retired_fdsjr5765

Pretty simple really, which do you think is best?

We know tempo means how quickly players make decisions or act.

We know a slow tempo means less chances but the ones you get are better.

We know a quick tempo means more chances, but of a poorer quality.

It is widely thought that a slow tempo should go with short passing and that a quick tempo goes with direct passing. This isnt a rule though and you can play with short passing and a quick tempo, ala Arsenal.

So, when you think about it, what would be ideal is a bit of both! But does using a medium tempo do this? In my opinion no.

What I use is a mix, slow-medium tempo to start but at certain times during games and in certain situations I up it.

Many people think there are links between tempo, passing and width.

So what is everybodies thoughts and opinions on thoughts on tempo? Discuss.

retired_angelica cardenas

I would say use a higher tempo in the British leagues especially if you are the underdog.

Slow game for sides with superior technique, good width and fast defenders.

egg64

I prefer playing with a slow tempo, passing ^ width option as it suits my 5-3-2 formation.

In England perhaps we should play more like the "Europeans"!

retired_fdsjr5765

I dont believe the league stereotypes actually show through in FM tbh.

retired_hope

Playing at a faster tempo means that players tire quicker and players also have less time to make decisions causing their passing accuracy and shooting accuracy to decrease.

Tempo doesn't affect the quality of your chances. Your tactics and player selection do.

It is entirely possible to play at a fast tempo and still mantain a high shots on target ratio.

So to answer your question, it depends entirely on your system of play and the players at your disposal.

retired_fdsjr5765

Good point, I forgot to put that in.

I think you're wrong there. The bit above that I qouted contradicts this does it not. If your striker has less time to make decisions causing his shooting accuracy to decrease does that not mean the shot will have a higher chance of being off target? Many of the great tactical genius' stand by the lines: We know a slow tempo means less chances but the ones you get are better. We know a quick tempo means more chances, but of a poorer quality.

retired_sabrnes123

Nice topic to bring up. For this game i've taken advantage that the higher the tempo the more your control the game in 08'. Slow tempo usually makes your team look boring and most managers seem to worrie that their team isnt doing well if they win 1-0 with only 4 chances. This is not correct. As you say the slow tempo plays a sort of better chance creating tactic and players arent pressured into quick decisions.

If I am ever a lower league team, I usually play long passing, slowest tempo for a lone striker to attack on. Which is preferably a fast one. And it works a treat.

retired_hope

You just need to reduce the creative freedom on the striker so that he he sticks to the simpler shots. This reduces the time needed to make the decision and also means he won't try anything too fancy.

What do they know

egg64

Why can't we implement the European System of 5-3-2 with slow tempo, short passing , no width throughout the league (if players are good enough) then AI takes more time to adapt (I think!!!)

retired_fdsjr5765

You just need to reduce the creative freedom on the striker so that he he sticks to the simpler shots. This reduces the time needed to make the decision and also means he won't try anything too fancy.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Lowering the creative freedom of the striker. Hmm, never tried that before, will give it a shot thanks!