Middleweight165 said: Should I just change this in the tactical overview before each match? Expand
There is an option to change a tactic just for the next match, right before the match starts. Anyway, it's very easy to change it inside the match too, but I don't recommend changing in the tactic page because you can forget it on.
Evanscam97 said: Quick thought for you @Mark (and possibly @ZaZ ... when looking at IWB (i.e ZAZ Blue) Do you look at the ratings for DLR or WBLR? - Im assuming that either way you still look at the Position Rating (x/20) for DLR because that's where they're actually "playing" according to FM.
There doesn't seem like a huge difference in GS Ratings Weights between WB and D - but worth asking. Expand
To be fair, I just look to the four attributes with the highest impact in that table. It's usually Acceleration, Pace, Stamina and Work Rating, with one or other different attribute for certain roles. Since I usually search using the scout centre, and I always retrain my wingbacks to play in both sides, then I just search both DL and DR positions, and select the best I find (it doesn't matter if I end up using two DR or two DL).
About WBR/L, I don't search for players natural in that position because it's harder to train a player in three positions (DR, DL and the one he was natural before).
Middleweight165 said: Why does Current Ability change if the position value changes? I would assume the CA remained the same if you changed a players position in the editor. Why would that then mean losing potential ability points?
Is there a positional value you wouldnt go below when retraining a CM to ST? I'm assuming 1 would take too long. Is there a cutoff value? Expand
To explain in simple words, CA is not exactly related to performance, but to how close a player is to stop growing (reaching his PA). The performance is related to attributes, which in turn affect CA. However, you can have two players with the same CA, but completely different levels of performance.
Anyway, when you train a player in another position, it might increase the CA by a couple of points, but that doesn't change the attributes, so the performance will stay the same. In practice, he will just reach his maximum potential faster.
Keep in mind that, as Zippo said, a change in the weight of attributes can cause it to not "fit" into the CA value, and that may cause the player to slowly change attributes to fit the new CA. However, since the development to another position takes a couple of months, then your attributes won't exactly drop, but instead it will just grow slightly less during training until it matches your CA.
Middleweight165 said: @ZaZ I would have to use the 1st option as I instant result most games and I would assume the assistant manager wouldnt solve it.
I wasn't aware there were different ratings, general and positional. Looking into this has just made me more confused I will continue my questions in @Mark thread because I think it's most suitable there
Is there a position value I shouldn’t go below because it will either take too long or it will cost too many attribute points, I’m assuming retraining position cost attribute points? Expand
No, it doesn't cost any points to retrain position. However, it seems to consider the CA from the most expensive position. If you go to the Editor and set a ST to have 20 in CM, it will keep the CA from ST, because it's higher. If you do the other way around (set a CM to 20 in ST), it changes the CA to that of a ST.
However, the difference isn't so big and the benefit of having Blue + Green far outweighs any loss of 3 or 5 in PA (having higher CA doesn't affect the current ability, it just means you reach PA faster).
About positional and general rating, the first is considering the ability on the position, while the second is considering only attributes.
Middleweight165 said: I think its the attribute distribution which is my concern. If I take my CM who's positional rating on GS is 83 and his FS rating is 73. Even if he trains in the ST position and gets accomplished his positional rating will still be the same won't it? So by moving him to ST position during the game, the overall quality of my team will drop by 10 pts Expand
Once they get at least accomplished, then the difference won't be so noticeable. The CM-AM will be fine, since attributes required are barely the same, and the CM-ST also have several attributes that are important for both. Even if your player is better at one position than the other, the difference will be too small when compared to the benefit of having an excellent tactic to attack and another excellent tactic to defend. For each team of 11 players, that would mean: GK DC DC DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) DM CM/AM CM/ST AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) ST
Another option is to only train one CM as AM, and instead of retraining the other CM as ST, you can have both players available in your squad. That means having 12 players per team instead of 11, and bring the extra to the bench. For a bench with 7 players, they would look something like this: GK DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) DC DM CM-AM (trained in both positions) AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) ST
Personally, I prefer to have a CM that can also play as ST, even if he isn't as good in one position as the other. In practice, we are talking about a single player performing 5% to 10% worse, from a team of 10 players (plus GK). It's not like you will lose 5 to 10% in performance. Also, since you use GS, you can probably find players that are almost equally good in both positions, if you check "General Rating" instead of "Positional Rating".
Middleweight165 said: @ZaZ Thanks mate, I didn't realise that guy was also doing videos on other channels so I'll check them out.
I wanted to ask you more about the Blue/Green combo tactic. I'm going to start a new save today and try it. Obviously you think its worth doing but does the drop in quality of player not diminish the effectiveness of the tactic?
For example, in my previous save I was using @Geek Positive Tika Taka + your Green and Green Light and I could build a squad with quality players in each position. I think its rare to find a player with a high positional score for CM and ST (maybe 90 and 79 respectively), so does that not drop the quality of the team overall?
I tend to use Instant Result so I'm not able to sub in players if formation changes using a match plan Expand
It's not very practical to hire someone skilled in multiple positions, because the combination CM+ST is not very common. Instead, if you start training to a completely new position during pre-season, it usually takes five to ten official matches to reach accomplished rating (dark green color). I feel like it's fine to have this downtime in order to have an easy transition between Blue and Green, because those tactics complement each other and are useful in different situations.
Just check the quality of your wingback + winger. Same for your opponent. If your main winger broke your leg and you have to play a youngster with 16 years old, then your strong side is probably the opposite.
You can also check in the Data Hub to see where most goals come from. If one side clearly creates more goals than the others, that's a hint.
sangarios said: i think i have found the problem , i have been giving duty of touchline instructions to assistant manager since the beginning so that he can handle the shouts in match. but now i think that he was changing tactic's instructions all the time and this is the reason of my poor results. what do you think about that? is it possible? @ZaZ Expand
I don't know how it works, but 99% of advice from assistant manager during matches is bad stuff, like "we should play with defensive mentality" if the opponent is stronger. If he is applying those instructions, then your performance will definitely suffer.
johnconnerson said: For the main Blue 4.0 tactic (or any of these really) is it recommended to alter the player instructions to fit my player's skill sets? Or should I leave it as is? Expand
Instead of just saying "Very Very very very bad", I would recommend you say something like "It didn't perform very well on my tests". It sounds less rude.
Falbravv said: I saw this on Twitter, i think it's a good idea, but i also like the "easy" side of all the tips. But trust me, i will be the first reader of this guide. Expand
Probably should start with a summary section, so people can check everything easily.
Falbravv said: No problem for me here to win Ligue 1 with Marseille the first year. Beat PSG on domestic league, on supercup, and europa supercup (because of PSG CL winner, and i Europa winner).
With my own experience and all the great great great advice from Zaz i find it easy now to perform as you want.
I also take a large part on youth development, to do what i really want to obtain for young men Expand
Gratz! I'll try to organize all those tips from first post into a more in-depth guide for FM23.
Bogeyman said: A 20 points difference in CA is a huge difference in FM.
There's about a 20 points difference between Manchester Utd and Norwich but we all know how easy it's to win EPL with Manchester Utd and how hard it's to do that with Norwich.
Here's the CA of the default Manchester Utd team:
and here's the CA of the default Norwich team: Expand
It might be just because I consider most players with ability close to 150 as world class players, and since his team is mostly on that range, I think he might be able to win the league. However, it's like you said, it's still the difference between a top team from Premier League and a bottom team, so the normal should be not winning.
So I'd say the difference of 10-20 points in CA is a huge difference and if you improve the CA of your players by 20 points then it'll greatly boost your results Expand
I meant 10-20 difference in CA, given he is picking players with the most efficient attributes. If he is lacking in those more efficient, then it is definitely a lot. =)
sangarios said: thank you both for your helps. i have shared gs squad screen's of chelsea and my team. what do you think about my squad, is it enough after 7 seasons? my main problem in league is that chelsea is collecting more than 90 points every fckn season and when it comes to matches with them, i cant just help it but lose or draw thanks to mbappe the worst thing about playing with instant result is i cant change the tactic upon situation of the match, i have been using green 5.0 since the start, and i'm losing most of the points to the teams that i should have won easily, like they are getting ahead 1-0 and i'm still playing with green instead of blue. Expand
I think it is good enough to be champion. The point of having a good tactic (like any tactic 6.0+ in FM-Arena) is to overachieve or get better results than your team would normally allow. The difference of 10-20 points in CA isn't very high, so you should have a good chance to win if you manage your squad properly. The problem is, since you are using instant results, then you are basically skipping the management part, and that removes one of the main advantages players have over AI controlled teams.
sangarios said: thank you for answer. so i have been playing with bolton for 7 seasons and (with instant result mostly, i am only playing critical matches by myself) and i got 0 trophies . i have lost the champions league in final 3 times in a row and i got 2nd position in premier league 3 times in a row again. is this results ok or am i doing something wrong?(my pre-season prediction was 7th last year) Expand
There are two different answers to your question. First, it is what Milakus just said. If you are predicted 7th and you reached the final of Champions League and got 2nd place in Premier League, that is overachieving, so it is a good result.
The second answer is that after seven years building a team (I imagine four or five in the Premier League), you should already be strong enough to win it if you did correctly. It is normal to not win in the first two or three seasons, since most good players do not want to join your side when you just got promoted from lower division. However, when that stops being an issue and you already have most players you want, then you should start winning the league. If your team is good and you did not win yet, it is either because you did not hire very good players, or because you did not do a good job managing their mental condition (morale and team shouts) and physical condition (condition, match fitness, fatigue and injuries).
P.S.: Playing without instant results would probably help, since you can keep the players motivated with shouts, give good team speeches on half time, and you can use substitution to improve the performance of your team (assistant manager likes to keep injured players on the field).
There is an option to change a tactic just for the next match, right before the match starts. Anyway, it's very easy to change it inside the match too, but I don't recommend changing in the tactic page because you can forget it on.
There doesn't seem like a huge difference in GS Ratings Weights between WB and D - but worth asking.
To be fair, I just look to the four attributes with the highest impact in that table. It's usually Acceleration, Pace, Stamina and Work Rating, with one or other different attribute for certain roles. Since I usually search using the scout centre, and I always retrain my wingbacks to play in both sides, then I just search both DL and DR positions, and select the best I find (it doesn't matter if I end up using two DR or two DL).
About WBR/L, I don't search for players natural in that position because it's harder to train a player in three positions (DR, DL and the one he was natural before).
Edit - I read this comment of yours in another thread (https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/13884/), It's clear now
Is there a positional value you wouldnt go below when retraining a CM to ST? I'm assuming 1 would take too long. Is there a cutoff value?
To explain in simple words, CA is not exactly related to performance, but to how close a player is to stop growing (reaching his PA). The performance is related to attributes, which in turn affect CA. However, you can have two players with the same CA, but completely different levels of performance.
Anyway, when you train a player in another position, it might increase the CA by a couple of points, but that doesn't change the attributes, so the performance will stay the same. In practice, he will just reach his maximum potential faster.
Keep in mind that, as Zippo said, a change in the weight of attributes can cause it to not "fit" into the CA value, and that may cause the player to slowly change attributes to fit the new CA. However, since the development to another position takes a couple of months, then your attributes won't exactly drop, but instead it will just grow slightly less during training until it matches your CA.
I wasn't aware there were different ratings, general and positional. Looking into this has just made me more confused
Is there a position value I shouldn’t go below because it will either take too long or it will cost too many attribute points, I’m assuming retraining position cost attribute points?
No, it doesn't cost any points to retrain position. However, it seems to consider the CA from the most expensive position. If you go to the Editor and set a ST to have 20 in CM, it will keep the CA from ST, because it's higher. If you do the other way around (set a CM to 20 in ST), it changes the CA to that of a ST.
However, the difference isn't so big and the benefit of having Blue + Green far outweighs any loss of 3 or 5 in PA (having higher CA doesn't affect the current ability, it just means you reach PA faster).
About positional and general rating, the first is considering the ability on the position, while the second is considering only attributes.
Once they get at least accomplished, then the difference won't be so noticeable. The CM-AM will be fine, since attributes required are barely the same, and the CM-ST also have several attributes that are important for both. Even if your player is better at one position than the other, the difference will be too small when compared to the benefit of having an excellent tactic to attack and another excellent tactic to defend. For each team of 11 players, that would mean:
GK
DC
DC
DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
DM
CM/AM
CM/ST
AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
ST
Another option is to only train one CM as AM, and instead of retraining the other CM as ST, you can have both players available in your squad. That means having 12 players per team instead of 11, and bring the extra to the bench. For a bench with 7 players, they would look something like this:
GK
DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
DC
DM
CM-AM (trained in both positions)
AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
ST
Personally, I prefer to have a CM that can also play as ST, even if he isn't as good in one position as the other. In practice, we are talking about a single player performing 5% to 10% worse, from a team of 10 players (plus GK). It's not like you will lose 5 to 10% in performance. Also, since you use GS, you can probably find players that are almost equally good in both positions, if you check "General Rating" instead of "Positional Rating".
I wanted to ask you more about the Blue/Green combo tactic. I'm going to start a new save today and try it. Obviously you think its worth doing but does the drop in quality of player not diminish the effectiveness of the tactic?
For example, in my previous save I was using @Geek Positive Tika Taka + your Green and Green Light and I could build a squad with quality players in each position. I think its rare to find a player with a high positional score for CM and ST (maybe 90 and 79 respectively), so does that not drop the quality of the team overall?
I tend to use Instant Result so I'm not able to sub in players if formation changes using a match plan
It's not very practical to hire someone skilled in multiple positions, because the combination CM+ST is not very common. Instead, if you start training to a completely new position during pre-season, it usually takes five to ten official matches to reach accomplished rating (dark green color). I feel like it's fine to have this downtime in order to have an easy transition between Blue and Green, because those tactics complement each other and are useful in different situations.
No, but you still need to rotate to avoid fatigue. Resting from training is focused on condition, not on fatigue.
Middleweight165 said: Is this an opposition instruction? Is this something you have tested @ZaZ ?
Max has tested it. I linked the video in the post to make clear where the claim comes from.
Zippo said: We've tested them and found that it's not worth bothering
Did you also test it in a team with a side stronger than the other?
Just check the quality of your wingback + winger. Same for your opponent. If your main winger broke your leg and you have to play a youngster with 16 years old, then your strong side is probably the opposite.
You can also check in the Data Hub to see where most goals come from. If one side clearly creates more goals than the others, that's a hint.
Yes. If you set up training and resting for youth and reserve, they grow much faster.
Training > Rest > No pitch or gym work for players bellow excellent condition. You can see a picture of that a couple of posts above.
I don't know how it works, but 99% of advice from assistant manager during matches is bad stuff, like "we should play with defensive mentality" if the opponent is stronger. If he is applying those instructions, then your performance will definitely suffer.
Leave as it is.
Instead of just saying "Very Very very very bad", I would recommend you say something like "It didn't perform very well on my tests". It sounds less rude.
But trust me, i will be the first reader of this guide.
Probably should start with a summary section, so people can check everything easily.
With my own experience and all the great great great advice from Zaz i find it easy now to perform as you want.
I also take a large part on youth development, to do what i really want to obtain for young men
Gratz! I'll try to organize all those tips from first post into a more in-depth guide for FM23.
There's about a 20 points difference between Manchester Utd and Norwich but we all know how easy it's to win EPL with Manchester Utd and how hard it's to do that with Norwich.
Here's the CA of the default Manchester Utd team:
and here's the CA of the default Norwich team:
It might be just because I consider most players with ability close to 150 as world class players, and since his team is mostly on that range, I think he might be able to win the league. However, it's like you said, it's still the difference between a top team from Premier League and a bottom team, so the normal should be not winning.
I would not say that the difference of 10-20 points in CA isn't very high
Here's a simple example:
With the default attributes the tactic gets "63" score - https://fm-arena.com/tactic/1697-default-attributes/
But when we decrease "Acceleration" by 4 points across the positions then the CA also decreases only by 5-6 points but the score drops from "63" to "39" https://fm-arena.com/tactic/1700-acceleration-attribute-has-been-decreased-by-4-points-across-all-the-positions/
So I'd say the difference of 10-20 points in CA is a huge difference and if you improve the CA of your players by 20 points then it'll greatly boost your results
I meant 10-20 difference in CA, given he is picking players with the most efficient attributes. If he is lacking in those more efficient, then it is definitely a lot. =)
the worst thing about playing with instant result is i cant change the tactic upon situation of the match, i have been using green 5.0 since the start, and i'm losing most of the points to the teams that i should have won easily, like they are getting ahead 1-0 and i'm still playing with green instead of blue.
I think it is good enough to be champion. The point of having a good tactic (like any tactic 6.0+ in FM-Arena) is to overachieve or get better results than your team would normally allow. The difference of 10-20 points in CA isn't very high, so you should have a good chance to win if you manage your squad properly. The problem is, since you are using instant results, then you are basically skipping the management part, and that removes one of the main advantages players have over AI controlled teams.
There are two different answers to your question. First, it is what Milakus just said. If you are predicted 7th and you reached the final of Champions League and got 2nd place in Premier League, that is overachieving, so it is a good result.
The second answer is that after seven years building a team (I imagine four or five in the Premier League), you should already be strong enough to win it if you did correctly. It is normal to not win in the first two or three seasons, since most good players do not want to join your side when you just got promoted from lower division. However, when that stops being an issue and you already have most players you want, then you should start winning the league. If your team is good and you did not win yet, it is either because you did not hire very good players, or because you did not do a good job managing their mental condition (morale and team shouts) and physical condition (condition, match fitness, fatigue and injuries).
P.S.: Playing without instant results would probably help, since you can keep the players motivated with shouts, give good team speeches on half time, and you can use substitution to improve the performance of your team (assistant manager likes to keep injured players on the field).