Simulating Football Management - are we way off?

[YKW]

I had posted the following in another thread, which was locked for some reason. It took me quite a lot of time and so I was interested if anybody had any thoughts. I'm a little disappointed with the progress being made by the series in terms of being an accurate simulation that is in depth and which we can learn from. It was originally posted as a response to the question of whether football knowledge or ME knowledge was more important in having success on the game.

 

For me I would ask the following:

Can you be inordinately successful due to a great knowledge of football and football tactics?

Can you be inordinately successful due to a great knowledge of that particular version of the ME?

Perhaps the answer is yes to both, I can't dispute people's personal experiences. For me though, the in game tactical system has so little bearing to reality and how tactics are built and coached that having an above average knowledge of football tactics is basically of no use whatsoever. Maybe you are a student of the double pivot - well it doesn't matter because you can't tell your CMs to alternate who goes forward. Perhaps you are an expert in the implementation of a classical 3-5-2 formation - well it doesn't matter because the ME doesn't seem to account for lateral movement and so my back 3 won't shift and become a 4 in the correct way. Maybe you have studied Klopp's high pressing strategy - well it doesn't matter because only one pressing style is in the game, and it can only really be selected on a scale of Less--->More.  I'm not a tactical genius by any stretch, but the advanced strategies that I have become aware of over the years can't really be replicated in the game.

It's clearly of far more value to know that, for FM16 for example, having an attacking RB is a good choice because of the nuances of the ME. Or that having a really tall target man is likely to lead to less headed shots on target, rather than more. Or to have realised that, even when playing a short style of passing with appropriate roles, an Advanced Forward will make the team try to play it long ahead of him more often that your tactical choices would appear to dictate, etc etc.

As a further argument I would say to consider a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator. I'm a novice at the game and a novice at flying a plane for real, so I would get novice results. A pilot who is also a novice to the game would get expert results, because the game accurately simulates what he actually does. When it comes to FM, Guardiola would be no better, and have no innate advantage over someone who had only a basic understanding of football tactics. In terms of Guardiola, it would be like giving a concert hall pianist an 8-key Fisher Price kids keyboard and asking him to compose a better 4 bar melody than a group of kids.

Similarly, if you take a game like Sim City, there is an ongoing relationship between reality and the game. Once you've created your first majorly congested, crime infested city of many abandoned regions, reality now contains things that you didn't notice before. Maybe more general things like how road capacity decreases as it tails off into residential areas, or noticing how residential and commercial areas come together, whereas industrial areas are further away, but with good transport links. Or it could be more subtle things like where a one way road prevents a shortcut that would overload the road. Just as the game helps you learn and put reality into a new context, what you see in reality can be used as a principle in the game. For me that's what it makes it achieve it's job as a simulator.

The sad thing about FM, or at least the part of it that aims to be a simulator, is that this effect is hardly there at all.

For me the main issue is of course that the FM ME is a much more incredible piece of work than the previous simulators I mentioned (among others) that can be created to pre-defined mathematical rules. So my overriding point here is just an observation and discussion point rather than a significant criticism. But I have to strongly support the side of the argument that says that ME knowledge is more important (assuming basic familiarity with football.)

Moving forward, I feel that there simply HAS to be some kind of more relevant and realistic tactical and coaching interface or "controller," that can somehow provide the same synergy with reality as in other sims. 

The language is all wrong.

"Overload" isn't "all out attack!" An overload situation happens when a team gets the ball into a situation where their players outnumber the opposition players in that area. Creating overload situations is a tactical objective, and one that is coached to happen in whatever the chosen areas are. You can be playing defensively and still create an overload situation. An overload situation is NOT the result of a combination of individual instructions nor is it the result of placing the players in positions where they outnumber opponents and going from there. It is a tactical element in it's own right, and being able to achieve something similar through some arduous combination of instructions is not satisfying or realistic.

"Triangles" isn't mentioned at all in the game. It should be because they are also a tactical objective that is is coached to happen in chosen situations. If you watch a match of football then maybe you will see it a lot, or maybe you won't see it much, because every team uses the strategy to a different extent. Triangles are NOT the result of a combination of individual instructions nor are they the result of placing the players in triangles and then telling them to play short. Again, even if triangles are attainable, it's still a realistic result through an unrealistic method - so I learn nothing. 

Take the "high press." In game I close down more or less, with a higher or lower line and either prevent short distribution or not. But this really doesn't give enough credit to a strategy that has become more popular at the top level in recent years. Particularly with how Klopp has implemented it, it is not just a unique tactical element that is coached to the players over time, but also a philosophy that goes far beyond just the tactics and into the worlds of intensive training workloads and specialised recovery and dietary plans. As it stands, all teams have equal access to the "high pressing" philosophy with just the addition of three options, which is silly.

You could make similar assessments of footballing concepts like "a solid two banks of four," "the offside trap," "the long ball game," "the quick counter," "set piece specialism," "tiki taka," etc etc. If I successfully achieve tiki taka football, it isn't because that is what I have coached the players to do over time but because I have played the game enough to have found the combination of instructions and players that result in the most tiki-taka like play in the ME. Something needs to change so that I can specifically choose that I want to start to implement tiki taka football, with the end result being that I will more often see my team playing beautiful tiki-taka football which looks like real life. Crucially I also want to experience the journey to this point, i.e my team or specific players struggling to get to grips with the strategy resulting in bad tiki-taka or "almost" tiki taka, with staff advice given to me in the context of the tactical elements I have chosen - "Assman believes that X is not a good fit for your tiki taka tactical style, due to his poor first touch." 

Other terminology like "between the lines," and "the channels," should appear in the game and be defined also. 

Another opportunity to learn would be for training (coaching) to actually give reference to, or even show in 3D, ACTUAL training drills that are used by teams, and have the training schedule of my team visible to me and with specific drills/activities chosen based on their relevance to my tactical elements. Suppose I have chosen to implement a high pressing strategy. Well what are the considerations of coaching and training players this style? Obviously they need to learn the technical skills associated with this, i.e positioning to dictate a passing route and/or to shut down a passing option, and they also need immense physical capacity and mental desire and willingness. So in my training schedule, which may just be autofilled for ease, I would see a realistic schedule for a team learning this style, including the relevant drills and activities. I don't know what they are because the game has never taught me, but for instance you could see more double training sessions, more intensive gym sessions, piggy in the middle, and perhaps even some team building exercises. Each would have a brief explanation of what the drill was, what it improved, and why this was good for the style I had chosen.

It would also tie in with facilities so that some drills and activities were only available at the best clubs. Similarly, I might see more scheduled visits to the masseuse or to the in-house nutritionist, both with an explanation of their scientific role and how this is useful or appropriate for my tactical style.  Maybe I have a cryotherapy chamber, and I get to learn what that actually is and why it is useful.

Injuries also have a lot more room to teach us things. What's the difference between an impact injury and the other kind of injury? What sort of rates of re-occurrence do each lend themselves to, and what sorts of rehabilitations are best or most widely used? How do sports scientists monitor workloads, or what is the role of GPS tracking in football shirts and how are these used to minimise the risk of injuries? Is my club rich enough to do either of these? If I want a high pressing style it would sure be useful.

Then to cap it all off you could have tweets in the social media section by Raymond Verheijen criticising your training techniques.

Whether or not you need to know about real football to do well at the game, I hope that moving forward more effort is put into mirroring real life and making the game more of a serious simulation. FMT should take over the more arcadey and easy to play role.

 

Does anyone else feel that there is loads of room for improvement here? I must have played around 20,000 hours of FM in my life, and although it has helped me learn huge amounts about players, clubs and their potentials and histories, it's taught me nothing about tactics or training.

 

[themadsheep2001]

Deleted a couple of posts already, cut it out.

Excellent OP with a lot of salient points, definitely worth a longer answer, will edit this post with a proper dialogue later

[forameuss]

4 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Deleted a couple of posts already, cut it out.

Excellent OP with a lot of salient points, definitely worth a longer answer, will edit this post with a proper dialogue later

So you couldn't have just cut out the part you didn't like and leave the part where I actually replied to the OP?

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, forameuss said:

So you couldn't have just cut out the part you didn't like and leave the part where I actually replied to the OP?

You didnt need to intervene, please stick to the point at hand

[YKW]

To follow up in terms of the attributes:

Often there is discussion about what the different attributes do and what ones are needed to perform certain skills. I know the help file may deal with this, but it would be useful if in game you could see some kind of explanation for each, for example by clicking like in Genie scout. I think that would be a better platform for being able to assess the skill-sets of players IRL. For example, a better description of exactly what Anticipation is in a footballing context would help me more when watching real life matches as opposed to having to create my own definition.

Further to this, when selecting an individual training focus, it would be interesting to know what sorts of things are done to achieve it. For instance when training Leadership, what's happening?

Even further on from this, what I think is easily missed when you play the game, is that the attributes are basically NEVER relevant in an isolated context. Even penalty taking and corners for example need other skills than just their respective attribute.

If the game provided an explanation of how attributes link together, then this would help me understand real life also. The easiest example is "quickness." Bale and Hazard and Kompany have very different types of quickness. Bale's stamina contributes to his ability to sprint at his top speed for prolonged periods, Hazard's agility means that he can stop and start sprinting in another direction very quickly, and Kompany's balance and strength almost prevents people from outrunning him, in a way.

A lot of proposed data issues are in my opinion people not having a great understanding of the "story" of that particular player's attributes.

I don't really have any ideas about how this could be represented in game, but the end result would be that it would be easy to translate in game to attributes to real life skills and vice versa.

[santy001]

I think the biggest issue is we're probably technologically limited in terms of what is just currently capable in games.

Right now we have the tactics system set up in a way that you tell it what you want it to do, the options have been illustrated better than ever before, the text is clearer and more concise than ever before but there is still a huge issue - what I think attacking equates to, and what the next person think it equates to are different things. We both know what we're wanting out of it, we both have different expectations - but we both can be wrong. That's not a failing of the game, it's not particularly a failing of the individual it's just how it is. 

Through any medium getting what you envisage/imagine to reality is incredibly difficult. Biggest disappointment as a child was my actual ability to draw never came close to my ability to imagine what I wanted to draw. 

I don't know how at all it would be achieved, but the developers, internal & long time testers will invariably know best how tactical instructions translate to the game. I think a question driven system which can best understand what you're wanting to achieve, and creates the framework for you on the basis of what you actually want. Ultimately, how I envisage it best is probably that the game needs some kind of built in Cleon/Rashidi/Dr Hook etc etc. Not something that gives you the right answer for how to categorically win games, but it gives you the right answer to get towards what you want to achieve in terms of playing styles/game approach.

The backroom staff are the perfect template for it, and even mapping subtle differences within a desired approach. The hard part is just ever getting a system like that in the first place.

[santy001]

13 minutes ago, YKW said:

To follow up in terms of the attributes:

Often there is discussion about what the different attributes do and what ones are needed to perform certain skills. I know the help file may deal with this, but it would be useful if in game you could see some kind of explanation for each, for example by clicking like in Genie scout. I think that would be a better platform for being able to assess the skill-sets of players IRL. For example, a better description of exactly what Anticipation is in a footballing context would help me more when watching real life matches as opposed to having to create my own definition.

Further to this, when selecting an individual training focus, it would be interesting to know what sorts of things are done to achieve it. For instance when training Leadership, what's happening?

Even further on from this, what I think is easily missed when you play the game, is that the attributes are basically NEVER relevant in an isolated context. Even penalty taking and corners for example need other skills than just their respective attribute.

If the game provided an explanation of how attributes link together, then this would help me understand real life also. The easiest example is "quickness." Bale and Hazard and Kompany have very different types of quickness. Bale's stamina contributes to his ability to sprint at his top speed for prolonged periods, Hazard's agility means that he can stop and start sprinting in another direction very quickly, and Kompany's balance and strength almost prevents people from outrunning him, in a way.

A lot of proposed data issues are in my opinion people not having a great understanding of the "story" of that particular player's attributes.

I don't really have any ideas about how this could be represented in game, but the end result would be that it would be easy to translate in game to attributes to real life skills and vice versa.

Attributes is a strange one. 

As a researcher even with the additional layer of knowledge that comes as part and parcel of the process it brings too much useful knowledge to the table. This is one of the areas where I believe a vaguer description like the manual provides is actually the best way. If anything I would like it to be vaguer still than it is at present. It's only my personal perspective, but what I know as a researcher means that it's too easy to buy the right player for the role I want. If this area becomes too defined it becomes a cheat-sheet. Maybe not for everyone, but for too many it would be. 

[Halofon]

To be honest - it will take a massive amount of time until "near perfect" simulation of manager´s role will be available. Half of your post is semantics for me.

And the other half... e.g. I do not think that Mourinho or Klopp knows anything about cryochambers etc.

And I am more than happy that I do not have to look at the training sessions.

[anagain]

39 minutes ago, santy001 said:

I think the biggest issue is we're probably technologically limited in terms of what is just currently capable in games.

I certainly think that is the most important factor to bear in mind here. More specifically I would point to AI as being the biggest concern. A frequent concern I have seen bought up on these forums is the easiness of FM, and the chief culprit for that has to be the ability of the AI to compete with the player.

FM17 is, in my mind, the edition of the game that has featured the best AI managers to date. I have seen more tactical changes by the opposition in FM17 than in any previous edition. This is something that has obviously taken time for SI to achieve. The result of years of work, if you like. As much as I agree that there is a limit to how tactical you can be in FM, I am left to ponder how much effort it would take to enable to AI managers to compete with a player that has access to a much greater variety of tactical instructions.

If we cast our minds back to previous editions of FM we will all remember the sliders system. It was either loved or loathed. I personally feel it could be considered a much deeper tactical engine, with a much greater ability for fine tuning than the current system. Would the average player like that though? We already have a huge amount of players complaining that the game has become too detailed in past years. I don't agree, and I'd love to see more detail. SI have to balance that player feedback with what they add in terms of tactical fine tuning and the progression of video game AI.

It's not an easy balance.

 

Speaking for me personally, I would like to see more fine tuning of tactics. I often feel I don't have the ability to ask certain things of players. I was watching a Canadian YouTuber play FM the other day. He's a footsoccerball (as he calls it) novice and it leads me to delving in to his tactics and trying to offer advice. It got me to considering advanced fullbacks and the pros and cons associated with them. In modern day football wingers will be expected to cover defensively for full backs, and there will often be a within team acknowledgement that one full back will stay back if his partner is advancing. Specifying that instruction with FM, I believe, only leaves you with an option to make one full back less attacking with the tactical options. Perhaps the game engine will make that happen as a given, but there is nothing in the tactical descriptions to suggest so. The player is left to guess essentially.

On the other hand, I do feel a concern regarding the possibility that the game could be too easy if the player is offered a greater abundance of options to build their team.

 

For starters, perhaps the depth of fine tuning available in the old slider system could be further built in to the current graphical tactical system, giving us more options within each category. Small steps are probably best here. Too big a leap and it will disadvantage the AI.

 

It is a good topic though, and one that I certainly feel merits greater discussion. I'd be reluctant to compare to other games though. I felt the comparison with flight simulators was a little wild, and the comparison with Sim City incredibly far off the mark. FM is, in my mind, a whole different kettle of fish than so many games.

 

[YKW]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

I think the biggest issue is we're probably technologically limited in terms of what is just currently capable in games.

Right now we have the tactics system set up in a way that you tell it what you want it to do, the options have been illustrated better than ever before, the text is clearer and more concise than ever before but there is still a huge issue - what I think attacking equates to, and what the next person think it equates to are different things. We both know what we're wanting out of it, we both have different expectations - but we both can be wrong. That's not a failing of the game, it's not particularly a failing of the individual it's just how it is. 

Through any medium getting what you envisage/imagine to reality is incredibly difficult. Biggest disappointment as a child was my actual ability to draw never came close to my ability to imagine what I wanted to draw. 

I don't know how at all it would be achieved, but the developers, internal & long time testers will invariably know best how tactical instructions translate to the game. I think a question driven system which can best understand what you're wanting to achieve, and creates the framework for you on the basis of what you actually want. Ultimately, how I envisage it best is probably that the game needs some kind of built in Cleon/Rashidi/Dr Hook etc etc. Not something that gives you the right answer for how to categorically win games, but it gives you the right answer to get towards what you want to achieve in terms of playing styles/game approach.

The backroom staff are the perfect template for it, and even mapping subtle differences within a desired approach. The hard part is just ever getting a system like that in the first place.

I can't really disagree with any of this. The technological limitations are definitely significant, especially the role of AI, whereby any tactical system has to provide a "fair" game in which the human doesn't have a ridiculous advantage. So an abundance of options isn't really viable for this reason alone. As I mentioned in the OP, I don't see a dissatisfaction with tactics as being a criticism either.

I've tried to focus less on what would be a new system to use and more on what I feel the general "vision" should be, moving forward. I think it's way too complex and frustrating to try and actually implement a specific style. I'll never deny that it is possible, especially because I'm just not that great at the game these days, but I think that where it is possible, the end result isn't far enough from the average, and not enough like real life versions of that style. 

Essentially I feel that one major problem is that 'Team cohesion' is really all that allows teams to be specialised in a certain tactic or skill. Can an in-game Klopp implement and coach a high pressing style with more efficiency than an in-game Klopp? He may PREFER to do it more often, but as far as I can see none of the available data would give him more skill in this area. In theory he could implement a more successful long ball game than Pulis purely by virtue of having a higher CA.

Regardless of how we construct tactics, I think there simply needs to be some element of coaching that is a more prominent part of the game. Each manager has their own combinations of tactical elements that they like to use more frequently than others, and subtle nuances to each of these styles that make it their own. Additionally, different managers are good and bad at coaching different things in more detail than just "Attacking" or "Defensive" coaching. One may be an expert in deploying a high line, one may be an expert in a solid back four and offside trap, and one may press high up the pitch. To me these are all defensive strategies, but each are vastly different. How could this be represented in the game? Could it be done in a way that left the user much more knowledgeable about actual football tactics, in a way that left them able to now notice that tactical element being used in real life?

As a vague example (I'm trying to avoid making this a suggestion thread,) consider that the game already includes coaching courses. Well I love football so I would probably find it immensely interesting if the nature of the training courses was explained somewhere in the game. Why not? It would be super awesome if you had the option of accessing the training courses from the main menu with a brief summary of what was a part of it AND a brief section about how these principles translated into FM. Doing the training courses in-game should be no more complex, but the information should be there.

Consider the stages of defense, attack and transition. When people use these terms, and post pictures of each as advice to people on here, it is really useful and illuminating. Often what is also established is that the formation chosen is the defensive shape of the team, despite that not being said in the game (I think.) There's really no reason why things as fundamental and important as these aren't properly explained and referenced for the user. In some cases like these the game is already built on real life principles, but it doesn't give the user any opportunity to link these to real life.

It's rare that you get an in depth tactical analysis on one of the mainstream football shows, or in a conversation with a group of your friends. To me this means that the responsibility of teaching people about football tactics lies with the game. In the short term I think this means clarifying what real-life principles underpin the controls that we have, and in the long term I think this means adjusting the controls to create something that isn't as much of a separate unit to training, and which allows more specific and relevant tactical elements to be chosen more easily.

The meat of the discussion should be whether or not to use a high pressing system or long ball game and which players to use, not HOW to implement the high pressing system or long ball game.

51 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Attributes is a strange one. 

As a researcher even with the additional layer of knowledge that comes as part and parcel of the process it brings too much useful knowledge to the table. This is one of the areas where I believe a vaguer description like the manual provides is actually the best way. If anything I would like it to be vaguer still than it is at present. It's only my personal perspective, but what I know as a researcher means that it's too easy to buy the right player for the role I want. If this area becomes too defined it becomes a cheat-sheet. Maybe not for everyone, but for too many it would be. 

Ideally I would like it to be so vague that attributes aren't visible.

https://community.sigames.com/topic/352280-do-we-need-a-stats-update/?do=findComment&comment=37969

As Ackter pointed out in response to that, if you remove attributes then the casual market is gone. Hopefully FMT could take over this section while the full game becomes more intricate.

[YKW]

1 hour ago, Halofon said:

And the other half... e.g. I do not think that Mourinho or Klopp knows anything about cryochambers etc.

And I am more than happy that I do not have to look at the training sessions.

And the option to not know anything about a cryochamber or not having to pay attention to training should also be there. There should be many different manager styles available as the user. If you want to be a Harry Redknapp style of manager, and just hire coaches to do your work for you, and then pick eleven players with relatively simple tactics and still be successful with that approach, it should be possible, even with much more complex options available.

I always play the game as a fictional character that I create just for that purpose. On some games I would have fun with a more Wheeler-Dealer type (**** off), some games I would have fun with a more meticulous tactical type manager, and some games I would have fun with a manager that, for example, retired early due to injury and got a degree in sports science. This character would know about a cryochamber, and he may want coaches with specific skills, or a sports science team, or access to certain facilities or technologies like the cryochamber or blood spinning, etc. Maybe his background would give him early access to certain training drills or recovery therapies. He may want to restrict what the players eat, or even have them on a specialist diet.

But if that's not your character then that wouldn't be your path. No managers are exactly the same. Guardiola and Allardyce operate in basically the same way in the game, as do any of my user characters. Looking at how they differ in real life is just an interesting starting point when dreaming about what the game could be. The game accounts for Guardiola being better than Allardyce, but does it account for how Allardyce is better than Guardiola?

There are loads of different ways to manage a team, but really only a few in-game. There's not really any kind of way to "stamp your mark" on a club as a whole, nor enough options to really convey enough a difference between AI managers and clubs. I don't have the answers, but I think there could be improvement in this respect.

[Halofon]

Well, if we stuck on cryochambers. Who knows? Maybe there will be a time when those advanced features will be implemented - who knows? But now there are more hot topics to be solved and revamped. I beg for at least 4 years for implementation of random events like  - dead player. Player caught in bar, etc. And those things were implemented in very limited way.

Frankly I think, when the cryochamber implementation will be the only thing we need to be bothered about, the game will be near perfect

And I disagree with this.

There's not really any kind of way to "stamp your mark"

This really depends on level of your imagination. There are several approaches to use when talking to your player, several ways of playing, etc.

If you want near - perfect simulation of life, well, this is not the thing.

 

[puffascruffowitz]

4 hours ago, anagain said:

I certainly think that is the most important factor to bear in mind here. More specifically I would point to AI as being the biggest concern. A frequent concern I have seen bought up on these forums is the easiness of FM, and the chief culprit for that has to be the ability of the AI to compete with the player.

FM17 is, in my mind, the edition of the game that has featured the best AI managers to date. I have seen more tactical changes by the opposition in FM17 than in any previous edition. This is something that has obviously taken time for SI to achieve. The result of years of work, if you like. As much as I agree that there is a limit to how tactical you can be in FM, I am left to ponder how much effort it would take to enable to AI managers to compete with a player that has access to a much greater variety of tactical instructions.

If we cast our minds back to previous editions of FM we will all remember the sliders system. It was either loved or loathed. I personally feel it could be considered a much deeper tactical engine, with a much greater ability for fine tuning than the current system. Would the average player like that though? We already have a huge amount of players complaining that the game has become too detailed in past years. I don't agree, and I'd love to see more detail. SI have to balance that player feedback with what they add in terms of tactical fine tuning and the progression of video game AI.

It's not an easy balance.

 

Speaking for me personally, I would like to see more fine tuning of tactics. I often feel I don't have the ability to ask certain things of players. I was watching a Canadian YouTuber play FM the other day. He's a footsoccerball (as he calls it) novice and it leads me to delving in to his tactics and trying to offer advice. It got me to considering advanced fullbacks and the pros and cons associated with them. In modern day football wingers will be expected to cover defensively for full backs, and there will often be a within team acknowledgement that one full back will stay back if his partner is advancing. Specifying that instruction with FM, I believe, only leaves you with an option to make one full back less attacking with the tactical options. Perhaps the game engine will make that happen as a given, but there is nothing in the tactical descriptions to suggest so. The player is left to guess essentially.

On the other hand, I do feel a concern regarding the possibility that the game could be too easy if the player is offered a greater abundance of options to build their team.

 

For starters, perhaps the depth of fine tuning available in the old slider system could be further built in to the current graphical tactical system, giving us more options within each category. Small steps are probably best here. Too big a leap and it will disadvantage the AI.

 

It is a good topic though, and one that I certainly feel merits greater discussion. I'd be reluctant to compare to other games though. I felt the comparison with flight simulators was a little wild, and the comparison with Sim City incredibly far off the mark. FM is, in my mind, a whole different kettle of fish than so many games.

 

Oh so you were watching Quill 18's FM series? Love that he's playing it, and he's developed a pretty good feel for the game.

[sporadicsmiles]

21 hours ago, anagain said:

For starters, perhaps the depth of fine tuning available in the old slider system could be further built in to the current graphical tactical system, giving us more options within each category. Small steps are probably best here. Too big a leap and it will disadvantage the AI.

 

This is the exact opposite of realism. For example, you do not tell your player to close down 17/20, you drill your team on how much you close down (that is what your base tactic does, and why you have familiarity) and then tell him to close down more, or less. 

19 hours ago, YKW said:

I always play the game as a fictional character that I create just for that purpose. On some games I would have fun with a more Wheeler-Dealer type (**** off), some games I would have fun with a more meticulous tactical type manager, and some games I would have fun with a manager that, for example, retired early due to injury and got a degree in sports science. This character would know about a cryochamber, and he may want coaches with specific skills, or a sports science team, or access to certain facilities or technologies like the cryochamber or blood spinning, etc. Maybe his background would give him early access to certain training drills or recovery therapies. He may want to restrict what the players eat, or even have them on a specialist diet.

 

This you can already do (and apparently do already). It is easy to do everything, or leave everything to the staff. Hell, with a few of the skins you can get the instant result button for full fat FM and play essentially as a DOF (whilst getting credit for the match). You can customise your character with the attributes at the start. Want a manager like Guardiola? Max out the mental attributes and specialise in technical training. Want to play your sport-science guy? Max out fitness training (and related things) and use your now excellent fitness training to get players in perfect condition (you can imagine you do this however you want). Since the AI has the same set of stats as human managers, I assume they behave similarly. So perhaps Allardyce will better coach defenders to give solid defensive performances (something Guardiola does not do).

There are really too many points to respond to in this thread. I do agree with your comments about making things a bit more documented in the game. I definitely do not agree with watching training drills. I also disagree a lot regarding comments on triangles and style of play. I shall elaborate.

Your formation determines what sort of triangles your players will create and where they will create them (coupled to how players are told to roam to find space and make themselves available). Any three players not in a perfect straight line will form a triangle, you just have to make sure it is in the right place. This you do by having intelligent players who know how to position themselves correctly, or by instructing less intelligent players exactly how to behave. 

Regarding styles of play, this is why you have the tactical familiarity. You cannot just play a pressing game randomly for one game - or rather you can try to, but you it will probably not be very effective. It takes, as you say, a lot of practise and training to get it right (and whatever else you want to imagine goes into that). So you have to do a lot of training to have a solid closing down game, naturally. You also need (absolutely need) to have the right players; work rate, anticipation, aggression, stamina, etc. in order to play. You cannot take a team of lazy selfish players and close down effectively. Again, the game allows you to try, but you probably will not have a lot of success.

I think that you need to look a little deeper to see that most of what you want is implimented, but perhaps not in as direct a way as it is poking you in the eye.

[adj]

its a computer game. the best ever. is it perfect? no. but then neither is football. Seriously they do a great job buit how can a simulation really ever be 100% realistic?

[anagain]

2 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

This is the exact opposite of realism. For example, you do not tell your player to close down 17/20, you drill your team on how much you close down (that is what your base tactic does, and why you have familiarity) and then tell him to close down more, or less. 

I don't necessarily mean to include sliders that fine tuned, but more options to say where and when to close down. I was thinking more options to expand options for how often players will get forward, such as to specifically tell a full back to stay back if the other flank is advanced.

It was more an idea to use the variety of sliders to improve the options available in the current tactics manager. How that would be gone about is up for discussion.

[roykela]

2 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

This is the exact opposite of realism. For example, you do not tell your player to close down 17/20, you drill your team on how much you close down (that is what your base tactic does, and why you have familiarity) and then tell him to close down more, or less. 

In real life i wouldn't tell may players: "You're a defensive ball-winning midfielder, you're an attacking wingback whilst you are a supporting fullback". That would make no sense to me or my players.

The closest thing that would come to my real life coaching style would actually be sliders. But, as you say, i wouldn't tell them to close down 17/20.

Example of a hypothetical real life scenario with me as a coach:
I could tell a specific player to not go all 100% but take it down to 50%, unless a player from the opposite team comes running with the ball. Then when he has just crossed the half-way line, between 1m-5m past the line, THAT'S when you slow him down. No sooner, no later.
Kill his momentum. Until the other players have managed to come back down to an organised defensive shape and formation. If that doesn't work, take the free-kick but make him feel it.
If you do it too soon and he beats you, we'll be screwed while you'll be flat on your arse having lost your balance. If you do it too late you'll run the risk of other players moving too far to cover and will leave a massive hole ready to be exploited; and you'll be on the ground, flat on your arse incapable of doing anything about it.

I would show each and every single player exactly where i would want them to initiate pressing. Where the desperate dangerzone would be. Excactly how high/low i would want them to start pressing.
Where the players around him should be standing; to be ready to pick up a loose ball, the man should he get past, where to initiate a run in case we would get the ball back, where to stand in order to stop the opposition from getting the ball back by doing as little as possible. Purely to save energy whenever they can, but be ready to explode off the blocks at any moment.

That's why i personally kind of miss sliders and wibble/wobble.
I understand that, especially, wibble/wobble didn't work so well within the game but that's pretty much exactly how i would be coaching, and how i coached my players tactically in real life.

I miss having the ability to do stuff like that, as i also miss having trigger lines when it comes to pressing.
Those two things, which are basic principles for me, are not present in FM.
Which also means i'm not able to practice my own coaching style in FM. I understand it might be a bit too complicated to get that implemented.

I'd love to see some sort of hybrid of old and new, as that, from my perspective, would be more realistic and true towards my own style of coaching.

[YKW]

1 hour ago, sporadicsmiles said:

This is the exact opposite of realism. For example, you do not tell your player to close down 17/20, you drill your team on how much you close down (that is what your base tactic does, and why you have familiarity) and then tell him to close down more, or less. 

I agree with your overall point here, especially re sliders, but when it comes to closing down, for me "more or less" is just not reflective of how any particular pressing strategy is implemented or coached. I don't want to be coming across as overly criticial, because I enjoy the game and I think overall things make progress every year, but pressing in game is nothing like IRL, and I'm not sure how much it can be without different pressing strategies being the options that you choose from.

In the game pressing is implemented, in terms of 1. Line Height, 2. Closing down more/less and 3. Preventing short GK distribution. In theory, the pressing that you witness play out in the ME all occurs on the same gradient of Less-More, i.e there are no specific closing down strategies in the game. In theory there is ONE high pressing style, and one non-high pressing style, with the majority of users experiencing something in between, based on their selections and tactics.

I would argue that there are multiple high-pressing styles, rather than a "peak" version of one style, which all teams will play given those selections like in the game.

From my experience, the FM style of high pressing is one where players close down the ball carrier more frequently. The style that I don't think you see is one where more effort is made to dominate the space on the pitch and close down all of the passing options, or even to determine the available passing options. Of course you could even include another style which is a mixture of the two whereby the main extra element is gamesmanship - this would be high pressing in conjunction with tactical fouls in smart areas of the pitch and rotation of players who commit the foul. This basically describes Tottenham under Pochettino. It's not the addition of "hard" tackling because that would result in too many bookings and also the fouls are pulling people's shirts, and clipping their ankles etc, which aren't "hard" tackling techniques.

I don't have a solution, but this is the issue for me. Football strategies are really interesting, but are not given enough respect in the game. Should this be changed through altering the tactics? I don't know, I don't have an idea for that. Could it be done by simply outlining some of these strategies in game and explaining how they translate into the tactics creator? Maybe.

 

1 hour ago, sporadicsmiles said:

This you can already do (and apparently do already). It is easy to do everything, or leave everything to the staff. Hell, with a few of the skins you can get the instant result button for full fat FM and play essentially as a DOF (whilst getting credit for the match). You can customise your character with the attributes at the start. Want a manager like Guardiola? Max out the mental attributes and specialise in technical training. Want to play your sport-science guy? Max out fitness training (and related things) and use your now excellent fitness training to get players in perfect condition (you can imagine you do this however you want). Since the AI has the same set of stats as human managers, I assume they behave similarly. So perhaps Allardyce will better coach defenders to give solid defensive performances (something Guardiola does not do).

 

Ok well let's take the manager attributes and look at what they do.

For the Guardiola manager you mention maxing out the mental attributes and specialising in technical training.

Adaptability, JPA, JPP and Physiotherapy: No relevant effect in this context.

Level of Discipline, Determination, Motivating: These will positively affect the training star rating. (LoD wil also see less players coming to me with problems, and high determination will also give me more success in board interactions, but neither of these are relevant in this context.)

Tactical Knowledge: I think no effect for a human manager in this context.

So the main thing that we can achieve through the mental attributes is a higher training star rating.

To achieve the Guardiola character you say to specialise in technical training.

High Technical: This will result in a high training star rating in the categories of Ball Control, Shooting and GK Handling. The high star rating will translate to more effective growth in attributes related to any of those categories, for example First Touch, Technique (Ball control), Finishing, Long shots, (shooting) and Handling (GK Handling.)

The system here is almost entirely attribute based, and doesn't actually have any direct link to tactics. So I would argue that I can't create a Guardiola character with any more relevance than just an ability to have certain attributes go up more than others. No?

Allardyce may coach his players to improve their defensive attributes better than Guardiola, but this isn't enough imo. Allardyce should be better at deploying certain defensive styles than Guardiola and vice versa. Allardyce should be better at deploying certain attacking styles than Guardiola and vice versa. Ditto for Pressing Styles, Set piece methods, training methods, etc.

Where the game accounts for this it is ONLY in terms of PREFERENCE, and not in terms of SKILL AND SPECIALISATION.

I feel like the concept of Skill and Specialisation in Managers and Tactics is kind of shoehorned into the game in the form of Tactical Familiarity. Building it up is a largely generic process that seems like an afterthought.

Instead of seeing "Formation: Fluid, Mentality: Competent, Passing Style: Fluid," etc etc I would like to see something like a more detailed list of ACTUAL tactical elements, and how much my players understood them overall and as individuals (and as potential signings that would already understand.)

For example instead of "Passing Style: Fluid,"  it would make more sense to have a list of 4 or 5 passing or possession styles and then my fluidity in each. Like some I've mentioned "Tiki Taka, Triangles, Long Ball Game, Ball Retention, etc."

 

[RBKalle]

I think the OP has some very valid points, but it all boils down to the technical limitations of a computer game... After all, it has come a long way since the days of results being determined by comparing the total points of a team or something equally "trivial".

 

Anyway, on the "football vs ME" debate, my biggest gripe is that even trying to play the most basic and immediate style of football takes hours of trial-and-error, and some styles can't really be perfected due to the ME clearly favouring a specific kind of tactical approach.

Depending on which edition you're playing, you KNOW by experience some styles aren't gonna work. A few years ago it was all about pacey forwards, then we got super-crosses, all while tiki-taka and "fancy football" show up even when the level of the players shouldn't even allow that.

I'd LOVE to play a good ol' "hoof and run" style, especially when I'm still in the Lower Leagues or I'm managing in some God-forsaken country where my best player has attributes in the 10-12 range and most of the team consists of amateurs.
Instead I'll have to settle for a poor man's tiki-taka, or I'll get bits of it regardless...

[Rashidi]

1 hour ago, YKW said:

I agree with your overall point here, especially re sliders, but when it comes to closing down, for me "more or less" is just not reflective of how any particular pressing strategy is implemented or coached. I don't want to be coming across as overly criticial, because I enjoy the game and I think overall things make progress every year, but pressing in game is nothing like IRL, and I'm not sure how much it can be without different pressing strategies being the options that you choose from.

In the game pressing is implemented, in terms of 1. Line Height, 2. Closing down more/less and 3. Preventing short GK distribution. In theory, the pressing that you witness play out in the ME all occurs on the same gradient of Less-More, i.e there are no specific closing down strategies in the game. In theory there is ONE high pressing style, and one non-high pressing style, with the majority of users experiencing something in between, based on their selections and tactics.

I would argue that there are multiple high-pressing styles, rather than a "peak" version of one style, which all teams will play given those selections like in the game.

From my experience, the FM style of high pressing is one where players close down the ball carrier more frequently. The style that I don't think you see is one where more effort is made to dominate the space on the pitch and close down all of the passing options, or even to determine the available passing options. Of course you could even include another style which is a mixture of the two whereby the main extra element is gamesmanship - this would be high pressing in conjunction with tactical fouls in smart areas of the pitch and rotation of players who commit the foul. This basically describes Tottenham under Pochettino. It's not the addition of "hard" tackling because that would result in too many bookings and also the fouls are pulling people's shirts, and clipping their ankles etc, which aren't "hard" tackling techniques.

I don't have a solution, but this is the issue for me. Football strategies are really interesting, but are not given enough respect in the game. Should this be changed through altering the tactics? I don't know, I don't have an idea for that. Could it be done by simply outlining some of these strategies in game and explaining how they translate into the tactics creator? Maybe.

 

You have made some interesting points and I do agree that to some extent the game does appear to be complicated.  Back in the day with the sliders and arrows and numbers and options, it was actually more work than it was worth.  For me to create a template for success I literally had to rewrite files in the documents db, so that the game would preload with my "kind" of defensive midfielder. Back then we actually had the option to customise each player to a level that is not possible now, we could do it in game, or develop short cuts like editing the game files. Then again, we had problems, as the tactics forums became flooded with requests for how people could get their teams playing like Fergies bunch or Rafa's Liverpool. Explaining why a one notch difference could affect a defenders zonal marking completely became a lot of work. The game was heading in a way some people didn't like. Then they decided to come up with the Tactical Creator. This was meant to simplify the process and allow users to be able to do what I was doing with the editing of the game files.

We could now start getting our sides to play with some personality and style. Initially I was opposed to the TC, but after working on it I began to realise that I could begin to play with just making one or two changes in a game. I no longer had to make minute changes to sliders, which hardly felt like a simulation. I wanted to feel like a manager on the sidelines signalling to the players to close down specific areas of the pitch. And this brings me to my next point.

The closing down settings are not universal settings. The Closing Down TI is, but it works within the confines of your roles, duties, defensive line and player attributes. You can set up a High Block and get your players to practice Counter Pressing like Arrigo Sacchi's AC Milan side of the late 80s. And you can set your system up to Gergen press like Liverpool can to some extent. The only thing you will have some issue with is getting them to immediately turn the press into a Counter. The game allows you to specify and control the closing down settings of players so that they can focus on specific grids of the pitch. The key is choosing the right roles for the job. If for example you selected a Box to Box midfielder to help do a gengen press on the side midfield of a 4312, he may be out of position because his role allows him to bomb up and down between the boxes. So you need to pick the right role, then you need to make sure you have the right kind of player. Here you see my side doing a counter press by closing down Ronaldo before he can launch a counter. We had just lost possession of the ball in their third, but got back into position to close Ronaldo before he could release Morata. We did this but our shape still allows us to get the ball and then launch our own attack almost immediately.

There are a myriad number of ways of playing the game, and granted I have spent some my fair amount of time with tactics over the years, the game though still allows you to play it in a variety of ways.  I hope that sometime soon, people will get to see more ways of playing the game. Good OP :-)

[dannysheard]

On 01/12/2016 at 15:00, YKW said:

And the option to not know anything about a cryochamber or not having to pay attention to training should also be there. There should be many different manager styles available as the user. If you want to be a Harry Redknapp style of manager, and just hire coaches to do your work for you, and then pick eleven players with relatively simple tactics and still be successful with that approach, it should be possible, even with much more complex options available.

I always play the game as a fictional character that I create just for that purpose. On some games I would have fun with a more Wheeler-Dealer type (**** off), some games I would have fun with a more meticulous tactical type manager, and some games I would have fun with a manager that, for example, retired early due to injury and got a degree in sports science. This character would know about a cryochamber, and he may want coaches with specific skills, or a sports science team, or access to certain facilities or technologies like the cryochamber or blood spinning, etc. Maybe his background would give him early access to certain training drills or recovery therapies. He may want to restrict what the players eat, or even have them on a specialist diet.

But if that's not your character then that wouldn't be your path. No managers are exactly the same. Guardiola and Allardyce operate in basically the same way in the game, as do any of my user characters. Looking at how they differ in real life is just an interesting starting point when dreaming about what the game could be. The game accounts for Guardiola being better than Allardyce, but does it account for how Allardyce is better than Guardiola?

There are loads of different ways to manage a team, but really only a few in-game. There's not really any kind of way to "stamp your mark" on a club as a whole, nor enough options to really convey enough a difference between AI managers and clubs. I don't have the answers, but I think there could be improvement in this respect.

Love the Harry Redknapp f*** off reference, it's brilliant how mad he gets ?

[dannysheard]

My main frustration is how easy some parts of the game are.

It's so easy to massively improve your coaches and scouting system in the space of a week and then buy four or five wonderkids and you're away.