ZaZ said: Gratz for the top, but keep in mind that if you run the same tactic several times in a test with one point of precision, it's only natural that a few runs will end up one point above and a few will end one point below. That means what you tested might very well make no difference, and what we see is just statistical noise. Even running the same tactic, the best run and the worst could have two points of difference in between (the best run one point above, the worst run one point below). Expand
ZaZ said: Gratz for the top, but keep in mind that if you run the same tactic several times in a test with one point of precision, it's only natural that a few runs will end up one point above and a few will end one point below. That means what you tested might very well make no difference, and what we see is just statistical noise. Even running the same tactic, the best run and the worst could have two points of difference in between (the best run one point above, the worst run one point below). Expand
In fact, these small touches created a lot of effect, from 57 averages to 61 averages. From this perspective, I think the difference is not small.
pixar said: In fact, these small touches created a lot of effect, from 57 averages to 61 averages. From this perspective, I think the difference is not small. Expand
I'm not complaining with the result, I'm just saying that the difference between the best and worse of those tests is still within the margin of error of FM-Arena. That means it's not an evidence that wide IF and narrow WB are better than the other options tested. Obviously, it's still the best result we have and we can use it as reference, but we also have to keep in mind that even the same tactic tested several times will have some variance.
As an example of what I'm saying, IF-wide has gotten 59 points in 0.6, but also got 61 in 0.8. WB-Narrow hit 61 result here, but in 0.9 it was 58. In other words, we should be careful to not draw conclusions based on what can be variance, as there is no statistical difference between the top tactics.
P.S.: I have no problem with other tactics being on top, I am just trying to point out to not take the result as definite truth and ignore the other options on future testing.
My 2 CBs keep getting horrible ratings (Bastoni & Scalvini) even though I don't concede that many goals. This wasn't a problem until their getting dropped from their national team because of poor club performance. Is anyone having the same problem with their CBs?
I know this scores highest but it’s not as effective as the II version, also a lot of chances going way wide and over the bar then bang other team get a chance and score
Scoob84 said: I know this scores highest but it’s not as effective as the II version, also a lot of chances going way wide and over the bar then bang other team get a chance and score Expand
So the tactic is creating chances but your team aren't taking them? that sounds like an issue with the players taking the chances, not the tactic
toonarmy0511 said: My 2 CBs keep getting horrible ratings (Bastoni & Scalvini) even though I don't concede that many goals. This wasn't a problem until their getting dropped from their national team because of poor club performance. Is anyone having the same problem with their CBs? Expand
Yeah this is an ongoing issue with the ME, its been raised on the SI forums a few times. Ill try and find the forum post but I know its also been mentioned on a few of the discord servers I am on
CBP87 said: So the tactic is creating chances but your team aren't taking them? that sounds like an issue with the players taking the chances, not the tactic
Yeah this is an ongoing issue with the ME, its been raised on the SI forums a few times. Ill try and find the forum post but I know its also been mentioned on a few of the discord servers I am on Expand
Then I’ve switched back to the version II and won both games 5-1 away
ZaZ said: Gratz for the top, but keep in mind that if you run the same tactic several times in a test with one point of precision, it's only natural that a few runs will end up one point above and a few will end one point below. That means what you tested might very well make no difference, and what we see is just statistical noise. Even running the same tactic, the best run and the worst could have two points of difference in between (the best run one point above, the worst run one point below).
Would you like some more salt on that sir?
ZaZ said: Gratz for the top, but keep in mind that if you run the same tactic several times in a test with one point of precision, it's only natural that a few runs will end up one point above and a few will end one point below. That means what you tested might very well make no difference, and what we see is just statistical noise. Even running the same tactic, the best run and the worst could have two points of difference in between (the best run one point above, the worst run one point below).
In fact, these small touches created a lot of effect, from 57 averages to 61 averages. From this perspective, I think the difference is not small.
pixar said: In fact, these small touches created a lot of effect, from 57 averages to 61 averages. From this perspective, I think the difference is not small.
I'm not complaining with the result, I'm just saying that the difference between the best and worse of those tests is still within the margin of error of FM-Arena. That means it's not an evidence that wide IF and narrow WB are better than the other options tested. Obviously, it's still the best result we have and we can use it as reference, but we also have to keep in mind that even the same tactic tested several times will have some variance.
As an example of what I'm saying, IF-wide has gotten 59 points in 0.6, but also got 61 in 0.8. WB-Narrow hit 61 result here, but in 0.9 it was 58. In other words, we should be careful to not draw conclusions based on what can be variance, as there is no statistical difference between the top tactics.
P.S.: I have no problem with other tactics being on top, I am just trying to point out to not take the result as definite truth and ignore the other options on future testing.
what the difference between 424 Alhamdulillah II to 424 Alhamdulillah II 0.8 ??
AG said: what the difference between 424 Alhamdulillah II to 424 Alhamdulillah II 0.8 ??
original one has narrow IF and wide WB, 0.3-0.10 are just playing with width PIs of these 2 roles
ok, thank you!
55pts with 424 Alhamdulillah II 0.8
it's look promising
Sickkkk, another one
From what position should a player be designated to take corner kicks?
Can u please post Player instructions..?
Thank you for awesome tactics.
Do a version of this tactic with less intensity exist to use when you have won games?
Hey this looks like a great tactic! Just wondering what the player instructions are as I am on console.
Super interesting. I'm testing it and it has good results. Do you have any recommendations regarding instructions against opposing players?
Hi, would somebody be able to post player instructions for an Xbox player..thanks
Hazyjane said: Hi, would somebody be able to post player instructions for an Xbox player..thanks
tackle hard for all players, IFs - stay wide, WBs - stay narrow, BPD - dribble more
@opq I'm using 424 Alhamdulillah II 0.8,Great tactic!!!
Do you use any opposition instructions?
filipss said: @opq I'm using 424 Alhamdulillah II 0.8,Great tactic!!!
Do you use any opposition instructions?
I don't use OIs since ages, but think it's ok to use at least show onto weak foot and trigger press on opposition defenders
My 2 CBs keep getting horrible ratings (Bastoni & Scalvini) even though I don't concede that many goals. This wasn't a problem until their getting dropped from their national team because of poor club performance. Is anyone having the same problem with their CBs?
I know this scores highest but it’s not as effective as the II version, also a lot of chances going way wide and over the bar then bang other team get a chance and score
Scoob84 said: I know this scores highest but it’s not as effective as the II version, also a lot of chances going way wide and over the bar then bang other team get a chance and score
So the tactic is creating chances but your team aren't taking them? that sounds like an issue with the players taking the chances, not the tactic
toonarmy0511 said: My 2 CBs keep getting horrible ratings (Bastoni & Scalvini) even though I don't concede that many goals. This wasn't a problem until their getting dropped from their national team because of poor club performance. Is anyone having the same problem with their CBs?
Yeah this is an ongoing issue with the ME, its been raised on the SI forums a few times. Ill try and find the forum post but I know its also been mentioned on a few of the discord servers I am on
CBP87 said: So the tactic is creating chances but your team aren't taking them? that sounds like an issue with the players taking the chances, not the tactic
Yeah this is an ongoing issue with the ME, its been raised on the SI forums a few times. Ill try and find the forum post but I know its also been mentioned on a few of the discord servers I am on
Then I’ve switched back to the version II and won both games 5-1 away
Scoob84 said: Then I’ve switched back to the version II and won both games 5-1 away
Tactics are about chances created, not chances taken. That is down to the players quality
Does anyone have player instructions for this please? Xbox player