Do teams really need time to make new tactics work??

[Avelives]

Ok well the question is in the thread title to be honest, but to flesh it out a little i will elaborate.

I realise in real life when a new manager implements new tactical systems it can take a while for the team to 'get it' although with this i would counter most modern top players are fully versed in most tactics, if for instance Alex Ferguson goes to Liverpools ground and decides to play a 4-5-1 variant his players wont all suddenly become totally confused and useless, they will perform just as well as they would have playing 4-4-2 and 4-3-3.

In FM09 (and previous versions) the accepted wisdom seems to be that new tactics take time to work well, but is this really the case? Is there any real proof of this, and if so how exactly does the computer decide when you are implementing a 'NEW' tactic and when a tactic is just a tweaked variant of what you normally play?

For instance i usually play 4-4-2, but sometimes mid game i will drop my MCd back into a more orthodox DMC position my MCa into an AMC position (basically playing 4-4-2 with a diamond midfield setup rather than 4 across the middle) Does the computer recognise this is still 4-4-2 or does it count this as a total tactical change?

Also lets say i start 10 games playing a tactic called 442standard, then for 2 games in a row against tough oposition i play 451defence. Does the computer remember that we played 442standard for 10 games prior to this or does my team have to 'relearn' this tactic?

Personally im really interested to hear peoples views and theories on this (and any hard facts that you tactical gurus have colated) as im unconvinced that there is any real truth to it. In fact in FM09 i have so far experienced the exact opposite.

I played a really wide open free flowing 442 attack tactic for about 7 games, (won 5 drew 1 lost 1) then we came up against liverpool away and knowing this tactic was suicide i changed to a 4-3-2-1 super narrow tactic and beat them 3-1, we had never played this tactic ever before. Conversely the tactic i play most (a kinda attack minded but still fairly conservative 442) is starting to yield worse and worse results against various types of oponents (some better than me some worse) almost like the AI is figuring it out (which im aware it isnt at least not in the sense of the AI cracking my tactic)

So yeah whats other peoples experience with this?

Are there any people out there who can provide evidence that tactics need time to worK?

If thats the case does the computer remember every tactic you ever played and how well versed your team are in it?

And just generally do you think that this is realistic as IRL most teams could happily play most currently known tactics witgh relative ease.

[phnompenhandy]

In real life we have examples of players who are excellent with their clubs being clueless for their countries. This would partly be due to unfamiliarity with tactics and the manager's inability to communicate his ideas *cough* McClown.

In my current game I tried to continue a campaign I was running in FM08. In 08 I used the editor to create a fictitious team and fill it with known players. I employed a 532 formation to great effect.

In my new FM09 game I've replicated the experiment but this time I left out some of the best players to give myself a better challenge - basically I only edited in players who are currently playing in England.

In 08 despite needing time to gel, the team swept all aside. This time that wasn't happening and I realised that the problem was that the wing-backs in the EPL [bPL] are not as good as on the Continent. By the way, the same ' squad' wing-backs who deputised for the first choice in my FM08 game did fine; now in FM09 they let the side down.

So, I've employed an alternative 343 formation that uses wingers rather than wing-backs, and 3 forwards. In the games I've played so far the players are definitely taking time to gel with the new tactic and I'm still waiting to see if it successful or not. I read that it will take around 15 games to know if it's a winner or not.

[Zipflashly]

It's an interesting argument-and since no one here actually knows the code involved in the program you will get a few alternate replies.

From my experience;

I have never noticed a team taking time to adjust to a tactic. I have listened to experienced players say for years that players need to learn how it works etc. I've never seen it-sorry guys.

I have never noticed new players needing time to gel. Year after year I read that this happens. I've never seen it-sorry guys.

I have never noticed my tactic suddenly become 'cracked' by the AI. When I finally get one that works for me I stick with it until the new version comes out (or I become bored with winning). I've never seen it-sorry guys.

My view is that I don't see these things because I don't believe they are there. Maybe they are a rumour circulated by the programmers to give their game depth or maybe by players keen to excuse their failings and find something to blame. I blindly stick to this because the AI will switch formation 3 or 4 times in a match without any problems/it will draft in new players and they will 'gel'. And if it can do it and the players can't then that is a definition of cheating-or at least taking an unfair advantage.

What I do sincerely believe is that when the 3rd (4th etc) patch has been released and the programmers and players are satisfied with what they have and the players can finally beat the program then good players/tacticians will get;

*Tottenham/Manchester City to 'gel' from the start of the season

*Luton promoted first time (which must be the Holy Grail of FM09!)

Just my view. I've been playing football management games for over 20 years and this is the best but what do I know? All we know about the game is what we are told-think about it.

[isuckatfm]

Personally I think it's a combination effect.

Changing formation drastically won't have a major impact as long as players are reasonably rated where you put them.

With more specific assistant feedback with respect to instructions(player A is more used to such and such) anecdotally I found when those feedback items calmed down the team seemed to play better in the 2D/3D. Having said that though I have 'plugged in' downloaded tactics, used them for a specific match and gotten a result even with a drastic change in formation/instructions.

Don't believe in AI tactic cracking in the way some on here see it (my team are suddenly losing, has the AI cracked my tactic?) but there are definitely changes in approach from the AI based on match odds which are influenced by various things (form, reputation, home/away). So that in of itself can reduce a tactics effectiveness. For example counter attacking long ball to pacy strikers as an underdog => put a run together => AI becomes more cautious => long ball game no longer as effective due to AI sitting back more.

Can a single tactic get you results consistently without ever having to change? In my experience no (unless you start out with having consistent match odds), but Zipflashly obviously disagrees. So if one user can do it then it is possible but I would guess you really have to hit the sweet spot with respect to all of the variables to pull it off (morale, player ability/suitability, team talks, quality of opposition, etc.).

[Zipflashly]

Can a single tactic get you results consistently without ever having to change? In my experience no (unless you start out with having consistent match odds), but Zipflashly obviously disagrees. So if one user can do it then it is possible but I would guess you really have to hit the sweet spot with respect to all of the variables to pull it off (morale, player ability/suitability, team talks, quality of opposition, etc.).

It's just my view of game theory-there must be an optimum group of settings. Too high or too low and the efficiency drops. When you have those settings as your base then you adjust the match sliders to compensate for the opponent sitting back or charging forward.

When I have my basic set up all I will have to change is mentality/d-line and maybe tempo/width. It's not there yet (by a long way) but I believe it will be one day when the bugs are ironed out (in much the same way that Kimz/Knap did for 08) and it will be possible to plug n play.

As a final act of heresy, I also believe that raising the mentality when the whole team is on individual mentalities does have an effect on your attacking nature.

But that's one of the joys of the game-no knows for sure. We can only comment on what we see (or think we see or want to see!)

[TwoShedsJackson]

It's a pretty sweeping statement to say Man U will obviously perform just as well if they change formation for a particular match as Ferguson irl has changed formations for certain matches and the team did not automatically play as well as they do in their usual formation. Obviously players of that calibre should do well in most formations, but suddenly switching to one up front means chances will be fewer etc. and can have other effects on the match.

In FM09 I'm about 2/3 the way through a full season with Gateshead and I definitely noticed the players playing better and even occasionally keeping the ball in midfield after 15 games or so, this pretty much coincided with the change from 'players have not blended together' to 'players are blending well together' in the Assistant Managers report.

As for formation changes, I play a 532 with Gateshead as they have some good defenders for the BSN level, a crap midfield and reasonable strikers to start with. Now we're second in the league lower teams shut up shop against us from the start of certain games so I have changed to a 4312 for home games where I now I will have to do a lot of attacking and that has worked well also, so I think gelling has more to do with the group of players you have than the formation you use, unless perhaps you were to change from a 451 to a 343 or something that requires a totally different approach and probably much better players too.

Zipflashfly: if you think the gelling thing may not exist why does the game bother to report on whether or not your players have gelled or not? Granted this could be part of some supposed hidden depth that doesn't exsist but plenty of people do notice their teams playing better when they have got to know each other so one would hope it is actually in the game

On AI tactic 'cracking' I've never noticed that too much myself, you need to get a solid base to work from and once you have that, if you are getting results and/or performing above the level expected of you, you will find the AI starts playing much more defensively against you. You need to counter that by becoming more attacking in those situations, that's the limit of how the AI responds to you, I think.

[AmA Deo]

I have never noticed my tactic suddenly become 'cracked' by the AI. When I finally get one that works for me I stick with it until the new version comes out (or I become bored with winning). I've never seen it-sorry guys.

I dont know if I have my tactic cracked, but it seems like it a little bit.

The first half season I scored 3.0 in average - the second I scored about 1.9. When I look at my results I see that I have had alot of 1-x and 2-x matches in the second half. In the first I had 3-x and 4-x many times...

[Fredric Drum]

Gelling is definitely a factor, the Asst. Man even gives you feedback on it. So it's no doubt in the game.

Whether players need time to "get used to" a tactic... I've not seen anything pointing in that direction. I'm not aware of the existence of such a stat in the game.

[Zipflashly]

I dont know if I have my tactic cracked, but it seems like it a little bit.

The first half season I scored 3.0 in average - the second I scored about 1.9. When I look at my results I see that I have had a lot of 1-x and 2-x matches in the second half. In the first I had 3-x and 4-x many times...

That seems fair to me and matches what I have noticed. I'm guessing that the first season you've done well-the computer program re-ranks you and teams now treat you as a better side thus they are less attacking and defend harder. If you keep doing the same thing as the previous season and not play a higher line/faster tempo/be more creative etc then yes, you will score less.

[Zipflashly]

Gelling is definitely a factor, the Asst. Man even gives you feedback on it. So it's no doubt in the game.

This is the same assistant manager who tells you that 'player x is used to playing at a different tempo'

What can you do? Change the whole team to a temp that player x is used to or just get on with it and let player x get over himself?

To me, it's just window dressing. It makes no difference to the game at all-as I believe will be shown when the patches are in place, the final game is playable and the Kimz/Knaps of the world are spinning their magic.

[pdbravo]

When you change formation, all your players are still the same players, with the same skill etc

However, a lot of the way a player plays is by knowing where his teammates will be, so if he is under pressure he will at least have an idea of where people are. Once the formation changes to something he isn't used to, he is more likely to give the ball away unless he has high attributes in such as vision, decisions, etc (this is from a real life perspective but it's probably similar to how SI have coded it).

So a change in formation to something new is bound to have an adverse effect. It'd be easier to fiddle with other things to change the course of a game eg if you have the right strikers, you could go defensive but play long balls or whatever.

Sometimes injury forces you to change formation, and this is where I'd like to see an option in the future along the lines of setting the overall theme of the training sessions. If you are in this situation, you could set the 'theme' (ie without having to fiddle around with the schedules too much) to 'new formation' or 'set pieces' or 'counter attacking play' etc etc etc...

[Avelives]

When you change formation, all your players are still the same players, with the same skill etc

However, a lot of the way a player plays is by knowing where his teammates will be, so if he is under pressure he will at least have an idea of where people are. Once the formation changes to something he isn't used to, he is more likely to give the ball away unless he has high attributes in such as vision, decisions, etc (this is from a real life perspective but it's probably similar to how SI have coded it).

So a change in formation to something new is bound to have an adverse effect. It'd be easier to fiddle with other things to change the course of a game eg if you have the right strikers, you could go defensive but play long balls or whatever.

Sometimes injury forces you to change formation, and this is where I'd like to see an option in the future along the lines of setting the overall theme of the training sessions. If you are in this situation, you could set the 'theme' (ie without having to fiddle around with the schedules too much) to 'new formation' or 'set pieces' or 'counter attacking play' etc etc etc...

But that was exaclty my point, if we assume what you are saying is true, then we also then have to believe that the AI somehow categorises the various formations you pick, reocgnises how different they are to each other and saves that information in relation to how many times each of your players has played in said formation... and like Zipflashly i just dont believe the computer does that.

As he said the AI will quite often start say playing 442, lets say they go 1-0 up at half time, they will then often (assuming you mount a comeback) switch to 451 or 4141 then if you manage to equalise they will revert to 442 and if you take the lead they will switch to 424. I do not believe for one second the AI would do that if it was in any way detramental to the teams performance.

And if it doesnt affect the AI performances adversly we must assume it doesnt affect human teams either.

As for 'gelling' well thats different altogether, thats quantifiable due to it being based on players abilities to adapt to new leagues (hidden stats) language barrier and such like, once that goes (after theyve played x amount of first team games) its gone forever regardless of formation.

[kolobok]

They may need time, though it's not imperative. If your tactic mimics the tactic the team has played before, then time may not be necessary.

However, changing formation and/or tactical instructions usually has some effect. For example, if FB set FWR often, and then switched to FWR rarely, the whole team attacking behaviour changes even within one match. How significantly - depends on quality of players + how appropriate the changes.

In fact, I believe that at the beginning of the first season there are 2 more important things than tactic: your reputation as a manager and number of new players in the squad (including those whose transfers were agreed by your predecessor). Both these factors make your team vulnerable as players have no clue whether you count on them and if they can count on you not being an idiot. So it may look like a tactic works superb one match and does not work at all just next match. The question is whether you are able to separate man mangement effects from tactical effects. In FM09 it's a bit easier to do than in previous versions, thanks to 3D.

[Avelives]

Kolobok im aware that obviously certain instructions have an affect, im talking in a general sense about tactical layouts or frameworks (EG 442/343/451/41212 etc)

And i still dont believe the computer has any way of remembering or even categorising what tactics you play from one game to the next, as displayed in previous versions when after many seasons it would still say preferred formations on your manager overview as 442 despite having played anything but 442 for over 3 years.

But you do raise an interesting point, what you say about the media and new players in your first season is SPOT ON imo.

As an example im in my first season with Man city who start with about 3 or 4 new arrivals and i have bought in 5 (so far) and many games seem totally predetermined by my media responses and general state of the team (eg all ungelled players speaking different languages) some times we kick ass other times we are dire.

To test my theory i saved a match (which was a close draw prediction) and after i had drawn 1-1 i thought id play it again 4 or 5 times to see how often the result differed.

I kept my media interaction identical but each time played an entirely different tactic, completely different player instructions and even on some occasions different personel when the tactic demanded it.

And yet out of 5 attempts 3 of those where draws (as it was originally) and 2 were losses (3-1 and 2-1 respectively) and the two which we lost where when i implemented stupid all out attack strategies in the last 20 mins of the match. Basically it seemed regardless of what tactics or personal or team talk i gave that the odds where so heavily weighted in favour of a draw that i had to do something utterly stupid to lose or (one can assume) something utterly brilliant or lucky to win, it seemed 95% certain that a draw was the result even before a ball had been kicked.

And im sure that like you say thats down to my team having so many new signings and language difficulties and me being a new manager cause sometimes i try to change things in a match and my players utterly ignore my instructions.

[wwfan]

As far as I know, players do not need time to adapt to a tactic, only elements within a tactic. If you are playing a 4-4-2 the player is fine if you switch to a 3-5-2. No issues here and it is actually something we've been asking for in ML and FM Beta testing over the years, a performance penalty for switching formation shape too often.

If, however, he is Italian and used to playing a low tempo, short passing game and you are playing a direct passing game, he will struggle to be effective and won't follow instructions to the letter. The next bit is what I don't know. Over time the player adapts. However, does he adapt to consistently playing longer passing settings within the tactic, does he adapt to the overall settings of the culture or does he just gel to the squad and thus do as he is told no matter the instructions?

[Avelives]

I think the latter sounds more likely. Cause i have seen first hand some of my new players (especially ones who dont speak english) totally ignoring my instructions during certain high pressure games.

And im positive thats down to not having adapted fully to the new team.

I dont think the tactics, settings or whatever seem to affect that except when your ass man tells you about specific players not being used to doing XX as much as he is... but i think thats more down to a combination of not having fully adapted and also individual player mentality.

[kolobok]

Well, sorry for misunderstanding. To me formation and tactic are two different terms. Of course, choice of formation may dictate certain tactical adjustments (e.g. one ST or 2 ST formation), but that's not so important. In turn tactic is a set of instructions, and I believe that players do need to adapt to them.

[Avelives]

Ah i see where the confusion lay

Yeah i agree that there definately seems to be some form of time scale for players to fit into roles they are unfamiliar with, but i dont think its as detailed as every time you alter his instructions he needs to readjust. I think its far more general than that like WWFan suggested.

I think if for instance you have an established team member who has been with you for lets say 2 seasons+ and speaks the language of your league that he will generally carry out any given instructions pretty much exactly as you tell him. Where as i think a new player (1 season or less) who doesnt speak the language will struggle to carry out your specific instructions especially if they contradict his natural tendency.

But overall i think if your team is established with long term players and not many new signings that they should be able to operate in most systems with most commands, i havent obviously proved that yet but ill will aim to as best i can