Asunto: National Team

Yeah, please don't take my statements as attacks against you personally, they're not intended to be. When it comes to Sokker I'm critical on everyone as has been mentioned (even myself). I have high expectations when it comes to Sokker especially and criticise areas where I think are areas that can be quick improvements (or should have already been known about). All of this is from hindsight. I don't get to see what happens prior to the game, and my views reflect as such. A spade is a spade for me, if something goes really well, you'll get that recognition from myself as well.

No worries, mate. I know your intentions are good, it only shows how much you care for the NT. We're on the same page here, I'm also giving myself a hairdryer treatment when no one's looking which makes me either ambitious or out of mind a little - take wild guess here :P

Much better result. Haven't watched the match yet, but it seems both teams had a high conversion rate for goals to shots.

Hopefully we can see a repeat in level of performance next week

Match ball on the 87', that should've gone in. I don't how did this pass on 5:4 went thru, there were 2 defs who should've cut it without even moving but they suddenly decided to scatter...
Very close game, the 5-point note difference seemed to disappear sometimes.
Still a little disappointed about the defending. Again, plenty of balls tackled by the strikers, half of the shots shouldn't have taken place. Also Nicole's appearance in the 2nd half could've looked better.
All in all, shame we didn't make it at least that draw. Hope next week I will turn this around and finally bring some good news.

Waiting for cometer's 'hairdryer' :P

What a disaster that was. The tactics on the park differed from the one I made A LOT. Tight game, plenty of room in the centre but still couldn't have found a way through their defenders. The strikers were very static and went totally different to what I had made - narrow at first and then wide to fill the gaps between the USA defs. Came out totally reversed and they went narrow in the end and stood in front of them like there was no movement set.
Shots: 15-10, goals: 7-1. Our strikers seemed like they had decision issues and didn't decide to make an attempt the best time possible which ended in getting tackled from behind and loosing the ball to the gk.
Since I'm making new tactics every week and this one will probably not be used anymore or will be corrected, I'm posting it here to get your opinion and tell me - is it the same tactics on the video as it appeared in the game? I'm almost sure something here went very wrong with the ME:

https://streamable.com/89bgye
(editado)

Without watching the game, but looking at positioning, it comes across as a 6-2-2 formation with a lack of midfield & 2 strikers isolated without support. Also, left defence far too narrow & overall lack of width further up the pitch?
1 goal from 10 shots isn't that far from the norm. 7 goals conceded from 15 shots....now that's extreme to me. So I'm not sure the issue was so much with strikers making decisions, but perhaps the other end of the pitch?
That's my take & I'm sure those with more knowledge than me will either correct my assumption, or maybe expand if they feel I've got it right (to a point).
:D

I've seen the match and the 7-1 scoreline seems a little harsh. I felt we left a few out there and it probably should have been more like 7-3 or 7-4. Problem is you've been blown apart by the winger and the defensive throws, most of which should have been defendable/preventable. That was basically it. I still feel like our midfield doesn't support our defense and leaves us exposed but it didn't seem to cost us too much in this game.

I was also going to say I felt our strikers were way too static not just in terms of width but depth as well. They seemed to have been placed on one depth for several squares on that tactic editor and so we were never going to get through ball passes like that.

I also felt that we pressed a little too much given the opponents strength in winger and strikers and we probably should have considered dropping back a little more then what we did. That may have helped limit what the winger could do.

Overall, not the worst tactic you've made but there's still room for improvement (a lot of which I've mentioned about most games).

Out of interest is that link you provided to the tactic editor of the tactics you made, or is that a link to the actual match footage you're disappointed with?

I suspect but can't tell without seeing the whole tactic editor to compare against, that if the tactic played differently to what you built then it could possibly be that you've forgotten to save somewhere or alternatively (and probably more likely) that you may not be aware of how to use the tactic editor fully

Edit: I think it's probably neither in further hindsight. I did question whether you were aware of the +/- square rule but it seems like you may have known about it when I stopped looking at the corner squares. You just got caught out by the dreaded corner square which makes things annoying to defend the square above. That cost us 3-4 goals right there. However, if I'm wrong here and you weren't aware of the ball position not referring to where players are positioned when in that square then send me a skmail and I'll explain it because it looks a little like you mightn't be aware of it based on some of those player placements.

Another few of them were from the winger playing people in and that possibly is due to having so much space in between the outer defender and the next defender in.

Overall, I think the match played out as your tactics you set up were and I think we may have lost by less if we'd fixed up that one square defensively which killed us in goals. Brings back memories of the previous engine where wing player would almost always result in goals by headers.
(editado)

I might add also, what was with that #4 position in the bottom few rows. That looks like a terrible move having one defender further back then all the rest. Would put other strikers onside and given them a chance to get in behind which they did when they got tap in rebounds.

I don't know if you're referring to the actual players' placement on the park or the real tactics I've posted above. The strikers are very active in the editor, both horizontally and vertically, so I'm a little shocked how did they behave. Also the #2 should go wider, just like in the editor, to cover the wing better but yet did the opposite and went narrow even though had no one to cover.
The #4 you mentioned - I placed him as low as possible to the ball got stuck between the gk and the defs (it sometimes happened to me and without this guy, the defs
leave it out to the gk who has to race the opponent's strikers).
I also asked for Zsolt's help, since he may consider himself as a co-manager but didn't get any respond.
I'm starting to believe there's some kind of curse hanging over my head and it only appears in the NT games. I never had that kind of problems in my league or friendly matches or even the previous NTs. The tactic editor is the same it always was, so I still can't figure out the issue here. The tactics is the only thing that almost led me to the 1st polish div in my 'first sokker life' as I have never been the richest and with the best players. From 7th div to 3rd place in the 2nd div in about 10-11 seasons of active playing and no youths training that would provide some additional money. That's gotta mean something, right?

Asian Cup ahead. Gotta prepare for it, especially the next game against India.

Wish I could comment but I've been so flat out with uni, I haven't really had time to see whether I could help out or not.

Good luck in the Asian Cup

I'd appreciate if you just took a look at the link I posted a few posts ago and told me what you think about the tactics. If you'll have a minute or two during the week, of course.

Ok cool, I'll explain a bit more then. I think there were 2 major issues that influenced the game (there are others but these are the main 2). That bottom right corner square in the tactic editor, represents the defensive position when the ball is in the 2nd bottom right square. As a result your "markers" were too deep and the one that had a chance was travelling a long way from being used offensively, so that led to their winger being able to throw to their mid who landed the ball several times on the head of their strikers who nailed home. That's the first glaring issue.

I'll edit with the 2nd but it was to do with a similar principle but on the offensive side. The part in the tactic where you had our strikers spread wide rarely occurred because we either had the ball deep or far enough forward that the strikers came back together again. That's what I suspect, otherwise the press of the opposition is why you didn't see them spread. I think it's the former though.

In a nutshell (and I hope you already know this), in the tactic editor when you position the ball in a particular square and put players into position, that isn't where they'll be if the ball is in that same square. The tactical editor is far more advanced/complex then that. I think that might be why you made the comment you did about it not being the tactic you made. I watched the 2d match and it lined up almost perfectly to what you had in the tactic editor that you linked.

Yes, just checked it matches what I saw.

So you had them set at 3 widths. One I'll call narrow when they were close together, one which was the width of the semi circle of the goalbox and the other was much wider trying to exploit the gap in their 5 man defense. 2 of those 3 I'd consider narrow.

So the only time you played wide (the later option) in the tactical editor was on across the row underneath the middle row covered by the halfway line. However, due to how the editor works, that is the offensive position for when you have the ball a row further back. That is when the ball was just outside our own goal box. Since you were pressing with our defenders, we rarely had the ball in that zone and so consequently you rarely saw this width from the strikers. You actually saw a lot of the second situation, where they were the width of the semi circle of the goalbox apart. Why did we see that? Well you set that for the middle row in the tactic editor but in actual fact, that represents 1 row further back when we have the ball. So in actual fact when we had the ball just short of the halfway line the strikers would be in this position. Since we pressed, we often had the ball in this zone.

You basically went from wide to narrow too quickly (and in the wrong squares) in the tactical editor. To see what I mean take a few snapshots of when we had the ball coming out of defense in the match viewer, then compare that against the tactical editor and you'll see what I mean. The fact you pressed basically meant the row you wanted us to start wide, never actually happened when we had the ball and so they never went wide.

As a recap for others as well.

A
X
Y

In the tactic editor when you have the ball in a square (my terrible attempt at a diagram above) marked at point X, the positioning of the players in this square depends on whether you have the ball or don't have the ball. If you have the ball, the positioning you are setting in this case isn't for point X, but rather for point Y (1 square below X). On the flip side this same X square in the tactical editor represents the positioning when the ball is at point A (1 square above X) when we don't have the ball.

So each square you are setting the positioning for both with and without the ball but actually never for where the ball is on the tactical editor.

Messes with your head a bit but that's how it appears to work and is how I understand the tactic editor operates.

Edit: Happy to be corrected mind you.
(editado)

Very interesting. I must say I have it a bit different in my mind but remember us and a few now defunct sokker players, having big conversations over it, however over time the details may not be as clear.

When I read your above, I read it as you are talking big squares up and down the field (ie 7 movements), so when you are at spot 2 (number 1 being the closest to your own gk), that on defence, number 2 looks like how you set number 1.

The way I remember it is as 21 squares. So if I'm in the middle of number 2, then in defence, all players will be moved back towards my goal by one "little" movement. That is there are 21 spots up and down the field and they move back just one of these spots.

Yeah that's how I understood it.