Real World Tactical Approaches

[cruyff14]

This encapsulates the problems with FMs tactical wizardry 100%.

I think you need to be able to define the player roles to the player himself not to the tactic so when you make a substitution it alters the tactic automaticily. I think that tactics themselves are very simple just pass it, use the flanks,man mark ect.. it's the player roles that define your tactic and style of play. I.e there is no point having Berbatov play a Owen role as they are diffrent players instead they have there own set instructions so these should be saved to the player instead so as i don't have to dick around changing half my players roles everytime i alter my tactic!!

[coldlemon897]

I voted "always play exactly the same tactic, no matter the opposition or scoreline"..Look at Benitez.. He's losing, but what does he do to his tactics?? Nothing..He just sucks it all up and accepts that he's losing....

[CaptainPlanet]

I voted "always play exactly the same tactic, no matter the opposition or scoreline"..Look at Benitez.. He's losing, but what does he do to his tactics?? Nothing..He just sucks it all up and accepts that he's losing....

Someone else confusing tactics with formation.

[coldlemon897]

Someone else confusing tactics with formation.

Oh yeah ... Damn, I gotta concentrate more and stop typing too fast..

[jayahr]

Not having read through the thread I assume to know where this is going.

I expect to see the last option remain the top choice and rightfully so. Can't see how people who get to watch some rl football could say anything else than that.

However, I'm not sure that in the end the result of the poll will help us any further as it remains paramount that the users of FM have fun playing it rather than FM being as realistic as possible. In this issue, having fun and realism might not go hand in hand as much as they might in other areas of the game.

[The Platypus]

Without doubt, managers these days are flexible and adaptive to opponents, the scoreline, and how their team is playing. Two examples spring to mind: Jose Mourinho making tactical substitutes in the first half of games, and -- my team -- Everton playing an uncharacteristic 4-4-2 against Chelsea the other week and drawing 3-3 with them. I certainly was not expecting Moyes to deviate from his archetypal 4-4-1-1; I was genuinely pessimistic that we were going to be penned in as a result of Ancelotti's power football. As it happens, and to my pleasure, the 4-4-2 utilising "Louis" and the "Yak" as battering rams, sent shivers up Chelsea's spine and we unsettled them to the point of gifting us a few goals. It was a tactical masterstroke from Moyes.

One thing you never took into consideration was playing staff. Man Utd just played three at the back due to injuries and there are countless examples of teams changing formations and tactics based on injuries. Now, are you going to divulge the point of your thread?

[Zebedee77]

Someone else confusing tactics with formation.

Not even true about the specific formation either. Liverpool have played 3-5-2 under Benitez and also 4-4-2, as well as the 'typical' 4-2-3-1/4-3-3. Liverpool train to use all three systems as well as trying to have options with different players, who offer differing attributes and skills, for use within those systems. It's interesting how much focus Benitez places on the 'roles' of players within those systems (and their ability to adapt and perform multiple roles as required) as being the critical feature as opposed to just the systems themselves - compare the difference in style of play it makes between deploying Insua or Aurelio at leftback for a fairly easy example to spot when Liverpool play.

[Sokem]

I think Jose is one of the best examples of a manager who doesnt change alot, he has his system, the 4-3-3 in possession changing to the 4-5-1 when his team does not have the ball, when his team dont have the ball his players press the opposition and they press them hard, busting their guts to get the ball back and once they have the ball they dont play the ball forward at 100mphs they play at a slow tempo to reserve their energy, knowing that they will wear out the opposition more once their possesional play is in flow and as the game goes on they will overpower their opponent.

Jose rarely changes the way his team plays, he believes his system works and a majority of the time it strangles the opposition, players come in and play their roles as defined by the system generally including a strong lone striker, 2 quick, skilful players on the wings, a holding midfielder to play through and 2 box-to-box midfielders in front of him, thats his foundation, thats his tactic and it doesnt change

It is also interesting to note that when trying to adopt players forced upon him at chelsea into the squad, shevchenko is a great example, it didnt work, a change of formation also hindered the effectiveness of his ideology and tactical setup because 4-4-2 didnt defend so well when one of the 5 "midfield" players was actually a striker and players were not able to attack as effectively as before as wingers had to come from deeper allowing opposition to get back and defend quicker

[BAD-RELIGION]

One thing it to change tactic, other ir to change players. In the same tactic you could have a more defensive player cuz the opponent is better, but the way the team play and the "tactic" is the same. I think the big majority of managers always use the same "tactic" for 90% of the games, is not ordinary to see a manager in some games play a 442 and others a 41212 and others a 433 and others a 451... for players, understanding and playing a tactic is already dificult, imagine have to "understand" 5 different tactics LOL

I think it depends on managers, there some that always play the same way (Jorge Jesus - Benfica) and others that change it (José Mourinho - Inter)

[Indi75]

Am I the only one that is under the impression that the T&TT is a miserable place to be these days? The lack of any constructive debate/thread with (minimal) depth is quite downheartening, it's as if people don't have the energy as there are so few out there and seems as if they pass through without much notice. Is this all coincidental, or...?

It's a lot like the people who pretend to prefer Beef for christmas dinner. It's not preference, it's one of the accepted excuses for being too lazy/ill-skilled to cope with the effort of stuffing and cooking a Turkey.

The forums are overwhelmed with idiots who, to quote Paul Collyer the other week, simply want a Win button on the match screen.

I'm actually astounded that 18.63% of people voted for managers always using the same tactic, no matter the opposition or scoreline. They must watch different games to me!

In fairness, I'll wager a large number of those who did vote A actually did so not because they believe it to be true, but because they want FM dumbed down to that degree.

This factor alone anulls half the threads in the forum. Person A rants about X annoying them, often with a tirade and very little evidence beyond anecdotal teenage angst. Person B (C,D,E, etc; etc) has only encountered X once, but will nonetheless wax wroth in the thread as if X is actually prevalent simply because they want it removed or fixed having affected them only once.

[Sad Git]

Real life managers scout the opposition in great detail and presumably do so with a view to adapting their tactics accordingly, otherwise why do it? I remember Harry Redknapp once being asked about an opposing team and reeling off a list of all their players and each one's strengths and weaknesses. And they were only a very minor European team. I would imagine most FM players don't usually analyze to this level of detail though, and so don't adapt to their opposition as much as in real life. Of course, real-life managers work 15hr days and we can't spend as much time as that on the game (or at least most of us don't, anyway.)

[Jack Rudd]

I prefer pilau for Christmas dinner. Mind you, that's because I don't eat turkey.

[Sokem]

The danger with going too in-depth with the tactical side of the game is you alienate the audience, remember it is a game, if you can only win a game by knowing each teams players inside and out, their strengths and weaknesses then the target consumer for FM will give up on the game and wont buy another one - its a fine balance to get right and something SI have struggled with over time hence the introduction of a wizard and opposition scouting before games, they try to give you as much information as possible to win a game without you having to spend hours pouring over the minute details.

Back to tactic discussion, all of the good teams enforce their game on you - the SKY 4, tottenham with their possession game, villa with their counter attack and bolton's long ball, set play game and generally say "try and beat us if you can", imo football is about your philosophy in the game, of course game by game things change (you wouldnt defend high against a fast attack without pacy defenders for example) but the overall idea about playing the game doesnt change, each manager has their own idea and build their tactics to push their philosophy forward and thats what FM needs to reflect - if you decide to play a short passing game then you can't play a spaced out formation or have players who cant pass, you need a narrow formation and players who can pass well - in real life teams generally have a playmaker when they do this, a carrick, huddlestone, gerrard, beckham type, and in reverse you can play a direct game, play wide and hit long balls but you wouldnt hit the long balls to a rooney or defoe because they would never win the ball you would hit them to the kevin davies' and carew types

When a team finds its balance then imo they rarely change up what they do, they setup knowing what works for that team and then only compensate when they feel a threat or if their is an obvious weakness with the opposing team, arsenal and barca are a great example of this as from the youth team through to the first team they play the same way and the players slot in to their positions

[wazzaflow10]

As a former player and i think those of you who have played will agree, the teams overall shape hardly ever changes, be it a 4-4-2 or a 3-5-2 etc its whether or not the team is attacking, defending, or countering that really changes. For the few (or many) of us who've had managers and coaches who believe in constantly changing the shape and formation see that it comes with disastrous results because no one within the side is ever settled. Like what wwfan said match day strategies and tactics are different and its up to the manager to decide whether he wants to build his squad around a tactic or around his players. I think you'll find the most successful managers are the ones who can adapt and implement their strategies while getting the best out of his players.

Motivational managers like Keegan have a short life with teams because you can only say the same thing to the same guys so many times. I'm not knocking Keegan because I think he's just as capable as a tactician but he's one who can walk into a squad and get it to perform in a short term time span.

On the other side managers like Fergie may take some time getting the squad to gel or integrate his tactics, (think fergie during the 80's and his early 2000's struggle) if his side is unable to perform the tactics he wants they generally struggle. Of course we know SAF is a very good motivator too but he emphasizes tactics, (don't believe me he changed his whole tactic around once a certain number 7 left) and if you look right now despite them being 2 points behind chelsea they've struggled mightily because some players (injuries as well) cannot play within his system at the moment.

That being said I think it doesn't matter what tactics you have in place if your players aren't good enough you will fail. Until the day when a lower league squad can beat a top 4 team on a consistent basis players 9 times out of ten will win you games.

[Edle]

i voted for changes tactics for every opponent as i thought this was closest to what i actually thought. i think its fair to say that for every game a slightly different game plan will be organised with different weaknesses expected to be exploited. this shows that at the very least managers change depending on the opponent and any weakness they exhibit. as for scoreline however i dont think this is as clearcut. true, if a team is a goal down and they are expecting to win they may change to slighlty more attacking systems, but i dont thinks it is acceptable to say this happens all the time, as there are certainly managers who dont change the style no matter what the scoreline is.

[Marz]

Real life managers scout the opposition in great detail and presumably do so with a view to adapting their tactics accordingly, otherwise why do it? I remember Harry Redknapp once being asked about an opposing team and reeling off a list of all their players and each one's strengths and weaknesses. And they were only a very minor European team. I would imagine most FM players don't usually analyze to this level of detail though, and so don't adapt to their opposition as much as in real life. Of course, real-life managers work 15hr days and we can't spend as much time as that on the game (or at least most of us don't, anyway.)

This post got buried a while ago, the suggestions might cut down on the 15hr day (please bear in mind this is pre FM10 but I think the ideas still apply now).

"improved scout feedback. At the moment the (scout) information we get is comical, less than half of an A4 page for ability, potential and more importantly tactical information. How are people meant to improve their tactical knowledge when they get very little information through the scout report (which should be a key phase from which to plan for the next match, in terms of personal and tactics)!

Around 2005 there was a leaked scout report from Chelsea (vs. Newcastle), which then got mentioned on the forums. The community was so fascinated with what goes on in real football that they also demanded an improvement within the game. On TV screens its can be seen that managers, assistant managers/coaches sometime go through part of a scout dossier (tactical threats and weakness with regards to who is on the pitch) with the players who are coming on as subs.

The game should scout/process the opponents’ possible line-ups (last 5-6 matches); same for the users’ team as it would need that info to analyse. As the users info, is partly internal, maybe an option could be given to drop players in and out of your current tactic screen, even altering the formation and instructions to see what the scout thinks (tactical feedback).

Potential threads and weakness could be highlighted on something similar to the tactic screen (several tactic screens for the various T&W). But with added icons, which highlight threads and weakness (ability, potential and tactical) for both the opposition and users team.

By placing the mouse cursor over the icon, text could further explain the potential threat or weakness (and which sliders are involved; perhaps give pros & cons as suggested by other people). This is one area where tactical learning could be helped, and the sliders could be further explained."