2 related observations:
So I was reading around this weekend at various websites like the Guardian and ZonalMarking and I came across this article about the Chelsea/Valencia game. Somewhere in there, off topic, the author asked the question: why do teams that "park the bus" concede goals? Of course by park the bus he only meant extremely diligent defense with almost all players behind the ball with everyone except one or two forwards willing to enter the defensive box if necessary. If that is the case, then why do they concede goals? The answer seems obvious: they don't have possession. If the other team has possession, they will score. However, the real answer is just the opposite: they concede goals because they do have possession. Inevitably, statistically, they will gain possession but it will be in their own box, and then when they turn away to play out, what happens? They panic. They look out from their own box, with the ball at their feet, and they see no options. Well, they might see the lone forward picking his nose in the circle, but they don't see their normal receivers and distributors, the midfielders, because those players are busy extricating themselves from the box. Panic and anxiety later, they get dispossessed badly, they concede. If you watched the Barcelona/Valencia game last night, after the score was tied 1-1, this happened all game long, non-stop. Valencia has too many players near the box, they were bound to win possession therefore, when they turned with the ball, they saw no options, they panicked, they were dispossessed. Game over. Of course, on PES 2012 there is just one slight difference. The CPU never panics. That is why you see composed dribbling out of the box and long, accurate passes to the Target man beyond the circle. In effect, I propose that the Target man is the deep-lying distributor in PES 2012. This is further attested by the fact that the CPU CF usually has more ball touches than any of the CPU midfielders. They play diligent defense, win the ball, and launch it to the only option.
Two: how to fix this has been my (our) mission. So now, I've stumbled upon a way, and it has worked for me, but I want to say first that none of this is my own. I've read all of this in one way or another on this website, but I am trying to articulate it (as much for myself) and I also would love some peer-review, as it were. In other words, does this work for you? Therefore, I played the game we all know: unassisted, Professional level, with default tactics. I chose a terribly mediocre Eredivisie side, Roda, for my side and for the CPU side. In other words, everything is exactly mirrored. Well, we know how this book is written: 63/37 possession, their CF had the most ball touches on their team. Despite the tactics being possession, (I kept checking to see if they had switched) it was all long-ball and rapid counter attack) blah, blah, blah. Afterward, I edited the tactics using the Google spreadsheet listed elsewhere on this website (I think I chose the tactics for Manchester United--0 support, 2 distance, etc.). I replayed the game using only Roda again, on Professional--same thing, long ball, counter attack, CF with the most ball touches, 62/38 possession. In other words, the CPU clearly ignored the extreme tactics I had set for it. Final game: I played the same team, with the edited tactics, unassisted passing, etc, but this time on Superstar level: I was stunned. They played quick, short passes, they passed laterally, they held possession reasonably well, not more than 4 or 5 long balls to the CF. I couldn't believe the statistics: possession was 56/44. Even better, the CF had less ball touches than the two CMFs. Of course it goes without saying that I was crushed 0-3 (although it wasn't so bad since my own players were scoring on me since both teams were Roda--there was an awkward moment when a player applied a cynical tackle to himself!) Verdict: on Superstar, the CPU played according to the extreme tactics I had set for it, and they preferred not to relinquish possession, and they preferred (even when the option was available, because it was iffy, and because their tactics were extremely short-ball) not to launch it to the CF near the circle.
So I've played 3 games this way, all Roda vs. Roda. I've never achieved 60% possession. All three games I gave the CPU some extreme set of tactics and, amazingly, they played that way. Of course I freely admit to losing all three games, but that is another matter. In all three games, a CPU CMF instead of the CF had the most ball touches on his team.
Please note: when editing tactics, chose an extreme tactic as a test: support 0, distance 2, line 15, press 4, etc. Also, edit the first formation only and set the other three to standard. Also, my own team's press setting is never above 6 (we are not cyborgs!). Game time must be 20 minutes, minimum.
Good day!
So I was reading around this weekend at various websites like the Guardian and ZonalMarking and I came across this article about the Chelsea/Valencia game. Somewhere in there, off topic, the author asked the question: why do teams that "park the bus" concede goals? Of course by park the bus he only meant extremely diligent defense with almost all players behind the ball with everyone except one or two forwards willing to enter the defensive box if necessary. If that is the case, then why do they concede goals? The answer seems obvious: they don't have possession. If the other team has possession, they will score. However, the real answer is just the opposite: they concede goals because they do have possession. Inevitably, statistically, they will gain possession but it will be in their own box, and then when they turn away to play out, what happens? They panic. They look out from their own box, with the ball at their feet, and they see no options. Well, they might see the lone forward picking his nose in the circle, but they don't see their normal receivers and distributors, the midfielders, because those players are busy extricating themselves from the box. Panic and anxiety later, they get dispossessed badly, they concede. If you watched the Barcelona/Valencia game last night, after the score was tied 1-1, this happened all game long, non-stop. Valencia has too many players near the box, they were bound to win possession therefore, when they turned with the ball, they saw no options, they panicked, they were dispossessed. Game over. Of course, on PES 2012 there is just one slight difference. The CPU never panics. That is why you see composed dribbling out of the box and long, accurate passes to the Target man beyond the circle. In effect, I propose that the Target man is the deep-lying distributor in PES 2012. This is further attested by the fact that the CPU CF usually has more ball touches than any of the CPU midfielders. They play diligent defense, win the ball, and launch it to the only option.
Two: how to fix this has been my (our) mission. So now, I've stumbled upon a way, and it has worked for me, but I want to say first that none of this is my own. I've read all of this in one way or another on this website, but I am trying to articulate it (as much for myself) and I also would love some peer-review, as it were. In other words, does this work for you? Therefore, I played the game we all know: unassisted, Professional level, with default tactics. I chose a terribly mediocre Eredivisie side, Roda, for my side and for the CPU side. In other words, everything is exactly mirrored. Well, we know how this book is written: 63/37 possession, their CF had the most ball touches on their team. Despite the tactics being possession, (I kept checking to see if they had switched) it was all long-ball and rapid counter attack) blah, blah, blah. Afterward, I edited the tactics using the Google spreadsheet listed elsewhere on this website (I think I chose the tactics for Manchester United--0 support, 2 distance, etc.). I replayed the game using only Roda again, on Professional--same thing, long ball, counter attack, CF with the most ball touches, 62/38 possession. In other words, the CPU clearly ignored the extreme tactics I had set for it. Final game: I played the same team, with the edited tactics, unassisted passing, etc, but this time on Superstar level: I was stunned. They played quick, short passes, they passed laterally, they held possession reasonably well, not more than 4 or 5 long balls to the CF. I couldn't believe the statistics: possession was 56/44. Even better, the CF had less ball touches than the two CMFs. Of course it goes without saying that I was crushed 0-3 (although it wasn't so bad since my own players were scoring on me since both teams were Roda--there was an awkward moment when a player applied a cynical tackle to himself!) Verdict: on Superstar, the CPU played according to the extreme tactics I had set for it, and they preferred not to relinquish possession, and they preferred (even when the option was available, because it was iffy, and because their tactics were extremely short-ball) not to launch it to the CF near the circle.
So I've played 3 games this way, all Roda vs. Roda. I've never achieved 60% possession. All three games I gave the CPU some extreme set of tactics and, amazingly, they played that way. Of course I freely admit to losing all three games, but that is another matter. In all three games, a CPU CMF instead of the CF had the most ball touches on his team.
Please note: when editing tactics, chose an extreme tactic as a test: support 0, distance 2, line 15, press 4, etc. Also, edit the first formation only and set the other three to standard. Also, my own team's press setting is never above 6 (we are not cyborgs!). Game time must be 20 minutes, minimum.
Good day!
Last edited:
).
