retired_meaganeldridge

isn't that a style (fast, attacking...) of most sucsesfull teams IRE, arsenal, man u, real....?!

lol </BLOCKQUOTE>

yes but i am just saying what happens in the game. i find a slower tempo leads, highish time wasting leads to beter use of the ball and more chances taken.

i have thrashed chelsea 6:0 at stamford bridge, using my approach.

retired_meaganeldridge

agreed captain is very important. often when i am doing suprisingly badly in a match i realise that neither the captain or vice captain are on in the squad, and the team is being lead by some hopeless fool with terrible leadership.

retired_dellydoolittle

yeah I read, people saying slow tempo not too attacking mentality works better then fast/direct. but that's the problem. it's just like on 8.0 when clsoing down didn't work, isn't it. especialy if you take into account that whole PL plays fast and att football...

can I ask what does slower tempo meen to you. 2,4, 6 notches?

retired_meaganeldridge

i will have to check my tactics and get back to you. it has ben a while since i played, due to all the bugs.

firefighterhilf

I disagree here. I don't tweak and have had reasonable success. If I'd perfected the tweaking then I'd probably have been more successful. We should not have a situation where I should be unable to play the way I want to, i.e anyone who does not tweak their tactic from game to game cannot have any form of success. There have always been teams who play by imposing their style on other teams. Man Utd is a good example at the moment, Liverpool in the early 80's or any Brazil national team are also good examples of this. These teams imo play a certain way because they have the players with the ability to do so. They will very rarely start a game any differently than they always do and any changes to they way they play during the game will be mainly down to changes made by the opposition; if the opposition play more defensive then these teams will inevitable find themselves attacking more and vice versa.

I see no problem in people being able to attempt to emulate this approach. Constant tactical changes are used by some real life teams, and some FM managers and some real life teams play pro-active rather than reactive and try to force their style of play on the game, and so do some FM managers.

I think there's room for both in the game and imo neither come easily and both take some time to perfect.

retired_dellydoolittle

as allways you find a perfect explaination for everything

I wrote that teams don't change their entire style of playing. that's not tweaking, that's crazyness.

one more example-closing down.

there are managers that love to press all the time, others want their team to sitt deep before attack, that's all true. but in the match, when you go goal behind, you'll have to do something at some point. some managers will react imediatlly, others a little bit lately. but what will they do? once opponents start time wasting and passing back to defenders, holding on the ball. I don't think any manager will react by starting closing them down early on their half. as that is the only thing team can do...well they can watch how other team plays pig in the middle with their only striker and that's the kind of twaking I'm talking about.

and I still stand to that point.

retired_dellydoolittle

aaah, not a good post but I hope you get my point. :eek:

dejasade

i've never really changed my tactics either.

the only thing i've done is if i'm getting battered then i'll drop a CM into the DM role or if i feel i'll get more joy down the wings i'll perhaps move from a 442 to a 433 with two wide attackers and one striker.

the smaller tactical changes of passing etc dont get changed and i'm doing well

retired_jessicanicholls

Think as well Martin O'Neill was on about how many tweaks he had made when Villa played...someone or other. Might even have been Bolton, actually. It was a game they eventually won, at any rate.
But 'changing the way we play' doesn't necessarily mean going from 4-4-2 to another formation, then another, and another. From what I have seen IRL, most sides have the 'main' formation and one or two 'fall-back' formations, which are practised on the training ground so players know what they are about.
The changes Harry and Martin were on about would have been largely unnoticed by anyone watching - which is where FM falls down because it assumes a level of tactical knowledge that most players either won't have, or can't be bothered with using.

IMO, FM doesn't rely on any one thing, but is an amalgam of several factors. Obvious, yes. But also apparently ignored. Is it tactics that are key, or team talks? Is it discipline, or stats and PPMs?
Fact is, it is all of them. Stats don't work as well as they should, as I've said elsewhere today. But everything more or less comes together.
I've seen people here say their side still doesn't close down like it should, as though it is a blanket meaning their guys will always get touch-tight. This ignores stats like marking, work rate, etc, player personality and PPMs, other instructions such as creative freedom, squad discipline (which will be about more than just fines for dismissals and the like, such as listening to the boss), and also confidence - a player with low morale or in bad form will be more hesitant to press, for fear of getting turned inside out or making a mistake that leads to a goal. Of course his uncertainty may well lead to the goal, but let's face it, we've all seen these things happen IRL far more frequently than we care to admit.

So, yeah, the game has its flaws, a lot of them well-known, but when people use the catch-all 'it's your tactics', they are partly right and partly wrong: it could be a tactical instruction, but you have to look at all the other aspects.

retired_nedim

Thats the problem I have. When I'm playing on a park... tactics are so easy to convey. The problem I find is that, I have loads of tactics for real life, but I then have to sit down and basically translate them into FM. Which is a bit like translated Chinese into English. It doesnt really work probably. You lose meaning.

Point raised by George. Yeaer on Year the AI has become tactically more and more astute, and yet we have very few additional tactic making options.

I find it very difficult to manage to get my team on screen to play the way i want. The options just arent there, or dont work effectively. The swaping of player positions is probably my main annoyance.... if you look at the way Uniteds front four of Ronaldo, Giggs, Tevez and Rooney, when they all play the way they just all pop up in any of the 4 positions they play in. You just cant replicate that with the playing switch option. The only way is to go only tactics and actually drag the players there.

Which doesnt really have the same effect.

Another example is this. I often when playing non-top flight find myself with a really, really, really good AMCs. Now, what I always want to do then is have my strikers playing basically right on the centre backs, pulling them out a bit wide to create some space for my AMC.

But the problem is... I've still not worked out how I do that.

This is what I think is the biggest problem with the game. All the bugs people are complaining about.... alot of them are really minor things that would go totally unnoticed... except that because the AI is much better.... and the tactics menu is so hard to understand, that the majority of people are just finding it impossible to win consistantly.

And whilst hardcore people will say its not all about winning etc, the majority of people that play a game, and this is a game, simulation tag or not, want to win. You'd get annoyed if you couldn't complete an RPG. Or if you couldnt finish the last level on a shooter.

Same thing applies here. Losing a game here and there is expected, but its when you lose, and lose, and lose, and nothing you seem to do it working. Thats when you get annoyed. Especially when your changing your play to a different style.. only to find out the team actually translates that style as something totally different to the way you expected it to be.