[retired_slayerbing]

tony- offsidetrap/counter attack is a little different to your example of a striker with adefensive mentality.

Your example has its merits as shown in your explanation of it whereas the the offsidetrap/counter attack by its very definition is conflicted.

As far as having the authority to make definitive statements, that isn't really the purpose of the FAQ. Its purpose is to provide a starting point for people having difficulties with the game and hopefully answer some questions they might have.

Of course some of the answers are not set in stone so to speak - what they are is a 'best practice' which more experienced people have come up with.

Thats not to say there aren't other ways of doing things... there are quite obviously otherwise there would be a one tactic fits all here somewhere.

The fAQ are merely a starting point for people who feel swamped. Without something like the FAQ we would see a forum with repetitive questions, and many confused people wondering (and perhaps thinking the game is bugged) why they can't win.

From experience the manual has shortcomings in regard to explaining some aspects of the game and how some things work in tandem with others therefore the manual isn't something we will ever be able to solely rely on. Hence the point of a tactics forum in the first place.

Don't you think people are more likely to feel 'stuck in a rut' if there is no information out there they feel they can give a go? Like I said information here is a starting point for people who can test it themselves and as they get better agree or disagree with it - and then comment on it in here and improve theknowledge base further still.

[retired_w0lfpack1]

Can't help you out over the next ten days or so, rashidi, too much going on, but if your schedule is a bit longer-term than that, I'm willing to work on some sections if you're feeling overwhelmed. You have my e-mail.

Suggest you troll that "More newbie questions" thread to see if anything discussed catches your eye.

The only big thing I see missing is "Psychology". Its not just Team Talks:

- Importance of personality on the way the squad behaves
- Importance of personality to overall team talks
- Importance of a few key individual talks
- What's with "Doesn't seem to be listening!"
- Answering those pre-match media questions without disrupting your squad
- Using the media to challenge or praise players
- Calling a team meeting
- How morale differs for Youth/inexperienced players
- How youth/inexperience can crack under pressure
- What kind of playing time "Hot Prospect" players expect (e.g., why you should use "Youngster" if you don't see them getting it)
- Fines and warnings; when to use which "Reason" and severity.

A few other questions might be
- How do I get my striker to drop deep and collect?
- How do I get my wingers to cut inside?
- How do I "double cover" a key opponent?
- Why won't my guys on "Stay Back" stay back?
- How do I prevent 25-yard screamers?
- How do I prevent or minimize wild backpasses to my keeper?

[retired_mgavlick]

I deem it quite dangerous to post 'theoretical' information that conflicts with other people's views and perhaps even the 'truth.'

Not to nit-pick, but.......

No 'theory' can ever be proven to absolute certainty. All theory is the best hypotheisis available in light of the current observable information. Every theory is open to 'falsification' as new evidence comes to light. To say it is dangerous to write theory is to say we shouldn't ever write anything at all. A set of FAQs can only ever be answered via the best theory we can currently come up with. Rash's unfortunate job will be to sift through new information and update the theories as and when they are proven to be lacking.

Positivists, positivists everywhere. Does no one read 'Popper'? Did post-modernism never happen. Oh, the woe of it all.

[retired_mydandelyon]

Originally posted by wwfan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>I deem it quite dangerous to post 'theoretical' information that conflicts with other people's views and perhaps even the 'truth.'

Not to nit-pick, but.......

No 'theory' can ever be proven to absolute certainty. All theory is the best hypotheisis available in light of the current observable information. Every theory is open to 'falsification' as new evidence comes to light. To say it is dangerous to write theory is to say we shouldn't ever write anything at all. A set of FAQs can only ever be answered via the best theory we can currently come up with. Rash's unfortunate job will be to sift through new information and update the theories as and when they are proven to be lacking.

Positivists, positivists everywhere. Does no one read 'Popper'? Did post-modernism never happen. Oh, the woe of it all.



</BLOCKQUOTE>

Karl Raimund Popper and critical rationalism and all that. There's no need to take it there mate. My brain has been melted enough recently after just finishing Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' for the THIRD time and still not getting it. Why oh why can't I grasp 'String Theory?'

I'm all about theorising for the greater good, trust me, and as long as we can collectively agree, after MUCH testing, I see no problem with throwing empiricism out the window. Still, I'm going to have a hard time with these 'conflicting instructions' due their abstract nature, but I'll leap that hurdle when it comes. Let's see what they throw at us in the manual this time round. For all we know there may be a page titled 'Conflicting instructions.'

[retired_mgavlick]

Sorry for going all Sir Karl on you. It's just that there have been so many times that people have said 'don't write theory unless it's totally and utterly proven' that it begins to get irritating. I find Popper to be the most simple refutation of the argument.

When somebody says 'rubbish theorys. Dont work. *#$%' [sic] we can easily apply a Popperesque falsification of 'this theory works unless employed by a total imbecile' thus protecting the usefulness of the theory whilst laughing at said imbecile. All theories are are more or less useful models to follow if one chooses to do so.

Not placing you in the above category, you understand. Anyone who has heard of Popper, has read Hawking and uses the word 'empiricism' is fine in my book. Just don't get too positivst. It's bad for the health.

[retired_kellyk]

Thanks for the off amaroq, I'll be in touch.

tony the tanner, like dayle said this is a certain point, its supposed to be a synthesis of all the ideas and theories that have been generated over the forum.

The goal here is to put up the answers to questions people ask very often. I have trawled through 1000s of threads, some of which are beyond the access rights of posters here to get these thoughts.

[retired_kellyk]

Originally posted by tony the tanner:
Rashidi:

I deem it quite dangerous to post 'theoretical' information that conflicts with other people's views and perhaps even the 'truth.' ...... The reason I think this is dangerous is because often a player can become 'stuck-in-a-rut' by reading 'false' information and adopting bad habits. ..................I'll give you an example: My 'second-striker' — if I employ one in a 4-4-2 is actually set to a defensive mentality. Now, is this a contradicting instruction since he is indeed a striker? I don't think so simply because I have him set up like this to drop a little deeper to link the midfield and attack. He is also set to run with ball and through balls often and he's a vital cog in my machine. The point here is that this could be seen as a conflicting set-up.

A bit of history here,he manual didn't get a massive rewrite in 06/07 so its due one, hopefully there's more information in it, especially from the tactical areas.

It is true that ideas and theories shouldn't be bandied around as fact. Ideas on the game continually evolve. Your example of getting the striker to drop back via the use of his mentality is not a conflict, its a clever way of using mentality as a positioning tool, it also ensures that the player chooses his next pass very carefully, via the risk management aspect of mentality.

I agree conflicting instructions are a grey area, but people need to understand that these could happen. The goal of the FAQ is to be a repository of commonly held positions or theories. There are some of us who do have access to facts you don't and we do toss around ideas on the development of the game.

Where you are coming from is not entirely grey to me, I can understand that there are a lot of people who are looking for the absolute proof and are screaming for one. SI in all liklihood are not going to give you the lamp, their job is to hint the best way forward. This is a compilation of hints if you want to look it at that way.

[retired_kellyk]

Incidentally one piece of advice, the in-game hints are just that. They are meant to be taken in context.

[retired_kellyk]

Originally posted by Amaroq:
Can't help you out over the next ten days or so, rashidi, too much going on, but if your schedule is a bit longer-term than that, I'm willing to work on some sections if you're feeling overwhelmed. You have my e-mail.

Suggest you troll that "More newbie questions" thread to see if anything discussed catches your eye.

The only big thing I see missing is "Psychology". Its not just Team Talks:

- Importance of personality on the way the squad behaves
- Importance of personality to overall team talks
- Importance of a few key individual talks
- What's with "Doesn't seem to be listening!"
- Answering those pre-match media questions without disrupting your squad
- Using the media to challenge or praise players
- Calling a team meeting
- How morale differs for Youth/inexperienced players
- How youth/inexperience can crack under pressure
- What kind of playing time "Hot Prospect" players expect (e.g., why you should use "Youngster" if you don't see them getting it)
- Fines and warnings; when to use which "Reason" and severity.

A few other questions might be
- How do I get my striker to drop deep and collect?
- How do I get my wingers to cut inside?
- How do I "double cover" a key opponent?
- Why won't my guys on "Stay Back" stay back?
- How do I prevent 25-yard screamers?
- How do I prevent or minimize wild backpasses to my keeper?

Psychology is wwfan's area of expertise...hopefully he can do something..hint hint...this is one of those grey areas too that are affected by hidden attributes

[retired_dellydoolittle]

Calling a team meeting???