I wanna play like Arsenal do!

With FM08 just released and plenty of things to try and figure out on the new game, no doubt the time will come soon when people start asking for tactics based on a certain manager, team or style. I don't want to pre-judge but I'm fairly certain the favourite four phrases in these sorts of requests will include the words "Arsenal", "Barcelona", "Mourinho" and "Total Football". I would expect a bit of "Brazil", "Ajax" and even, perhaps, "Iain Dowie".

But hold on a minute. What do you actually mean? People want to desperately play beautiful football like Holland, Barca or Coventry, but why? Do they think that this is the best way to win? Or is there a confusion in the logic:

Barcelona play entertaining football.
Barcelona win games.
Therefore, Barcelona win games because they are entertaining.

Perhaps we should be a little more open-minded in how we approach this. In reality, there is a far more sophisticated explanation.

Barcelona play entertaining football.
Barcelona have great players.
Barcelona have a settled coaching staff and squad.
Barcelona have played this style for many, many, years.
Barcelona's player respect their manager's opinion.
Barcelona have a large squad selected for the purpose of playing in a certain way.
Barcelona win games.
Therefore, Barcelona win games because years or planning, a wealth of talent and the confidence of the players in the manager and in turn the manager's confidence in them allows them to play a style which is both entertaining and capable of winning football matches.

The simple fact is that for 90% of players who pick up Football Manager this weekend, not all of these factors will be available to them, even if they were to set up a new game with Barcelona. It could well take three or four years to really be in a position to play this sort of football. Hey, it might work. But for most of us, surely we should concentrate on the point in green before we go for the point in blue, eh?

Boring, boring Arsenal! (c. 1990)

OK, OK, I'm not trying to kill the entertainment factor in football (though The next Diaby has accused me of it on several occasions), but I am a big advocate of the mantra "you must first learn to walk before you can jump". Very important, grasshopper.

Perhaps the biggest recent casualty from the real world of this has been Sammy Lee of Bolton fame. Sammy tried to tinker too much and get Bolton to play a more entertaining style of football. The result was neither entertaining nor able to win games, and subsequently he was sacked. Chances are, the same will happen to you unless you have many or all of the factors described above. Indeed, even if you have all those it may not succeed.

And let's not forget that while Jose Mourinho was reportedly sacked for, amongst other reasons, not being entertaining enough, try telling that to a man who could disarm your argument with a quick look at his medal cabinet at home.

TT&F and the Tactical Bible often refer to simple 4-4-2 frameworks for a reason - with most squads at most ability levels you can get a team to punch at roughly its own weight by keeping things tight, playing the percentages and grinding out the results you need (need, not necessarily want). TT&F can be very entertaining, and is very good to watch when the team really hook it all together, but its primary purpose is not entertainment but cold, hard points.

Plan B?

Take Arsenal a season or two ago. Entertaining, yes. But there was no "Plan B", no ugly side to them designed to grab those goals to get them the championship. This season, Arsenal have been as breathtaking as ever, but they are able to do what is necessary to win as well as entertain.

However, even in the best sides the backup plan may not necessarily work very well because the side become obsessed with playing "beautiful" football. Take Barcelona in the Champions League against Liverpool in 2005 or Chelsea in 2007. Their total reliance on short passing in the face of two teams who wanted to really get stuck in and not give them a chance to keep going failed them utterly. Were Barcelona the best side in Europe in 2005? It's debatable, but I'm not convinced that player-for-player Liverpool were more talented than they were. The point is that their battling style worked on the night against the game Barca tried to play and they emerged victorious, going on to win the competition.

The simple fact is that beautiful football (which is the style that most people claim to want to re-create) won't win you every game. And at the top level if you're not going into every game "knowing" that you will win and striking the fear of God into the opposition you won't win the major trophies. Beauty should be a byproduct of winning, not the first goal of the tactic.

Imitation - the sincerest form of flattery

The most intruiging and fascinating part of the tactics communities on the 'net has always been the desire to emulate certain styles. If nothing else, it certainly subscribes to the view that you should play to a squad's strengths. One would assume if you find a tactic designed for Trondheim and based on Trondheim's real-life setup that it will fit the squad. Unfortunately, the most interesting and beautiful styles (I'll leave you to argue if Trondheim are one of those sides) are often the hardest to pull off, even with the digital versions of the squads the tactics are modelled on.

The best part of advice is therefore to pick the formation. What basic shape do the team play? 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-1-2-1, 3-5-2 etc. etc. etc. Then get that system roughly playing out. The Tactical Bible will certainly help greatly in getting the key settings sorted, and the forums have a wealth of talent in them who can help you out or even share their versions of the formations with you.

Then - most crucially of all - get that formation to pick up points. If it works (even if it doesn't play the style you originally intended), you have yourself a great base setup from which to work.

From this point you can try to make it play out how you want. Should they be playing quicker balls along the ground, or should there be even more free-roles than would normally be recomended? Should a certain player be playmaker, or should certain positions do something a little more out of the ordinary.

Experiment, but don't be afraid to go back when something clearly isn't working. The advantage to having the base is that you know that there's roughly something that works, so if changing one setting upsets the whole balance of the side you can either reset it or work out what else might need changing to counterbalance the modifications that were made.

Good luck!

Finally, good luck. It's very satisfying to see that people still, despite the increasing sophistication and difficulty of the match engine, are trying to get real-life styles, past and present, to work in the game. When you hear so many glowing reviews and tales of success it makes it even more sweet. However, for the less experienced players it may well be best to walk before you make the simulated jump to playing complex and flowing tactics. Seriously ask yourself whether you want to be entertaining or you want to win trophies. In your early career (or even late career, I can certainly relate to that!) you will probably have choose one or t'other.

Know the limitations of your squad and of yourself. And get good at the basics - such as winning football matches - before you try to win them in style. Someone else's style, that is...