Is The Real Life Media Holding Back FMM?

Is The Real Life Media Holding Back FMM?

Football and the media go hand in hand, every day stories and reports are published around the world which enhance the beautiful game, however does the real life media hold back FMM? 

If you watch any of the major channels which show football in England be it Sky Sports, ITV, BT or Match Of The Day you are given the opportunity to watch the match or highlights with pundits. The question is how often do these pundits dive deeply into the tactical side of the game? How often do they explain why this system works in detail or how it ticks? Usually we are shown one little segment or highlight of the match and then the show goes on. In England the media rarely talk about the tactical side of the game with them instead usually focusing on individual brilliance, the coverage is always basic and easy to take in. This is mainly due to time constraints or to the pundits usually being former pros who might not understand the finer points of the game, as they say being a great player doesn't make you a great manager. Personally the main stream media don't offer me the information I want, I know I personally go to fan sites for the in depth tactically analyse I want from Liverpool matches, I always watch MOTD and I'm always left wanting more than the commentary the pundits give on my beloved LFC.  

What has this got to do with FMM though? My argument is that this style of media and consumption of football has led to us as fans being less knowledgable on the game. The demand for more tactical depth in FMM is often talked about and SI staff have often said they need to be careful not to over complicate the game for casual fans, thus my point comes across. 

I understand FMM is the little cousin of Football Manager and that it will have to be somewhat "dumbed" down by nature. FM is for the hardcore fans who know what they're on about or are willing to learn while FMM is the casual game for the average joe. My point is the entry level of the average joe is lowered due to the media coverage the real life game receives. As the media doesn't go into any depth during their TV coverage the average fan doesn't pick up as much tactical knowledge as they could, which keeps the risk of expending FMM tactically at risk of alienating fans. 

FMH the PSP game was a very tactic oriented game with more options than current fans could dream of, but now the game is mass market and on mobile devices it has to stay at a level where the average fan can pick it up and understand it. Not all people will care enough to come to Vibe or other places on the Internet for help and as the media offers little tactical help they feel lost and walk away from the game. 

Just an interesting take inspired by an article I read about the media and tactics. Hopefully you found it interesting and I'd love to hear your views and opinions, as always thank you for viewing and please remember to leave a comment. 

[UKFootballScore]

I understand what your saying tbh and agree to an extent...

I think the lack of tactical viewpoint on shows such as match of the day can seem to make a difference but on the other hand youve also got when Neville goes into immense detail on tactics on Monday Night Football which I wish was a weekly show. 

[Ashez]

35 minutes ago, UKFootballScore said:

I understand what your saying tbh and agree to an extent...

I think the lack of tactical viewpoint on shows such as match of the day can seem to make a difference but on the other hand youve also got when Neville goes into immense detail on tactics on Monday Night Football which I wish was a weekly show. 

For every Neville there are one hundred pundits spreading nonsense, that's kinda the issue. What Neville does is brilliant but on a small scale compared to MOTD and so on. I don't know the figures but I'd assume more people watch MOTD than MMF, tbh I often forget about MMF lol. 

Take ITV's coverage last week around Sturridge. Even though he scored they slaughtered him for not being in the box, a poacher if you will. They were acting like there is an issue with playing that role in another way, like say a more roaming forward like a ADF. They ganged up on Sturridge for not playing in a certain way instead of highlighting how when Sturridge dropped deeper Sterling cut inside to act as the striker. 

In FMM terms you could say they highlighted a striker should stay in the box and that movement to the flanks and deep is bad. Could make FMM players only trust poachers etc. Instead they could have highlighted how Sterling played as an ISF entering the space Sturridge vacated and explained why how Studge played worked etc. 

Like on today's commentary they highlighted how Dier dropped back when Stones came out of defence, a BPD and DLP type relationship. But by today's media you'd think BPD's are a must or the only way to play, we rarely see how they should be used in the media like we did today and so on. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Ashez

[pipaz4]

Very true Ash,, and i will say that i found this site because i was struggling in FMH13 for PSP, i was trying tactic after tactic and failling until i found the site, so you're right a lot of people are "lazy" and will drop the game if it is hard in the tactical side.

[billy2shots]

Maybe the pundits shy away from going too in  depth because the production team won't let them for fear of banboozling your average fan. Or maybe the pundit doesn't have the necessary skills to break it down. 

You find it's almost always ex pros and without stereotyping, they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Those that grasp the tactical side at a good level actually put it into practice and manage rather than sit in a studio and critic. 

Neville obviously has the knowledge which is why he makes a good pundit. 

Keown, Murphy, Shearer et el do not have the information in them let alone have the skills to articulate it. 

Shearer should have been a roaring success at Newcastle and should have had no problems in keeping them up when he was given the chance. The fans would have been right behind the team and the players would have been ready for war with a living legend heading the team. If Shearer had an ounce of tactical awareness Newcastle would have survived. He didn't and they didn't.  Now the BBC ask him to breakdown the tactics of successful managers. Lol, give me a break. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by billy2shots

[Ashez]

5 hours ago, pipaz4 said:

Very true Ash,, and i will say that i found this site because i was struggling in FMH13 for PSP, i was trying tactic after tactic and failling until i found the site, so you're right a lot of people are "lazy" and will drop the game if it is hard in the tactical side.

I understand that's a real concern tbh, I can't really remember what I was like when I first came here but I know I've learnt so much from my time on Vibe. I think the tactic forum here shows that the game can be beyond people already, to me FMM is pretty simple but many need the security of our tactic forums which is a worry. 

 

2 hours ago, billy2shots said:

Maybe the pundits shy away from going too in  depth because the production team won't let them for fear of banboozling your average fan. Or maybe the pundit doesn't have the necessary skills to break it down. 

You find it's almost always ex pros and without stereotyping, they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Those that grasp the tactical side at a good level actually put it into practice and manage rather than sit in a studio and critic. 

Neville obviously has the knowledge which is why he makes a good pundit. 

Keown, Murphy, Shearer et el do not have the information in them let alone have the skills to articulate it. 

Shearer should have been a roaring success at Newcastle and should have had no problems in keeping them up when he was given the chance. The fans would have been right behind the team and the players would have been ready for war with a living legend heading the team. If Shearer had an ounce of tactical awareness Newcastle would have survived. He didn't and they didn't.  Now the BBC ask him to breakdown the tactics of successful managers. Lol, give me a break. 

Pretty much summed up my point haha. For those reasons and ones like shows need a big name as a hook we aren't fed the information for us to learn. MOTD and Final Focus/score which is the Premier League free to watch service has five odd shows a weekend yet the tactical side and reasoning is ignored mostly. Then you have ITN coverage which literarily has me screaming at the TV as they talk absolute rubbish most of the time. 

[danovic78]

I agree with most comments on here. I also have no idea why there is 3 commentators now on most games plus Howard Webb in the background speaking about the obvious decisions?

The BT coverage is just appalling with Owen Hargreaves banging about what a "phenomenal player" so and so is every 5 mins and Rio adding in his "street" talk. Absolute shambles.

I think most fans know more than the TV companies give us credit for and why we simply ignore the comments of the pundits. 

I think Neville is by far the most on the ball pundit, which is why I was surprised he seemed to have little or no input in the England set up when he was part of it? 

I also think no matter how tactically aware the managers are you simply can't plan for basic errors, especially with defending as was highlighted last night with Stones and Aspas last night, it was obvious to the whole ground he was gonna bend it with his left foot yet Stones just let him do it, happens week in and week out.