retired_janellewood86

What have you done? What advice are you passing on? Where is the advice? Not once have I claimed that you are refusing to see anything. I am merely asking for proof regarding the claims on this forum. I only deal in fact. Every time I try to steer people away from the abstract and hollow theories, I become the accused of all sorts of implications. You mention you have done 'something', caused 'something' to change. You have been referring to it as 'it'. What have you managed to discover? </BLOCKQUOTE>
I had players who made a lot of stupid errors and it was costing me games.

To stop this (or attempt to stop this) I have taken more control over team talks and player interraction.

I am getting these stupid errors far less frequently.

Hence, I would advise people to try doing their own team talks and interracting with their players as I have deliberately taken this step to solve the problem of players making stupid mistakes and it has helped my performance.

I'm not having a go Arteta, and I can perfectly understand why you don't like theory. Thing is, though, that even managers who have been doing this for years in real life like Fergusson or Hiddink deal in theory. The only feedback they get is the reviews in the papers, their interpretaion of what they see.

Now, they have a lot of things we don't - the reactions of players are more obvious face to face - they can be much more subtle in their interractions with players, more specific in their tactical instructions, more inepth in their research and development. Hence, we as virtual managers need more feedback. But let me ask you this - why did Fergusson win the league this season. If you ask him, he won't know. He'll have a bloody good idea, but he won't know why he did better this season than last.

The more detailed a simulation becomes, the more variable come into effect. Nobody can discuss any tactic based on "fact". They know the things that tend to work, they may think they know why, but with so many variables there is no way of knowing.

That makes this forum entriely useless, really, since we can't discuss tactics. We might have a tactic which we have used to win the league, but we don't know whether this tactic is the reason we won it, or whether it was something else, or where we could improve it.

I am a "scientist" myself, and like you I prefer empirical fact. Thing is, though, that there's no way you can use impirical fact in this game. And even if the feedback were imporved, it would have to improve to a point where we were given too much feedback in order to empirically prove or disprove tactical theories.

Yes, we do need more information as to why things might or might not be working, but to get to the point of fact would be totally unrealistic and not much fun. Just match the numbers and plug in the team and click continue.

retired_rayrhi

Absolutely agreed :thup:

retired_janellewood86

But following this to its logical conclusion then, there's no point in playing the game, right?

Why do some people do better than others? Based on what we've both said, the answer must be dumb luck.

Or are some people better at the game than others. And if so, surely there must be some basis for their relative success compared to those that struggle?

retired_jacque90

You know it's august already. I have half a mind to just drop all this and wait to see what new worms come in the '08 can.

retired_rayrhi

I think Alex Ferguson knows why he won the league last season. In fact, I think the outside observer knows why too. Ronaldo

Let me give you an example. Everton. A couple of seasons back we were in the Champions League. We lost, unluckily it has to be said, by Vilarreal (sp.?). Then, we were dumped on by a lowly Romanian team. Moyes said that the confidence of the players was shattered. Not only that, the players did not like some of his disciplinarian techniques. He stated clearly that these reasons directly contributed to the poor season. Before last season he decided to change his management techniques. He added some sort of democratic 'clear up' meeting where the players could speak freely. He changed his ways and we have come on leaps and bounds. He hasn't changed his tactics much either.
In FM Terms
Morale was at an all time low after being dumped out of Europe. This created a snowball effect that carried on in to the league. Along with this, training was too intense for the players and they didn't like the way the manager spoke to them or the press.

Man Utd won the league because they were simply breathtaking. They clearly had the best team and played the best football.
In FM Terms
Simply the best team and deserved to win the league

Chelsea were struck by a lot of injuries, and certain new players did not step up. Also, the diamond formation was a little stifling. Chelsea relied on grinding out victories and it was predictable. Jose even said in the press recently that he is going back to wingers, so watch out Ballack.
In FM Terms
New signings Ballack and Shevchenko failed to settle in time, and the new 4-4-2 diamond system stifled Chelsea's creativity.

Dirty red shi...I mean, Liverpool: The 'toad', or tinkerman clearly upset the balance of the team by changing players every week more than a new mother changes her baby's nappy. Infamous for bringing in 'decent' players (Pennant, Gonzalez, Kromkamp! Bellamy, the list goes on...), along with his squad rotation system (not to mention playing Gerrard on the wing), ultimately allowed for too much inconsistency.
In FM Terms
The squad rotation system never allowed the team to gel

Arsenal: The most breathtaking team to watch in the land, and possibly the world, played over elaborate football. Searching for the 'perfect goal', teams could simply sit back and drool over the play in front of them. Lacking penetration (Henry was out for a while), Arsenal had a hard time winning matches. Coupled with the fact that their 'youngsters' are still growing into 'men' and are lacking the 'mentality' to win, Arsenal played pretty but ineffective football.
In FM Terms Tempo was too slow? Passing was too short? Arsenal's youngsters still lack the mental attributes when the 'going gets tough.'

I think all these terms I mention are in the game in one form or another, but it's decidely impossible to see where. How about some nice written feedback in 08 eh?

retired_rayrhi

Millie, let me sum up what I think.

I can quite easily take a lower division team up a division in a season or 2. Conclusion: I have some idea as to how the tactical system works. If I wasn't so modest, I would say that I am a 'good' FM player. Thus, clearly tactics play a big part and the sliders DO do what you expect them to do to a certain extent. When I play with a a lower league team, I don't see the '1 shot 1 goal syndrome' occuring as much. It seems that matches are calculated evenly.

Now, once I reach a certain level, or I play with a super duper team, I start to see the '1 shot 1 goal syndrome' occuring quite regularly. I often reach a level in which I significantly dominate matches and enjoy a massive number of shots on goal. Let me reiterate at this point that the domination I enjoy is staggering. At this point, matches are extremely balanced in my favor but I will lose or draw for no 'apparent' reason. Apparent is the key word here. I simply don't know why.

Conclusion: My tactic has reached a level that is too 'overwhelming' for the AI to counter. In essence, a 'super-tactic' has been created, and once the computer calculates that it can not beat me fairly (since I am too good for it), it throws in randomly selected 'banana skin' matches where the probability of me winning shrinks significantly. This would explain why replaying the match several times is just as difficult to win. It all makes perfect sense in my mind, but as you will probably have noted by now, IT'S ALL BLOODY THEORY!

So, I still think it is worth playing the game despite these flaws. I still enjoy it immensely. It's either quit playing the game or take it on the chin. It's still possible to succeed, and although it seems I harp on the matter endlessly, it's not that bad once you forgive it. I just want the game to get better :thup:

Chand. Don't quit, mate. Your country needs you.

retired_janellewood86

I'm exactly the same Arteta - I can take a team up through the leagues, but once I reach a certain level I can't do it. We are, perhaps, the epitome of "Peter Taylor" syndrome.

The thing is, though, the reasons you gave above for Everton losing, Man U winning etc. etc. are theory! They're not fact at all. Did United have the better side? Do you know that they did? What if their side was equal to Chelsea, but they had fewer key injuries? Or Fergusson and his lads had more desire because they hadn't come off the back of two championships? Or that Mourinho was tactically inferior? Or that the weather in certain games helped Fergie but not Mourinho? Or that Manchester United's catering staff are better so United were more comfortable?

There are litterally millions of variables, each having a greater or lesser effect on performance. So, I agree, United did have a better team. But you don't know that that was the factor that clinched it, nor do you know that it was United's strengths or Chelsea's weakenesses or what.

We can give very educated guesses, which is great. I actually totally agree with your assessment of the season. But it's theory. It isn't based solely in fact, it's based on how you (or, in this case, we) interpret which factors are more or less important based on the the evidence we have at hand.

That's exactly how I play FM. I don't know that my controlling of team talks and player interraction just helped me to win the Champions League (I may well drop that into every conversation for the next month ), but considering my record after taking over team talks was so much better than it was before, I am going to assume that it was a factor. Coupled with better tactical choices (in terms of which variant I used) and increasingly better team talks I managed 80 points and a CL win whereas before I was on for 60 points.

I don't know. But I've made a guess based on my understanding of the game. This is the same for anyone else who claims that it is possible to avoid "one shot syndrome".

retired_rayrhi

If this is the case, then I would greatly appreciate it if you could outline some basic theory behind team-talks. I really would like to go back to doing it myself. For example, remember I told you about the time I switched and my ass man told the team the pressure is off, and I hammered Southampton away, 8-0? Well, why did he choose that particular setting? How do I know if there is too much pressure on the team? What are the queues for selecting a certain option. If you can't be arsed I completely understand.

JeffRogers

i can tell you why!!

its because man u had the easiest fixture list known to man when they started the league last season! i predicted that they'd run away with the league and have it won by xmas! before a ball had even been kicked! and i was proved right! if you dont believe me go get a copy and tell me? if you could hand pick your fixtures, could you do any better!! oh and liverpool got the worst (again!) i'm not shouting conspiracy. its just a fact! if you know anything about momentum then you would agree!!

as for team talks arteta, i think it says something somewhere about basic psychology being used. in which case the premise must be that 'positivity creates positive outcomes and negativity creates bad, of course there are exceptions. but this, as a basic rule has stood me in good stead since i adopted it! thats why taking the pressure off is such a good team talk! i use it quite a lot. for instance any type of high pressure game like a derby or a tie v a top club is likely to put a player on edge so taking the pressure off could be just the ticket! also after just loosing a game, the players morales are bound to be down so its a great way to get them back on track ive found! its only good to use harsh teamtalks if your team morale is very high. then your in a position to demand reults!

retired_janellewood86

arteta: I mainly do this.