The other type of management: being adaptive

[ZdlR]

From the excellent (if occasionally eccentrically translated) Coaching Soccer: Match Strategy and Tactics:

In the attempt to clarify what we are getting at we must first of all distinguish between two general categories of coaches present on the scene today in relation to the extent to which they become the protagonist or headliner of the team.

On one side there are coaches who do not have any well-defined tactical preferences, and who, therefore, adapt their team's playing style to their own players' characteristics, to the opponents they happen to be facing on the day and to whether they are playing at home or away. If the coach is a capable one, he will make the best of his players and the team will have a highly pragmatic approach. This type of coach does not usually give the team any particular philosophy of play in terms of their general attitude. Depending on the circumstances, the team will play in attack or in defense, adapting itself to the team it is playing against. The team put on the field by coaches of this type will usually vary its tactical set-up, its own playing system and the specific movements it makes in both phases.

...

The second category of coach is given a good deal of personal credit for the success of his team - and becomes the front man. In the first place, these coaches convey a distinct mentality to their teams in terms of general attitude (their sides very often have a positive attacking temperament); but it is above all their tactical organization which is seen to be coordinated in every detail.

Prestigiacomo, Luca (2011-08-10). Coaching Soccer: Match Strategy and Tactics (p. 4).

In all honesty, I could have pasted the entire section titled Leading the Team: Two Models in Contrast, but I think it's probably best people buy the book (there's a Kindle version that isn't so expensive).

So, what can we infer from this to apply to FM?

Firstly, it appears to me that many people on this forum go down the second route: they want to be Bielsa, Guardiola, Wenger, Michels, etc. These guys play a system and are considered 'purists' to this system. They rarely, if ever, yield to pragmatism. Whatever tactic they may use, if you were to peer into their FM set-up, they would probably have their chosen tactic trained to 'Fluid' in all areas. Until such time, perhaps they will suffer from some negative results - unexpected losses or draws. But, once the tactic 'clicks' (and providing it is of sufficient quality) the wins start to flow.

As a real-world example of this transitional period look at two case studies from the Premier League: Brendan Rogers' Liverpool and Manuel Pellegrini's Manchester City. At the start of both of their tenures, performances were not so good. Looking at Liverpool's start to last season, they lost three and drew two of their opening five fixtures. The system was in its infancy and they weren't playing well. They 'should not' lose to teams like West Brom, especially so comprehensively, but they had not gained fluidity in their tactic.

More obviously transitional is the Manchester City team of this season. Pellegrini is playing to a system that he feels is best for the team, and this resulted in some poor early form. They lost to newly promoted Cardiff, drew to Stoke, lost to Villa - all of which were away. Their home form does not seem to have suffered, but the system was rickety away. After subsequently losing to Chelsea and Sunderland away from home, only the away draw to Southampton has prevented them from picking up maximum points - winning three games away from the Etihad. This is why City are strongly tipped for the title.

Chelsea can be cited as another example - their home form is exemplary but away from home they have struggled. Perhaps the strong 3-0 victory away to Southampton is the turning point?

All of these teams play a certain system and will make only small concessions each game to the opposition and how they play. Larger changes may be needed on occasion - after all, you still need to win - but they will largely play the same tactic, regardless.

The other type of team is managed by the pragmatist. The book quoted above seems to look down on the pragmatist somewhat, claiming to aim their discussion of strategy and tactics solely at the purist. However, the content is of use to all managers - even virtual ones! - so I recommend it highly.

Alan Pardew is an example of a pragmatic manager. He doesn't have a problem switching his formations or strategy from game to game. As a result of this, results are inconsistent. Pragmatism, implemented poorly, can see you beat Manchester United away but lose to Hull at home.

What I have always aimed for in FM is to be a pragmatist, but a winning pragmatist. This, as anyone who has played FM14 can confirm, is bloody difficult. Many players here on the forums are purists. Some will acknowledge this while others will not be aware of the alternative.

The aim of this thread is to (hopefully) prove that it is possible to be successful playing without a system that is entirely fluid and changing shape, strategy, philosophy and team instructions on a game-by-game basis.

I believe that it is better to play the correct system but which the players do not know 100% fully than it is to play the wrong system but which the players know like the back of their hand. I feel the latter scenario is what is playing out at Southampton now. After a transitional period, Pochettino's system was in place and they started playing well. In real life, of course, managers adapt. The opposition has now spotted the weaknesses in the system or, perhaps, in the system as applied to the players at Southampton's disposal. In FM, this is implemented as a simple re-ranking of the team's capabilities, so they are taken more seriously or less seriously depending on whether they are seen to be over-achieving or under-achieving, respectively.

For this experiment, I am going to use Newcastle United. This is my club and I find it hard to maintain interest playing as other teams. Also, they have a pretty versatile squad, and with a few changes they are capable of playing the three main formations that I think will allow me to counteract the opposition: 442, 4231 and 41221.

[Madminister]

This is a thread I will follow with great interest.

I've always wanted to be able to counteract the opposition like this.

So, you're going to create 3 base tactics you believe will work in most situations and then adapt them according to who you're facing?

[ZdlR]

This is a thread I will follow with great interest.

I've always wanted to be able to counteract the opposition like this.

So, you're going to create 3 base tactics you believe will work in most situations and then adapt them according to who you're facing?

Yup. I'm currently top of the league after 5 games with the following wins:

Crystal Palace (A) 1v0

Cardiff (H) 2v0

Fulham (A) 2v0

Southampton (H) 4v1

Spurs (H) 2v1

Each has presented different challenges and I've used different strategies during each. At times parts of my tactic has been 'awkward' and during one game I changed formation to one not trained (nothing too drastic, but it was significantly successful).

[thizaum]

I've only played one save, and I'm in 2019 now.

I've been very successful taking a midtable team from 3rd Div in Brazil to 1st Div and Continental in 4 years.

In the first year, I found a formation that worked for me (4-2DM-3-1). Over the next seasons, with new and developed players, I wanted to change the formation, but ultimately, I could not get any of them to work better than the first one.

In the previous FMs, I always took the opposition formation in account to shape me team, but haven't been doing this on 14, since I was having such a hard time getting a formation to work. But once I had it going, I started running some tests on matches I new I was going to loose, or on easy matches that I was having trouble.

Now, I always change my formation based on the opposition.

The 4-2DM-3-1 works well agains 4-2-2-2 and 4-4-2, but does pretty bad against 4-1-2-1-2 and 3-3-2-2 (rather common in Brazil).

So, I have a backup 4-5-1 that I use against the 4-1-2-1-2. I can even switch it during the match, because my AMC and one of the DMC can move to MC.

And finally, to counter 3CB formations, I have a 4-2-2-2 setup.

This has been working very well for me, and I considerer the scouting report for the next match very important.

[ZdlR]

Chapters 3 and 4 of Coaching Soccer: Match Strategy and Tactics cover preparing for the opposition as a team and as individuals. It explains what to look out for with respect to the opposition's attacking and defensive positioning and then drill down to dealing with players that can dribble, pass, head and tackle. While reading this, it was interesting to realize how much we can apply these suggestions to FM - from high-level strategy and formation settings through team instructions and player instructions down to opposition instructions.

Before the game begins, we need to make some assumptions about how the opposition are going to play. Being pragmatic does not mean being negative, but it does mean that we are more reactive than most. We need to spend a little time getting to know the oppisition's strengths and weaknesses in personnel as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their system. Your scouts should give you a report before each match which will show statistical analysis that can be useful, but the main thing to look at is their preferred formation and their likely starting eleven. For important matches it could be useful to watch one or two of the opposition's previous matches to see how it plays in the match engine.

The opposition formation might not tell you everything you need to know, but highlights to look out for are:

* How many strikers the opposition play with: one isolated forward, two up front or a three-pronged attack with wide forwards.

* Whether they deploy an AMC that will create or make runs from deep.

* Whether they utilize a DMC that will sweep in front of the defense.

* Whether they play a non-standard back line like a 3 or a 5.

These should all influence how you set up initially. Then, for the players that will likely play in the positions shown, check:

* Which are capable dribblers: with high dribbling, technique, flair, etc.

* Which are capable creators: with high passing, composure, creativity, decisions, etc.

* Which are aerially dominant: with high heading, strength, jumping, bravery, etc.

* Which are destroyers: with high positioning, tackling, anticipation, marking, etc.

* Which can exploit space: with high off the ball, acceleration, creativity, decisions, etc.

While the top teams will have each of these players in abundance, most teams are notable by having quite average players generally with, perhaps, a strong dribbler or an aerially dominant striker. These are the key men to look out for as they can hurt you, but they should not be the sole focus of your defensive efforts. Anyone, regardless of attributes, can score a goal if the opposition is not organized to prevent all threats in a balanced manner.

This post may read like the way I play is very mechanized: that being pragmatic is being cold and logical. If this then that is not adaptive enough, though. As you will see as I break down the matches and my decisions, the main ingredient is to watch the match engine. People complain on these forums that there is no good feedback that what you are doing isn't working. What they mean is that there is no quick summary feedback that it isn't working. Watching the match is the single most realiable way to understand what is working or isn't working and why. Without that, you are flying blind.

In some games, you will get it absolutely right from the outset and changes won't be necessary for the entire game. I find that these games are rare nowadays, though. I need to spend the first few minutes of the game finding out whether my set up is working or specifically to decide in which direction I need to take the match. In separate occasions, it's clear that I have made a change in strategy and the effects are pretty much instant - more than once being rewarded with a goal, maybe even two in quick succession.

This is absolutely key: the game rewards you for getting in right by giving you goals. It punishes you for getting it wrong by causing you to concede. It's not as black-and-white as that, of course - right and wrong in football is a spectrum. But, if you are under lots of pressure from the opponent and you make a change which doesn't relieve the pressure but instead you concede: you probably made the wrong choice. Sure, you can get unlucky and that happens from time to time, but it isn't to blame for the vast majority of problems.

Enough theory, time to analyse some matches.

[Hliaz]

Have you considered blending the two distinct styles? Being a purist ie focus on a single formation with three different mentalities but at the same time having a pragmatic approach to each game where you effectively change the roles or duties to deal with certain advantages or exploit weaknesses? My 'holy grail' is exactly that, playing always on the same formation, 4-1-2-2-1 but for example change the role of the DM to regista when the opposition doesn't play with an AMC or try to bypass the opposition's DM when I play against a similar formation. However, I don't think I have to point out that I'm not always succeeding but that's my ultimate goal.

[ZdlR]

I think blending them is pretty much inevitable, to some degree. As time passes, my players will become more familiar with the tactics and more comfortable in the general frameworks within which we will play, but I will still tweak before and during the match to react to the opposition and stifle their game so as to play our own.

[ZdlR]

Finally getting round to writing a bit about this.

League Table

First things first. The league table. We're second on goal difference to Man Utd who are playing some fantastic football. I sometimes watch highlights of their matches and they are simply stunning. They've bought Arda Turan and he never seems to have a bad game. They are dominant in most of their games, but they have dropped some points, too.

However, we're a very different team (as you will see). We're better without the ball. In fact, we're starting to hate having the ball! We don't score a huge amount, but nor do we concede many at all. <0.5 goals per game conceded is about as good as it gets. Especially when your defence isn't individually all that great. To think that Chelsea and Man City have conceded roughly twice the number of goals we have exemplifies the fact that we can defend. It's absolutely key to our position in the league.

Squad

This is my squad. It's not very big. I've got players in the U21 and U18 teams but I've only got 34 players in total. 19 of which play the majority of senior games. I got Honda at the start (as you do) and loaned Simone Padoin and Nicolas Gaitan for the season (Gaitan and Santon are both hidden here as they are injured and unavailable for my next game). Some of my players really aren't playing well, unfortunately. Cheick Tiote, Yohan Cabaye, Keisuke Honda and Nicolas Gaitan are all playing well under where I consider their attributes to be. On the other hand, Coloccini is playing pretty well and Taylor is above and beyond what I thought he was capable of. 70 key headers!

Results

And here are the results. Some good ones in there. The draw away to Man Utd (although mitigated by the fact that they were massively understrength). The home win against Man City. The opening run of five wins also set us up for a great campaign. Poor results are few and far between - poor performances are easier to pick out. Sunderland have struggled throughout the season, but I totally got my tactics and team selection wrong for the derby. The Hull game at home was extremely close to spoiling our unbeaten home record: a 92nd minute penalty rescued a barely deserved draw. And the home loss to Fulham in the League Cup was probably due to the competition's low reputation and my miserly cup bonuses - there seemed to be little I could do to inspire anything beyond the pedestrian from the team.

Spurs - Away

My most recent game was a very narrow win against Spurs. They tried to dribble through our defence. For the entire 90 minutes. I knew they couldn't defend very well, so we would have a chance if we could keep them at bay. I cycled through Counter, Standard, Control and Attacking at various points of the game. Until we'd picked up an uncharacteristic number of yellow cards, I was also tight marking them. I didn't want to give them any space in front of the defence, so played Tiote as DM(d) for much of the game and added 'push higher up' whenever we looked too deep. They had little interest in passing through our defence, thankfully, with the second half being an almost total lockdown. Thankfully, Dawson gave away a penalty in the first half, so we took all three points.

Arsenal - Away (FA Cup)

This was a lucky draw, in retrospect. But our game plan worked quite well. Defend without conceding too much space and hit them with a quick counter. I played a 4231 deep for this with 'pass more direct' and 'pass into space'. We scored a pretty fantastic goal on the counter but conceded a few too many fouls, one of which lead to a goal. Having drawn 1v1 twice to Arsenal so far, I'm not wholly confident I can win the replay at home - unless Wenger plays an understrength team like he did here (well, until about 60 minutes when he brought Giroud and Podolski on).

[genesimmons]

Very interesting stuff. While I don't have anything to add at the moment, I still would like to show some support. Please continue posting. Also, tactics screenshots and details would be welcome.

[ZdlR]

Fulham - Home

A rare occasion where the entire team performed well and we dominated the game almost entirely. Fulham are pretty dire (despite beating us at home in the FA Cup) so I was confident we could win, but 5v0 was a surprise. Aided by two penalties and two goals from direct freekicks. I later discovered that our only goal from open play wasn't quite as amazing as hoped - Sissoko looked to find Marveaux in acres of space, which looked like fantastic awareness. Turns out it was an awfully miscued shot that got lucky.

Watford - Home

Watford were really difficult to play against. Zola lined them up with a 3232 formation with wingbacks. It meant they were extremely solid through the middle and had two up front that could really cause problems. This was a replay because they'd held us away. In fact, we were a bit fortunate to come away with anything. For the first half we dominated with an attacking set-up, but it was sterile domination without enough end-product. I decide to scale back at half time and go for the counter. It wasn't entirely successful because the countering didn't really cause a goal. Eventually, due to Watford getting deeper and less adventurous, our counter looked more like a patient, probing game around the box, which created lots of set-piece chances due to fouls. We scored from one and set up the aforementioned meeting with Arsenal.

Man City - Home

This was a great result. They appear to have dominated and been robbed but neither team really played well. We just edged it on the counter. They were very attacking and didn't take us particularly seriously, which was surprising. They left a lot of gaps at the back for us to exploit. I got worried on a few occasions but I'm getting a lot of joy from 'push higher up' with counter or defensive strategies. It stops us from sitting too deep and gives us a platform to attack from. Although, sometimes, we don't get to do enough of that.

Everton - Away

I was really nervous before this game, thinking we were going to be lucky to come away with a draw. I watched a few of Everton's previous home games and noticed that they played a lot like Man City - very attacking. I went for much the same approach as in the Man City game and was rewarded by a good 2v0 win.

Mackems - Away

This loss was entirely my fault. I decided our early-season good form meant I could do no wrong so I went for a basic, kick-n-rush 442 with Ameobi paired up front with a youth striker, Adam Campbell. It didn't work and Poyet's men played us off the park. At times we were chasing shadows and I hold my hand up and admit that I totally got this wrong.

Man Utd - Away

The only reason I got anything from this game was because Man U were understrength - injuries to Turan, Rooney and Van Persie meant that I could sit deeper and try to threaten on the counter. I had to switch to 442 around the hour mark to alleviate the pressure on my defence, but it pretty much worked. Don't fancy my chances in the reverse fixture, but I am noticing that my players tend not to get too nervous during games, nor too complacent - whereas some key players for Man Utd are starting to look nervous when things aren't going exactly according to plan. Will need to see if there's anything listed in Moyes' profile that suggests he might be putting too much pressure on his players. Perhaps I could leverage that in the media before we meet.

Conclusion

The main advice I have is that you need to learn how to read the match engine. If you give away a half chance but are otherwise dominating, that might not be too bad, but if the opposition are able to counter effectively and create CCCs, then try to scale back a bit. You can score goals when you are using the defend strategy, too. It's sometimes the only way to keep hold of the ball. The match-situation is important, too. I can quite happily see a game out when I go one goal up. Sometimes the best way of doing that is getting stuck into the opposition and really stopping them from playing by dominating the game. Other times, you need to drop back and hit them on the counter. It is easiest to tell what is the best course of action if you watch full highlights, otherwise it is difficult to pinpoint the exact problem. Once you are adept at reading different situations, you don't have to watch every single minute - unless you want to. I know Cleon advocates watching the first 15 minutes in full highlights before switching down to extended.

To tie this all in with the book I referenced, there were a few games early on when I would look through the 'troubleshooting' section towards the end and try to figure out what I could do to change things. It has real-world advice for dealing with scenarios like turning a balanced game that is still even in you favour, unlocking stubborn defences, team-talks. It field like a field-guide during some of the earlier games.

[ZdlR]

I will post some more tonight. I've got a nice idea of showing some examples of how what I saw in games that I didn't like and how I reacted. If it works as I hope, I think it should be really useful.

One thing I've noticed is that all instructions are relative. 'Play narrower' means 'player narrower than you are now'. This goes for pretty much all instructions. They are not absolute. 'Be more expressive than you are now', 'mark tighter than you are now'. This is why people who don't adapt in game can win 6 games in a row, face an opposition team that do something different and suddenly their 'push higher up' instruction is too high because this opposition are dropping back and absorbing all of that pressure before countering with long balls forward. Same with pretty much all other instructions. All you have to do is watch the match and react rationally to what you see. I find that getting it right gifts you goals, not correcting problems or getting it wrong costs you goals.

[HappyStreet]

This is why so many people struggle with the game, in particular because they don't follow your post about the analysis of the opposition's players. I keep telling people to slow down with FM and enjoy the real tactical side (not just a formation and roles, etc.), which is actually dealing with the opposition. Really, you get so much more satisfaction from spending a little time to scout out your opponent and acting accordingly. Whether that's exploiting their weakness or stopping their strengths, if you do this then you will have a much better idea of why you won/lost a game, and if people developed these habits they would also develop reactionary skills as well. What's the point of scouting out the opposition's dangerous wingback if you don't watch some of the game to see if your approach to shut him down actually worked?

Saw this book last night actually when I purchased a few others on the web. Think I might give it a go. One of the few that I got was Soccer: Modern Tactics, which is also in a similar vein and so far an interesting look at dealing with specific scenarios. Definitely a lot that can be implemented into FM with a bit of thought.

This is my favorite post ever. All of those "What is wrong with my tactics threads" can essentially be answered with "you are not adapting them to the opponent."

[Cleon]

Fantastic thread this not sure why it hasn't got more views/replies it really is good.

Top work mate

[ZdlR]

Thanks, Cleon. After an endorsement by you, responses usually start flying

It's still a little low on tactical detail, so I'm going to work on that over the weekend.

[Coleman]

I bought the Kindle version of the book on your recommendation DdlR, and I've got to say I'm enjoying it and your thread. In FM, my personal style tends to be reactive at first, becoming more proactive as I gather the kinds of players I need to play the system I choose. On the book, is it always so reactive as it is in the beginning? I'm hoping to pick up ways to dictate the play of the game and I hope this book can teach me some of that because I love the way it lays out ideas and options.

[thenewdon]

Ha ha, after reading this thread I also bought the Kindle version of the book, sales will be up. Keep up the good work ZdlR.

[ZdlR]

I should be on commission

Coleman, what do you mean by 'reactive'? The book is supposed to be geared toward the philosophical coach - those with a game plan to dominate the opposition. It does make a number of suggestions on how to change the game in your favour though, which can be applied to FM quite nicely. The troubleshooting section is great, covering a lot of different scenarios and how to deal with them. Plus, there's some good man-management advice - like being as nice as is realistically possible to your team straight after the game but then talking to them individually if their performance wasn't up to scratch.

[ZdlR]

Apologies for the size of these gifs, they're a bit big but they are a simple way of showing something in a match.

This is the sort of thing that can happen when you train 'Attacking Set Pieces' before a game. Useful if you think the opposition might defend a lot and try to stifle you. I won this game 4v0

Free Kick Near Miss

Throw-in Goal 1 - Sissoko

Throw-in Goal 2 - Cabaye

[pezza96]

top thread, really insightful, I like yourself tend to favour a pragmatic approach, one question do you ever switch to 3 at the back against teams who use 2 men up top (spare man theory)

[ZdlR]

top thread, really insightful, I like yourself tend to favour a pragmatic approach, one question do you ever switch to 3 at the back against teams who use 2 men up top (spare man theory)

I switched to 3 at the back once against Arsenal towards the end of the game when I was clinging on to the replay for dear life. As I had no tactics trained with three defenders it was a bit of a mess, but we managed to hold out. Against 2 up front I prefer to deploy a DMC(d) to screen the back two. This usually cuts out the direct balls forward which 2 front men allow, as one is often instructed to drop deeper and collect the ball.

[Coleman]

I should be on commission

Coleman, what do you mean by 'reactive'? The book is supposed to be geared toward the philosophical coach - those with a game plan to dominate the opposition. It does make a number of suggestions on how to change the game in your favour though, which can be applied to FM quite nicely. The troubleshooting section is great, covering a lot of different scenarios and how to deal with them. Plus, there's some good man-management advice - like being as nice as is realistically possible to your team straight after the game but then talking to them individually if their performance wasn't up to scratch.

I meant that the first few chapters of the book seemed to be about how to interpret what the opposition will do so that you can counter it. I was looking for tips on how to force the opposition to deal with you as you would like to play, using their tendencies against them. Maybe I just need to read more of the book. I'm still in the early stages of reading.

[ZdlR]

So, the season is over, finally. It's been a long journey, but it's ended pretty successfully:

Yes, we won the league. I'm in disbelief, to be honest. It came down to the final day. If we could win away to Hull, Man Utd wouldn't be able to catch us. Anything less than a win, and a Man Utd victory at Everton would mean we'd thrown it away. (Oh, and the mackems got relegated and sacked Poyet. Bonus.)

Here is the PKM for the Hull match.

In all seriousness, I cannot believe how it all fell apart in the second half. We just couldn't get close to Hull, who had pushed up and were pressing us back into our own half. Their goals were both pretty much sick jokes, although Coloccini's missed header is eminently explicable - he's dropped in jumping over the last couple of months and has become something of a liability in the air. I switched straight to Overload with their second and we got very lucky. In the end, it was moot because Utd failed to beat Everton, but I didn't like having to watch the League Standings widget with my fingers crossed, expecting the inevitable Utd winner.

The run-in was nutty. Man Utd pretty much took top after game 13 and, although the pair of us swapped positions briefly a couple of times, they generally kept a hold on it. Until game 33. They went away to a really odd Chelsea team who had a propensity all season to lose stupid games and win more difficult ones. Chelsea put five past Man Utd without reply. This really shook them and they - rightly - realized that a team which ships so many goals in a game really doesn't deserve to win the league

The semi-final of the FA Cup should have been a regulation win for my side against a Stoke team which I had beaten twice pretty comfortably in the league. We couldn't break down Hughes' Christmas Tree formation, though - even after 120 minutes. Our penalties were reflective of the pressure I'd put on my team: *****. After that, we wobbled at home to Everton but the point away to City was thoroughly deserved and should perhaps have been three. The West Ham game was incredibly professional and would have resulted in an earlier conclusion to the league season, but Man Utd arrested their terrible run with a tonking of West Brom.

I'll post more details of how I played throughout the season and what worked really well compared to what didn't. For now, though, I'm going to plan how to retain the title and a foray into the Champion's League... As league champions!

[llama3]

Interesting work - always a debate of philosophies/management styles over being reactive or proactive.

[bollarn]

The problem I have with adapting to the other team is that its so time consuming it takes 15-20 min just to prepare for one game and it's also very hard to get it right which means that the match often don't go the way I want. So for me it's better to go the plug and play way.

[ZdlR]

The problem I have with adapting to the other team is that its so time consuming it takes 15-20 min just to prepare for one game and it's also very hard to get it right which means that the match often don't go the way I want. So for me it's better to go the plug and play way.

This is definitely a myth. If it takes that long for every game then you're doing more than you need to. For big or pivotal matches sure, it pays to put in more effort to understand how the opposition play and what you can do to limit their effectiveness. For most games, though, you can look at the odds and tell whether you're up against a big challenge, whether you should breeze to a victory, or anything in between.

I do agree that it's difficult to get right. But you're not prevented from changing things early, or at any other time during the match. I sometimes got my tactics so wrong going into games that I was struggling against teams I should probably beat. If I hadn't made a couple of changes within the first 10 minutes, I would probably have conceded and possibly drawn or lost the game. Instead, I made the right decision based on what the match engine was telling me. There's an irony to so many people complaining about both the match engine and the lack of feedback in the game, yet the two go hand-in-hand. The match engine gives you far more information about what is going right and what is going wrong in the game, more so than any stats could.

[JOSEPH!]

This is definitely a myth. If it takes that long for every game then you're doing more than you need to. For big or pivotal matches sure, it pays to put in more effort to understand how the opposition play and what you can do to limit their effectiveness. For most games, though, you can look at the odds and tell whether you're up against a big challenge, whether you should breeze to a victory, or anything in between.

I do agree that it's difficult to get right. But you're not prevented from changing things early, or at any other time during the match. I sometimes got my tactics so wrong going into games that I was struggling against teams I should probably beat. If I hadn't made a couple of changes within the first 10 minutes, I would probably have conceded and possibly drawn or lost the game. Instead, I made the right decision based on what the match engine was telling me. There's an irony to so many people complaining about both the match engine and the lack of feedback in the game, yet the two go hand-in-hand. The match engine gives you far more information about what is going right and what is going wrong in the game, more so than any stats could.

Spot on.

The first 10 minutes of a game will often tell you all you need to know and understanding what the match engine is telling you is the key.

[Maximus94]

Very, very interesting thread. I'm working to become more of a reactive manager too.

3 questions for now.

What's your general match training? What's your match training to general training ratio?

How much emphasis do you put on tactical fluidity? I think I put too much emphasis on it. For example, I normally like to play with the 'play wider' instruction, but the opposition has a very narrow shape, I get hesitant when I select 'play narrower' because of the fluidity drop, despite knowing it's most likely going to cause them problems. EDIT: Just saw your post on my thread. No need to answer this question

[ZdlR]

Very, very interesting thread. I'm working to become more of a reactive manager too.

3 questions for now.

What's your general match training? What's your match training to general training ratio?

The whole season I think I had about 40% match training. General training was Balanced, I think. My focus for the first season was to win something or, failing that, get into the Champions League. I had some awful coaches and didn't address training for much of the season, just changed a setting if a player complained about not enough training or something. I've already spent a lot of time preparing for the next season, which is going to be a transitional one for sure, trying to improve the coaching staff, etc.

I used 'tactics' for match training for the first few games until it was about 70% full and then I would select one of the other options depending on how I thought the match would go. If the opposition were lumps that might get some corners against me: defending set-pieces. If they were a stronger opponent with lots of attacking flair: defensive positioning. If they were a bit weaker or I felt they were a bit defensively suspect: attacking movement. If I figured they would park the bus and I'd win a lot of corners/free-kicks: attacking set-pieces.

How much emphasis do you put on tactical fluidity? I think I put too much emphasis on it. For example, I normally like to play with the 'play wider' instruction, but the opposition has a very narrow shape, I get hesitant when I select 'play narrower' because of the fluidity drop, despite knowing it's most likely going to cause them problems. EDIT: Just saw your post on my thread. No need to answer this question

If I see an opponent weakness, I pounce. No question. Fluidity never enters the equation if I think it's the right thing to do. For example, that last game of the season away to Hull was the very first time in the entire season that I switched to 'Overload'. I don't think my players would have been too fluid with the tactic because we barely even used Attack throughout the season. However, I got two goals because it was the right tactic at the right time. That trumps fluidity, from what I have seen. It's another bit of misdirection from SI. Fluidity helps just like morale and giving good press conferences/interviews, managing your players with private chats. All they do is widen or narrow the error-margin. You can still win even with poor morale, crap team talks, a huge lack of fluidity - it's just much, much harder. So it's better to be good at all aspects of management because then the tactical side is a little easier.