Was losing alot til I worked this out.

[Dgirth]

Hi

I know most of you know this already but i wanted to post this for those like me are frustrated by loosing all the time.

I just replyed with the same topic in Mr Hough tactic topic.

Been playing for 3 seasons. really struggled in my 1st season and half of the 2nd then i got promoted twice and i just started in the championship and won the 1st 5 games. i started as Plymouth in league 2.

I have worked out why i struggled so hard for a long time. it was down to the players and current ability star ratings.

Young players.

Seems young players no matter how good they are are prone to more mistakes then previous versions of the game. half of my team was under 21 with great states and PA ratings. but i was loosing or drawing allot, I replaced my youngsters with older journeyman players. I started to win, I still used my youngsters but i drip fed them into the team over the course of the seasons to they had matured and reach at least 3 stars in current ability.

Star ratings.

if you click of your team depth rating you can see what players have the best rating for each Position by clicking on the icon pitch Position. you should have at least a minimum of 3 stars for each Position for you current league, You need decent scout or Assman with high CA. The hardest positions to fill are wing backs in the league 1 and below its very very hard to find a wingback who has 3 star rating in the wingback roll, spent many many hours finding them for my team in league 2. use your scouts to search for them.

So 3 stars in each position work good with Mr Hough tactic. I signed players with 3,1/2 to 4 stars in each Position. once my team was together i scored 90 goals and conceded 30 in my promotion season.

I had players with really good states but to low current ability rating for his position, When i replaced them with played with lower attributes but better CA ratings my team played better and won more. Im wondering if this version of the game relies alot more on CA scout ratings then before.

[ViG1980]

Totally agree with this.

I was on a great run and my youngsters were having great games coming off the bench - to the point that they were better than the first teamers. So I put them in the starting lineup and it started all going wrong. I put the some of the old-timers back in the lineup and our form has returned.

Actually really like this though. It was too easy to create a starting 11 of players all under 22-23 and dominate which I highly doubt will ever happen IRL. At least it is unlikely. I also used to sell most players at 29 to get the most value but now their value is in keeping them.

[furiousuk]

'You'll never win anything with kids!'

(For anyone that doesn't know their history, that statement is not true)

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the youngsters thing but your problem has not been youngsters.

Either the older players matched the tactic better, or were better players. From your post, your youngsters rose to 3 stars so you previously had a team of 2 to 2.5 star players and then you bought older players with 3.5 to 4 star quality. You clearly had a far better team. All other things being equal, a 4 star team will beat a 2 star team (nearly) every time.

[spankie]

I think a reason for inconsistency results with kids is that most youngsters in the game have a low Consistency attribute as can be seen from their report screen.

In my save I have tried, where possible, to not sign youngsters players that have Consistency shown as a weakness. I think only 3 players in my first team squad are inconsistent and two of them are loanees and I am doing OK.

I also think that the star rating isn't always the only method to judge a players as I have got players rated 1 or 2 starts CA and they are performing well. My left winger has only recently got a star for CA (he's 4-5 stars PA) and apart from a lack of pace he has good sttributes for a winger in the BSN and has the potential to be a good corner taker once I work out some good settings for that.

[ViG1980]

'You'll never win anything with kids!'

(For anyone that doesn't know their history, that statement is not true)

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the youngsters thing but your problem has not been youngsters.

Either the older players matched the tactic better, or were better players. From your post, your youngsters rose to 3 stars so you previously had a team of 2 to 2.5 star players and then you bought older players with 3.5 to 4 star quality. You clearly had a far better team. All other things being equal, a 4 star team will beat a 2 star team (nearly) every time.

The youngsters were better rated than the older players in most cases, in some cases they were rated as having better potential. Overall I thought the youngsters were a better team on paper - either way it was close. The difference in actual results, however, was significantly worse. Also, if I asked my assistant to pick the team, he was picking the youngsters.

Like spankie said, I think it's a consistency thing and maybe big game attribute (does this change as they get older?).

Overall, there is one thing that bothers me. FM13 (and 12 did this) is too volatile when it comes to tiny things. For example, I can change a CM from being on defensive to support role and suddenly the results of my team change completely. It often feels very random and I am using trial and error to tweak my tactics rather than logic. I don't think this is a good thing. Just my opinion though...

[furiousuk]

The youngsters were better rated than the older players in most cases, in some cases they were rated as having better potential. Overall I thought the youngsters were a better team on paper - either way it was close. The difference in actual results, however, was significantly worse. Also, if I asked my assistant to pick the team, he was picking the youngsters.

Like spankie said, I think it's a consistency thing and maybe big game attribute (does this change as they get older?).

Don't get me wrong, I disagree completely that you can't win anything with kids but it is my opinion that it is significantly harder with a team of kids and I too value experience. I think FM is brilliant in this respect. A young CB, who may be a little rash, will tend to play better when paired with a gnarly old wise head rather than next to another talented youngster - as if the experience of the older guy is rubbing off on him, as you would expect. A very complex mechanism for a computer game though and it's an incredible thing to be in FM (unless I'm imagining it of course, but I've noticed it many many times).

I've also noticed that teams seem to gain from experiences, it may just be that their hidden attributes change, I'm not sure, but my team were jittery and looked full of nerves during their first title challenge but seemed much more solid in subsequent years, as if they had learnt from the experience. Again, as you would expect. Now it may just be that their attributes develop (you'd certainly expect this over the course of a few years) but it's still another complex example of how deep FM can be.

Overall, there is one thing that bothers me. FM13 (and 12 did this) is too volatile when it comes to tiny things. For example, I can change a CM from being on defensive to support role and suddenly the results of my team change completely. It often feels very random and I am using trial and error to tweak my tactics rather than logic. I don't think this is a good thing. Just my opinion though...

Again, small changes can have large consequences (butterfly effect). Changing your CM to play slightly higher up the pitch might mean that he is slightly closer to his opponent and does a better job at closing him down, or slightly cramps up your AMC which restricts his game which means your FC gets less chances, or that he plays slightly higher which leaves more room for the opposing DLF to drop into which means the opposing STR gets more chances which leads to more confidence which leads to... etc etc.

Small changes *can* have big effects, but sometimes, they don't. There are a lot of variables at play and the emergent state of the 'machine' is incredibly complex, so much so that trying to engineer small changes is impossible, you have to look at the bigger picture, which is what you would do in real life. Changing a CM from def to supp is just the same as yelling to him on the touch line and doing that waving arm thing that managers seem to be fond of - sometimes the player gets it, your changes work and you're the best manager, other times and things don't pan out as you plan and you're suddenly staring down the 'you're fired' barrel.

You need to look more at the trends that you see emerging. If that change you made in the last game to win it suddenly doesn't work in this game then look at why it worked and how your current situation probably differs. Sometimes you make a change, score a goal and think 'that change was correct' when, actually, the goal you scored was just an individual piece of brilliance from your player - in this case its possible your change was actually incorrect. This is all pretty complex stuff and that FM incorporates it is incredible.

Sometimes things do feel volatile but I'm sure real-life managers feel like that sometimes. I know I do when I'm coaching at times, you just have to roll with it.

[ViG1980]

Yeh - agree that FM does a brilliant job with the experience thing - it definitely has a feel that who the player is has a great effect. As opposed to say Fifa Manager which is just about the stats you see.

Regarding the 2nd point, I agree that some small changes can have a great effect but I think that there is not enough feedback within the game to make you understand it. For example, if putting a CM to support from defend, I would never get a message from the assistant manager telling me that we are clogging up the centre of midfield with too many players. I would see it if I watched the entire match but I think that expecting people to do this is unrealistic. I don't want to play FMC, I want the meaty game but it should remain a game...not work.

One thing I have noticed with FM13 compared to FM12 is that tactics are more logical when it comes to positions (despite what some people are saying in the feedback thread - I am talking positions only here). For example, I played last night against a team playing a 4-3-3 although it was essentially a 4-5-1 when they were defending. I play a 4-4-2 and was clearly getting overrun in the middle - I had the better players, they were more physical. I brought my DLF back and made him a advanced playmaker and it worked a treat.

[furiousuk]

The point about feedback is a great one and some criticisms pointed at the ME are due to this - some odd behaviour arises from not being able to see on the pitch what is happening. I know that Ov and Paul said this when they first made CM - that they wouldn't stop until you popped on your virtual reality get up and are actually pitch side watching your boys! But yes, watching games in full isn't applicable for many players and so it is hard to make decisions.

The AssMan is a little limited and I'm still reasonably sure he makes many decisions based purely on stats, which can be misleading, particularly early on in a game.

Sounds like you made a good decision to even things up in midfield. I've done similar on occasion and its worked too.

[iknowniknuk]

Great points by everyone here. I have experienced the same, especially when a senior player is injured, i find my teams performance drops significantly, more than other FM's.

Its about finding that perfect balance between grooming your 5 star youngsters whilst not performing on the pitch.

Tinkering is the name of the game

[PeeKay]

When to promote youth players is a judgement call that can be fatal when incorrect. Yet, the difference between buying a 27 year old complete player for £20m or an obscure 20 year old for £1m can be a massive impact on the club (and your future). Player consistancy and contribution in a match is all in the mental stats that most youth players lack.

I watch all my matches in full now. I see it an important part of the game and I can really impact the result with "tinkering" during a match. Before, when I viewed just the highlights, I would miss important feedback and by the time the Ass Manager suggests something then I have lost valuable minutes during a match to correct it. I would recommend to view matches in full, especially when something is wrong with tactics.