Open letter to SI: The Realism or Without Arrows

[shevelevee]

You want to say that fast move from one point to another point isn't runs?

[Super Bladesman]

In first match i want that my AMC will shift to right,becouse my opponent has a good WBL and i want to close him. In second match i want my AMC will shift to left becouse my opponent has a good WBR and in third match i want him to stay AMC position

What PPM i need to train?

Use the individual instructions - tight marking always or closing down always - on the appropriate player. That way the player will be monitored without having just the one of your players constantly bombing across the pitch out of position to do so.

[Super Bladesman]

You want to say that fast move from one point to another point isn't runs?

It is, aye - it's probably a mad sprint as the player tries to assume his new position. It's NOT what you're suggesting. The player is not cutting inside, or drifting over to cover left back, or whatever - it's him suddenly thinking 'oh crap, we've (not) got the ball I'm a different type of player, oh wait we got it back, oh wait we've lost it again, I need to cover 5/15/75 yards in a millisecond'

[shevelevee]

Rafa: "Ok, Steve, I need you to play central midfield, control the game and when we get the ball, I need you to run forward and play behind the striker."

Stevie G: "So you want me to get forward at every opportunity to support the attack?" (eg: FWR: Often)

Rafa: "No, I want you to play central midfield when we don't have the ball and then move up behind the striker and make forward runs from there."

Stevie G: "So you want me to play behind the striker but drop deep to defend (that's lower mentality and FWR: Rarely) and to collect the ball (PPM)?"

Rafa: "No, I need you to play both positions."

Stevie G: "Are you high?"

hahaha

Rafa: "Stevie, when we go to attack, go on right flang, because their DL is poor ok?"

Stevie G: "Ok, Rafa"

[wwfan]

first stage - my team without ball, i'm DMC

second stage - my team go to attack and have possesion. Manager say me, that I must go to AMR position

I run to my position in attack, and...

wwfan stop me and say: "It's not run"

and SI kill me and say "You want to exploit match engine"

It isn't a run within the intentions of the ME, which is where all the problems lie. It is an instruction that determines two static positions on the field for the same player. It does not translate as runs.

I know you've already read my original arguments as to removing arrows, but I'll make them here again:

Issues

Having suggested that arrows lead to exploitation of the engine over and above realism, I have thought long and hard about why they do and about a possible solution. I believe the most serious issues are as follows:

Real World/Virtual World Translation

Given that the FM engine and its tactical instructions are supposed to closely mimic reality, I fail to see exactly how arrows and forward runs could be accurately translated into real world instructions. In essence, an arrow is instructing a player to make a forward run into a certain position. In the real world, that would be transmitted by the use of an arrow on a chalkboard. However, in the virtual world, the arrow is purely a positional tool, not an instruction to make a forward run. It is an illogical translation, thus:

Manager: I want you to play as a wide forward when we have the ball and a wide midfielder when we don’t.

Player: So you want me to run forwards into an advanced position when we attack?

Manager: No, when we attack you are a forward, when we defend a midfielder. You run forwards after you get into the forward position. You don’t run into the forward position.

Player: Eh?

Dual Formations

Because the arrows work separately to forward runs, they basically operate as a means of achieving an unrealistic dual formation. Via the liberal use of arrows, a manager can easily design a system that is a 4-1-4-1 in defence and a 2-2-3-3 in attack. Multiple arrows quite simply enable a virtual manager to use a very attacking and very defensive system in one match, a luxury that real life managers don’t have. In real life you choose to attack, defend, or to play a risk and reward system between the two. You can’t have both worlds, yet in FML, and FM, you can. This leads to the following illogical situation:

Winning with Tight Formations

The most fundamental aspect of real world tactics is that the better side tries to open space, the worse side to reduce it. The better team wins if they efficiently exploit space, work the flanks, spread the play and constantly move off the ball. The worse team wins if they frustrate the opposing side by keeping it tight, having as many people between the ball and goal as possible and by making the best use of the chances they get, usually set plays and an occasional counter.

With the use of arrows, especially for those using the tzaf 4-1-2-1-2 system, or one similar, a tight formation can overload a wide one by channelling the ball through the middle of the pitch, creating an unrealistic 6v4 match up. In real life, the defending team would close off space and the attacking team would be reduced to long-range shots. However, the use of forward arrows creates a situation in which the two DCs are marking the two FCs whilst allowing the MC/AMC freedom to roam freely. Enigma explained two of the issues this type of formation creates perfectly, thus:

If one team has an MC with a forward arrow to FC and the opposition has a DMC, what happens? The player in the MC/FC role will consistently glide into space past your DMC, who won't react and track backwards.

If one team has two FCs, and an AMC forward arrowed in between the front two, how does the opposition back four react? The two DCs will pick up the two FCs, be pulled way apart and the AMC will roam around in the resulting space in front of goal.

The solution to this is to barrow an MC into the DCC position. Is this really a real life tactical instruction? Would any manager tell his ball-winning midfielder he had to operate as an auxiliary central defender rather than a covering midfielder? No, he wouldn’t. And why? Simply because the farrowed AMC/MC to FC is an equally unrealistic tactical option. AMC is a position from which a player will try to make FWRs into more advanced areas, but will only do it when the move dictates it, not as a matter of course. The covering midfielder will then try to track these runs as and when the AMC makes them.

The farrowed MC/AMC and the issues that the engine, the FM08 AI and the FML virtual manager have in countering it/dealing with it is the fundamental reason as to why tight formations can unrealistically overload wide ones. Attacking through the middle too often allows the AMC/MC to operate in wide-open space and score/assist at will. The wide team’s FBs and wingers are useless defensively because the play is channeled through the middle of the pitch. The TB from the farrowed DMC (protected from being tackled by the farrowed MCs) either finds the FC who feeds the AMC to score, or finds the AMC who draws the DC marking the FC prior to knocking the ball into the newly created gap for the FC to score. Real life football simply does not work this way. It is too easy to defend through balls in tight spaces. Arrows allow it to happen with ease in FML, and to a great extent in FM08.

Incidentally, I also see this exploit as being the common denominator to the 'engine sucks' threads in the FM08 forums. People using this type of formation dominate possession as the AI can't cope with the tight farrowed play, but are often defensively inept, as the FBs have way too much to do. The AI can outwit the defensive ineptitude with standard footballing ploys to overcome the FB, but can't cope statistically with the narrow-farrow attack, as, using a 4-4-2, it simply can't get enough of the ball. The user looks at the stats and thinks he should be winning due to shot count/possession without realizing how easily the AI can destroy the FB. However, with the combination of the farrowed AMC exploit and the corner exploit, they get enough goals for it not to matter most of the time. When they do lose, and the stats are so heavily in their favour, they throw a fit as to the 'cheating' AI.

Crazy Arrows

Arrows allow a tactic like kimz's to perform. Enough said!

Arguments

The debate has led to the following arguments:

Arrows as Core to Tactics

Yes, as things stand, because of the unrealistic advantages they give you. However, if they were removed, they would no longer be core to tactics. Not an argument as to keeping them, just a statement of fact regarding the current situation.

Hard Work Lost

Yes, tactics would have to be revised. However, that happens not just between every FM, but between every patch, as in each patch engine holes and bugs have been discovered and ironed out. Removing arrows would just put us back into a situation we are used to being in.

Removing Arrows Reduces Tactical Sophistication

In theory, yes, but in practice, no. In the short-term they would undoubtedly reduce the number of instructions you could give a player, but they would make the instructions you could use more logical. They would also allow play to be more dynamic, with off the ball movement and decision-making playing more part in build up play. Players would ‘choose’ when to make runs rather than having movements robotically assigned via the arrows. As in real life, if the run is not picked out, the player would check and move back to his default position. This already happens with non-farrowed midfielders, although arguably they check too early. Build up play becomes a dynamic combination of keeping possession, making forward runs and looking for the pass to the man making the run (or moving into the space the run opens up). It becomes much more fluid and much less pre-programmed.

Altering Player Conditioning

One solution is that an excessive use of arrows should lead to a heavy drop in player conditioning. I can see the logic in that, but don’t think it gets to the core of the issue, which is the realism of the engine. It also means an arrowed tactic will unrealistically over-perform until the players get tired, which is only half a solution.

All the above arguments miss the key point, which is trying to get the engine to simulate reality as closely as possible. The realism of the simulation is key. If arrows are illogical when looked at with conjunction with FWRs, leading to unrealistic formations and exploiting engine holes that can only be patched up by equally unrealistic tactical instruction, then they should be removed. As I see it, arrows and forward runs should be the same thing.

[grokkk]

Use the individual instructions - tight marking always or closing down always - on the appropriate player. That way the player will be monitored without having just the one of your players constantly bombing across the pitch out of position to do so.

why you have solved that my AMC will do it and not MC or FB. I am a coach and I want that specific player in specific position receive my specific task

[grokkk]

Issues

Having suggested that arrows lead to exploitation of the engine over and above realism, I have thought long and hard about why they do and about a possible solution. I believe the most serious issues are as follows:

Real World/Virtual World Translation

Given that the FM engine and its tactical instructions are supposed to closely mimic reality, I fail to see exactly how arrows and forward runs could be accurately translated into real world instructions. In essence, an arrow is instructing a player to make a forward run into a certain position. In the real world, that would be transmitted by the use of an arrow on a chalkboard. However, in the virtual world, the arrow is purely a positional tool, not an instruction to make a forward run. It is an illogical translation, thus:

Manager: I want you to play as a wide forward when we have the ball and a wide midfielder when we don’t.

Player: So you want me to run forwards into an advanced position when we attack?

Manager: No, when we attack you are a forward, when we defend a midfielder. You run forwards after you get into the forward position. You don’t run into the forward position.

Player: Eh?

Dual Formations

Because the arrows work separately to forward runs, they basically operate as a means of achieving an unrealistic dual formation. Via the liberal use of arrows, a manager can easily design a system that is a 4-1-4-1 in defence and a 2-2-3-3 in attack. Multiple arrows quite simply enable a virtual manager to use a very attacking and very defensive system in one match, a luxury that real life managers don’t have. In real life you choose to attack, defend, or to play a risk and reward system between the two. You can’t have both worlds, yet in FML, and FM, you can. This leads to the following illogical situation:

Winning with Tight Formations

The most fundamental aspect of real world tactics is that the better side tries to open space, the worse side to reduce it. The better team wins if they efficiently exploit space, work the flanks, spread the play and constantly move off the ball. The worse team wins if they frustrate the opposing side by keeping it tight, having as many people between the ball and goal as possible and by making the best use of the chances they get, usually set plays and an occasional counter.

With the use of arrows, especially for those using the tzaf 4-1-2-1-2 system, or one similar, a tight formation can overload a wide one by channelling the ball through the middle of the pitch, creating an unrealistic 6v4 match up. In real life, the defending team would close off space and the attacking team would be reduced to long-range shots. However, the use of forward arrows creates a situation in which the two DCs are marking the two FCs whilst allowing the MC/AMC freedom to roam freely. Enigma explained two of the issues this type of formation creates perfectly, thus:

If one team has an MC with a forward arrow to FC and the opposition has a DMC, what happens? The player in the MC/FC role will consistently glide into space past your DMC, who won't react and track backwards.

If one team has two FCs, and an AMC forward arrowed in between the front two, how does the opposition back four react? The two DCs will pick up the two FCs, be pulled way apart and the AMC will roam around in the resulting space in front of goal.

The solution to this is to barrow an MC into the DCC position. Is this really a real life tactical instruction? Would any manager tell his ball-winning midfielder he had to operate as an auxiliary central defender rather than a covering midfielder? No, he wouldn’t. And why? Simply because the farrowed AMC/MC to FC is an equally unrealistic tactical option. AMC is a position from which a player will try to make FWRs into more advanced areas, but will only do it when the move dictates it, not as a matter of course. The covering midfielder will then try to track these runs as and when the AMC makes them.

The farrowed MC/AMC and the issues that the engine, the FM08 AI and the FML virtual manager have in countering it/dealing with it is the fundamental reason as to why tight formations can unrealistically overload wide ones. Attacking through the middle too often allows the AMC/MC to operate in wide-open space and score/assist at will. The wide team’s FBs and wingers are useless defensively because the play is channeled through the middle of the pitch. The TB from the farrowed DMC (protected from being tackled by the farrowed MCs) either finds the FC who feeds the AMC to score, or finds the AMC who draws the DC marking the FC prior to knocking the ball into the newly created gap for the FC to score. Real life football simply does not work this way. It is too easy to defend through balls in tight spaces. Arrows allow it to happen with ease in FML, and to a great extent in FM08.

Incidentally, I also see this exploit as being the common denominator to the 'engine sucks' threads in the FM08 forums. People using this type of formation dominate possession as the AI can't cope with the tight farrowed play, but are often defensively inept, as the FBs have way too much to do. The AI can outwit the defensive ineptitude with standard footballing ploys to overcome the FB, but can't cope statistically with the narrow-farrow attack, as, using a 4-4-2, it simply can't get enough of the ball. The user looks at the stats and thinks he should be winning due to shot count/possession without realizing how easily the AI can destroy the FB. However, with the combination of the farrowed AMC exploit and the corner exploit, they get enough goals for it not to matter most of the time. When they do lose, and the stats are so heavily in their favour, they throw a fit as to the 'cheating' AI.

Crazy Arrows

Arrows allow a tactic like kimz's to perform. Enough said!

Arguments

The debate has led to the following arguments:

Arrows as Core to Tactics

Yes, as things stand, because of the unrealistic advantages they give you. However, if they were removed, they would no longer be core to tactics. Not an argument as to keeping them, just a statement of fact regarding the current situation.

Hard Work Lost

Yes, tactics would have to be revised. However, that happens not just between every FM, but between every patch, as in each patch engine holes and bugs have been discovered and ironed out. Removing arrows would just put us back into a situation we are used to being in.

Removing Arrows Reduces Tactical Sophistication

In theory, yes, but in practice, no. In the short-term they would undoubtedly reduce the number of instructions you could give a player, but they would make the instructions you could use more logical. They would also allow play to be more dynamic, with off the ball movement and decision-making playing more part in build up play. Players would ‘choose’ when to make runs rather than having movements robotically assigned via the arrows. As in real life, if the run is not picked out, the player would check and move back to his default position. This already happens with non-farrowed midfielders, although arguably they check too early. Build up play becomes a dynamic combination of keeping possession, making forward runs and looking for the pass to the man making the run (or moving into the space the run opens up). It becomes much more fluid and much less pre-programmed.

Altering Player Conditioning

One solution is that an excessive use of arrows should lead to a heavy drop in player conditioning. I can see the logic in that, but don’t think it gets to the core of the issue, which is the realism of the engine. It also means an arrowed tactic will unrealistically over-perform until the players get tired, which is only half a solution.

All the above arguments miss the key point, which is trying to get the engine to simulate reality as closely as possible. The realism of the simulation is key. If arrows are illogical when looked at with conjunction with FWRs, leading to unrealistic formations and exploiting engine holes that can only be patched up by equally unrealistic tactical instruction, then they should be removed. As I see it, arrows and forward runs should be the same thing.

here iis it our answer;)

It's obvious that the arrows, as they have been since the beginning of the CM/FM series, no longer exists, and what we have now is nothing more than a decoration, which allows us to talk about their some what different purpose with an "innocent" tone. Or in other words, SI singed off on their ability to balance the game engine in the privies form.

I should remind you that this is not the first step in the direction of an artificial limitation of the tactical freedom of the user. During the transition to the CM4, the option of manually positioning players depending which team had the ball and in which of the 12 zones of the field was it, was cut. The approach also doesn't completely comply with the reality although more flexible than the next one. The reasons were obvious – "bad people abused the poor AI, using their cheating techniques, some of which seemed pretty far fetched". Sounds fresh, doesn't it? The transition was successfully smoothened by the revolutionary 2D, and the "bad people" mellowed with time and started making their diablo tactics.

Next I should explain why I consider these restrictions artificial. Nothing but common sense can prevent the coach from making a player run to the right corner flag of the opposing team on each attack even if that player is a left defender. Only common sense can make you think that

(A) inevitably that player will tire and will have to be replaced

(B) during a fast attack he will not have time to cover such a critical zone by the corner flag

© if the ball is lost, he will not have time to cover his own zone in the defense

(D) spends most of his time at midfield

(E) it's unlikely to have a positive affect on the team's scores

(F) will allow him to question, along with the rest of the players and management, the mental health of the coach and ect.

Things don't just pop out of nowhere, and so is our common sense, instead it's quite naturally based on the laws of physics. Let's imagine an alternative reality, in which the left defender doesn't only not tire and has enough time to be where he's spouse to be but also brings results, and the coach is seen as a genius (those how could imagine can just think of the 8.02). What does our common sense tells us now?

It's called – feel the difference.

Considering that common sense is a subjective term which is based on curtain conditions, constricting anything based on it is at the very least strange. Thus I consider only two constrictions to by acceptable and natural: the laws of physics and football rules. The arrows on its own don't seem to contradict ether of those.

Never the less there will be no arrows, and the key words in the argumentation will be "in reality" and "realism". Diagonal movements, concentrating players in a constricted zone on the field, active addition of players to the first line of attack and ect, all these are considered unreal (which means that all of the above are not being used in modern football ). I would say that the engine of the match doesn't quite cope with all these things. There is a range of reasons for that, including a few objective ones, but I haven't seen a word about it.

However I have seen a great quote:" One solution is that an excessive use of arrows should lead to a heavy drop in player conditioning. I can see the logic in that, but don’t think it gets to the core of the issue, which is the realism of the engine. ".

So what can be said about the center defenders, who under similar conditions tire about as much as the ones on the flanges covering about twice as much distance in a match? What about the difference in condition between the players who run forward and the ones who don't?

Generally speaking the accents are placed in a strange manner or plain out wrong to be precise. Instead of bringing the laws of physics of our alternative FM reality to a normal state, in which the distance and the speed its cover on, are substantially effect the players condition, where the ball moves faster than the player and the defender who joins the attack can't return to his defender position in time to prevent the counterattack of the opposing team and so on and so on and so on………perhaps they will get to it later , but why did the arrows sufere.

TriAn, Croatian, grokk, vladik-kiev, denykteam, slavutich, MerlinGM, ildan, and other users (FMFan.ru)

[Super Bladesman]

One thing I would say is that from my experience with FML, play rewards more rounded players - you get to see the effect of more of the attributes. You can look at a game, and think 'that's where his Decisions att let him down', 'he needed more composure there' etc. I'm a lot more picky about players now.

In the past in FM, it's sometimes been a bit simpler to identify a good player - perhaps a winger needed pace, acceleration and crossing. We may find now that a player will need to be a bit more rounded to put in truly great performances; , maybe technique and agility will be more important, etc.

The other thing that I hope makes it across from FML is the improved player stats. I've sold DCs for only making 75% of their tackles - and it's very nice being able to see who's not completing enough of their headers/crosses/passes. The info is already there in FM, so I hope it's repackaged in the FML style in FM09 as part of the improved feedback.

[Super Bladesman]

why you have solved that my AMC will do it and not MC or FB. I am a coach and I want that specific player in specific position receive my specific task

Why would an AMC pick up a full back? It makes little sense.

[RockyBalboa]

When you're talking about straight arrows (forward or backward), I can see your point.

But I actually use the arrows for positioning players.

It's really not unrealistic to tell your player to play as a ML in defense and play as a AMC in attack. So he leaves the left flank open for the full back.

I play football and my coach used to tell me to do this as we had a left back with oxygen tanks on his back (as my coach used to say). So he wanted me to play as a AMC and our full back to run forward.

By the way Ajax used to use the same tactic with Trabelsi a few years back.

Now in-game:

Now I can make the full back run forward, but I cannot tell my ML to play as a AMC in attack.

Now you might say: give him man-marking on their MR and position him as a AMC, but what if I don't want to play man marking but zonal marking.

WWfan: Can you now see my (and of others) point?

[grokkk]

Why would an AMC pick up a full back? It makes little sense.

really?

and what about these formations?

Really? What about for example with 4321 with insides (AMLC->AML & AMRC->AMR) or diamond (DMC, MLC->ML, MRC->MR, AMC) or brasilian square (DMLC, DMRC, MLC->ML, MRC->MR)? These formations now are unrealistic? Forward runs instruction can tell players in one line (midfield for example) to play wider or narrowly? May be ML with Free Role will play like ML in defence and like AMC in attack? Is it unrealistic too? But I saw that Zinedine Zidane played for Real Madrid in such manner very often. )

It makes little sense?

Tell it 2all coachs whose teams play spanish 4-2-3-1 with 3 AMC

[bigdunk]

You would just give your ML a high attacking mentality, forward runs and lots of creative freedom. Maybe give him a free role too. That way he will get forward and have license to leave the left wing, when the game situation allows for it. With the arrows, what would happen is that as soon as you got the ball, your ML would always go and stand as am AMC, which is not what you really want here. For example, if the ball is being played down the left wing, you do not want your left winger running and standing centrally, you want him over on the left.

[wwfan]

When you're talking about straight arrows (forward or backward), I can see your point.

But I actually use the arrows for positioning players.

It's really not unrealistic to tell your player to play as a ML in defense and play as a AMC in attack. So he leaves the left flank open for the full back.

I play football and my coach used to tell me to do this as we had a left back with oxygen tanks on his back (as my coach used to say). So he wanted me to play as a AMC and our full back to run forward.

By the way Ajax used to use the same tactic with Trabelsi a few years back.

Now in-game:

Now I can make the full back run forward, but I cannot tell my ML to play as a AMC in attack.

Now you might say: give him man-marking on their MR and position him as a AMC, but what if I don't want to play man marking but zonal marking.

WWfan: Can you now see my (and of others) point?

I can see your point. However, we already solved that issue in FML by reworking the marking. If you play the ML as an MCL with forward runs and high mentality he will play as an AMCL in attack, but with good marking settings he will hotfoot it to the flank to pick up the opposing winger. Likewise, a winger will drift inwards to pick up central midfielders when he has no opposing winger or rampaging FB to mark.

Instead of using arrows to influence the attack, you need to ensure the defensive settings are right to protect your flanks. Different methods, similar outcome.

[Super Bladesman]

If you're playing three AMCs, then I would imagine the two wider ones will understand that they need to drift wide to compete for the ball against the full/wing back. I don't play the formation, so I can't say definitively...

[grokkk]

If you're playing three AMCs, then I would imagine the two wider ones will understand that they need to drift wide to compete for the ball against the full/wing back. I don't play the formation, so I can't say definitively...

u would imagine,but why do u think that AI think so also?) its only a program and it can't to imagine

[wwfan]

Arguably, because when arrow were removed, that player movement needed to be logically reworked was taken into account?

[MerlinGM]

It seems to me that some not so actively tested tactics with a considerable quantity of arrows and do not understand a difference in actions of the player with/without arrows.

Any who well tested behaviour of players with/without arrows is capable to name 10-15 variants of game (used in real football!) which cannot be realised without arrows.

In Russia sometimes say's: "the best means from a cold (dandruff, a headache) - a guillotine". Removing of arrows is and there is a guillotine.

[Ando THFC]

I think the major problem most people are having with arrows is that they think they are a realistic instruction, when in reality the opposite is true.

Can you imagine telling a player he has to cover two different positions?

Rafa: "Ok, Steve, I need you to play central midfield, control the game and when we get the ball, I need you to run forward and play behind the striker."

Stevie G: "So you want me to get forward at every opportunity to support the attack?" (eg: FWR: Often)

Rafa: "No, I want you to play central midfield when we don't have the ball and then move up behind the striker and make forward runs from there."

Stevie G: "So you want me to play behind the striker but drop deep to defend (that's lower mentality and FWR: Rarely) and to collect the ball (PPM)?"

Rafa: "No, I need you to play both positions."

Stevie G: "Are you high?"

That's utter rubbish. Of course a manager could say, "when we get the ball get in that hole behind the striker, when we lose possession drop into midfield."

Many a 4-5-1 formation relies exactly on this split between when you have the ball and when you dont, with winger told to push up to make a front three when in possession but to drop deep when the other team have it.

You're talking tosh.

[jayahr]

After reading this I'm somewhat disappointed that SI leave the job of defending the change to users like wwfan.

There ARE formations which irl have different set-ups in offense and defense like a 4-3-3 switching to a 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1 switching to 4-3-2-1.

Having neither wibble/wobble nor arrows at my disposal, the new engine deprives me of tactical options! I fail to see in what way this could improve the game or are SI actually going down the FIFA way of removing good options for new versions just to re-include them later for later versions to raise sales? If SI stop creating the best possible at any time for higher rewards, they'll lose their distinction and one of their USPs.

Maybe it just comes down to whether you are happy to sacrifice tactical freedom for realistic results on the match engine or vice versa. However if so, the ME is the problem, not the tactical freedom.

Thank god I haven't pre-ordered yet.

[grokkk]

Arguably, because when arrow were removed, that player movement needed to be logically reworked was taken into account?

logically???

my definition is-limited

[Super Bladesman]

SI haven't made any announcements about the ME yet, really, beyond the 3D/more feedback stuff - I imagine that's because the team are busy still tweaking away at the engine. We've no idea yet whether other new options will be included to fill in the gaps.

I am 100% sure that the ME in FM09 will be the best to date, by far, and that it will be possible for us to produce whatever realistic tactics we want. Try the demo when it comes out...

[wwfan]

After reading this I'm somewhat disappointed that SI leave the job of defending the change to users like wwfan.

There ARE formations which irl have different set-ups in offense and defense like a 4-3-3 switching to a 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1 switching to 4-3-2-1.

Having neither wibble/wobble nor arrows at my disposal, the new engine deprives me of tactical options! I fail to see in what way this could improve the game or are SI actually going down the FIFA way of removing good options for new versions just to re-include them later for later versions to raise sales? If SI stop creating the best possible at any time for higher rewards, they'll lose their distinction and one of their USPs.

Maybe it just comes down to whether you are happy to sacrifice tactical freedom for realistic results on the match engine or vice versa. However if so, the ME is the problem, not the tactical freedom.

Thank god I haven't pre-ordered yet.

Yes, because I'm known for my lack of tactical thought. Famous for it in fact.

Tactical control has improved. Fundamentally so. The ME plays better. Far, far better. It is absolutely possible to have a dynamic 4-3-3 to 4-5-1 switch within the same tactic.

The arrows were removed because they hurt the ME. Nothing to do with simplifying or dumbing down the game. Simply to make it come more in line with how football is played and looks in the real world.

If you believe for one moment the arrowless ME should factor in to your decision about not buying the game, then you are taking the worries of people who haven't played with the arrowless ME over the massively positive feedback of the majority of users who have played with it for the last 9 months. Hmm, who would I listen to?

[StewieGriffin]

I have to say that after reading this topic I am leaning on the side of removing the arrows and expanding the individual instructions, because you lot have confused me to the point I no longer know what the arrows are supposed to do.

I think everyone agrees that the arrows make players move but it is in the manner of the movement that people seem to be disagreeing on. If a forward arrow from the FB to the opponents corner flags is meant to tell the player to make that run everytime his team are in possession then that is not realistic, Evra does not sprint forward on every Man Utd attack otherwise he would not last 90 mins. He may join the attack slowly at first then quicker as the attack nears the goal but has to bear in mind that he needs to get back to his position if the ball is lost. If the arrow forces him to always run right up to the oppositions corner flag every attack then it must go. A player needs to judge when to go forward and when not to depending on how the attack develops. What would be better is a more in depth set of individual and team instructions where you can place specific instructions for in possession and defending so that a player knows exactly what to do.

Options for a FB could be - Make forward runs (with an option of how far, how often, speed of run, may be speed of run depending on position, etc) then in defence there would be different options. There would also be options for him on how to deal with specific players if necessary. It might be complex and time consuming to set up at first for all players but once done most players would only need small tweaks depending on the opposition.

Top managers will not use arrows to set their tactics they will use specific instructions which needs to be replicated in the game as long as the ME can display those instructions effectively.

[MerlinGM]

Try the demo when it comes out...

Ok, then start up now will answer, whether will be brought in ME the changes compensating removing of arrows. Because, when leaves demo and in will not be arrows and there will be no indemnification of their removing - something will already make late.

[wwfan]

I think everyone agrees that the arrows make players move but it is in the manner of the movement that people seem to be disagreeing on. If a forward arrow from the FB to the opponents corner flags is meant to tell the player to make that run everytime his team are in possession then that is not realistic, Evra does not sprint forward on every Man Utd attack otherwise he would not last 90 mins.

It does. Hence the problem.

[shevelevee]

Tactical control has improved. Fundamentally so. The ME plays better. Far, far better. It is absolutely possible to have a dynamic 4-3-3 to 4-5-1 switch within the same tactic.

The arrows were removed because they hurt the ME. Nothing to do with simplifying or dumbing down the game. Simply to make it come more in line with how football is played and looks in the real world.

wwfan, you've say this 10 times. But I don't understand, how еру tactic control was improved???? as i see in beta there are not nothing new, that can exchange arrows.

So, may be PaulC or you, or somebody tell us, how can we ask our left wingers move to center during attack in new "improved tactical control"

Or you must agree, that these words: Tactical control has improved. - is lie.

[MerlinGM]

I have to say that after reading this topic I am leaning on the side of removing the arrows and expanding the individual instructions, because you lot have confused me to the point I no longer know what the arrows are supposed to do.

I think everyone agrees that the arrows make players move but it is in the manner of the movement that people seem to be disagreeing on. If a forward arrow from the FB to the opponents corner flags is meant to tell the player to make that run everytime his team are in possession then that is not realistic, Evra does not sprint forward on every Man Utd attack otherwise he would not last 90 mins. He may join the attack slowly at first then quicker as the attack nears the goal but has to bear in mind that he needs to get back to his position if the ball is lost. If the arrow forces him to always run right up to the oppositions corner flag every attack then it must go. A player needs to judge when to go forward and when not to depending on how the attack develops. What would be better is a more in depth set of individual and team instructions where you can place specific instructions for in possession and defending so that a player knows exactly what to do.

Options for a FB could be - Make forward runs (with an option of how far, how often, speed of run, may be speed of run depending on position, etc) then in defence there would be different options. There would also be options for him on how to deal with specific players if necessary. It might be complex and time consuming to set up at first for all players but once done most players would only need small tweaks depending on the opposition.

Top managers will not use arrows to set their tactics they will use specific instructions which needs to be replicated in the game as long as the ME can display those instructions effectively.

Yes, it's right opinion. But there is one small nuance - in present ME there are no instructions which allow to realise it.

[wwfan]

Tactical control has improved. Fundamentally so. The ME plays better. Far, far better. It is absolutely possible to have a dynamic 4-3-3 to 4-5-1 switch within the same tactic.

The arrows were removed because they hurt the ME. Nothing to do with simplifying or dumbing down the game. Simply to make it come more in line with how football is played and looks in the real world.

wwfan, you've say this 10 times. But I don't understand, how еру tactic control was improved???? as i see in beta there are not nothing new, that can exchange arrows.

So, may be PaulC or you, or somebody tell us, how can we ask our left wingers move to center during attack in new "improved tactical control"

Or you must agree, that these words: Tactical control has improved. - is lie.

Firstly, in the current version of the FML Beta, tactical options are limited until you get a certain number of skills, so it is not a fair comparison. When the arrows were first removed everybody had full tactical options.

The issue everybody seems to be having is one of exactly defined player movement. The arrows did not, and never have, defined movement. They have only set two static positions, one for the player to take up when the team was defending, one when they were attacking. Dynamic movement then starts from these two positions. In this respect, NOTHING has changed. A manager never had any input to this movement. It was always down to the player.

In FML movement becomes determined by mentality, closing down and forward runs alone, and is thus MUCH EASIER to control. You don't have the issue of players shuttling like robots between two positions and trying to work out how the dynamic settings should interact with the static ones. Now the only static one is formation position, which links in where the ball is on the pitch when attacking and to defensive line position when defending. Knowing exactly where the player will start ensures a more precise level of controlled movement.

All you have lost is the ability to make a player operate in two positions in a robotic, not dynamic, manner. You have gained more dynamism in forward runs and mentality.

If you want a left winger to drift centrally, it will happen often if he is right footed, has Cross Ball Rarely instructions and is playing in a narrow formation. It will happen rarely with a left footed winger, with Cross Ball Often instructions in a wide formation. However, he will not do it as a matter of course any more, only as a reflection of what is happening on the pitch. It is not a deterministic move, as it is with arrows.

[shevelevee]

If you want a left winger to drift centrally, it will happen often if he is right footed, has Cross Ball Rarely instructions and is playing in a narrow formation. It will happen rarely with a left footed winger, with Cross Ball Often instructions in a wide formation. However, he will not do it as a matter of course any more, only as a reflection of what is happening on the pitch. It is not a deterministic move, as it is with arrows.

Why do you talking about Cross Ball, I ask about moves on flang.

If it's difficult to understand - how can I ask my right winger move to center and use longshots? In one match, or only in the second half, without PPM!!!!

[shevelevee]

Also, I saw tactical options in Fm2009 beta, if you want to know this. Don't ask me where and when.

[wwfan]

Why do you talking about Cross Ball, I ask about moves on flang.

If it's difficult to understand - how can I ask my right winger move to center and use longshots? In one match, or only in the second half, without PPM!!!!

Generally it will work better if your right winger is left footed, but reduce his crossing and ask him to take long shots often. He will then look to move into more central positions from which the long shot is on.

To be honest, given the crazy scores in your Tactical Cup, which all originated from excessive use of the arrows, I don't really understand your issue. The only problem is lateral movement, which has been identified as an issue by SI and will have some options regarding this in FM09. There is nothing else losing arrows takes away, while the game gains much.

[SmurfDude]

How exactly can any of you judge whether removal of arrows is either good or bad, unless you have actually played FML or FM09? This discussion is mostly based on assumptions seeing as you have no idea how the actual engine works now, or what impact the tactical changes have

[Neb]

WWFan - It sounds fantastic, just what was needed. I feel it'll make the game harder for those that found it too easy in FM08 (usually by downloading tactics) and more rewarding for the rest of us. For those that were struggling, it'll remove potential mismatches of instructions, making the game easier! Its a winner for all abilities!

No manager tells his midfielder to run up front every time the team gets the ball regardless of what the opposition are doing. He might tell his midfielder to push as much as possible, or to make forward runs, or to cross the ball, but never to move there everytime regardless of whats happening on the pitch. I think it'll place more reliance on your players ability, their judgement and positional competance, and make for a much more enjoyable game!

Its always bugged me that positioning, anticipation, decisions were no where near as important as Accel, pace and stamina. Slow players have always been binned in my game as I couldn't see the point in the them. now they might be of use, as long as they've got good positional sense. Older players might stay in my team after the age of 30 where previously they were binned because although they had better positioning, better experience, they weren't as physically as good. Teddy Sheringham wouldn't have played for me much past his 30th birthday as he wasn't fit enough to cope with playing in the 'hole' compared to younger players. now it seems he might have been able to make use of his experience and intelligence to play into his 40s!

[Majkee]

If you want a left winger to drift centrally, it will happen often if he is right footed, has Cross Ball Rarely instructions and is playing in a narrow formation. It will happen rarely with a left footed winger, with Cross Ball Often instructions in a wide formation. However, he will not do it as a matter of course any more, only as a reflection of what is happening on the pitch. It is not a deterministic move, as it is with arrows.

So is this going to work only with very mentally strong and inteligent players?

What about "Ashley Young" type of wingers? Right footed LW to cut inside and cross oftenly?

Example:

I want Ashley Young to play AMCL settings (positioned left as playing with three AMC): right footed, Cross Ball Rarely, narrow formation - from that what has been written by you, he will be in current ME trying to cut inside, but this position is filled with AMCC (the middle one of three) and - Ashley will only occassionaly goes to the left line, then cut inside...from my point of view, you can not dynamically work with width without arrows.

I want to play narrow, exploit only left wing - hug left line, then cut inside, cross or pass with stronger (right) foot...

...may be the match engine is so intelligent that the players are automatically using their better foot, using the free space in front, besides and behind them...if so, that will be great game.

But until demo - I am not convinced yet.

[shevelevee]

Generally it will work better if your right winger is left footed, but reduce his crossing and ask him to take long shots often. He will then look to move into more central positions from which the long shot is on.

It is realism?????!?!!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!

Laudrup: "Bystrov, please play on left flang, because you're right-footed, and don't cross the ball and use long shots"

Bystrov: "Oh, yes, Master! I understand! You want me to move in center when our team is in attack! Why don't you ask me about this directly?"

To be honest, why can't Si add in ME some processes which will limited succsfull of unrealistic arrows?

Read first post again, and you can see:

Only common sense can make you think that

(A) inevitably that player will tire and will have to be replaced

(B) during a fast attack he will not have time to cover such a critical zone by the corner flag

© if the ball is lost, he will not have time to cover his own zone in the defense

(D) spends most of his time at midfield

(E) it's unlikely to have a positive affect on the team's scores

(F) will allow him to question, along with the rest of the players and management, the mental health of the coach and ect.

It is impossible? Or it is too hard, it's more easy to delete arrows. Can you agree with this?

I understand that arrows in 8.02 were very, very bad tuned, but why delete!!!! Why Si don't delete corners (they were awful in 8/02). Why SI don't delete zonal marking (it was awful in 8/02). Why arrows!!!!!????

[Majkee]

Please, try to argument why SI did not do this:

1. farrows, barrows, sarrows implemented in ME as they were in FMxx

2. proper implementation of conditioning, marking etc.

My point is:

1. If someone wants to have those arrows, let them implemented and used.

2. If somenone is playing LB with farrow to the left opposite corner, let it implemented - it is not unreal or illogical.

3. But implement properly the loss of match condtion based on strength and stamina or other physical atrributes of the player.

4. If someone constantly runs as robot from LB to FL, he will last only for x minutes in proper condtition, and after that, he will be substituted, or more injury prone, or SLOW, less SKILLFULL, more exposed space etc. in current match - again based on physical attributes. This seems to be logical.

Arguments against?

Mine is:

1. it is less complicated to revoke arrows and tune up current tactical settings.

2. It is more complicated to tune up conditioning, injuries, decrease of attributes based on condition in ME.

However, we all will see in demo or full release.

[VMX]

Despite using the arrows a lot (not to cheat, but rather to try to make my tactics work exactly as I wanted), I have always observed something: they don't work as they should.

And I'll give two examples:

1. It's impossible to accomplish certain instructions

I've many times tried to make my AML/AMR players to "cut in" frequently instead of running up the goal line and cross the ball, usually with "changed foot" players. This means, right-footed players on the left or left-footed players on the right.

In the end, I never managed to accomplish what I wanted, and here's why:

- The first thing that comes to mind is: "Ok, set an arrow from the AMR position to the SC position, and he'll make those 'cut-in' runs for you..." WRONG.

If you do this, the player will run into striker positions when he doesn't have the ball, as part of his "off the ball" play when your team is attacking. This will make your team play with one more striker rather than make your player cut in when he's got the ball. This will effectively reduce your ball posession as you'll be playing with one less striker when you've got the ball, leading your team to have less passing options (except counter attacks), etc.

- The other option, as people have already pointed out here, is: "Then give the player individual instructions to 'rarely cross the ball' and maybe 'attempt long shots often', and he should work out that he needs to cut in to shoot with his good leg, etc..." WRONG.

First of all, who told you that I want him to attempt long shots? I want him to cut in, but not necessarily to shoot to goal! I want him to go into the middle maybe to just allow my right back to come up, and play some short-passing interior game until we manage to get a really clear one on one with the keeper. Why should I have to set him to attempt long shots and waste a good attacking chance?

Still, appart from that, this will only work SOMETIMES, and sometimes it won't. If you tell your player to NOT cross the ball, he'll look for an alternative option. Sometimes, the option will be to try to cut in. Sometimes, the option will be to pass the ball back to someone. Sometimes he'll attempt a long shot. Sometimes, he'll just go to the side and force a throw in / corner kick. And sometimes, he'll still attempt to make a cross.

Someone will say: 'Well, it's down to his own attributes and decissions to judge whether he should cut in or not'. Yes, but still, I want to make clear to my player that my preferred option for him to choose is to just attempt to CUT IN before anything else. Then, if he decides that it's not the appropriate moment to do that (which could be right or could be wrong), he'll then choose what to do. But I'm the coach and I need to be able to tell my player what I want him to do in such a typical situation!

In the end, we can say that BOTH ARROWS AND CURRENT TEAM INSTRUCTIONS FAIL to accomplish certain tasks.

The solution? In my opinion, either have more complex arrows where you could tell the player WHEN to make determined runs (i.e.: run towards this or that position WHEN YOU HAVE THE BALL), or (and this is probably the way to go), include some more individual instructions, which are REALLY NEEDED.

Personally, I'd LOVE to have a slider (maybe only for wide players) which had a "cut in" option in the left end, and a "run up to goal line" in the right end. If you leave it at the middle, it will be mostly down to player choice, attempting to do both things with no particular preference. However, the more you move the slider to "cut in", the more often he'll try to do that if he believes he can. The more you move it to "run up to goal line", the more likely he'll be to attempt that.

cut in |=====o=====| run up to goal line

...as simple as that.

2. Conflicts between arrows and some team instructions (such as attacking/defensive mentality)

If you draw an arrow from your right back up to the striker-right position, and then set his mentality to ultra-defensive... does he explode?

That's about it.

[Cougar2010]

I can't believe some people are still arguing this considering we haven't even had the demo yet.

For those of you saying that arrows are a run, they might look like it but the match engine has never treated them as a run therefore removal of the arrows are a logical step with the addition of some extra instructions so you are able to create what you thought you were doing with arrows.

The biggest concern seems to be lateral movement but this could easily be solved with one or more sliders/instructions

Perhaps something like:

DRIFT LEFT----------HOLD POSITION-------------DRIFT RIGHT

either as a slider or an order.

@ shelelevee

Please learn how to quote as your posts are difficult to follow and the word you are looking for is flank.

[Neb]

Please, try to argument why SI did not do this:

1. farrows, barrows, sarrows implemented in ME as they were in FMxx

2. proper implementation of conditioning, marking etc.

My point is:

1. If someone wants to have those arrows, let them implemented and used.

2. If somenone is playing LB with farrow to the left opposite corner, let it implemented - it is not unreal or illogical.

3. But implement properly the loss of match condtion based on strength and stamina or other physical atrributes of the player.

4. If someone constantly runs as robot from LB to FL, he will last only for x minutes in proper condtition, and after that, he will be substituted, or more injury prone, or SLOW, less SKILLFULL, more exposed space etc. in current match - again based on physical attributes. This seems to be logical.

Arguments against?

Mine is:

1. it is less complicated to revoke arrows and tune up current tactical settings.

2. It is more complicated to tune up conditioning, injuries, decrease of attributes based on condition in ME.

However, we all will see in demo or full release.

If the player above plays as a LB without the ball and a FL with the ball, what would you set his mentality as?? attacking or defending? creative freedom? long shots? would he close down or not? or would all depend on the position the player was at? would he shoot while in his own half? or try through balls from defence?

Isn't that the problem? you can set the player to be defensive, but he ends up playing defensively in FL position? or you can set him to be attacking, so he defends terribly in the LB position? you can see the confusion that causes the match engine! It also means that people complain that the match engine is broken and how come they've had 20 shots and not scored, when the opposition has 2 chances and scores 2 goals and wins the game... pretty obvious in my opinion, in this example, the LB is playing attacking leading to lots of poor chances, but with a terrible defence, the AI scores whenever they attack....

The ME wasn't broken, it was just being abused by terrible tactics!

The only issue I can see is that the width of certain positions might be compromised. That could easily be rectified with something like an individual width slider (as is currently there for the team).

problem sorted. stop your moaning, trust SI (it is their game after all and they've done very well so far!) if you don't like it after the demo, don't buy it!

[Majkee]

For those of you saying that arrows are a run, they might look like it but the match engine has never treated them as a run therefore removal of the arrows are a logical step with the addition of some extra instructions so you are able to create what you thought you were doing with arrows.

Are you claiming, that arrows functioned as this (example Team A with LB farrow to FL):

1. Team A has a ball

2. In ME LB simply disapper from LB sector

3. LB directly appears in FL sector

4. Team A lost the ball

5. In ME FL simply disappears from FL sector to...

6. ...became directly LB and appears in LB sector

...because that are not runs - but CHEATS I have never tried it but may be that was the argument to remove arrows

The biggest concern seems to be lateral movement but this could easily be solved with one or more sliders/instructions

Perhaps something like:

DRIFT LEFT----------HOLD POSITION-------------DRIFT RIGHT

either as a slider or an order.

Completely agree - that is great IDEA and I am fully for implementing it right here, right now

That should solve a lot of problems and arrows should completely disappear without any grievants...that should convinced me together with further implementation of ME conditioning (based on area covered vs. physical attributes vs. pitch and weather conditions vs. skills)

[Kriss]

WWFan -I think it'll place more reliance on your players ability, their judgement and positional competance, and make for a much more enjoyable game!

Its always bugged me that positioning, anticipation, decisions were no where near as important as Accel, pace and stamina. Slow players have always been binned in my game as I couldn't see the point in the them. now they might be of use, as long as they've got good positional sense. Older players might stay in my team after the age of 30 where previously they were binned because although they had better positioning, better experience, they weren't as physically as good. Teddy Sheringham wouldn't have played for me much past his 30th birthday as he wasn't fit enough to cope with playing in the 'hole' compared to younger players. now it seems he might have been able to make use of his experience and intelligence to play into his 40s!

Now that's very perceptive, it's exactly what we've seen in FML, players do certainly play more to their strengths (and weaknesses) older players are popular and would be even more so if their wage demands were lower.

When the howls of outrage first began in FML I was amazed to discover that most people didn't even know the effect of a sarrow, didn't stop them howling though:)

I do remember Paul C saying that removal of arrows was the start of a different direction for the ME, so I'm sure there's more to come and I would hope it will result in more varied and realistic player instructions.

I haven't seen opposition instructions mentioned here but they are part of this equation.

Arrows? they don't even get mentioned in FML these days:)

[Althaz]

Rafa: "Ok, Steve, I need you to play central midfield, control the game and when we get the ball, I need you to run forward and play behind the striker."

Stevie G: "So you want me to get forward at every opportunity to support the attack?" (eg: FWR: Often)

Rafa: "No, I want you to play central midfield when we don't have the ball and then move up behind the striker and make forward runs from there."

Stevie G: "So you want me to play behind the striker but drop deep to defend (that's lower mentality and FWR: Rarely) and to collect the ball (PPM)?"

Rafa: "No, I need you to play both positions."

Stevie G: "Are you high?"

hahaha

Rafa: "Stevie, when we go to attack, go on right flang, because their DL is poor ok?"

Stevie G: "Ok, Rafa"

That's an illogical instruction for starters. You want a player to go from MC to MR/AMR where you already have a player. It's either PPM hugs touchline (should have a drifts wide PPM in FM09 which suits better) or it's swap position with AMR/MR

[Majkee]

If the player above plays as a LB without the ball and a FL with the ball, what would you set his mentality as?? attacking or defending? creative freedom? long shots? would he close down or not? or would all depend on the position the player was at? would he shoot while in his own half? or try through balls from defence?

Isn't that the problem? you can set the player to be defensive, but he ends up playing defensively in FL position? or you can set him to be attacking, so he defends terribly in the LB position? you can see the confusion that causes the match engine! It also means that people complain that the match engine is broken and how come they've had 20 shots and not scored, when the opposition has 2 chances and scores 2 goals and wins the game... pretty obvious in my opinion, in this example, the LB is playing attacking leading to lots of poor chances, but with a terrible defence, the AI scores whenever they attack....

The ME wasn't broken, it was just being abused by terrible tactics!

The only issue I can see is that the width of certain positions might be compromised. That could easily be rectified with something like an individual width slider (as is currently there for the team).

problem sorted. stop your moaning, trust SI (it is their game after all and they've done very well so far!) if you don't like it after the demo, don't buy it!

I have not been moaning, I have been only considering the arguemnts for and against removing or lasting all kind of arrows.

My point of view, for complete simulation and best playing experience and enjoyment the basics are:

1. possibility to instruct to which direction should player move with/without ball in the sector of his position in formation (arrows or instructions - does not matter)

2. what should player do with and without ball

3. all that based NOT only on players mental attributes (decisions, creativity etc.), based only partly, that means based also from my managerial instructions. If the player is mentally strong, he will find best compromise between my orders and his thoughts.

[MerlinGM]

That's an illogical instruction for starters. You want a player to go from MC to MR/AMR where you already have a player. It's either PPM hugs touchline (should have a drifts wide PPM in FM09 which suits better) or it's swap position with AMR/MR

Not correctly.

1) In Lazio using 4-1-2-1-2 with arrow from MC to empty position MR/ML

2) Or if i want for MR moving to attack and MC moving to MR for secure.

[shevelevee]

That's an illogical instruction for starters. You want a player to go from MC to MR/AMR where you already have a player. It's either PPM hugs touchline (should have a drifts wide PPM in FM09 which suits better) or it's swap position with AMR/MR

Where did you read this?))))

My formation is 4-1-2-1-2 and I want to ask my MC in second half try to run with ball via left flang for example.

If you want to start destructive critism, I must notify you - I'll win. Don't try, please, it's only loss of time.

[Cougar2010]

Are you claiming, that arrows functioned as this (example Team A with LB farrow to FL):

1. Team A has a ball

2. In ME LB simply disapper from LB sector

3. LB directly appears in FL sector

4. Team A lost the ball

5. In ME FL simply disappears from FL sector to...

6. ...became directly LB and appears in LB sector

...because that are not runs - but CHEATS I have never tried it but may be that was the argument to remove arrows

1. possibility to instruct to which direction should player move with/without ball in the sector of his position in formation (arrows or instructions - does not matter)

This is where I think you are misunderstanding.

Arrows have never instructed a player where to run, they simply tell the player to play a different position, mainly when you have the ball.

From your example above as I understand it:

A) Team gets ball and match engine then treats LB as a FL.

B) Player is out of position and therefore using his physical stats attempts to regain position (FL) as quickly as possible.

C) If he receives the ball along the way its a fluke which confuses the match engine as it doesn't expect the player to be in that position (Maybe ML) and it tries to follow the instructions as best it can.

D) Player is in the FL position when team loses ball, match engine suddenly treats player as a LB again and he attempts to regain position using physical stats. Again this can lead to confusion over who the player should be closing down tackling etc.

[shevelevee]

Arrows have never instructed a player where to run, they simply tell the player to play a different position, mainly when you have the ball.

We read about this on a previous page.

My position without ball is DC

My position with ball is WBR

http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=1800363&postcount=90

[Mitja]

shevelevee and others, you're talking ********. the only thing you're right is that you can say to your player IRE is to move from winger to striker position, for example. arrowless ME is going to be much more demanding and realistic some of you cheaters might even stop playing FM.

there are far more important things in FM's tactical system and ME than removing the arrows.

[Mitja]

We read about this on a previous page.

My position without ball is DC

My position with ball is WBR

http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=1800363&postcount=90

this is supposed to be real life example or what?!

[Majkee]

shevelevee and others, you're talking ********. the only thing you're right is that you can say to your player IRE is to move from winger to striker position, for example. arrowless ME is going to be much more demanding and realistic some of you cheaters might even stop playing FM.

there are far more important things in FM's tactical system and ME than removing the arrows.

I think that there are no cheaters in this thread - why to mention cheaters? We are discussing tactical awareness not cheating. It is about discussion what is/was or will be able to do in tactics in ME compared to real world football and real tactics. I am not fully convinced about removing arrows especially wide ones (sarrows) because there were not enogh relevant arguments against removing sarrows. If we are talking to play with width, I want to control width movement of my players too. Not only their fwd or bkd runs.

I will judge when I play demo, if it was good idea to remove all kind of arrows.