If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Yup, pretty much like Morpheus said in "The Matrix". This, I think, lies at the heart of many of the difficulties we're experiencing with FM07, alongside many other factors of course. I also think this concept is closely related to the usual 'slump' everyone experiences, although I simply lack the skill and the time to test if this is true.
However, should this concept be correct, it may explain a few things.
So what's all this then?
We start with a simple, and true statement: There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path. In other words, one thing is to know what to do, another quite different is to actually do it.
I've suffered the usual slumps like everyone else. And I'm not an erudite of AI behaviour, but there is a constant element that's I've noticed is always present throughout these slumps.
As I've observed, during the slumps and those games that my team "should have won easily", or matches that led the commentary to state how my team "can't believe they lost it", the AI teams worked very well against me. That is, they adapted to my tactics and the kind of game I had been playing it, "cracked" it and then proceeded to counter it, always leading to my teams resigning points, either two or three points.
This behaviour on part of the AI is most usually observed in two ways, or at least that has been my experience:
a) Comeback games - in which the AI adapts 'on the fly' to the early game success of my tactics, and then wrestling control of the game away from my team, overplaying my team enough to turn a result around.
b) Complete domination - in which the AI already seems to know what to do before the game starts, and executes tactics that completely counter mine at every point in the game.
So far so good, and if you ask me we're still well withing the realm of what is possible to happen in real life. The fact that teams adapt to each other, managers study each other and no team can be successful long term without changing its tactics has been well established and is true. It's good that the game models this behaviour.
However, another fact remains that is a bit more crucial: All of the AI teams seem to adapt to my tactics, regardless of the skill, quality and reputation of their respective managers and sides. This, I think, is one of the main reasons for the slumps to be so strong and so long lasting.
Example time. One of the latest common examples we've had in here lately to illustrate this behaviour is that of Bolton and Arsenal. How Bolton adapted its game, played to their strengths and managed to make life quite miserable for the gunners with a poorer side, by all accounts. And this is true. Happens everywhere, all the time.
Yet that example is only part of the picture, because there is indeed a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path. What this example fails to account for is why, when the slump hits, every AI team somehow manages to become the Boltons to our Arsenals. Every AI team then not only knows how to beat us, but also manages to do it, seemingly regardless of their quality on their bench and on their starting XI.
In order for one team to beat another in real life, and discounting the element of luck that can never be realistically accounted for, that team must:
1- Have the adequate plan of what they want to do when the whistle goes off. This includes formation and tactics, how is the team going to defend against the opposition tactics, and how are they going to use their own tactics to their advantage against the opposition. (Knowing the path)
2- Have the appropiate elements with which to execute this plan. This includes a side of the appropiate quality and skill, with good morale and as good of a bench as you can have. (Walking the path).
Needless to say, in real life this isn't always the case. There are teams all over the world that have tremendous, smart managers that know what to do, but they aren't successful because they simply lack the necessary player quality to deal with their opposition. Likewise, there are teams with great players and great skill that are fed inadequate plans and tactics from mediocre managers, so they never really succeed.
But in FM07 we don't seem to have this. Whether this is what creates the actual slumps, or this is just another factor that plays into it and makes the slumps worse/last longer, the fact remains that most (if not all) the AI teams you play during these slumps not only know how to beat your team, but also actually manage to do it on the pitch, regardless of their managers, their players and their quality.
This is a huge mistake, because it is simply unrealistic. If we cannot tolerate supertactics, or teams going on 10-year long success streaks without changing one miserable thing about their game, then we cannot tolerate this. It's just as unrealistic.
Bolton and Arsenal again. Yes, I think it's wonderful that Bolton played to their strengths, against Arsenal's weaknesses. And I think it'd be wonderful if it happened in game too. However, what's no so wonderful is all of a sudden every team out there becoming a Bolton.
First of all, because not all managers are like Bolton's. Some may not be as smart, or some other may be smarter but just won't like his approach against Arsenal, or don't have the means with which to build that approach with their sides. Second, because not all teams are Bolton. If Bolton played the way they did against Arsenal, it doesn't logically follow that every other team will have the same skill as Bolton to execute the same plan. There are better teams that might try another approach, and there are worse teams that just can't deal with that approach.
That's probably what's killing us (humans) during these slumps: How every team, regardless of reputation, manager and player skill, suddenly knows not only the path, but how to walk it against us as well. Again, it's incredibly unrealistic.
This is also tied to natural expectations. If I am managing a successful team, I would expect to be given a harder time against opposition of my own level or higher than against recently promoted teams or teams in the relegation zone. Those are natural expectations, because we naturally and intuitively know the overall strengths and quality of different sides. Chelsea, for example. We know if Chelsea plays Man Utd we're expecting a charged, intense affair, where the result is never a given and (normally) all conditions being equal, it could go either way. However, when Chelsea plays Leyton Orient on the cup three days later, we know it's going to be a walk in the park.
Except... if this is in FM07 and a human is managing Chelsea. So, of course we know we're gonna have a tough game against United, but oh surprise, when we face Leyton Orient next wednesday, if they don't come out and play exactly like United did, they'll choose some other tactic that was designed to perfectly counter ours. And, naturally, Leyton Orient will somehow have the skill to execute it as it should be executed.
Leyton Orient is probably quite an extreme example, but it illustrates the point. The point being, when the slump hits every other AI team out there sees their chances of kicking you while you're down increasing tenfold, regardless that the have feet to kick you with or not.
I think this needs to be changed for FM08, if there's still time to do it. Maybe it's time to rethink how the game deals with slumps (which should be there, because it's realistic for slumps to be there). Have them manifest themselves in other ways. The most realistic of which, to my understanding, would be to stop 'giving' every AI manager we face during a slump the keys on how to beat us. Not all managers and not all sides are equal in real life. There are better and worse managers, and better and worse sides.
If there is a key to beat human sides (and there always is, and always should be), it shouldn't be given to every AI team. The game needs to start contemplating how some managers won't understand how to use that key, or won't care to use it. Or maybe some managers know it, and want to use it, but don't have the appropiate side or player quality to perform it.
It's ridiculous to believe and expect that, for example, if the key to beat my team is to constantly rain high balls and crosses over my defense, that strategy would pay off both for a team with very tall players and for a team of midgets. It ridiculous to think that the AI manager of a perennial title contender side will have the same skills and reputation of the AI manager of a novice manager managing a bottom of the table side.
If there is a key to beat human sides (and there always is, and always should be), it shouldn't be given to every AI team. The game needs to start contemplating how some managers won't understand how to use that key, or won't care to use it. Or maybe some managers know it, and want to use it, but don't have the appropriate side or player quality to perform it.
It's ridiculous to believe and expect that, for example, if the key to beat my team is to constantly rain high balls and crosses over my defense, that strategy would pay off both for a team with very tall players and for a team of midgets. It ridiculous to think that the AI manager of a perennial title contender side will have the same skills and reputation of the AI manager of a novice manager managing a bottom of the table side.
Just a thought.
i like this portion and have felt this myself. ai managerial competencies. while i have noticed that attributes affect a noticable part of the ai management, i just think it needs to be further emphasized. point made and i really hope si get this aspect under control.
But in FM07 we don't seem to have this. Whether this is what creates the actual slumps, or this is just another factor that plays into it and makes the slumps worse/last longer, the fact remains that most (if not all) the AI teams you play during these slumps not only know how to beat your team, but also actually manage to do it on the pitch, regardless of their managers, their players and their quality.
i dont see this happening all the time. we are not loosing every game are we? so i think your starting point of this thouhgt is not true.
Quote:
Except... if this is in FM07 and a human is managing Chelsea. So, of course we know we're gonna have a tough game against United, but oh surprise, when we face Leyton Orient next wednesday, if they don't come out and play exactly like United did, they'll choose some other tactic that was designed to perfectly counter ours. And, naturally, Leyton Orient will somehow have the skill to execute it as it should be executed.
this easy matches after a hard match problem has always been in cm/fm, i think it is smt to do with concentration of the players. i change the team a bit - if not all - and give them some boost before the match and try to find a fast goal. the same thing happens in real life. it is hard to play against an easy team after a hard match in real life also.
i dont see this happening all the time. we are not loosing every game are we? so i think your starting point of this thouhgt is not true.
Well I didn't say you lose all the time. Sometimes you also draw due to the same reason against opposition that should not have played the way they did.
And I know. I should know better than to talk about 'shoulds' in football, but I don't think that just because we can't anticipate everything in football, then we can't anticipate anything.
Again, I don't mind being outplayed by lesser opposition or worse managers once in a while during slumps. Most of the time during slumps, yeah, that's a problem in my book.
Part of the problem, I think, is that we've moved the emphasis far too much into tactics and player instructions and away from the intrinsic player skill and attributes. Morale of course plays a huge role and probably strengthens this for good and bad streaks.
But you can observe this (or at least I can observe it - I'm more than willing to chalk this up to a perception issue on my part) in the way much lesser opposition plays against you during your slumps. It's not that they just 'raise their game' - an acceptable proposition. It's in the way they start playing, and you can go and see them line by line, player by player, and it's clear to see they simply do not have the quality to play like they did against you. Yet, on the pitch, they looked like Brazil '70 for moments.
What I have to conclude then is that it's possible to turn mediocre players into much, much better ones simply by giving them the appropiate individual instructions at the right time and against the right opposition. Which, in my opinion, is utter junk. No amount of instructions or tactical hodgepokery is going to turn second division CDs into players able to stop world class front lines. This is what I mean by putting the emphasis on tactics and instructions instead of the players.
And don't get me wrong, I don't think you should be able to win everything you play simply by slotting world class players into whatever position and playing whatever formation. The tactical side should matter a lot. It's the first half of the equation of Tactics and Player Skill. My point is that I find the game quite unbalanced in favor of tactics and instructions, not paying much attention to the actual skill and attributes of the players that carry out those instructions.
I think it needs to change, and be balanced again.
I don't totally agree, because it should be possible for teams on FM to acheive remarkable success (compared to real life), or at least more possible than real life.
If your players of better quality (eg.you are Barcalona):
a) your tactics will be more effective on the whole
b) there is greater margin for error as a manager as your players can pull results out of the bag and are more flexible so can adjust and work round your tactics if they happen to be slightly wrong.
This is where I feel the game has to be slightly unrealistic, otherwise we would just be recreating real life. I want to be able to come 2nd with Blackburn in the first season but I feel the game is adequetely set up o this is very difficult.
The game has it's flaws, but I don't believe that this is one.
I think I agree with Chand here to a certain extent. you would expect a team of better players to beat the weaker team even if you did get your tactics 'wrong' as far as the AI are concerned. Too many times do you go into a game, away particularly, against a crappy team and end up getting outplayed. I DO think that the game is unbalanced to a certain degree, and I do feel that there is too much 'picky' stuff to deal with. Sometimes you just want to pick your team and watch them go out and hammer the teams you expect to beat.
Admittedly, lately my perception of FM has changed for the better. Since I started having my assistant manager take control of team talks and I implemented global mentality settings, I have started to be very successful. It's taken me almost a year to get where I am, but I have a new-found appreciation for FM. Why? If you haven't already, you should switch to have your ass man take control of team talks. It's made an enormous difference.
To be honest, Kevchenko, I think that this is my single most important discovery. It's absolutely ludicrous and infuriating that the team-talks have such a dramatic effect on a match. You forget what your manager has said after 5 minutes on the pitch in a real match. Listen to this: I was on an awful slump with Sunderland with about 12 games to go. I was at that stage where you think 'eff this, I'm going to start a new game', but I remembered that my brother had his assistant doing team talks for West Brom and it had turned his season around. I tried it.
Away to Southampton, I won 8-1! I checked to see what he said to the boys before the match, and he told them to go out and enjoy the game. I never would have said this to a team that needs to start winning. The fact too, is that when you check how your players react via the feedback screen, it's not even accurate. I have NEVER had a player respond to 'I expect you to win this match', but it must make a difference. Stupid stupid stupid.
Originally posted by Kevchenko:
Yeh, to agree partly with moggydave, recently i switched to Assistant Manager to do the team talks, and he does a great job.
Even to the extent that without changing in a game thats even at half time, My players come out fired up and I win the game.
I never found the "right" things to say during a slump in form during team talks...
Havn't had a significant slump since...
Me to, but on the other hand I can't string together more than ~10 games without defeat either. Longest losing streak using ass man is 2 games, were when I did them myself I had almost a whole season undefeated and then 10 games without a win.
Knowing the path and walking the path 
Linear Mode
