retired_rebebeccag

Mate, I follow this theory entirely, however I hate to break your bubble and point out that there was a "radius" theory in FM06 that followed much the same logic, except it was circular rather than block based.

I have to say that although I've never formalised this thought, it's something I've mentally followed since Wibble/Wobble was (in my view incorrectly) done away with.

retired_bfritton

Ste - I've put most of my work into actually working out how the match engine works and this is the only way I can see that SI devleloped it...I am deffo going to work on a few Tactics actually based on it next, but I thought I'd mention it here to see how other people get on using The Grid to base their tactical systems around (should they wish to)

Kristian - Indeed - the radius theory probably still works, but in order to realise which radius your players are going to 'look after', the Grid is the way to formulate and forecast your moves?

I hope a few people try it and let me know. For example, I would suggest that a DC should NEVER be set to Close Down at the level of 20 as he would surely be out of position most of the time, UNLESS he is the best man marker in the world (just an example)?

retired_sexy_chili25

As i see it, the only way you could get this theory to work is if you have a defender or what ever that sticks in the same grid number, in reality this dosnt happen a dc will be at his goal area and also up near the halfway line so to say his passing should be set at grid 7 dosnt make sence to me what if he walks passed grid block 7, now do you see why i dont understand, need imput need imput !

retired_rebebeccag

Sorry mate, I'm not being difficult, but what I'm saying is that the Grid, is really just the Radius theory by another name.

You're assigning numbers to blocks, versus a lenghtened radius. It's really both the same thing by a different name.

However, I have to say that I feel that the radius theory is a slightly more accurate description, cause the players move diagonally as well as horizontally.

I'm genuinely not disgareeing that you've sussed something out, all I'm saying is that it's not new, and you shouldn't see it as a panacea for any tactical problems. Not least because of the difficult in assigning the blocks. i.e. Defensive Line has a slider of 20, but the "grid" for that starts on the 18 yard box and ends about 30 yards further up. How do you sub-divide that into your grid? 20 passing can't mean the full length of the pitch, because then a midfielder on 20 would always boot it out of play.

retired_nashfine

Its not reality though all the sliders add up to what the player is instructed to do.

retired_bfritton

I do see your point mate, but working on the premise that wherever the ball goes on the pitch, and in relation to your defensive line and closing down, then the player in question would only venture however many blocks(or cells) in order to close down/pass etc etc...

For instance if the ball was in block 15 (attacking half of the pitch), and depending on your defensive line, then your players would only venture 2/3 blocks out of position to go for their man depending on their setting. A setting of 10 would leave them where they were and anything above or below would move them forwards to close down their man (for closing down for example)

It's so hard to explain, and it does need a few diagrams and more thought from US ALL...but I do think Im 100% on the right lines with regards to how SI desinged the match engine...

Instead of typing perhaps I need to go away and work some more on it! ha!

Bet you it works tho ;-)

retired_nashfine

Sorry mate, I'm not being difficult, but what I'm saying is that the Grid, is really just the Radius theory by another name.

You're assigning numbers to blocks, versus a lenghtened radius. It's really both the same thing by a different name.

However, I have to say that I feel that the radius theory is a slightly more accurate description, cause the players move diagonally as well as horizontally.

I'm genuinely not disgareeing that you've sussed something out, all I'm saying is that it's not new, and you shouldn't see it as a panacea for any tactical problems. Not least because of the difficult in assigning the blocks. i.e. Defensive Line has a slider of 20, but the "grid" for that starts on the 18 yard box and ends about 30 yards further up. How do you sub-divide that into your grid? 20 passing can't mean the full length of the pitch, because then a midfielder on 20 would always boot it out of play. </BLOCKQUOTE>

good point kristian.

there will be people that have not read previous theorys and this may help them understand how to create tactics and set up player instructions.

But I do see what your saying

retired_bfritton

no offence taken Kristian, but I still wonder what could be achieved with this.

The Radius theory (I didn't know about it) could be a more accurate description but ultimately the Grid theory may not neccesarily work out to be the same when all is said and done (depending on all tactical choices and selections)

There's a few grey areas undoubtedly, as mentioned I haven't actually devised a tactic to work within my Grid Framework fully yet, but I will update you when I have

Meanwhile, could someone else give it a go please?

Thanks

DateMyPlate.Com

(PS Check my website out lol)

retired_bfritton

Yes I would agree with that Gav, but working with the grid as the framework it should be much more effective to systematically plan your tactical plan.

Personally, the FM07 tactics have frustrated me so much prior to this, that I've been blindly changing things without a formula as such. The Grid at least provides me with something to work with?

Cheers.

retired_elpata

If its a grid system then, how does the defensive line slider work? As that works when you loose possession and depending on the distance between players. So it works on a 20 yard scale, how does this fit into your grid?

The same can be asked about creative freedom, tempo etc. They are based on when you have possession and are not a positional tool.

I think you have way over complicated things here and when you begin to look further into it, you should see what I mean. I don't mean to dismiss what you say but I really think you are talking nonesense.