"Disappointing" tackling and marking bug

[crouchaldinho]

But he does not tackle and instead goes chasing after the player across the pitch. What matters here is if he considers the player in possession his responsibility after failing to clear the danger on his side of the pitch. In a zonal marking system - and again it's not relevant if the full back is defending against the man with the ball or not - he should not leave his flank exposed unless the covering centre backs aren't there - because the aim of this strategy should be to avoid getting pulled around and leaving gaps.

So what you are saying is that the fullback should not support his centre-back but' date=' if he is beaten with a player in possession who is running into the box with the ball, that he should just stay on the flank in order not to leave any 'gaps'? It doesn't make any sense old chap. He is obviously going to support his centre-back in this instance.

Zonal marking doesn't mean that all players are glued to their zones. They will react to the circumstances and, ultimately, cover and support their team mates, as necessary.

And, once again, it [i']is [/i]totally relevant whether or not the player in question is in possession of the ball or not. If the fullback leaves his zone to mark a player in another zone then we have a problem (assuming that he is not doing so in order to cover for one of his team mates). If he leaves his position on the pitch to support a team mate or chase a player who is an immediate threat, then that makes sense to me and is just good defending.

Closing down is closely related to marking. The aim of marking is to deny the player the opportunity to get on the ball and failing that to be in a position to deal with the player after he's received the ball. If by trying to deal with the man in possession you get pulled away and make it impossible for yourself to mark another player entering your zone then you're the one whose responsible for the system failing - unless the cover isn't there.

So let me get this straight then.

Is there another player in the channel that the fullback needs to mark? I thought the winger had cut inside?

Is the wide position a danger considering that the wide player has cut inside?

What are the centre-backs doing? Am I to assume that they are marking men in their zone?

Maybe I am not understanding the problem correctly but it certainly doesn't sound like a marking issue to me.

Setting up a defensive strategy in reality isn't about reading a theory in a book and giving out a few basic instructions to your players. It's something that is worked on constantly in training and as a result every player must know his responsibilities and duties within a system. You don't train marking and closing down as separate routines, they go hand in hand.

Agree with you. No problems with this.

Playing zonal marking means less pressure on the ball, by default. This is, in general, represented in FM as well.

I don't think this is right. Pressing works well with both systems (source: Zauli & Lucchesi) and I cannot see how zonal would mean less pressure on the ball. :confused: Furthermore, the zonal marking strategy prioritises the following: 1) The ball, 2) his team mates, 3) his opponents, in that order, for each player. In man marking, the priority for the player is: 1) his opponents, 2) his team mates, 3) the ball. (Source: Lucchesi). Marking is an off-the-ball instruction.

The injured midfielder is lying there and is not involved in play so why should his presence be relevant in any way?

I'm looking for logical explanations as to why this has happened. This could easily be a case of a mix up between the DCR and the DR.

1) The injured MC goes down.

2) The opposition player receives the ball.

3) DCR moves across to anticipate the fact that the fullback is out of position and may now press in the place of the injured MC.

4) DCL and DL begin movement across, perfectly in keeping with the philosophy of zonal marking (ball first, team mates second). They swap zonal responsibilities.

5) DR does not pressure the MC and he therefore has a free pass through to the striker.

Who is at fault, the DR or the DC? One possible view is that this is an error of judgement by the DR. If he immediately pressures the opposition player in possession, he gives his defence time to move across laterally and get into shape.

Is this just a lapse in concentration and poor anticipation by the defence? It could be both. It could also be a motivation factor or a morale issue.

Would this have happened if the MC wasn't injured? My feeling is that if the MC is not injured, the fullback has time to regain his position, therefore the central defenders do not move across, and the central midfield player closes down his man.

Running away from the striker furthest up the pitch failing to use the opportunity to play him offside falls under latter category especially as there is no apparent reason for him to do so. Something's making him fail to mark his player (and it is his player as he is in his zone and is the most obvious threat) which suggests there's a flaw in the mechanics somewhere.

Is it a flaw in the player himself though? Why must this be a match engine mistake? Why not a player mistake?

It seems a case of total misunderstanding to me. The MC goes down injured. The central defenders start moving laterally across the pitch to cope with the immediate danger and this is done under the impression that the fullback is going to press his man. The fullback dallies around, can't make up his mind and ends up attempting to recover his position instead of challenging the player. That's one potential view of it. Stuff like that happens every week at football grounds up and down the country.

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. It really is impossible to say without seeing the PKM.

pkm would surely help the developers to fix the problem but the screenshot is enough evidence to judge that in this instance the things aren't working quite as well as they should.

Again, couldn't agree more. A PKM really is needed.

I'd like to see a PKM of the first screenshot in this thread too if the user Drake still has it and is willing to upload it?

Regards,

C.

[Äktsjon Männ]

So what you are saying is that the fullback should not support his centre-back but, if he is beaten with a player in possession who is running into the box with the ball, that he should just stay on the flank in order not to leave any 'gaps'? It doesn't make any sense old chap. He is obviously going to support his centre-back in this instance.

We're not talking about a wide player cutting into the box, we're talking about him running across the box to the other side of the pitch with the full back following him all the way. of course the full back will cover for centre back if needed but he'll also ensure that he won't leave his flank totally exposed by getting dragged out unnecessarily.

So let me get this straight then.

Is there another player in the channel that the fullback needs to mark? I thought the winger had cut inside?

Is the wide position a danger considering that the wide player has cut inside?

What are the centre-backs doing? Am I to assume that they are marking men in their zone?

Maybe I am not understanding the problem correctly but it certainly doesn't sound like a marking issue to me.

See above. If centre backs are busy marking players in their zones then there needs to be a switch at some point, certainly before the full back gets all the way across.

I don't think this is right. Pressing works well with both systems and I cannot see how zonal means less pressure on the ball. Furthermore, the zonal marking strategy prioritises the following: 1) The ball, 2) his team mates, 3) his opponents, in that order, for each player. In man marking, the priority for the player is: 1) his opponents, 2) his team mates, 3) the ball.

Zonal marking means less pressure on the ball because it's purpose is to hold the shape of the team. More pressure = players out of position = players unable to cover their zones and support others = confusion about responsibilities = team losing shape = strategy failing. Man marking allows for more pressure because each player knows exactly which player they're supposed to mark at any time. The priorities only go to support that.

I'm looking for logical explanations as to why this has happened. This could easily be a case of a mix up between the DCR and the DR.

1) The injured MC goes down.

2) The opposition player receives the ball.

3) DCR moves across to anticipate the fact that the fullback is out of position and may now press in the place of the injured MC.

4) DCL and DL begin movement across, perfectly in keeping with the philosophy of zonal marking (ball first, team mates second).

5) DR does not pressure the MC and he therefore has a free pass through to the striker.

Who is at fault, the DR or the DC?

Is this just a lapse in concentration and poor anticipation by the defence?

Would this have happened if the MC wasn't injured?

My feeling is that if the MC is not injured, the fullback has time to regain his position, therefore the central defenders do not move across, and the central midfield player closes down his man.

Whatever the reason is for this behavior is irrelevant because leaving the striker totally unmarked there is unacceptable, no matter what the DR does. Until the attacking player is past the DR and posing an obvious threat you do not leave your man in all this space especially if you're going to play him onside. This may not have happened if the midfielder had been involved in play instead of lying down but then what would have happened had he been caught upfield unable to track back in time? You'd still have to take him out of the equation and I'd assume you'd also get the same result.

[jascko]

I'd like to see a PKM of the first screenshot in this thread too if the user Drake still has it and is willing to upload it?

Regards,

C.

This is what I've tried to point out all the time, but it looks like he was more interested in winning the debate than to really solve the problem. It is impossible to conclude anything based on one sreenshot, and then claim that "I have drawn arrows, thus it should be obvious". How do we know that arrows represent what really happened before and after screenshot. Full PKM, with tactical instructions and the player's attributes, is necessary if it should be possible to form objective opinion about this issue. The problem is complex and should be treated there after, instead of simply referring that this is a bug. I've seen too many forum members make fatal tactical errors, and lack overall understanding of ME dynamics, which simply just claim that the game is bugd. This makes me very sceptical of accepting such claims without being critical.

[Antigol]

This problem has happened since the first CM/FM. Player never mark, they leave their rivals to get the ball freely, and doesn't matter whatever the team you are or who are you playing against, defenders and midfielders never mark. At least somebody noticed it!!!

And sometimes I can't understand why people here ask "what team are you???" , does it matter? any player in the world can do such a stupid thing like marking their rivals! When I watch a match in this game I only see each team going to almost the goal area withoug being marked.

[bardock]

I've seen this scenario (first picture) happen in my game a few times.

It is a transitional phase, but an unrealistic/unnecessary one. The CB does attempt to cover for the RB but all that does is leave an exploitable gap down the middle. IRL the CB would not move across until the player with the ball actually runs down the flank. Even then he'll position himself between the striker he's supposed to be marking and the winger and gradually close down while the other two (CB & LB) move across. Should be one fluent motion for a good team. Also if you look at the RB he's still on the right side of the player with the ball. Another reason why the CB shouldn't have come across.

It's happened many a time IRL, and you never see a CB running across when there is no immediate threat down the flank. Especially when there's a bigger threat down the middle.

[bardock]

The players positioning is **** poor in general.

It's probably the reason why every team is capable of passing the ball around the park like Barcelona. The players never look to cut out options, they sort of float around til they're triggered.

Can't hold it against SI to be honest. It'll be the equivalent of writing Shakespeare type stuff in whatever programming language they use.

[Drake]

I wrote a post for like an hour and then lost it all due to a copy buffer bug :'(

Oh, I'll gather some strength and will go through it once more... just, not now.

2 Crouchaldinho :

Before we start discussion on whether the ME is bugged or not, I'd like to have those answers, if you please :

What is a definition of a zone by Lucchesi or other theoretical sources used by you or ME creators (are the sources same, btw ?). The more in-depth details, the better. I haven't had a chance to educate myself with Lucchesi's books, and prefered reading Michels and van Gaal What does ME itself recognize as a zone, it's size, e.t.c ?

Meanwhile, I didn't save PKM from the match and didn't (and still do not) think it's necessary, as I am sure any match can do as a starting point for a discussion, because to say that defensive system is perfect and very realistic would be a big overstatement. I can find mistakes which are not related to instructions or attributes in any PKM, of that I am pretty much sure. However, I am not saying the game is bugged and unplayable, that is nonsense of course, I am enjoying it and it's surely the best ME to the date. But I do believe that some aspects were either taken wrong from the start or are wrongly calculated/not calculated at all.

What I see, is global and complex strategical instructions being often taken by the players as a main priority, to a possible extent of "nothing else matters". Screen 2 isn't exactly about marking, yes, yet marking is an issue as well. Any strategy, any concept cannot be adopted without taking circumstantial exceptions and decisions. Zonal marking priorities on anticipating the game are a global instruction but they must not ever be taken without correlation to the current situation. Footbal is a game of chances. This is some kind of superhuman thinking in relation to real football. For example, the second screenshot shows an end of a transition phase from attack to defence. The team has taken shape in accordance to each other and perfectly so in accordance to pitch geometry. However, in the real footbal it would be a horrible, if not impossible transition, because the opposition and their placement on the field, general team movement direction were not taken into consideration. It is easy to see that opposition is moving from another angle. In reality, both side MCs would already covered their nearest opponents, so that the forward will have no easy and dangerous passing options. Perfectly, DLine should already be higher (near Calabro with the ball), and forward trio dropped deeper, to ensure as much space compression as possible. This, in turn, is done to ensure that there are currently no areas (on the part of the field where the ball is) which are nobody's zone and no opposition players in "bold" positions have space to play in and are unmarked. This is why the defensive line is "high", strategy is "attacking" and it should work the way described above, however, it is working so perfect in one aspect, and so uncaring in other, that it leaves questions to realism of the execution.

In real life it would be exactly otherwise - circumstantial choices can often deter implementing more global instructions. The players can find themselves in a position when they have no time or possibility to play "by book", and I believe it's what happened on the screen 1, yet still the team tried to play without considering the situation.

1) DCr didn't have any time to try and cover for the fullback. And the whole defensive line has started shifting to the right, with DCl taking DCr's zonal mark target and DL taking DCl's in turn. Globally, it's a very good teamwork with covering and sharing duties, but it's absolutely useless in the current situation. I doubt that there is a player in real football like DCr, who would start implementing a "difficult" team move while he has the most advanced and dangerous opposition player facing him. It is a pressing, urgent concern, and time is of the essence. No one would make such a decision in a limited time, and it's obvious that circumstance dictates changing any global preset priorities here. The forward in question is the most possible attacking danger, so starting to shift in this situation is simply unrealistic, and, again, "superhuman". That "superhuman", is, however, rather stupid

2) There is no immediate danger from the right flank, and while DR is tracking back (the injury has clouded his judgement, yes, it's obvious, and while I believe IRL he would adapt much faster, I'd be foolish to demand such clever decisions from any AI) he is in full control of any danger that might come from the right. His zone is currently not near the DCr, it's higher up the pitch, and while he must track back (if MC wasn't injured, that is), it's a tactical action, not a reaction to inexistent immediate danger from the flank. Besides, take a closer look, DR is tracking back, AND DCr starts to cover him ? I think it's easy to see even on a screenshot, MC was tackled by the opponent, got injured, and during that time DR was tracking back as he should be. He's tracking back, and yet DCr tries to cover for him the same time ? They both want to go in the same place ? They cannot communicate with each other and waste about 2 seconds (a lot of time in that situation) on a misunderstood move ? Well, it can happen IRL, too, particularly with the players who aren't very good and play with each other for the first time IRL those two guys play for their nations and played together for like 4 or 5 years starting from the academy. Such understanding isn't transfered into the game of course, but the whole move looks very much dubious, at least to me...

The questions about zones and theory are more important, though.

[Mitja]

This is what I've tried to point out all the time, but it looks like he was more interested in winning the debate than to really solve the problem. It is impossible to conclude anything based on one sreenshot, and then claim that "I have drawn arrows, thus it should be obvious". How do we know that arrows represent what really happened before and after screenshot. Full PKM, with tactical instructions and the player's attributes, is necessary if it should be possible to form objective opinion about this issue. The problem is complex and should be treated there after, instead of simply referring that this is a bug. I've seen too many forum members make fatal tactical errors, and lack overall understanding of ME dynamics, which simply just claim that the game is bugd. This makes me very sceptical of accepting such claims without being critical.

why it is so hard to admit there's something wrong with marking? do you think the game's ME is perfect? strikers scoring 40 goals, long shots flying in like crazy, Bolton being able to pass the ball around the box like Barca...we don't need PKMs for every issue to see that something's not right. things like marking are clear in real life, theory doesn't metter when players need to do defending. 'I was on man marking, not zonal' is not an excuse in real life!!

for example look at how lone strikers are being marked in FM. in real life (no metter what marking system is used) at least one of the centre backs will be on striker, if not both. every amatuor knows that. what happens in FM is that none of the centre backs is marking lone striker, he's standing in between them two mos of the time. that's the reason why so many through balls are happening, there is no tactical book that would convice me to contrary.

it might be tacical issue, and players might behave better on different marking system, but it's a flaw when using wizard systems.

[mightymind]

The closing down and marking is under review by SI for the second patch.

So SI has admit this problem and is trying to solve it for our enjoyment.

Thanks.

why it is so hard to admit there's something wrong with marking? do you think the game's ME is perfect? strikers scoring 40 goals, long shots flying in like crazy, Bolton being able to pass the ball around the box like Barca...we don't need PKMs for every issue to see that something's not right. things like marking are clear in real life, theory doesn't metter when players need to do defending. 'I was on man marking, not zonal' is not an excuse in real life!!

for example look at how lone strikers are being marked in FM. in real life (no metter what marking system is used) at least one of the centre backs will be on striker, if not both. every amatuor knows that. what happens in FM is that none of the centre backs is marking lone striker, he's standing in between them two mos of the time. that's the reason why so many through balls are happening, there is no tactical book that would convice me to contrary.

it might be tacical issue, and players might behave better on different marking system, but it's a flaw when using wizard systems.

[moxphere]

That's not what I said and I certainly don't believe that. I much prefer zonal marking as that's how most teams play in real life.

SoI am sorry for the misunderstanding. Previous advices were on this sense.

What do you see going wrong with the zonal marking then?

The bottom line is that as Drake said, the players seem to be more "concerned" to keep the shape of the formation than to defend. IRL, usually, you never use a "pure" zonal marking system. You have a sort of an hybrid called here in Brazil as "mid-pressure": when a player comes into your space, it becomes your responsability so you have to press him until he goes to another "area". At that time, your colleague will be already arriving to press him as well and so on. There is never a "comfortable" zone for him. I say that this is a hybrid because in a sense, it is a sort of man marking but the responsabilities swap during the process.

Obviously it has a lot to do with the pressing instructions, not only with marking system. For me, the problem is that the players seem to be numb until the opponent comesclose, but his "neighbours" os defence seem to stay too far. When they are needed as the opponent already left the previous marker behind, it is too late. The players seem to be "Only" watching their own area. It is not a fluid movement envolving the whole team. (I don't know if my explanation it is clear enough, but I tried my best)

It's difficult to visualise exactly what is happening in this example, but what is clear is that it is not a marking issue because the opposition player has the ball. The fullback here makes the choice to go after the player but this is not a marking choice, it's a basic defensive choice. That's the point I was trying to make.

Yes, you're right, the problem is not on the full back - its the others. They should move to keep the floating of the whole defence. As they don't, the FB is sucked into marking his opponent and leaves a gap behind

[moxphere]

The players positioning is **** poor in general.

It's probably the reason why every team is capable of passing the ball around the park like Barcelona. The players never look to cut out options, they sort of float around til they're triggered.

Can't hold it against SI to be honest. It'll be the equivalent of writing Shakespeare type stuff in whatever programming language they use.

I couldn't agree more. The game is terrific. The main point here is improve it even more.

[moxphere]

why it is so hard to admit there's something wrong with marking? do you think the game's ME is perfect? strikers scoring 40 goals, long shots flying in like crazy, Bolton being able to pass the ball around the box like Barca...we don't need PKMs for every issue to see that something's not right. things like marking are clear in real life, theory doesn't metter when players need to do defending. 'I was on man marking, not zonal' is not an excuse in real life!!

for example look at how lone strikers are being marked in FM. in real life (no metter what marking system is used) at least one of the centre backs will be on striker, if not both. every amatuor knows that. what happens in FM is that none of the centre backs is marking lone striker, he's standing in between them two mos of the time. that's the reason why so many through balls are happening, there is no tactical book that would convice me to contrary.

it might be tacical issue, and players might behave better on different marking system, but it's a flaw when using wizard systems.

Yes, I agree. It is not a capital crime if the system is not perfect. Usually the threads regarding an non-existent problem die quickly. If this one is going on, there must be an issue to be addressed.

[Mitja]

thse are the biggest problems in FM's defensive behaviour imo (defenetly not an easy task for Paul):

- more congestion and covering in final third. in real life once the ball enters a final third or around the box defendrs will start to suround the ball and thus limiting passing and scoring chances of attacking player.

- teams defending more as a unit. there is too much 1/1 defending now, especially in the middle of the pitch. in FM defence is too streched in both directions, players stand too far apart each other, especially in final third.

- defenders should be more aware of goalscoring chances and should congest the middle. they're too much oriented to the zone under their responsibility. they need to offer more cover when gaps apear.

- closing down, evethough it's much improved compared to 930 it's still far from being what it should.

[hassebasse80]

thse are the biggest problems in FM's defensive behaviour imo (defenetly not an easy task for Paul):

- more congestion and covering in final third. in real life once the ball enters a final third or around the box defendrs will start to suround the ball and thus limiting passing and scoring chances of attacking player.

- teams defending more as a unit. there is too much 1/1 defending now, especially in the middle of the pitch. in FM defence is too streched in both directions, players stand too far apart each other, especially in final third.

- defenders should be more aware of goalscoring chances and should congest the middle. they're too much oriented to the zone under their responsibility. they need to offer more cover when gaps apear.

- closing down, evethough it's much improved compared to 930 it's still far from being what it should.

This pretty much sums it up for me, along with strikers goals to game ratio being a bit to high, but that is probably the effect of the mentioned problems

[Drake]

btw, wwfan admits that something isn't quite right with marking, particularly with its tightness in the parallel thread on defending. That can be what I see as wrong as well - sometimes I cannot understand if the player is marking his zonal target, or not, because he stays too far and can suddenly "lose" his target with not much provocation. That's why I asked about zone definition and it's size... I've had an impression that player zones are too small, but it's just my assumption on what's causing the problem.

So we can hope that the new patch will sort those things out. It's difficult to understand what exactly is wrong sometimes, as the game consists of many factors and one is affecting another... Nothing is broken ATM per se, but still, some mistakes are due to certain inaccuracies in ME, which can be corrected and that would be much appreciated

[Da_Funk]

Yesterday I made 6 (official) matches at the beginning of the 2nd season.

4-4-2 with all 4 defenders Zone+Tight+Offside, team geiled enough.

A good defence, not top, but good and reliable.

I conceided 3 goals overall (1 Besiktas, 2 Aston Villa)

6 Wins, I beated Chelsea 1-0 and Man Utd 2-0.

edit: Offside working well, with Man Utd VERY WELL, Rooney always in trap ;p

[Drake]

Yesterday I made 6 (official) matches at the beginning of the 2nd season.

4-4-2 with all 4 defenders Zone+Tight+Offside, team geiled enough.

A good defence, not top, but good and reliable.

I conceided 3 goals overall (1 Besiktas, 2 Aston Villa)

6 Wins, I beated Chelsea 1-0 and Man Utd 2-0.

edit: Offside working well, with Man Utd VERY WELL, Rooney always in trap ;p

excuse me, but so what ? I'm not conceding too much either, do not remember the actual figure (started a new game) but it's very normal, especially for a team which plays attacking football against mostly inferior opposition. It was something like 17 in 23 games, and 17 is because I lost 4-1 once due to two red cards. But it's not an indication that everything is OK, we discuss details here. Not every mistake of your defence costs you a goal, it's not always that crucial.

[Da_Funk]

From the opening post

After several attempts to start games with different teams in different leagues (more than once each), I have the impression that the "marking" problem some people already complained about (the "unstoppable through balls") is deeply related with the marking setup. the 5 games I started ith zonal marking were flawed. It doesn't matter if I had a much better team with much better players (ex: playing with PSG against a third division team), the rival playmakers/forwards played like Zidanes leaving colleagues unmarked ahead of the goalkeeper.

So he can play 5 games and say that something is not working, and I can't say that I test 6 games in the 2nd season and I found nothing broke?

[Drake]

From the opening post

So he can play 5 games and say that something is not working, and I can't say that I test 6 games in the 2nd season and I found nothing broke?

but he didn't say that his team conceded too much, did he ? We aren't rambling about unrealistic results and totally broken defence, no, of course not. But there are quite a few people who find certain player behaviour questionable and that sometimes causes defensive problems. People use different tactics, some more dependant on one mistake, some less... the problem, however, has been already acknowledged.

[Da_Funk]

I agree that everything can be improved, but saying that

The players positioning is **** poor in general.

I couldn't agree more. The game is terrific.

is maybe too much. When I read this It's like rambling about unrealistic results and totally broken defence" honestly.

And well just for further comment, the goal made by Besiktas:

- I scored

- Kick Off...long ball to the left winger, cross from deep.

- FW in front my GK and between my 2 CBs, goal.

I see it not as an "error of zonal marking in the area" but as an "hey it was your man!" "No it was yours"- goal ;p

[Drake]

I agree that everything can be improved, but saying that

is maybe too much. When I read this It's like rambling about unrealistic results and totally broken defence" honestly.

And well just for further comment, the goal made by Besiktas:

- I scored

- Kick Off...long ball to the left winger, cross from deep.

- FW in front my GK and between my 2 CBs, goal.

I see it not as an "error of zonal marking in the area" but as an "hey it was your man!" "No it was yours"- goal ;p

santana's "terrific" was a positive term, I believe, in that context.

about the goal - hehehe, I had pretty much the same just a few minutes ago ))) But it was my Aston Villa game and Young dribbling though half of the pitch from left and laying an outstanding in-between defenders pass for clumsy Heskey who than scored, with both CB's failing to mark him. Can be "hey it was your man !" in this case, yeah... especially considering the opposition is Vardar (Lichtenstein as far as I remember)

Update, oops, I checked back and it's 20th minute and the score is 4:0. I need to fall back a little, this is embarassing for the poor guys (((((

Edit : Macedonia, sorry.

[moxphere]

From the opening post

So he can play 5 games and say that something is not working, and I can't say that I test 6 games in the 2nd season and I found nothing broke?

Actually, if you think everything is perfect, please feel free to play and if willing to opine, be more polite. This is not an argument. Some people agree, some not.

[Lincoln Imp2]

C - I hear your argument about "marking" being an off-the-ball instruction which then ceases to apply when dealing with a player in poesession. It's an interesting point and though it makes sense as a theory I have no idea whether that is the way the ME is programmed. Is there anywhere where SI make this clear?

If it is then how does "tight-marking" work? Are you suggesting that a defender stays tight to a player when he doesn't have the ball and ignores that instruction when he does?

I don't see "marking" as a purely off the ball command. If all players in a team followed a dribbling player out of their "zone" you'd end up with schoolboy football with a crowd of 22 players huddled round the ball surely? What's the point in giving the team a shape if all they do is chase the player with the ball?

I just don't think that's a valid argument for how zonal marking SHOULD work and does work in real life.

I've literally watched my right full back run in front of a dribbling player right across the front of the 18 yard box and into the left back position.

Which brings me to the second point. I could just about accept this scenario if at any point the chasing full back attempted to make a tackle at least some point during the 40 yard run. He doesn't.

Finally you failed to address the issue of tight marking. I've seen on numerous occassions a centre back, on tight marking, back off a striker when he recieves the ball - allow him to turn - and either get a shot in or dribble past the defender.

I'm happy to accept a striker will, from time to time, turn a premiership defender because he has got TOO tight. But I wouildn't expect to see a defender back off a striker who has his back to goal on the edge of the area.

Something ain't right!

Still a great game though!

[Chandaman]

thse are the biggest problems in FM's defensive behaviour imo (defenetly not an easy task for Paul):

- more congestion and covering in final third. in real life once the ball enters a final third or around the box defendrs will start to suround the ball and thus limiting passing and scoring chances of attacking player.

- teams defending more as a unit. there is too much 1/1 defending now, especially in the middle of the pitch. in FM defence is too streched in both directions, players stand too far apart each other, especially in final third.

- defenders should be more aware of goalscoring chances and should congest the middle. they're too much oriented to the zone under their responsibility. they need to offer more cover when gaps apear.

- closing down, evethough it's much improved compared to 930 it's still far from being what it should.

To further exemplify this, just take a look:

(some poor defending on this one, but still miles better than what the ME often produces)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joIwugrYQk8

There's a million examples like these because there's a million games all over the world every month. Don't look for mistakes. Any team makes mistakes. But look for the same things Mitja mentioned: Closing down, player positioning and congestion.

Any team in the Argentine second division can move, defend and attack like this and top flight teams in Europe and elsewhere in FM can't?

--C.

[jascko]

why it is so hard to admit there's something wrong with marking? do you think the game's ME is perfect? strikers scoring 40 goals, long shots flying in like crazy, Bolton being able to pass the ball around the box like Barca...we don't need PKMs for every issue to see that something's not right. things like marking are clear in real life, theory doesn't metter when players need to do defending. 'I was on man marking, not zonal' is not an excuse in real life!!

for example look at how lone strikers are being marked in FM. in real life (no metter what marking system is used) at least one of the centre backs will be on striker, if not both. every amatuor knows that. what happens in FM is that none of the centre backs is marking lone striker, he's standing in between them two mos of the time. that's the reason why so many through balls are happening, there is no tactical book that would convice me to contrary.

it might be tacical issue, and players might behave better on different marking system, but it's a flaw when using wizard systems.

I have never, and I repeat never, said that the game is perfect. I have never ruled out that this may be a bug. In fact I have repeatedly emphasized that the fault lies in tight marking and closing down, and not in zonal marking. So I can not understend what's your point here.

The only thing I have pointed out in this thread is that we need evidence for claim about bugd takling and zonal marking wich can support verification. It is this at the end which was crucial to get this debate going. This thread would most likely die out if I did not demanded explanation and proof. Based on this you perceive me as one who denies that the game can contain errors. Numerous times I have criticized this game, and still I think that the game contains a number of problems. But that does not mean I will accept any claim that the game is bugd.

SI have said themselves that they are aware of problems in relation to the defense. But they emphasized that this has something to do with tight marking and closing down, not with zonal marking. Therefore I ask some critical questions in relation to the claim that the zonal marking is bugd. This forum has become so sensitive that any defend of this game is considered as irrational. Pity.

When it comes to "long shots flying in like crazy", this can be highly tactical fault. I do not have this problem. Most likely because I play with a DM in my formation when opponent have good long shot attributes. It is all about taking the right precautions in relations to the opponent.

When it comes "strikers scoring 40 goals", I have no problem with this eather. I rarely get goals against me because I activly use OI along with the relative Wizard frameworks. In addition, I m not playing with crazy formations and ultra-attacking like many others here on the forum do. With this I restrict the opponent scoring to many goals against me by playing on my strenghts and on the opponents weaknesses. Again I use the tools that SI has given us to disposal. The fact that a striker can scores 40 goals per seasong is not so impossible, Ronaldo did that in the PL for not so long ago.

When it comes to "Bolton being able to pass the ball around the box like Barca", I have not experienced this, at least not when they play against me. If I had seen something like that I would change tactical instructions immediately, because something is very wrong with my tactics if they are allowed to play this type of football against me.

[Mitja]

I have never, and I repeat never, said that the game is perfect. I have never ruled out that this may be a bug. In fact I have repeatedly emphasized that the fault lies in tight marking and closing down, and not in zonal marking. So I can not understend what's your point here.

my point is that basic defensive behaviour in ME is not good. I deliberately didn't mention specific marking systems. also you can't seperate closing down from zonal marking. what I want to say here is that it is one system (zonal-pressing), not two seperate systems.

The only thing I have pointed out in this thread is that we need evidence for claim about bugd takling and zonal marking wich can support verification. It is this at the end which was crucial to get this debate going. This thread would most likely die out if I did not demanded explanation and proof. Based on this you perceive me as one who denies that the game can contain errors. Numerous times I have criticized this game, and still I think that the game contains a number of problems. But that does not mean I will accept any claim that the game is bugd.

fair enough. I think we have enough evidence of poor defending if we watch our matches in full. even game stastics (strikers scoring far too many and too many 4-3 matches) confirm this issue. one thing that's putting me off playing the game are long distance goals, I watched all goals scored in the league so far yestrday and the number of spectacular long distance screamers is just awful. I can't beieve SI were willing to realease such ME. another thing I noticed yestrday is really poor diversity when it comes to scoring.

When it comes to "long shots flying in like crazy", this can be highly tactical fault. I do not have this problem. Most likely because I play with a DM in my formation when opponent have good long shot attributes. It is all about taking the right precautions in relations to the opponent.

it might be tactical, but AI is suffering form it too as I've posted above. defenders are letting attacking players shoot to easily becouse of poor positioning and awareness. they should be more agressive and move as a unit in such situations.

When it comes "strikers scoring 40 goals", I have no problem with this eather. I rarely get goals against me because I activly use OI along with the relative Wizard frameworks. In addition, I m not playing with crazy formations and ultra-attacking like many others here on the forum do. With this I restrict the opponent scoring to many goals against me by playing on my strenghts and on the opponents weaknesses. Again I use the tools that SI has given us to disposal. The fact that a striker can scores 40 goals per seasong is not so impossible, Ronaldo did that in the PL for not so long ago.

totally disagree with this. I'm not having any bigger problems as AI does. it's not about me it's about AI vas AI matches and realism in the game. Paul confimed he's not too happy when it comes to distribution of goals by position. I'm not saying that the best players shouldn't be able to score 30 goals, but just compare real life stats to FM. just for example when Luca Toni scored more than 30 golas in season it was the 1st time someone managed to score that many in more than 100 years in serie A. if any striker in any league scores 20 goals in season that's considered as exellant achievement in real life.

When it comes to "Bolton being able to pass the ball around the box like Barca", I have not experienced this, at least not when they play against me. If I had seen something like that I would change tactical instructions immediately, because something is very wrong with my tactics if they are allowed to play this type of football against me.

basiclly what you're saying is, it's your tacics. but I'm using nothing more than simple wizard tacics, changing between strategies etc, using OI's... just like AI does. I'm not having problems doing that trick to AI, just like he's able to do it to me. it's not my tactics becouse AI suffers from it too. it's related to defending issues we have raised.

[terrybecker]

No. This is another basic misunderstanding, I am afraid.

This has nothing to do with marking at all, as the fullback is dealing with a player in possession.

no youre wrong, this has everything to do with the zonal system. if the player in possession is dribbling away from his zone then the fullback should stop chasing him,

[Da_Funk]

(some poor defending on this one, but still miles better than what the ME often produces)

1:40....better than FM?

Look at the right FB.

[isuckatfm]

1:40....better than FM?

Look at the right FB.

Clealy not a normal situation as you see a left back scrambling across to block the path of the man in possession down the flank and the two centre halfs scrambling back towards the box to defend. The right back goes across to cover a dangerous attacker who is loose behind the centre half (who is scrambling back) as the opposition player in possession has a lot of room to pick a cross. Field of vision, defensive awareness, assessment of threats and decision making.

You think that was bad defending?

Which posed more threat? The attacker coming from deep out wide or the attacker who was in behind the centre half waiting for a whipped in cross? If he hadn't covered in behind the centre half and the man in possession had whipped in a cross for that advanced attacker to knock in, that would have been bad defending. No way in hell should his primary concern have been that wide man who is 10/12 yards behind the tip of the attack. Get closer to the man in behind, deny the more dangerous ball then separate if/when the CB recovers to a good defensive position.

[Da_Funk]

If he hadn't covered in behind the centre half and the man in possession had whipped in a cross for that advanced attacker to knock in, that would have been bad defending.

No, that would be offside, an easy offside as drinking coffee.

There's a nice replay at 1:50.

[isuckatfm]

No, that would be offside, an easy offside as drinking coffee.

There's a nice replay at 1:50.

You say play offside as if the full back knows how his centre half is going to move. The centre half is dropping back, the margins between the centre back and the attacker are small from the full back's view and as far as he can tell the centre half has no intention of playing offside. If he slows to let the attacker go so as to match up the line with the centre half, the margins are so tight that slowing his momentum might just give the attacker the advantage to gain that bit of space in behind.

Secondly he doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. As the full back he will check for where the winger is before going in to cover. Between the first moment he checks the winger's position and decides to tuck in, he won't know if that winger who was trailing has suddenly put the foot down and made a push towards the back line. So if he steps up to play the man he can see who is moving offside, what if the winger comes late and takes advantage of that for a deep cross into the back post?

Thirdly, as I said, the margins are tight so why put your fate in the hands of the linesman? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but in all of the real life matches I’ve studied I don’t recall a defender ever trying to play offside that close to the edge of his own box when retreating back to try and defend a potential cross.

Have a look at the screenshots. With the replay the blurriness makes it hard to tell the timing, but from using the initial angle this is roughly the moment the player in possession's body shape changed as he was about to hit it. If you were the full back with his view would you have let the man go given that your centre half is moving backwards?

If your answer is yes then you're either a risk taker who should never enter a casino as you'll probably leave with nothing but the clothes on your back, or you never played as a defender yourself. Either way I completely disagree with your view that playing offside is as easy a decision as you seem to think it is, but football opinions are like....everyone has one and no one thinks their own stinks

[kolobok]

Just to add a few thoughts.

First, zonal defense is more about teamwork than about quality of the defs. The whole defensive line as well as DM suppose to know each other moves, body language, etc. So an argument like: "buy the best defs and they should do" is at least weak.

Second. I have not played FM10 long enough to see if the problem of magical through balls can be eliminated over time as all defenders get gelled, but what I can conclude right now is that any attempt to just assign a defender certain role (e.g. stopper) and expect he will do exactly the way you imagine (or even the way in-game instruction suggests) is a huge mistake. Tactical wizard has some advantages over old slider system, but there are drawbacks. The most important one that there is a serious temptation to assign certain roles to players and conclude: "hey, I have covered everything", even though some players cannot serve certain roles (or have limited ability to do so), and sometimes even a combination of the roles may not make sense once you look at the settings side by side.

Third. Got lazy to watch all links. Watched the first one - circus. If you want 3 of your players to close down one opponent - great example. But playing this way in EPL, where tempo is much higher, is a suicide. So, compare apples to to apples. First graders tend to run for a ball all together - what a tightness they exhibit!!!

Bottom line - yep, there is some "strange" defensive behavior, but I would say that in FM10 it's relatively more related to players attributes (teamwork, concentration, positioning, decision, anticipation, bravery, composure to name a few) than in previous versions. Maybe there is some exaggeration, where lack of decisioning is represented in 3D as dancing around lose ball for a minute, but remember - we are not watching TV. It's just visualized translation of the code. I agree, it's disappointing to see that you concede last minute goal because your def seemed to decide to take a sun bath in the center circle, but in terms of code it just means he made a bad decision (lost concentration, took bad position, etc.) because of his stats, because he has not played enough time with his teammates, or just because he made mistake. If this type of representation is a problem to you - yep, the game has the problem, and always had. If you are ready to translate this errors into tactic-player's attribute issues, then you don't need to worry about it too much.