens in FM…so while you thought you were right you were happy to say real life extremely common crossing assists for goals but then say ‘so what’ when you find out its not !!!

I do agree on everyone’s save is different which is why I wouldn’t go on anything other than what I’m seeing myself.

The point is it’s nothing to do with perception at all as the information of real life IS what happens in real life…they’re actual real life statistics…and they’re average for all styles so if a style in FM designed to play through the middle deviates more the wrong way against real life averages then that suggest there’s something amiss ! So comparing the stats takes the perception element of it out of it !!!

Lame attempt Dave to try and dismiss it with a throw away comment on putting your money on whatever…I’d suggest though keeping your money in your pocket based on your perception of things in this conversation…

You’d have lost money on…

- crosses an ‘extremely common was goals are scored’

- West Ham Vs Liverpool on crossing

- any ambiguity in those articles of which there was zero

Also just on your own stats there…the whoscored you pointed out has an element of double count on crosses (it includes corners) so your own scoring from crosses Vs that is 38% of all your goals with 49% of the goals you conceded coming from crosses…both of which are higher than the norm (obv both of which can of course can deviate from the average for individual teams). Its interesting again what you hold up on FM to say you’re seeing things better than real life is actually worse than real life statistically…taking perception out of it…and yes ok if you’re playing wide but you’ve been kind of alluding you’re playing a more patient approach which shouldn’t tap so much into assists from crosses…so when you say you’re not seeing it in your tactic…you actually are, you just haven’t realised it !

I’d be interested to see your screen shot of assists locations as well

Just to also say I’m not saying it’s a huge issue at all and I think FM16 match engine is the best I’ve seen yet and by a good distance.

I was mainly piping up about the misperception about crossing…it wasn’t personal to you just when I saw you saying its extremely common/and a bandwagon issue I just had to point out that both of which are fundamentally incorrect !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, ratings have needed work for a few years and did not deteriorate post-update. As ever, it's a question of prioritisation when choosing what to fix now, and what to earmark for future updates or releases.

Man, I got old waiting for ratings to be fixed :) I was in my 20ies when I first started complaining, now I am nearing 40 lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I actually watch football with my own eyes every weekend in both Scotland and England. I don't need a blog on the internet with no referenced sources to tell me how common or uncommon crosses are in football. Goals from crosses may well be lower in the EPL over the last couple of seasons as a pure statistic compared to before (you can pull a stat about anything to back up your opinion), but overall, they are still a very common method of assist. I see it with my own eyes every week.

So this...

You’d have lost money on…

- crosses an ‘extremely common was goals are scored’

- West Ham Vs Liverpool on crossing

- any ambiguity in those articles of which there was zero

..is arrant nonsense really. Especially the last point. There is always ambiguity in football statistics without any kind of context to base them on.

Also, the West Ham-Liverpool thing is something you've swung and missed on, on a large scale.

So, apart from being wrong on everything, spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I scored a weird goal last night, which actually supports some of the complaints I see here about the goals from crosses being far too many (not saying I agree with this or not).

My attack developed from the center of the field, and it was a semi-counter attack, where the opposition defense didn't have time to completely get back in their shape yet, when with a lobe(ish) through ball my DLF(s) lone striker controlled the ball somewhere very close to the penalty spot, where he was one on one with the keeper. With his first touch he dropped the ball in front of him, and when I was expecting him to blast it to the back of the net, he passed the ball all the way to the wing, to my wingback coming in. The wingback immediately (single touch) crossed it back to my attacking midfielder just outside the box, who also with a single touch blasted the ball into the net.

It was a superb goal to watch, one you would probably see once in a few years IRL, but my reaction was of course 'this should not happen!'. My striker was wide open, 1-2 yard to the side of the penalty spot, with only the keeper to beat, no defender bothering him, and he kicked to the wing for a cross. This is just not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, I actually watch football with my own eyes every weekend in both Scotland and England. I don't need a blog on the internet with no referenced sources to tell me how common or uncommon crosses are in football. Goals from crosses may well be lower in the EPL over the last couple of seasons as a pure statistic compared to before (you can pull a stat about anything to back up your opinion), but overall, they are still a very common method of assist. I see it with my own eyes every week.

So this...

..is arrant nonsense really. Especially the last point. There is always ambiguity in football statistics without any kind of context to base them on.

Also, the West Ham-Liverpool thing is something you've swung and missed on, on a large scale.

So, apart from being wrong on everything, spot on.

Way to deal with something that proves you're wrong well !!!

I'm not dealing with opinion at all here Dave...just hard facts/real life statistics...if you want to back up your own opinions with your own perceptions then terrific...knock yourself out...something tells me it wouldn't be the first time you've done that to avoid a reality which exposes your view of things

Lots of thing are ambiguous if you don't understand them...there's plenty of context there in those articles...one from wall st journal...i'll post another one from frankfurt school of finance and management...all real world information which all more or less say the same thing !

You either get it or you don't so we'll leave it at that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man, I got old waiting for ratings to be fixed :) I was in my 20ies when I first started complaining, now I am nearing 40 lol.

lmao, I nearly spat my tea over :brock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SI has said somewhere in the bugs forum that IRL around 33% of assists are from crosses and that if you include corners and free kicks, it jumps to 40%. Obviously this is just an average, so there will be teams with higher and lower figures.

Edit: Using a balanced 442, I've both scored and conceded below half of all goals from crosses, so for me at least, it's pretty much spot on.

I've seen that quoted before but in fairness haven't seen the source for that stat but I've seen a few articles online which suggest those numbers are off/may have changed ?!!

Even the closest I can see is whoscored...however the 29%-35% odd percent who scored suggest are from crosses includes corners so the 40% appears even further off. Also whoscored seems to be missing a large proportion of actual goals scored so that could skew those crossing stats enormously. Looking at 3 years they only give assist breakdown for about two thirds of goals scored. Even assuming those percentages stack up pro rata with unknown goals just to note the following

Open Play All Crosses

Crosses (includes corners/free kicks)

2011/12 26% 34%

2012/13 23% 31%

2013/14 19% 29%

2014/15 22% 31%

2015/16 24% 35%

See attached as well suggests it a fair bit lower from study done on epl from a few years sample I think it was 09-13…23% of goals scored from crosses including set pieces (corners and free kicks)…with only 15% from open play and 8% from set pieces. It also shows the inefficiency of crossing

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2225728

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stats from 2011/12 don't reflect what's occurring now. In 2011/12, Premier League clubs averaged 55 through balls per round of matches. So far, in the 2015/16 season, that number has dropped to 29. Tactically, clubs are playing deeper and more compact with more players getting behind the ball (largely as a response to skillful sides adopting a possession style based on overloading the middle) which has naturally pushed play out wide.

I'd also point out that aggregate FM stats are going to be influenced by AI tactics which tend to be geared toward crossing when it shifts to more attacking mentalities. If the AI is using roles like FB-A/WB-A when it's going for a goal, it will tend to see an uptick in crosses attempted. However, human managers can still set up attacking tactics with IF/WB-S combos that will try to force play through the middle.

That's the case alright but to give it context...

It's also the case the crosses are down in the same period from 442 per game to 408...so number of crosses are also down which to a point suggest the through balls haven't been replaced by any play being pushed out wide from an attacking point of view displacement wise...ie both are actually down...also the number of passes per game from that year to the other is not significantly changed either...so its not necessarily that teams are passing it around more either...they might be just attacking the penalty area in another way than crossing/through balls.

Either way they're absolute numbers...in terms of % of goals scored from 11/12 to now...

Goals scored from open play crosses dropped from 26% to 24%...when you include corners then all crosses have gone from 34% to 35%

If you look at through balls assists % of goals scored...its actually jumped from 14% of total to 16%

So efficiency of through balls as a means to score has actually increased despite deeper defences (of course crossing should be easier defend too with more numbers in the box)

Perhaps EPL reluctance to play more through balls reflects a drop in skilled/creative/players with vision to actually play them as well as the effect of deeper defences as a deterrant.

Also of course passing in the final third to score involves more than just through balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone else finding the AI absolutely ruthless on this patch? I can't keep a clean sheet for love nor money! !

It's definitely challenging, but mostly in a good way. Consistency is difficult. I'm very happy with how penalties look in this build, though - in previous builds l found l was more likely to score from a goal kick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone else finding the AI absolutely ruthless on this patch? I can't keep a clean sheet for love nor money! !

Yep, no matter how much you control a match you can be sure they will make one or two goals the last 20 - 30minutes.

But i managed so far to score 29 games in a row in the PL in 31 matches. So seems also to be easier to make goals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, no matter how much you control a match you can be sure they will make one or two goals the last 20 - 30minutes.

But i managed so far to score 29 games in a row in the PL in 31 matches. So seems also to be easier to make goals

Yeah I'm with you on this one. I've scored by far the most goals even though I'm 15th in the league) and conceded the most also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also having trouble getting the goalkeeper to obey to my demands to play out from the back, preferring to boot it long when i'm asking him to roll it out or distribute to full backs- anyone seen anything similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what l read on here, everyone has awesome full backs. Mine insist on hoiking the ball in to the opposition's lap at every opportunity, regardless of instruction. I wish there was a touchline shout that enabled me to agressively say "follow your $#*/: instructions, you dillweed" at my panicky right-back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be ridiculous.. just like any game which has mods, sometimes they aren't compatible with updates to the core game...

Skinning is no different and requires the skin creator to update their work.. that is all.

Go check any other modded game and you'll find the same thing.. Skyrim and starbound are great examples of this.

Don't want to hear any of this ridiculous blame game anymore thanks.

So what you're saying is Si will mod the game without warning or notification of what has been altered and leave groups like mine to spend 4 hours searching for the cause of the crashes ?? How arrogant is that !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...