Tactics vs. Players debate...

Hi There,

Long time player, first time poster...

I've always wondered with FM whether you can have success without taking advantage of the best players in the game. Now bear with me, its great seeing everyone enjoying winning, but how many have Haaland, Esposito, Bellingham, Tonali, Ansu Fati etc? The FM20 template if you like!

Going into a new save, more often than not you will know which players you can get that will be a sure fire success. There are endless threads about which players to go for, wonderkids, how much they are and so on. Most of us take advantage of this at some point or another and lets face it, it makes the game easier

What I'm wondering is how much success can you have in the game before having these players becomes a necessity, or if it does become a necessity at all? Could you win the Premier League in the first season with Fulham without making any transfers (or save scumming)?

For context, in my current save I am in 24/25 having started with Darlington and getting them promoted to League One, before joining a struggling Southampton in the Premier League, saving them from relegation in 23/24.

Now the top teams are filled with talent of the usual suspects and me being on a limited budget, I'm not quite shopping in the bargain basement but my signings have to be very sensible. Danny Ings and Rhian Brewster lead the line for me

I like the authentic experience, underdog mentality, and like to think that its my coaching and tactics that are the reasons for success rather than individual talent. Has anyone else had similar experiences, success, tips they might be able to share about getting the most out of your team? Or am I fighting a losing battle!? How important is it having the best players in the game?

Better players cover for tactical deficiencies. If you have a good tactic that is supported by players that fill requirements for that tactic & you have the correct squad blend then you will over achieve for a period of time.

As you over achieve the AI treat you differently and then you either need to adjust your previously working tactic or buy better players... It's an ongoing race.

So to answer your question if you find the correct blend of working tactic, suitable players to fit the tactic & you can react to when the AI makes adjustments (this is the very hard bit as you have to understand how/why it is happening) then you can be successful with inferior players, yes. But I'd argue that eventually you need player quality to cover for inevitable tactical holes & to just match up against the very best competition.

2020-10-07 11:19#278180 Si49 : Better players cover for tactical deficiencies. If you have a good tactic that is supported by players that fill requirements for that tactic & you have the correct squad blend then you will over achieve for a period of time.

As you over achieve the AI treat you differently and then you either need to adjust your previously working tactic or buy better players... It's an ongoing race.

So to answer your question if you find the correct blend of working tactic, suitable players to fit the tactic & you can react to when the AI makes adjustments (this is the very hard bit as you have to understand how/why it is happening) then you can be successful with inferior players, yes. But I'd argue that eventually you need player quality to cover for inevitable tactical holes & to just match up against the very best competition.

Interesting. I wonder if any experiments have been done to see if a team of average players with a good tactic, versus a team of good players with an average tactic, to see who would come out on top? Also if a team with average players that fit perfectly with a role/tactic would do better compared to a team with good players who do not fit the roles/tactics. I know there are other variables to consider but it would be good to know how much value the game places between ability and tactic.

Depends on the quality of player gap. You can take a team through a few divisions with certain tactics but when you come up against real quality they will beat you. You can then tactically adjust to help in these scenario's but they comes a point where sheer player quality will win.

I doubt anyone has the patience to test this that thoroughly. The ME information as to what each choice actually does is beyond vague. Once you start being successful you naturally want to do better, the temptation to bing in better players is an obvious fix/desire.

2020-10-07 12:27#278181 JonnyJMW90 :

2020-10-07 11:19#278180 Si49 : Better players cover for tactical deficiencies. If you have a good tactic that is supported by players that fill requirements for that tactic & you have the correct squad blend then you will over achieve for a period of time.

As you over achieve the AI treat you differently and then you either need to adjust your previously working tactic or buy better players... It's an ongoing race.

So to answer your question if you find the correct blend of working tactic, suitable players to fit the tactic & you can react to when the AI makes adjustments (this is the very hard bit as you have to understand how/why it is happening) then you can be successful with inferior players, yes. But I'd argue that eventually you need player quality to cover for inevitable tactical holes & to just match up against the very best competition.

Interesting. I wonder if any experiments have been done to see if a team of average players with a good tactic, versus a team of good players with an average tactic, to see who would come out on top? Also if a team with average players that fit perfectly with a role/tactic would do better compared to a team with good players who do not fit the roles/tactics. I know there are other variables to consider but it would be good to know how much value the game places between ability and tactic.

Ive sort of played saves like this , ive used the same tactic but had seasons where i bought players based only how good their attributes were for the roles , although it was only based on the important ones and averaged out to get the highest number, ive had seasons where ive used genie scout to find players with the highest percentage for position , and then ive basically bought players who were accomplished/natural for positions with the highest CA without even bothering with attributes or roles

i found that as long as the tactic was a good one then the main success was with the players with the highest CA , its a quick and easy process if time is a concern , easy to get the players because you just buy players with a higher CA than what you have in that position , or if a youth players CA became higher than a 1st team player he went straight into the team regardless of the current players form

Ive tried playing it sorting and buying players by important attributes for roles , i actually enjoyed this method more but it didnt give any better results

Ive always been hugely cynical about the way the game is sold to us in that they say its all about attributes , form etc....... , my experiments over the years just show that if the tactic can at least work around the match engines mistakes then you would do ok , because the match engine has far too many bugs using just the tactics provided then even with the greatest players in the game in every position you wont get anywhere

behind the smoke and mirrors its essentially a game of numbers with a terrible match engine that cant relay even the basics of a football match , so to have a chance of winning without spending 80 hours a week tinkering with tactics , then download a good tactic and buy players with a higher CA

Is it cheating ? , i would say yes definitely , if the match engine could at least resemble everything in a football match and didnt have bugs , the fact is its a flawed system and has been ever since the 3d gfx , so all downloaded tactics do is save time and even up the game imo