How much pace does defenders/attackers have in these tests? Can you make a point that defenders may have lower pace and attackers higher pace in a real league, and thus a lower D-line would be even better if you are a "bad" team with slow defenders?
My team performs better troughout the season when I removed these three team instructions. May be that when you actually play in a regular season it could be beneficial to not have so many cards (because of stuck in) and maybe less running (with overlaps)? Could of course be down to RNG, but very interesting results.
Could be better to play with less demanding tactic to have best players ready for matches and not be tired/suspension than to play with a slightly better tactic (but more demanding).
Hey Zaz! Do you know if having two CB with the same preferred foot are any disadvantage against having one left foot and one right foot? (Given that they have at least okay weak foot).
Are the set pieces good, or standard? Have not had too much success with my corner tactic as I did last year. Do you score a lot of corners from this tactic?
Thanks for the hard work, really interesting to see these results.
Last year I felt height were important especially on center backs. Tall and strong centerbacks were dominent, this year I have very good results and performances from smaller center backs. Would be interesting to have height tested again this year. In some form or shape.
Great work, very interesting results! Thank you so much for the hard work.
How does the RNG play out according to the points in the testing table? According to this post, there are a lot of RNG involved in testing for 640 matches (as tactic table). Right now, the nr. 1 tactic on the table and the nr. 10 tactic are 5 point apart. If we include RNG in the testing, all of the top 10 tactics might actually be the best? But we cannot know for certain before we test more games?
Am I onto somehting here, or does this not make sence?
The testing on this site does not have enough games played to give reliable results. 228 games is not enough to because of the amount of random variance and possible outcomes of football manager. The top tactics here have been tested with 3040 matches and thus give far more accurate results.
The "Calcio Sambuca" posted by @carmeloanthony015 would be great to see tested. Cant believe that one has been tested before, seems so strong and unique.
Yes! But this does not have the lower D-line. Might make a difference somehow?
If that made sence, at least did in my head..
Could be better to play with less demanding tactic to have best players ready for matches and not be tired/suspension than to play with a slightly better tactic (but more demanding).
Do a version of this tactic with less intensity exist to use when you have won games?
Great job!
Last year I felt height were important especially on center backs. Tall and strong centerbacks were dominent, this year I have very good results and performances from smaller center backs. Would be interesting to have height tested again this year. In some form or shape.
Keep up the good work!
If not, do you have a recomended set up or any recomended testing leagues to use?
How does the RNG play out according to the points in the testing table? According to this post, there are a lot of RNG involved in testing for 640 matches (as tactic table). Right now, the nr. 1 tactic on the table and the nr. 10 tactic are 5 point apart. If we include RNG in the testing, all of the top 10 tactics might actually be the best? But we cannot know for certain before we test more games?
Am I onto somehting here, or does this not make sence?
https://fm-gamers.com
The testing on this site does not have enough games played to give reliable results. 228 games is not enough to because of the amount of random variance and possible outcomes of football manager. The top tactics here have been tested with 3040 matches and thus give far more accurate results.