retired_selhurst_matt

It works fine - your analysis of the tactic is superficial. The RoT is not some wonder cure-all to make teams into unstoppable football machines, it's a tactical philosophy that emphasises options. In fact, if you've watched countless hundreds of football matches over 25 years, I'm surprised you haven't noticed that a similar parallel exists in football as it is played in all top flight competitions. Why do strikers track back outside the box? Why do centre-backs advance past their own area? Why has the defensive midfielder become such a powerful force in modern football? Because these actions create "triangles" in midfield and provide players with options, allowing them to control possession.

I make use of a "Rule of Two" style of play in a way that produces a result which is quite different to wwfan's, but the principle remains the same - create options for your players by manipulating their mentality such that they'll position themselves appropriately. It is not a highly mathematical process, indeed I do not even bother considering the numerical values of sliders, but you do need to have some understanding of how the match engine works and what the various instructions mean, in terms of the match engine, to truly get the most out of any tactical system in FM.

retired_jenna6787

Go on then...

ExerciseGuru

How do you know my tactic of the analysis is superficial? Of course it's important to have passing options - I was referring more to the strict slider-tactics in the most popular RoT formations.

I seem to have angered a patronising fanboy.

retired_danig6484

What mcf said.

I am not a fan of the RoT (nor mirroring, etc..) in planning my tactics and improving them, but I will say this:

The Theory of Two is a useful one in creating tactics or trying to improve them. As I see it, the 'RoT System' is there, along with much else in the TT+F thread, to help you think about your tactics, not to prescribe them (author's and fan's dictums notwithstanding).

As a side note, Its extremely useful in real football coaching (just kids, but the good ones, the workers, they get it immediately).

The problem is, we can't tell our players to play a triangular passing game. We can't scream at them to always provide two options to the ball holder and train them until it sticks. No, we get "Short Passing, Slow Tempo", and hope they can translate.

For me, this is why RoT is not actually useful in FM. Its always been a part of some footballing systems, but its not part of the user interface. To strive for it directly is like striving for any other non-command. For instance, one can tell your real life Ronaldo to "Run at Players with the ball" (because you should), but you can only tell your FM Ronaldo to "Run with ball" and hope he gets it. Building a system around getting him to run at players may be possible, but only indirectly.

While using two behaviors to create a third [set Ronaldo to run with ball, no other options, and high attack --> Run at players with the ball] is noble and intellectually attractive, things get complicated too quickly in the already ambiguous world of the FM user interface and game engine.

This is to say: RoT is perhaps too high a general goal for such an indirect management system. It is a nice side-effect of any good tactic though, and should be watched for...

retired_selhurst_matt

Did I not qualify my statement by saying that I do NOT use the RoT in the way that it is described in the tactical framework thread? I was merely saying that the system is not flawed in it's core philosophy and that failure in any given situation is likely due to any of a variety of other problems. It seems cute that you'd amend your initial post with "I've been generally vague on purpose" and then attack my response because I have no way of knowing the specifics of your tactical response when you observed that a slavish adherence to the RoT does not necessarily spell success for every team in every circumstance. Adding a clarification in a later post that changes the meaning of your first post and expecting that somehow, I could have read your mind over the internet and known what you meant when it was not explicitly revealed, well...I'm sure I don't need to explain why that is profoundly silly?

If my post makes me a patronising fanboy, then I suppose yours makes you a blathering iconoclast

Smac is 100% right that tactics must be formed within the bounds of the match engine and that most "complex" tactics require you to use two existing behaviours to create a third, but I disagree that it's too complex - it's certainly ambiguous, no-one could argue that - and personally, I find the challenge of fiddling until I see my players passing in triangles to be quite a joy.

retired_mgavlick

Or, to put it another way....

To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go
To right the unrightable wrong
To love pure and chaste from afar
To try when your arms are too weary
To reach the unreachable star

This is my quest
To follow that star
No matter how hopeless
No matter how far

To fight for the right
Without question or pause
To be willing to march into Hell
For a heavenly cause

And I know if I'll only be true
To this glorious quest
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I'm laid to my rest

And the world will be better for this
That one man, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star



The RoT Mentality Framework was never intended to be a 'one size fits all' solution to FM tactical management. I like it as a philosophy and had it working fantastically well in '06. I hope I can get it working to the same level of success in '07, but, like mcf, have had to restructure the original framework to fit better with the new engine. If successful I will re-post (and possibly re-brand) (a) new RoT framework/s. My disclaimer in the original post in TT&F '07 stated that none of the theories had been tested in the new engine and shouldn't be read as gospel. It does seem that new variants will be needed but I am refraining from posting too many ideas pre 7.0.1.

If you are using RoT in '07 I suggest experimenting with the settings until you get a tighter more possession friendly system. The signs are that a slightly revamped system with reduced mentality differences between front and back is going to be needed. As I said earlier, the jury is still out as to its effectiveness in '07 (although, as I managed to finish 2nd and get promotion via the play-offs in the Conf North with a team that had been promoted in the 05/6 season using pure RoT with no set-piece changes (attacking or defensive or assigned free-kick/corner takers, writing it off this early seems a little hasty).