Luketi

I run the following experiment: I am managing Betis. My next game is Getafe away. Getafe is a mediocre team, with mid-table position. I am in my second season, have a good team, and (by far, according the odds) the favourite to get the three points.

I saved the game just before playing against them (team selection screen). My target was to play about 12 or 15 games and compare the results. Obviously, my tactic would be the same in those matches. Away from home I play a slighty defensive 4-4-2, with counter attack ticked. Normal to low passing, tempo, width and defensive line. FwRuns only for wingers, strikers and MC(a), all to mixed. Nothing strange at all. The scout report state that Getafe play a defensive 4-4-2, counter attck and possession style.

So, finally, I played 15 games. My disappointment was TOTAL. The results were from a 6-1 to a 0-5. I won 6, drew 1 and lost 8. I had all the variables: started losing and finally winning, started losing and finally losing, started winning and finally losing, and so on. Weird results happend too, like a 0-4 down or a 4-1 both at half time (always with the same tactic, with NO tweaking). The match stats were that random too. Things like Pass %, crosses, tackles or headers percentage, flowed with no apparent reason.

Finally my question is: How can we conclude that a tactic is good or bad if the random factor seems to play a great percentage of the result??

Leroy1883

This isn't a big headed answer and so I hope you don't take it as such.

You need to change your tactics when the game is running.

You don't need to watch the match in real time, Key is enough.

It's not the tactic in it's self that is good, (although it helps if you are using not conflicting instructions and have taken into account the players at your disposal)it is applying it in the correct situation.

Some people might say that this is not like real life.

All I know is that if I want to win matches consistently I have to adapt to the situation of the game.

Luketi

I don`t care if the tactic is good or if it`s crap (in this case). Ok, let`s say the tactic is totally useless, and it has tons of flaws and weaknesess. What I would expect is that, if I play 15 games as a test, maybe to loose 11 or 12 of those games, so I could conclude: ok, this doesn`t seem to work. In the other hand, if the tactic is good I would expect to win at least a 70 or 80 percent of those games.

It seems that the random factor is huge, mate. I started winning and loosing almost equal quantity of matches in my test. I couldn`t observe not a single pattern (i.e. when I score the first goal, Getafe can`t turn it into a victory, or viceversa).

skip spence

Anyone who've played team sports knows that match events that come about more or less randomly, like a lucky deflected shot, or a brilliant individual effort, can profoundly change how a match is played out. So it's only natural that every game is unique, even if you start out with the same tactics each time.

Leroy1883

Your missing my point which is that sticking to the same tactics regardless of what is going on in game will result in a multitude of different results as you have seen. If you have a good team and one good tactic then you will have variable success. If you adapt you tactics to the situation of the match and you have players who can carry out the instructions you have set them then you will have much greater consistency.

The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his men to "know your enemy" before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."

This is so true for when applied to FM2007.

arteta is god

Luketi, I feel for you mate. I actually played the same game 27 times once and lost or drew every one except the 27th, which I won 5-0. You may remember the experiment. Many of the goals they scored were last minute flukes and own goals. In every match I dominated. There is clearly something fishy with the match engine—you state it is too random. I agree, but also I think that some matches are 'fixed', meaning you have a much lesser chance of winning. There is definitely 'something' going on I am sure.

You're right though. Long gone are the days when you can have the best team and simply win. Too much x factor and not enough concrete feedback or explanation. FM07 is simply NOT as much fun as previous versions.

kolobok

:thup: If you don't change your tactic during the game, the outcome of each match may depend on whether you have scored first or AI did it, or some other things. The extreme results you mentioned (6-1 to 0-5) indicate one thing - your tactic (or your players' personalities) are vulnerable to some events. Say you scored 2 lucky goals in the beginning, AI changes tactic trying to equalize, and your tactic works very well against ultra-attacking AI => you won 6-1.
Another extreme - AI scored 2 lucky shots, changed to defensive counter-attacking setup, and your tactic does not work in this case. of course I do not know what exactly happened, but it is very likely something of that kind.

Hence, imo you have 2 options: a)try to tweak during the game as Leroy suggested; b)tune up your tactic to avoid extremes. I personally prefer the second approach: even though ocasionally I lose games I should have won easily I almost never experience tough defeat. But the outcomes you described are more or less logical.

Luketi

Leroy:

I can understand what you are talking about, and I agree with you after all, but this is a computer game. So it`s been made based (hopefully) on some kind of logic. For example: "A neutralizes B". Then you have the random factor so "A neutralizes B...80% of the times". This multiplicated by many other variants.

What I`m trying to say is: How on eartth could we prove what works and what doesn`t if the isn`t a minimun pattern? I have many examples from my test, here`s one: I had games where (in the first 20 minutes) Getafe had 35% of crosses completed, and the next game they had 8% of crosses completed. So, how can I conclude if a tactic is capable of neutralize oposition tactics if there is no proof of what works and what doesn`t?

Does it mean that if (for example) the oposition has a high % of crosses I will have to try to tweak sliders hoping that at the "x" attempt something will work?

I repeat, I don`t care the result itself, I want a bit of a constant pattern, just a bit. I will repeat my test but only taking the first 20 minutes. Stats shouldn`t be too much different if the 2 teams start the match with the same tactics.

kolobok

Luketi,

Let's do simple math here. 8% of crosses completed means Getafe tried it at least 12-13 times during first 20 minutes. 35% of crosses completed means that they tried it 13 times. In the first case they completed only 1 cross (lucky for you), in the second case 5. But in both cases you allowed their players to cross way to often and the fact that 3 more were intercepted does not make a big difference here - your flanks are exposed, though your DCs and GK do a decent job intercepting crosses. But you don't expect them intercept every single one, do you? Applying your theory "A neutralizes B...80% of the times", and thinking that your DCs better than Getafe STs in the air, but the difference is not too big (so 70% instead of 80%) => you see exactly what you would expect.

Leroy1883

Don't try to think of it as a pattern. Just pause the match and ask yourself what you are trying to achieve.

E.g the example you give is concerning crossing percentage. So if you feel threatened by this then consider how could you reduce the amount of crosses.

You could close down the wingers more so they don't have time to put in accurate crosses and the defenders are more likely to charge down the ball.

If you player your fullbacks deeper then the crosses will have to come from deep, making it easier for you centerbacks to win the ball.

You could tight-mark and/or man mark the strikers so that his marker is better positioned to challenge for the ball.

Now these are tactical changes, but it doesn't matter what tactics you use if you players do not have the attibutes to fulfil your instructions. This is why it important to know who you are playing and where the biggest threat is likely to come from.

Also, don't feel that you have to change your tactics to counter an opposing team, it should still be possible to take measures without changing overall style. Opposition instructions are useful here.

You don't need me to tell you this as you know it already.