The Evolution of FM and the TT&F Mindset.

As recently as 2004, FM was in the grip of a very effective tactic. It was called Diablo and its premise was very simple. The game engine could not cope with a long forward arrow on the central midfielder in a three-man midfield, leaving him consistently unmarked when in front of goal. By setting up passing instructions throughout the team to maximise balls to the central midfielder, Diablo guaranteed a succession of heavy wins and became the most successful single-flavour tactic in FM history. It was simple to understand. It won matches. It became legend! What it wasn’t was realistic! Sports Interactive’s response was simple and to be expected. In the aim of realism they reworked the engine to stop such things from happening. The age of the super-tactic was dead.

Arguably they succeeded but their quest for realism was again thwarted by the development of the back-post corner routine which once more guaranteed an excessive amount of goals. User tactics that were no more than average in design became title winners due to the ridiculous number of easy chances generated from corner kicks. Equally unrealistic, equally well dealt with by SI with the release of FM07.

FM07 has polarised opinions on Football Manager like no other release. Quite simply, it is next to impossible to achieve success year-in, year-out without some degree of tactical sophistication. Yes, there are still some holes in the game engine. The problem the AI has with dealing with a lone striker target man (at least until your reputation guarantees you face a succession of massed defence tactics), the weird rebound physics when a ball hits the woodwork, defenders inexplicably touching nothing balls out for corners, world class players hitting corners directly out of play, 40-yard back headers to name but a few. However, in general terms, its engine is closer to simulating real football than any previous incarnation. It has raised the tactical bar ever higher in terms of the sophisticated thinking required to succeed season-on-season and has placed paramount importance on in-match decision making over game-engine busting tactical design. Hopefully, FM08 will raise that bar even higher.

The problem that many long-term players have had to contend with is the mind-set switch from single-flavour tactics to multi-flavour tactical packs. This transition has been long and ugly with regular battle skirmishes still taking place. The complaints generated from those struggling with the new mind-set are oft repeated. The most common is the lack of consistency, either game-by-game or season-by-season, often decried as AI-cheating. To combat that we must specify exactly what we believe the most important aspect of actually playing FM is: it is not tactical design (although that is undoubtedly important). Rather, it is decision making during a match. If you conceptualise playing FM in terms of making decisions, as you would if you viewed it as a management simulation (management is decision making) then the consistency issue fails to raise its head.

Conceptualising the game as just being about football overly attributes success to tactics or player quality. It is not just about football; it is about management and trying to simulate the management experience. Managers make decisions that change the course of matches and seasons. That is what they get paid for. That is where they stand or fall. The second most common complaint, arguing that real life football is not like this, holds no water. None of us are top-class managers, so commenting on how real top-flight football is managed is an exercise in futility. We simply don’t know. Being a semi-decent footballer does not make you any more of an expert on the ins and outs of management at a world class club than any of the rest of us. Unless you have lived it, you have no way of making a value-judgement. However, some of us do have experience about managing and decision making. Regarding those as the determiners of success in conjunction with a series of well-designed tactics and playing the game under that mind-set allowed us to achieve exceptional success in FM07. We assume this mind-set will still bring glory in FM08.

Making good decisions on a regular basis guarantees consistency, not the inherent value of any tactic or set of tactics. Good or poor decisions on a game-by-game basis will exponentially influence future results. With regards to a season-by-season basis, a tactic that works with a low reputation team and a low reputation manager will not guarantee success as reputation rises. Teams will be more defensive against you and a tactic that worked previously will have to be reworked based on the success or failure of current performance, not its historical pattern. As in financial markets, past success is not a predictor for future performance. This is not unrealism; it is the necessary reworking of a system to combat a different situation. Recognising it and making the correct decisions when combating it are vital strategies in the management armoury.

Tactical Theorems and Frameworks (TT&F), for so long my baby, now has a group of collaborators which will, with a bit of luck, make the FM08 version far superior to anything previously written. In order for us to work together, we have devised a series of assumptions to guide the testing, designing and writing process. In order to explain our exact perspective on playing Football Manager we need to make these assumptions explicit. If you do not accept the validity of these assumptions, TT&F is probably not for you.

Assumption One: Definition of Formation

A formation is the basic framework deciding the position each player generally takes on the field of play. Thus, a 4-4-2 will have four defenders, four midfielders and two attackers. Likewise, the Chelsea/Bolton formation has four defenders, one defensive midfielder, two central midfielders, two wingers and one centre forward.

Assumption Two: Definition of Tactics

Tactics, and tactical instruction, operate within the basic formation framework of a side. A 4-4-2 at home will thus differ heavily from a 4-4-2 away. In the home formation, the wingers may be asked to hug the touchline, support the attackers and be given a fair degree of freedom to be creative. In the away formation, they will be asked to tuck in, support the full-backs, and be ready for quick breaks when the reward outweighs the risk.

Assumption Three: FM Tactics

When designing tactics, one slider tweak difference alters the tactical instruction but not the formation. Thus, when talking about tactics in the rest of this thread/article, we talk about them in the context of one formation. Sir Alex Ferguson nearly always sends Man Utd onto the pitch in a 4-4-2 but individual and team instructions differ from match to match, situation to situation. When we talk of tactics, it refers to these kinds of instructions, not to changing the formation.

Assumption Four: Changing Tactics

No team, no matter how good or how poor, ever goes through a match without some switches in tactical strategy. The extent to which these tactical changes work defines the course of the match. They may not be recognisable to the casual viewer but they happen nonetheless. This applies to in-match management in FM. Playing the same tactic all game in the belief that because your players are superior you will inevitably win and/or failure to recognise and change your tactics when things are obviously going against you will not win you titles. In-game decision making is absolutely vital to TT&F tactical theory and to be successful with our theories you must learn when and how to apply each tactical change.

Assumption Five: Why Teams are Successful

Teams are successful due to a combination of four things: good tactical management, good man-management, good transfer policy and availability of funds. Failure in managing any of the above is likely to lead to a season of poor performances and disillusionment. Translating this to FM; it is easy to succeed at three and four, but one and two cause difficulties. We assume you are all capable of managing transfers and can all recognise good players relevant to level, so we will not waste time on describing how to achieve this. Suffice to say, you need to have roughly the right calibre of player for the division. If you have that our tactical theory will help you to over-achieve. If you are seriously short of the right calibre of player, you will struggle. If you make perfect decisions in most circumstances you can survive with poor players, but it will be difficult. We promise no miracles. We will focus on tactical design in this thread/article and develop a sister thread/article, Communication and Psychological Warfare ’08, to outline our approach to man-management.