High quality sources of FM knowledge?

[danej]

What are the good sources out there?

 

So far I have the impression that these are possibly good sources (random order):

1. This forum, not least the pinned educational posts.

2. FM Scout (YouTube)

3. Zealand (YouTube)

4. Omega Luke (YouTube)

5. FM Treq (YouTube)

6. RDF Tactics (YouTube)

7. Passion4FM (website)

 

However, I suspect that one or more of these sources are not very good, or at least have inconsistent quality. The sources sometimes contradict each other, have very different opinions on the same matter at times.

 

I wish I could find a single source that had all the info I am looking for. But to my knowledge that isn't possible. All the mentioned sources are at time a bit sparse and not detailed enough regarding their educational content. So I need to shop around if I want to learn about the game.

 

Not least this regards training. The aspect of the game where I currently do most of my research. A vastly complex field, I still have so many questions and so few answers regarding training.

 

That is also part if what I like about the game. It is complex enough to be mentally challenging. And on the other hand, once I learn a lot about the game, I feel like it is possible to play the saves rather quickly, barely having to micro manage in order to get decent results. The game seems to have a good balance regarding simplicity and complexity. At least if you put in the effort to learn about the game mechanics.

Edited July 18, 2022 by danej

[breze77]

You should check out BustTheNet on youtube as well, he is very knowledgeable on the game.

[herne79]

- Consistently good sources are: anything written by @Cleon; @Rashidi; @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!; the forum Moderators (and ex-Mods); SI staff, pinned articles & guides.  There are several other people who write well written articles, too many to be mentioned by name, which are usually very well received and prove very popular.

- Consistently good sources on YT are: Rashidi’s Bustthenet channel.

Other sources can provide good entertainment and can have some good information, but if you want consistently accurate the above is pretty much it.  That’s because it’s only these forums that have actual input from either SI staff and/or from people with some inside knowledge.  Other sources either take that knowledge (good) or make assumptions based on observation (not always good).

[Jack722]

Honestly I think there are very few truly reliable sources of information. There is no 'true' in depth official guide released by SI, so anyone has the freedom to post whatever they like, and as long as they post a convincing description and get results, it seems believable. However, there's a huge possibility that the results are due to other factors.. wonderkids, excellent training and team talks, strength of any tactic based on heavy pressing etc.

I used to read a lot of articles when I first got into FM, but i always found myself never really learning a lot. I think some videos and texts are made to sound smart and logical, but upon further reflection you realise that it doesn't really make sense or didn't actually teach you anything. I've also seen very popular YouTube channels explain a concept in a way that is completely objectively wrong, in a way that can be disproven by looking at official manuals or by experiments / watching full games.

I'm not trying to sound like I know better than everyone else, the way I play, and things I do gradually change all the time since I started playing. In fact, I've written articles on these forums in the past , that got lots of reputation points and good feedback, that I now totally disagree with. I also don't want to say you should ignore what anyone online says. I think there are some excellent writers on these forums, I've read almost everything from @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! and enjoyed it all. But not anymore will I ever take what he or anyone else on the internet says 100% seriously. I'd instead use it as inspiration, and contribute to threads to try and bounce ideas around - then I'd test the ideas out myself and evaluate to see if I agree.

There are only three sources of information that I take seriously with regards to FM

1) Evidence Based Football Manager

I like this channel because each and every conclusion is thoroughly investigated and objective. Everything he says he can prove, unlike most FM content creators, who, rightly or wrongly, state facts and opinions based on their own experiences and beliefs. 

2) official posts and manuals from SI staff - not the byline website, where they invite guests from the community to write.

3) anything to do with real football. This could be articles or videos from real life coaches, such as Coaches Voice . Most ideas can be fairly easily translated, at least somewhat, in to the FM engine. Or, watching games yourself, and asking yourself whats going on. "Is their striker dropping back to defend, or is he staying up for the counter attack", "are they pressing up to the opposition gk, or dropping back into the own half". A great website for this is Footballia, where you can watch lots of current or historic full games. I tend to pick a manager who I want to imitate and find 3 or 4 full matches against different types of opposition. Normally a 15, 20 minute segment is enough to figure out roughly what the match plan is.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Jack722

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Jack722 said:

1) Evidence Based Football Manager

I like this channel because each and every conclusion is thoroughly investigated and objective. Everything he says he can prove, unlike most FM content creators, who, rightly or wrongly, state facts and opinions based on their own experiences and beliefs. 

He does indeed put in a lot of work, but be careful about drawing conclusions from it.  If he says his data has been checked and verified by SI as well as his own testing then yes, take it as fact. 

However, if any has not been checked and verified by SI then take it as something of interest only.  This is because only SI actually know how all the coding links together and something which may appear to be at odds with SI's own information may not actually be.  In other words, something else under the hood in the coding may be having an impact which no end user testing can take account of.

By way of example the current thread in GC regarding match prep.  It does indeed appear to show match prep doesn't work as SI tell us, but what if it does have the impact which SI tell us but then something else (or many other things) hidden under the hood in the coding crops up to negate the impact?  As we don't know what might crop up how can that be measured by us end users?  That might skew results and lead to the (potentially) incorrect conclusion being drawn.

All too often we've seen users perform vast amounts of soak tests, draw conclusions seemingly at odds with SI's own information, only for SI to demonstrate how the user's conclusions are incorrect once SI have actually been given the chance to go over such data.  TL;DR - let SI verify things before conclusions are drawn.

[bosque]

hace 2 horas, Jack722 dijo:

3) anything to do with real football. This could be articles or videos from real life coaches, such as Coaches Voice .

This web is great! And its YouTube channel too. Rafa Benitez made a masterclass of his system recently who is super clear and interesting. Right now I'm triying to play with Rafa's system because the clarity of his ideas motivate me.

[Jack722]

3 hours ago, herne79 said:

He does indeed put in a lot of work, but be careful about drawing conclusions from it.  If he says his data has been checked and verified by SI as well as his own testing then yes, take it as fact. 

However, if any has not been checked and verified by SI then take it as something of interest only.  This is because only SI actually know how all the coding links together and something which may appear to be at odds with SI's own information may not actually be.  In other words, something else under the hood in the coding may be having an impact which no end user testing can take account of.

By way of example the current thread in GC regarding match prep.  It does indeed appear to show match prep doesn't work as SI tell us, but what if it does have the impact which SI tell us but then something else (or many other things) hidden under the hood in the coding crops up to negate the impact?  As we don't know what might crop up how can that be measured by us end users?  That might skew results and lead to the (potentially) incorrect conclusion being drawn.

All too often we've seen users perform vast amounts of soak tests, draw conclusions seemingly at odds with SI's own information, only for SI to demonstrate how the user's conclusions are incorrect once SI have actually been given the chance to go over such data.  TL;DR - let SI verify things before conclusions are drawn.

I wouldn't put him on the same level as official content of course, but for me he's in a tier in between official content and basically any other creator I've seen. And I don't believe he's perfect, In fact, so far one of the 5 or 6 videos I've seen from him , i didn't agree with. But the good thing was that I was able to decide based on all the evidence he brought up, whether his point or conclusion is more or less correct. Something that you don't get with anyone else.

[glengarry224]

6 hours ago, Jack722 said:

... as long as they post a convincing description and get results, it seems believable. However, there's a huge possibility that the results are due to other factors.. wonderkids, excellent training and team talks, strength of any tactic based on heavy pressing etc.

I used to read a lot of articles when I first got into FM, but i always found myself never really learning a lot. I think some videos and texts are made to sound smart and logical, but upon further reflection you realise that it doesn't really make sense or didn't actually teach you anything. I've also seen very popular YouTube channels explain a concept in a way that is completely objectively wrong, in a way that can be disproven by looking at official manuals or by experiments / watching full games.

Excellent points.  You should always filter FM information - and any information, especially if it appears persuasive - through a lens of critical reading.  I'm sometimes as guilty as anyone else and post ideas which are estimation or speculation.  Much of the time, I try to base my posts on what you can find 'in the game'.  But I do fail.

For example, when people debate the difference between an IF and an IW, read/watch what people say but more importantly, look at the game descriptions, including the moving gif's within the tactics setup screen, which will show you how the position is designed to move and where it might receive passes, etc.:

of course, the game is complex and doesn't always work 100% as designed.

An excellent, verified source of basic information is The Football Manager Show by The Athletic.  Iain Macintosh regularly interviews SI people like CJ Ramson, who is the QA lead for the match engine.  He also has access to SI to answer listener questions.

guidetofm,com has good descriptions and information.

Edited July 18, 2022 by glengarry224

[themadsheep2001]

Bustthenet is probably the best source outside of SI, along with Cleon. As they have both done bits with SI, and get their information verified, so its as close as you'll get to SI saying more often than not. Don't think anyone outside of SI knows the match engine in particular, as well as these two. 

[Razor940]

I don't put stock on fm youtubers/streamers unless it's BTN or that german fellow that exited youtube. I also like some bloggers like Grasshoppers, who did things for the Byline. 

Now, Omega Lukes, RDFs, Zealands and etc? I have a big problem when from the get go their tactical set ups, trying to take things from real life, with all due respect are completely dumbed down with no nuance like you see a lot in this forum by the average joe. They might work, they might explore the ME to the point of getting all the exploits, but it just puts me off. Some time ago I was getting recomended RDF's videos everyday about emulating Pep or some sort of positional play style and every video was the same pseudo ******** of two support inverted wingbacks emulating 2016 City like they play like that nowadays. How am I supposed to take you serious as FM information when you don't seem to see the games and only talk about things like you just read some thread from the SI forum? 

[De Nile]

On 18/07/2022 at 13:47, Jack722 said:

3) anything to do with real football. This could be articles or videos from real life coaches, such as Coaches Voice . Most ideas can be fairly easily translated, at least somewhat, in to the FM engine. Or, watching games yourself, and asking yourself whats going on. "Is their striker dropping back to defend, or is he staying up for the counter attack", "are they pressing up to the opposition gk, or dropping back into the own half". A great website for this is Footballia, where you can watch lots of current or historic full games. I tend to pick a manager who I want to imitate and find 3 or 4 full matches against different types of opposition. Normally a 15, 20 minute segment is enough to figure out roughly what the match plan is.

Yes including spielverlagerung: there is an English version https://spielverlagerung.com/ and a German version https://spielverlagerung.de/  . German version has a lot more analysis. 

 

[bosque]

hace 4 horas, Razor940 dijo:

I don't put stock on fm youtubers/streamers unless it's BTN or that german fellow that exited youtube. I also like some bloggers like Grasshoppers, who did things for the Byline. 

Now, Omega Lukes, RDFs, Zealands and etc? I have a big problem when from the get go their tactical set ups, trying to take things from real life, with all due respect are completely dumbed down with no nuance like you see a lot in this forum by the average joe. They might work, they might explore the ME to the point of getting all the exploits, but it just puts me off. Some time ago I was getting recomended RDF's videos everyday about emulating Pep or some sort of positional play style and every video was the same pseudo ******** of two support inverted wingbacks emulating 2016 City like they play like that nowadays. How am I supposed to take you serious as FM information when you don't seem to see the games and only talk about things like you just read some thread from the SI forum? 

What is the name of the german youtube channel?

[fc.cadoni]

1. Bustthenet
2. Evidence Based Football Manager
3. Official SI Staff

End.

[Razor940]

Em 20/07/2022 em 19:05, bosque disse:

What is the name of the german youtube channel?

I think it was Scribe.

[danej]

10 hours ago, Razor940 said:

I think it was Scribe.

I doubt it, or he changed his way. His last 50 playlists or so are with other games than FM.

 

Edit: Or I could be looking at the wrong the channel. There of dozens of channels containing the name Scribe. In any case I can't find the right one.

Edited July 28, 2022 by danej

[johnnyyakuza78]

I’ll just echo the point that I think all these creators are very useful for understanding the concepts behind the game, how you might set up a tactic and get it to work and play in the style you want.

Ive made the mistake of zeroing in on individual comments and taking them as hard and fast rules in the past though, it’s wrecked some of my games.

For instance, I like to play a lowish block 442 quite often and am always on the look out for advice on doing that. There is so much conflicting advice on how to do it. At one point it was all about low line of engagement, high pressing and tight marking. I tried that because it also suited my ideas, but it never worked better than regular settings and just swapping mentality. 
 

So I just think with every bit of advice given there is always ‘it depends’ attached. 
 

I feel like the game is too complex yet simple to say one tactic works all the time, and I usually need to tweak things during and between matches. That’s why I think it’s better to understand the WHY rather than the WHAT in this game 

[kepz]

In addition to the others mentioned, I like StingerFM because he doesn't behave or talk like a YouTuber in his videos and he keeps them relatively short yet informative.