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.
Originally posted by GillsMan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by tostao10:
Thats true, Domenech is an awful coach and their only current world class player is Ribery, Henry is breaking down,Thuram is old,Vieira is broken down, Diarra though I rate him at Arsenal is first choice for France and can't even make our first team.
Benzema looks quality as well tbf. </BLOCKQUOTE>
he does but its still potential at the moment and untested.
everytime there is a tactical discussion all the clique jump out with random occurances of a succesfull underdog, but blatantly leaving out the statistical probability of it happening
yeh for every upset there are a infinately more results with teams with better players prevailing, champ man is totally tactical based, therefore unrealistic, you could accept the odd one of tactic beating you, but there is an unnerving randomness in the game which is just impossible to predict wether your playing the top or bottom teams, and even if your playing your best 11, if every slider bar isnt perfect youll get beat of a pub team cos there tactics are better
explain to me how when playing the deepest i can, the most defensive i can, and everybody off forward runs, i can still get caught on the counter attack(not from a corner or free kick either), thats a good example of ambiguity in the game play
Originally posted by Genuine_quality:
everytime there is a tactical discussion all the clique jump out with random occurances of a succesfull underdog, but blatantly leaving out the statistical probability of it happening
yeh for every upset there are a infinately more results with teams with better players prevailing, champ man is totally tactical based, therefore unrealistic, you could accept the odd one of tactic beating you, but there is an unnerving randomness in the game which is just impossible to predict wether your playing the top or bottom teams, and even if your playing your best 11, if every slider bar isnt perfect youll get beat of a pub team cos there tactics are better
I don't know, that's certainly not what I've found in my experience. What I have found is this: by looking at the match engine, I've been able to see what was going wrong. For example, my first few games in my Gillingham career, I was getting humped all the time. By paying attention to the match engine, I could see that the opposition's wingers were getting in behind my full backs all the time, and laying on chance after chance for the opposition. To remedy this, I simply ensured my full backs were much more defensive (to make up for their lack of pace) and if the winger they were facing was pacy, I'd ensure that the fullback was NOT marking them tightly (so they'd always be a yard or two off them).
To make up for the lack of attacking threat from the fullbacks, I put the farrows on my wide midfielders all the way to the top, allowing THEM to get in behind the opposition's fullbacks.
I'm no tactical genius, but it's little things like this that have helped me. Admittedly, I've had to spend time, but not that much. I certainly don't fiddle about with most of the sliders in all fairness.
Just to reiterate, I don't think the ME of the game is perfect, but I don't agree it's bugged. But that's just my experience.
anyway, i think your france -scotland tactical analysis is incorrect
i think there were other variables to take into account like determination and work rate and sheer will, if there not all the same thing, to just say scotland won because of there tactics say 4-5-1 is wrong because what your saying is if every team just played against france with scotlands tactic they would win, dont you think that there could be other reasons for scotland win other thank passing style, etc
Originally posted by Genuine_quality:
explain to me how when playing the deepest i can, the most defensive i can, and everybody off forward runs, i can still get caught on the counter attack(not from a corner or free kick either), thats a good example of ambiguity in the game play
Slow defenders? If not, then I can't. And there again, maybe unwittingly, you might have stumbled on a good point. So, perhaps if you could detail your precise tactics, the players in your defence, and how you were caught on the counter attack, we can analyse it. More importantly, it might flag up to SI a potential flaw in the game - and this can only help them, surely?
Originally posted by Genuine_quality:
anyway, i think your france -scotland tactical analysis is incorrect
i think there were other variables to take into account like determination and work rate and sheer will, if there not all the same thing, to just say scotland won because of there tactics say 4-5-1 is wrong because what your saying is if every team just played against france with scotlands tactic they would win, dont you think that there could be other reasons for scotland win other thank passing style, etc
Of course there were other variables that contributed to Scotland's wins but part of that was the tactics.
well of course a part of it was tactics, like if scotland had played 9 up front they would have lost heavily etc, but on champ man its 75% tactics and 25% player ability
Originally posted by George Graham:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Skunner:
The people who complain about this makes me wonder if they've actually watched a Football match in real life.
People constantly whining they're not winning 15-0 every match.
It's quite balanced. The ammount of 1 on 1 chances you get is balanced by the lack of the chances put away.
Plus if you actually watched a real game, you would notice that it's quite realistic.
Oh the irony.
So its fine if unrealistic amounts of chances are created, as long as the score isnt unrealistically high? </BLOCKQUOTE>
Linear Mode
