retired_jacque90

(and when I open up all irate like that, you know what I mean and how I mean it.)

So the story goes that I'm managing Inter. Doing quite well in Serie A, fighting it up there against Milan and Lazio. All three of us have been exchanging the 1st position for months. Duking it out. It's the end of january now. Italian Cup time.

We reach the semis and we get Lazio. Cool, I think. Nice match. Lots of plusses and minuses. It's good, because we played them before not too long ago, back in november. 1-1, a tight game that could've gone either way. Also good, because the other bracket of the semis has Udinese and Catania; two ease teams for my Inter side. So, this is nothing but an early final, and whoever wins here already has half the cup in his pocket. On the not so good side, they are Lazio and have been playing well. Pluse they have Nicklas Bendtner and Henri Salvet - a strike partnership on excellent form. Cherry on top: Bendtner was picked 'World Player of the Year' back in December. Still, with hard work and luck, and a good performance in the first leg at home, and we should be fine. Inter are no pushovers either.

Match day then comes and goes.



Not too shabby. The scoreline didn't really reflect the game. It was a tight game after all, as evidenced if you look at the stats.



A very even game, in which I just happened to have the edge in front of goal, and they didn't. I was surprised I slotted three past them, and more surprised I didn't receive any, seeing as how it was back and forth from 1 to 90. A glance to the player ratings might explain things a bit.



A very solid performance by Inter (uncharacteristically solid, rather. That's above average for us). On their side, their keeper and their star striker didn't have the best of days. As for the rest of their team, while it's true they were outplayed that day, there were no major malfunctions other than the keeper and striker. The subs didn't change the game either way - neither theirs or ours radically altered things.

A solid, team-wide performance for Inter. I hope we can use this and try to remain at this level. Players are gelling together nicely, so we need to keep the momentum going.

(weekend rolls, my league side beats Ascoli 1-0. Morale keeps up)

So, next wednesday we travel to the Olimpico, in beautiful, ancient Rome, to go ahead and get this over with. A three goal advantage is, by all accounts, a comfortable safety zone. While we're not going to underestimate the opposition, it does give us a lot of peace of mind to head into this last stop before the final. I see no need to alter my tactics, mainly for two reasons: One, they worked very well last week, and Lazio didn't have much of an answer to them (if they had, I think they would've performed better overall. Has nothing to do with their scoring). Two, I see Lazio is forming up just as they did for the first leg. They're not starting with any strange or unusual formations for them.

So the ref blows his whistle, and about 90 minutes later he blows it again.



A few things to note here.

First of all, three goals in the first 10 minutes. One of them an own goal, sure. All you want. But it's still three goals in the first 10 minutes. Not just that. Three goals in their first three attempts at goal. Always lovely, that. So there goes my goal advantage, blown away like that for some reason.

Second, they score four in the first half. I take a look back at their history and, as far back as I can see, they have never, ever done that. Ever. Not even against much inferior opposition. Not ever. And it's not that my defense leaks goals. At all. Inter has, along with Lazio and Roma, the best defense in the league, only letting in 9 goals in 21 games. A splendid record however you slice it.

So I guess we were just vastly outplayed all game long, right? We must have been pinned down on our end for 90 minutes. Well, not quite.



No, not quite pinned down. They were hungrier in front of goal, I suppose. But 5-0 hungrier? Personally I don't think so. I do have the benefit of having watched the game, though, so I guess you'll have to take my word on that. Let's see the player ratings, then. Maybe it happened to me, as it had happened to them a week earlier, that key players just had a mediocre day.



Not really. This wasn't a mediocre day. This was just a simply catastrophic loss of form, in all my lines, for no reason at all. Ah, I see. Silly me.

I mean, I have to conclude it was for no reason at all, because I'm not seeing any other reason than the game decreeing I had to lose this game. A sentiment all too common with FM, I think. So, our solid team-wide performance was shot to hell exactly 7 days later, against the same opposition playing the same set of tactics. And their mediocre performance apparently was indicative of nothing, since 7 days later and (one would think) affected by morale, still they managed to turn into Brazil '70.

So, nothing means anything anymore. I don't think it does.

The worst thing about all this? You know what it is? That I knew the game was going to try something like this. Going into the second leg I had this gut feeling the game was going to come up with something out of nowhere, like this, I guess to make things 'interesting' or 'challenging' or to make sure I wasn't using a supertactic (which I wasn't. All this is 4-4-2 Diamond RoO). I knew it, so I saved the game before going in. Something I really don't do. Lo and behold, surprise surprise. Teams playing well turn to crap. Teams playing crap turn to world beaters. Against the same opposition. Against the same tactics on either side. In the space of seven days.

I sure as hell was never given the tools to turn a mediocre performance into a world class one in seven days. Apparently the AI has these tools? I mean, I'm sure something changed. But I thought we were supposed to give our players time to adapt to new instructions? Give them time to settle in to new ideas and absorb new concepts? Players from AI teams apparently don't have this limitation, because whatever they were told to do worked wonders in only one week.

In conclusion:

- Peaks and valleys in performance need to be smoothened out for '08.
- If human teams normally take a long time to recover from slumps, or from big defeats that take a toll in morale, so should the AI teams.
- If this wasn't the game just deciding I was doing too well and decreeing I should lose, and there really are instructions that can change a mediocre performance into a world-class one in seven days, human managers need to be given those tools as well. And if those tools are already there for human managers, we need feedback and clarity regarding how to use them. Feedback again. Woohoo.

---

Just replayed the save game again. 0-5 again, but hey this time we managed to get things into extra time. Go us. I normally don't do this, but I'm going to keep replaying this until the game doesn't throw me a lemon. I don't mind losing. I mind bullshit. I'll keep going until I get a more logical progression of events. A more realistic turn of events, where they don't bump the ball with the back of their heads from 50 yards away and it still goes in.

I want to lose against superior opposition. Not opposition that's been artificially propped up against me because I was doing too well.

retired_BrownVanilla

I usually defend this game but here I see what you're on about. I defenitely agree that we need more feedback.

retired_hrconaway

great post

retired_Cat1123

Playing as West Ham and second in the Prem with two games to go and have the second best defensive record until this...



This came out of the blue after a good run of nine games unbeaten put us back up with the big boys.

If i'd won both this and my final game of the season(beat Bolton 1-0) i'd have finished 2nd.

The most disgraceful aspect of the whole season was having to play Harewood and Iversen up front when i have Tevez, Ashton and Falcao in the squad.

Even if they had poor morale and the big names were superb morale, they were still putting the ball in the back of the net whilst Tevez went 10 games without a goal and Falcao managed 4 in 32 games?.

I know many of you dont like to hear it, but you are basically just going through the motions with this game and good and bad form has little to do with your management technique(or lack of it).

The game is still far too easy, so it has to add the "Governor" as i've mentioned before, that simply stops teams overperforming too much and has rid us of the supertactic.

I could have won the Prem easy both seasons with a mediocre West Ham side and a great tactic. I dropped about 22 points first season gaining a paltry 4, whilst this second season i could honestly have had it won with 5 or 6 games to spare had the "Governor" not already decided this was'nt to be.

It still amazes me that so many obviously intellectual people cannot see what is staring them right in the face? because FM07 is a shoddy bit of workmanship that has been thrown together NOT with the intention of realism, but with a simple "Governor" system that has thankfully killed off the supertactic, but has also been put in place to cover up the ridiculous amount of holes still in the programming of the game!.

retired_e_fores

No it's staring at you in the face Hammer. If it were staring at others, they would complain too. ANd indeed if you rate thegame so low why do you continu to play it. You have a point but you hyperbolise it far too much. You've seen me for the last few months now defend the game and say it is not a cheat, but I will say the following:
-Lack of feedback makes it difficult for the player to understand why he/she is doing well/good.
-Team talks are too hard to get right and have too much of an effect (with regards to the OP - this may have been your problem).
-The game favours the home side a bit too much.
-Like the OP, I agree that form can slump and dip too much too quickly without an OBVIOUS/VISIBLE reason, though I cling to the belief that their is A reason somewhere.
-Often the stats given for us are irrelevant or not specific enough - I had 10 shots of goal, but inside or outside the area?
-The game often gives the impression via the stats given that the player is succeeding and making headway, untill he/she is shown he/she is not when the opposition scores.
-The game is in a limbo state and the player is unsure how to play it: either as a Football Manager or a Computer Gamer (two distinct things). If anything this is credit to SI for getting to a certain degree of simulation and realism, but we sem to be unsure as to what to do. I would love to know how good Jose or Sir Alex may be at this game.


Regarding the specific problem by the OP, you played the same tactic home and away which may have been one error. Also, Lazio would have decided they have nothing to loose and gone all out attack. Team talk may also have been an issue as mentioned earlier.

retired_elpata

I would have subbed the players performing badly.... why didnt you? the only change you made was with the injured player. Id sub anyone with a rating of 5 or less no matter what.

What formation did you use home and away? The same one?

And Hammer if the game is still too easy why you always complain the game cheats?

retired_jacque90

moggydave:

The same formation, yes. But not the same tactic. For my away games (league, cup, europe, whatever) I tend to follow common FM wisdom and pull my players back, play narrower, etc. I don't take as many risks, in a nutshell. It's one of the common bits of wisdom that works well most of the time.

So, yeah, visiting Lazio there it was a much more defensive stance. Going into that game I was actually quite content to play for a tie. I didn't want to go out and get my fourth goal on aggregate because I could. Didn't underestimate Lazio at all.

Cleon:

That screenshot is the ratings at the end of the game. At halftime, it didn't look that terrible. I was 0-4 down, but I thought I'd try to spur them and go get that one goal we needed to pass by on away goals. Didn't happen, of course. As I let them loose a little and went forward a bit, I was duly punished with their fifth goal (65th minute).

Same basic 4-4-2 Diamond, but more defensive. The tactic I normally use week in and week out when I play away and works fine.

retired_janellewood86

I find it quite insulting when the old "it's staring you right in the face" argument gets whipped out. It isn't staring me in the face. I enjoy the game. If that makes me an idiot, fine. Then again, I think people who like Lilly Allen are complete retards, but each to their own.

retired_kellyk

That screenshot is the ratings at the end of the game. At halftime, it didn't look that terrible. I was 0-4 down, but I thought I'd try to spur them and go get that one goal we needed to pass by on away goals. Didn't happen, of course. As I let them loose a little and went forward a bit, I was duly punished with their fifth goal (65th minute).

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but doesn't sound like the ratings could have been decent at halftime, you were four goals down ? I would have started making changes the moment I went a goal down.

Personally speaking being four down at halftime is clearly an indication that something is wrong with the way you're setting it up.

I have a tactic that can give you 5 goals at home, if I were to use the same tactic away I may go five goals down at halftime, its that attacking. Furthermore, I don't believe in playing a deep dline away either.

retired_jacque90

No, I didn't say decent. I said not that terrible. There weren't any fours. And while Cleon's m.o. of subbing players if they're playing a five is sound... but who was I going to sub? Half the team was playing a five.

Of the subs I had, the only one that would've made sense (or even a difference), was Kalou for Cerci. But even then, I'd be subbing Kalou in into a position I never played him before. The rest of the subs were in the bench for a reason. If I knew I had a crack player able to make a difference in 45 minutes sitting on the bench, I would've sent him in (or played him in the starting XI from the get go).

Generally speaking, I agree. But I think there's a difference between being 0-4 at 45, and 0-3 at 10, don't you think?

I was already playing defensive. What's there to adjust when you get an own goal, and within seven minutes or so their next two attempts go in? Besides, this away defensive setup was used against every other team in the league (including of course Lazio itself) and didn't fail catastrophically as soon as the ref blew the whistle to start the game. If it failed like this regularly, why would I even use it?

Besides, if it's apparently so easy to pick apart that the other team can get 2 goals against it in the first ten minutes (I'm not counting that own goal just to be nice), why wasn't that ancient secret ninja technique of early scoring not used elsewhere, earlier? Are Lazio the only team I played away in seven months that knows how to do it? And if so, why didn't they use it when I played them in the league in november? Was it a christmas present?

2-3 weeks later I played Barcelona in the Euro Cup. Started the away leg formed up exactly like that, and by halftime I was 3-1 up because they opened up to attack me and I hit them with counters. Same formation, same tactic, same lineup. Against a better team, line by line, at a harder away venue.

I appreciate your comments (I really do), but I'm not whining just to whine. I still don't think it was a tactical problem.