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.
a good example in a recent game 3-0 up at half time and coasting, so i say dont get complacent, im only playing the bottom team, and i lose 4-3, now you can babbel on all you want about some random example of this happening in 1956, but totally season , that just defy mathematical probabilites happen all of the time, how a tactic that is so good in the first half, can be so, so , so bad in the second just about sums it all up
Originally posted by Genuine_quality:
ok, ill ask a reasonable question
1.can you honestly say to me, that watching your team miss 10 one on ones in every other game is both down to bad tactics, and /or is realistic?
2.why do you think tactics have such a large part to play in games when hsitorically teams that win leagues and cups do it because they have better players?, tactics can seperate teams that are close in natural ability, but thats all
1) No, I can't. But I've yet to experience that. To be fair, I think I concentrated too much on simply the goals/shots ratio and didn't take into account the quality of chances. A lot of people are saying that the number of quality chances being missed is too much, so maybe there's something in that, I don't know I haven't seen it myself.
2) Ah, you've unwittingly encroached on one of the oldest debates in football. What makes a winning side: good tactics or good tactics? You seem convinced that it's only to do with better players, but if that's the case then Holland would have won a World Cup (1974 anyone?) and England would have beaten Croatia, etc. The answer is probably it's a little bit of both. But don't be fooled into thinking that football is purely about picking the best 11 players. After all, Steve McClaren picked more or less the same players we'd all have probably picked throughout the campaign, and we all know how well he did.
Originally posted by Genuine_quality:
ok, ill ask a reasonable question
1.can you honestly say to me, that watching your team miss 10 one on ones in every other game is both down to bad tactics, and /or is realistic?
2.why do you think tactics have such a large part to play in games when hsitorically teams that win leagues and cups do it because they have better players?, tactics can seperate teams that are close in natural ability, but thats all
1. I have never experienced this on FM08 as yet so cannot comment on this. I have a lot of chances, I score a few, miss a few but that is football.
2. So you are saying that Scotland and France are close in natural ability even though us Scots are really pretty poor in comparison to France technically. We managed to beat them twice due to tactics from Smith and McLeish and ok with a lot of luck thrown in for good measure. What about Greece winning the Euros not so long ago, they did not have the best technically gifted players, they had tactics, organisation and were just too good tactically.
Originally posted by tostao10:
The "tribe" comment was not necessary.
You've said that twice now. I actually said "tripe". And you weren't called a "twat" and a "cnut" like I was, so shall we just let it go now? The debate about FM is in danger of turning sensible. :thup:
holland didnt win the world cup because they had rubbish defenders, croatia probably have better players technically than england or at least some of them are, you are just using the english bias toward our own teams ability like any other nation
i think a better example would be in league format, the teams with the best players always win, and no matter how many permutations you had with slider bars for derby county they would still go down because there players are rubbish
Originally posted by Andy H:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Genuine_quality:
ok, ill ask a reasonable question
1.can you honestly say to me, that watching your team miss 10 one on ones in every other game is both down to bad tactics, and /or is realistic?
2.why do you think tactics have such a large part to play in games when hsitorically teams that win leagues and cups do it because they have better players?, tactics can seperate teams that are close in natural ability, but thats all
1. I have never experienced this on FM08 as yet so cannot comment on this. I have a lot of chances, I score a few, miss a few but that is football.
2. So you are saying that Scotland and France are close in natural ability even though us Scots are really pretty poor in comparison to France technically. We managed to beat them twice due to tactics from Smith and McLeish and ok with a lot of luck thrown in for good measure. What about Greece winning the Euros not so long ago, they did not have the best technically gifted players, they had tactics, organisation and were just too good tactically. </BLOCKQUOTE>
thats a fair point but they were exceptionally organised and tactically spot on, plus a very large point was that these teams had also built up a momentum, results on football manager can be random from teams that are bottom with poor players and poor setup, I can accept being tactically outclassed but it just seems so random than from before.
Linear Mode
