Observations From A Potential Client

Much like myself, my younger brother has been an avid fan of the Championship Manager series and the subsequent Football Manager series. He has never ever played FM Live though, not until recently anyway, when he spent the at my place and watched me play FM Live for a bit and eventually had a go at playing a few friendlies with my team as well.

Naturally, he had a few things to say about the game and I feel that some of his observations make sense and are worth mentioning in this blog, and probably towards SI as well.

He immensely enjoyed the fantasy football aspect of FM Live. A chance to build a team from scratch and just use your nouse and instinct to work the market and tactics to achieve success. He thoroughly enjoyed browsing the database and checking how the game rated his favorite real-life players.

Whilst he saw the advantages of Returning Stars, especially for newcomers, he wasn't a big fan of this feature. In his opinion (and my own), retired players should stay retired. He proposed offering the Returning Stars system in combination with Youth Academies. All the graduates would be tossed in a large pool, the worse clubs get first pickings.

Youth Academies were a nice idea, or so he thought initially. When browsing the market for free transfer youths, he noticed there were hardly any and the ones that were there had been dumped by the larger clubs. I explained that the great number of academies meant that there were less players generated for the free market. He replied that this would mean that academies were the only viable alternative for long term planning regarding a youth team, in which case academies should be scrapped, since it's basically forcing the users to play the game in a certain way. As an alternative, he mentioned the drafts.

The last of his key issues was related to the time it took to build a successful team. My team is a Level 17 club, so he understood I had a pretty good team going. With him being less patient, he was afraid that if he didn't achieve success within the first three to five seasons, he might lose interest and stop playing.

According to him, (some, if not a majority of) people buy computer games because they want something to win at. He acknowledged that FML has no win button so if there was not enough success, he would quit. We have seen this in the post-reset GameWorlds, where hundreds left because they can't hack it.

So there you have it, the views of someone who never played the game before... Which conclusions should be drawn from this? Maybe I'll get back to you on that a bit later.

Why Can't I Get This Idea To Work?!

Okay, I'm trying something here and I can't get it to work... This is basically what I have in mind, tactically speaking. For the past two seasons, Barcelona have employed a formation where the deepest midfield player (either Yaya Toure or Sergio Busquets) drops into the centre of defence. The two centre-backs, Gerard Pique and Carles Puyol, will spread into extremely wide positions whilst Barcelona are in possession, almost on the touchlines. This spreading allows the wing-backs Dani Alves and Maxwell to bomb forward without fear of leaving the defence completely exposed.

The problem with attacking wing-backs is that they are never completely free to attack, they are always concerned about their defensive responsibilities. When I can create a more reliable and sturdy three-man defence, they could get to the opposition byline without leaving a huge hole at the back.

A big part in these bombing forward runs is the role of the wide players on my team. Rather than stay wide (which would hamper the ability of the wing-backs to get forward), they narrow, drifting into the box and almost a conventional front three with the central forward. This has the effect of narrowing the opposition defence, as their natural markers follow them into the centre.

Basically, I am combining the inside forward idea with more attacking wing-backs, as the inside movement of the wingers opens up a huge amount of space on the flanks, ready for the wing-backs to run into and exploit.

Apart from the regular problems the inside forwards present to any defence, the opponents wide midfield players are suddenly charged with an almost solely defensive job. When my wing-backs get to the byline and the opposing wide midfielders track them all the way, my opponent will end up with something approaching a flat back six, which means there is now space in midfield to exploit.

Intelligent movement as the key to unlocking an opponents defences. Intelligent movement, as stated earlier, implies position switching, which in turn means that players will often end up finishing an attacking move in a different position to which they started this attacking move, in an effort to exploit the gaps in defence created by other people's movement.

The only problem is that I can't get the bloody defensive midfielder to drop into or even right in front of defence. It keeps looking like a fucking pyramid with two at the back in a narrowish formation and one in front of those two.

This is a problem because the defence is too narrow, particularly if the opposing striker is or opposing strikers are faster than the defenders and able to move wide before outpacing tjheir marker to the ball. Add to that the fact that every team has at least one of these speedfreak forwards, and you can see the problem I am faced with.

Soooo... to cut a long story short, any ideas on how to bloody fix this?

The Come-Back Of The Inside Forward

This season in real life could very well mark the end of the traditional centre forward as we know him from the past as a traditional goal-scorer, as this central forward is being replaced by a new role, that of the old inside forward.

The winger as an inside forward, drifting into the penalty area from the wing to provide assists or score goals. It is a role which is becoming more and more popular in modern football. Just look at some of the teams in the semi-finals of this year’s Champions League. Lionel Messi and Arjen Robben are prime examples, whereas Cristiano Ronaldo holds a similar role at Madrid and used to hold this role for Man Utd.

Sir Alex Ferguson was last season quoted saying: "When forwards attack from wide to inside, they are far more dangerous," Ferguson explained. "It's funny when I see centre-forwards starting off in the middle against their markers and then going away from goal. Strikers going inside are far more dangerous, I think. When Henry played as a striker, and sometimes when Wayne does, they try to escape and create space by drifting from the centre to wide positions, when that actually makes them less dangerous." (source: The Guardian)

We’re basically noticing a shift away from central forwards who are supposed to score the goals. The stereotypical strikers such as Gabriel Batistuta and Ronaldo are being replaced by a new breed of goal-scorer. When we look at the last two World Footballers of the Year, we notice these have been primarily wide players who cut inside and score many goals, exploiting the space made by the central forwards moving around and luring defenders away as well.


Intelligent movement upfront has become the key to unlocking an opponents defences. Intelligent movement implies position switching, which in turn means that players will often end up finishing an attacking move in a different position to which they started this attacking move, in an effort to exploit the gaps in defence created by other people's movement.


These movements cause problems for a defence because the responsibility for marking the runner shifts between players. When a winger drifts into the centre of the pitch, the wingback is forced to make a choice. If he leaves his position to follow his marker, he leaves a lot of space on the wing, which happened to Lyon against Bayern.

With Ribéry (initially anyway) and Robben drifting into the centre, their opponents were forced to follow, leaving the Bayern wingbacks Contento and Lahm with a lot of space in the backs of the Lyon midfielders Delgado and Ederson. Philipp Lahm especially excelled in this role, as Lyon chose to focus on Arjen Robben, leaving Lahm with a lot of space to run into, which he frequently did.

Should the wingback decide to remain in his position, he creates a new problem, as the centre-backs run the risk of being out-numbered. In sticking to the Bayern vs Lyon game, I am going to sketch a possible scenario now.

If Cissokho and Reveillere had decided to remain stationary instead of following their markers, the Lyon centre-backs Cris and Toulalan would have to face not only Olic and Müller, but potentially one or two of the wingers as well, creating a numerical advantage for the forwards.

Thus, if the defensive responsibilities for picking up on moving forwards are not managed properly, the inside forward will find himself in acres of space, which leaves him more opportunity to assist the strikers or score himself.


So basically, when an inside forward such as Robben or Messi drifts inside, he creates confusion as the responsibility for marking him shifts from the full back or the side midfielder to the centre back. Not only does this create space in the “hole”, it also creates space in the “channel” between wing back and centre-back. With much more communication needed in the opposition defence, a good inside forward on the wing can create so much space for his team mates as he drags players out of position from all over the field.


The inside forward often starts wide, meaning the opposing team's wingback assumes he is the player he should be picking up. But then, the winger starts drifting inside, which means the opposing teams wing-back usually tracks him into the centre, which in turn opens up space for a deep-lying forward (such as for example Thomas Müller or Zlatan Ibrahimovic) on the flank to exploit with either a cross or a through ball.


In other variations, we have seen the deep-lying forward (again, Ibrahimovic or Müller for example) dropping into the gap between defence and midfield, luring his defender along, which leaves a gap in the centre of defence. A well placed through ball means either space for the second striker or for the inside forward drifting inside to pounce upon, as Arsenal fans can probably remember when Vermaelen was lured out of position as few times.

It’s not just in the Champions League where these inside forwards are gaining in popularity and impact. In Italy for example, Antonio di Natale is topping the goal-scoring chart, whereas in Holland, Bryan Ruiz and Luis Suarez are fighting for the top goal-scorer crown. All these players are mostly forwards who start on the flank and drift inside.

It should be very interesting indeed to see if the World Cup this summer catches up with this trend from club football and if this trend continues into next season. That the inside forward is highly effective in FM and FM Live is something I have been well aware of for a while now.

Guest Entry; A game world is more than just a collection of teams and FAs

Not my own work this time but something another manager and regular reader of my blog wrote. I like it, so it's getting its own spot on here, because D. doesn't have her own blog.

Well it deserves the name "world". It is full of personalities, has its own economy with booms and recessions, and has its own evolutionary trends. By this I am of course referring to tactics.

A man who started his career as a clerk in a patent office went on to theorize, "For every action, there is an opposite and equal re-action". He later went on to patent Einstein's theory of relativity. I would like to suggest that "For every tactic, there is an opposite and equal counter-tactic". In application of such a theory you will elicit far more benefits than you first imagine. It is about more than simply defeating the latest "super-tactic" or countering the latest corner "exploit". Let me explain what I have been noticing...  

The latest "super-tactic" is the narrow 4-3-3. It is tantamount to what I've heard is known as "Kevin Keegen soccer". You score, 3, we'll score 4. And it works. The working of such a tactic is beyond the scope of this blog, but there are plenty of posts out there explaining how it works. People have been embracing this religion of narrow 4-3-3 and dumping world class wingers onto the market place as they have no need for them, often going for half MV! Whilst pacey strikers (as called for by the use of 4-3-3 narrow) have seen their MVs rocket up!

So, what did I do? I decided to develop a counter tactic for this 4-3-3 narrow formation employing wingers to specifically mark the opposing FBs, and using a single big TM up front and flood the midfield a DM/CM and two supporting AMC's for the TM. And my tactic works. I came from mid table obscurity in my league which I had just been newly promoted to, to winning it in the last third of the season. I made a ton of cash selling a pacey striker, and paid peanuts for a couple of wingers as the MP was flooded with them. And the best bit was, as popularity in narrow 4-3-3 grew, my advantage grew further as I came up against more 4-3-3 narrow teams and turned what might have been draws against higher rep stronger opposition teams into wins and took the title.

Investing time alone into FML by searching out the latest super tactic or corner exploit and applying it correctly will bring you some short term success against teams with managers who are less active and don't keep up with the tactical trends. You're 1 or 2 steps ahead of them and you will bag the points. However, it is not a recipe for long term success. Especially if you end up reshaping your squad each time you change your tactics. You sell your unwanted players at below MV, and pay way over the odds for the required players. Supply and demand. It's simple economics and you don't have to be Adam Smith to work that one out. So you are left with no money to invest in infrastructure which is key to the long term success in FML.

I prefer to take a leaf from Darwin's book. He theorized that "It is not the strongest who survive, but those with the ability to best adapt to change in their environment". Evolution. Our environment is our game world. To be the strongest and survive using narrow 4-3-3 you have to buy the best 3 pacey strikers and best 3 ball playing MCs. In other words, be better than the other 4-3-3 narrow teams out there by having better players! That will not be cheap! You are fighting for the same limited resources everyone else is. Instead, adapt to your environment, don't join the flock in going narrow 4-3-3, find the equal and opposite counter-tactic. Do this by finding a CPU team that plays this way and practicing against them and gradually over the course of maybe 15 - 20 games develop a tactic. Whilst developing it, look at the changing trends in the MP and see what you notice. In the case of narrow 4-3-3, all the wingers going for half MV... could you somehow employ these guys in your counter tactics to your advantage? (remember the specific marking of the opposing 4-3-3 fullbacks whilst running rampage down the wing using "hug the line" instruction?)...

My results speak for themselves. I have been in Miller for three seasons, won three consecutive promotions, two of those as league champions. Cup semi finalist on two occasions where I dumped out much higher rep teams along the way and last week i won the most recent CPU vs Human tournament. I have a very healthy 28 day financial projection, great youthful players with huge potential as well as current ability, and a stadium with 4 two tier Opstilla II stands with exclisiff boxes raking in the money. All in 3 seasons by adapting to my environment.

In conclusion, monitor and adapt to your FML environment, and you will not only win on the pitch, but you will conquer the transfer market, be financially sound as this will allow you to invest in the long term future of your club with infrastructure, and you will have money to pay for higher wages and buy better players. In short, whilst the other clubs that followed the latest super tactic pay over the odds for players in short supply and offer ridiculous wages for them in auctions, and eventually go into administration and start again... you will not only survive, you will grow and prosper in your FML game world. 

There Is A Reason Default Tactics Are Not Flawless...

Call it repetitive if you will, but lately I've noticed a lot of people are complaining about the tactical aspect of FM Live. On the one hand, people want to stop so-called supertactics, the very effective tactics which use and abuse the weaknesses in the Match Engine to get good results and require very little editing pro match. On the other hand however, they are asking SI to upgrade the default tactics. That seems a bit odd to me.

This isn't going to be a very long post, just one where I wonder where this contradiction in terms comes from. On the one hand, people want to stop the supertactics to create a more level playing field. Certain formations were supposedly overpowered (remember the big 4-6-0 drama and in Beta, similar discussions were had about the 4-3-3 with 3 central forwards formation) and people were branded as exploiters or even cheaters. On the other hand, the default tactics should be better to counter these so-called ME exploits or super tactics.

These requests seem contradictory to each other. Either you want total freedom, which means very basic default tactics in which people have to think for themselves and edit it, or you want a totally restricted tactical system, where everyone who creates a tactic that requires an opponent to switch things around and actually think about what to do next (GOOD HEAVENS!!!) is branded an exploiter.

Can you tell I'm trying to take the piss? Seriously, are we going to remove all tactical freedom from the game because a few muppets are too stupid to counter specific formations? Surely not?

We're Catering For Idiots...

Honestly, we really are listening too much to some of the idiots that populate the forums. I know, that's not a nice thing to say about people who are paying customers of the company that asks me to moderate one of its GameWorlds, but it's a fact, it really is. 

Take this specific thread for instance. People are, as always, bitching about Set Pieces. Some guy had a player who scored 3 past them. Now instead of looking as to why this may have happened, they rush off to the forums to have a whinge. In the most positive circumstances, they try again a few times before running off to the forums, but they always end up on the forums, complaining about the state of the Match Engine and how badly designed the game is, not to mention the fact that this "bug" is totally ruining their experience and they are considering cancelling their subscription.

Did I miss anything there? Does that summarise the thread accurately? I think I got it pretty much right there... It's this attitude that has been the downfall of the previous GameWorlds (pre-Reset) and if we're not careful, it will be the downfall of the new series of GameWorlds, which could usher in the end of the game itsself.

I mean seriously, before you point the finger towards the Match Engine, have you ever stood still to consider that maybe, just maybe, you, the human manager, have made a mistake? Poor tactics perhaps? If you know someone is having their strong headers attack the far post, it may just be a good idea to put your best headers on the far post as well...

Alternatively, when they actually do this, they are expecting their 15 jumping, 15 heading, 1.80 tall defenders to beat a 1.85 tall forward with 18 for jumping and 18 for heading. Granted, the defender will win some duels in the air because of better positioning or maybe a poor cross, but he is bound to lose a fair few as well, which could just lead to goals being conceded. 

Bug in the match engine, or unrealistic expectations from the human manager? According to some of the forum members whose posts I've recently had the "pleasure" of trawling through, that's a bug. Then again, their supposedly superior team not winning every match is a bug according to them, so I guess there's just no pleasing some people.

Still, if these whingers and complainers have it their way, the games default tactics should be enough to be successful (in their minds anyway...), but is this not punishing the managers who actually think their tactics through? People who are thinking outside the box in an effort to create new opportunities for themselves. Do we really want to punish these people for being creative by taking away every new option they find?

Making good tactics which people cannot counter immediately is an exploit or bug? Making people actually think about their tactics and not just going with some default system is an exploit or bug?

Surely people can ask in the Tactics Chat or on the forum how to combat this specific setup if they're too lazy to use their own mind or simply lack the know-how regarding the FML engine?

Those who cannot counter a specific setup or tactic should not immediately cry out that it is overpowered, a bug or an exploit, but they should lower their expectations a bit, look at themselves properly and ask around on how to combat a certain setup, before they go off on a rant.

It's these complainers who are giving the game a bad name, not to mention the fact that their "toys-out-of-the-pram" approach to matters actually seems to be successful. If you're vocal enough about your complaints, even if they really aren't that valid, you are listened to and sometimes, if enough people complain about something they are too lazy to change (read: not divert from default settings), it gets changed for them. 

Honestly, that's plain wrong. This is a game for managers, not click and drag monkeys who are not capable of analysing a game and trying to learn from their mistakes. Make a new game for these people, called Football Win Live. They get a chat room, a team and one button. Press the button and you win, regardless of who you're playing. That should keep these guys happy for a while...

I do realise that I am generalising and maybe portraying certain things a bit extreme, but I have noticed a tendency to give in to people who are complaining about little things that are not the games fault, but their own. As stated before, that's just wrong. I do realise that I am what you might call a hardcore gamer and that the game should cater for the more casual gamers as well, but surely it shouldn't be pampering them upto a point where it no longer pays off to invest a lot of time into the game?

They Said It Never Happens In Real Life

I know this game is more static than real life and poor settings are not always easily repaired within a match, but was the outside area corner routine really that unrealistic. You all seemed to think so. I disagree, and so does a certain mister Arjen Robben.



Yes, this post is all about shameless gloating and telling you I was right. It isn't unrealistic at all and it can be done. Ha!

Why I Dislike Returning Stars

Honestly, I know it will sound like I am whinging and complaining, and maybe I am a bit, but I'm just not a fan of the Returning Stars concept. The reason behind this is simple, I prefer players to stay retired. I have sort of emotional connections with certain players, some of which I have have had in my team for most of their career. I feel connected to these players and it hurts me to see them with another manager, especially if he's some inactive AI drone sitting in a bottom tier of the CFA someplace.

Incidentally, I do understand the concept of these Returning Stars and the reasoning behind the draft system. I even agree that the less fortunate managers in a GameWorld should receive some sort of seasonal boost, to try and close the gap a bit. The point is, I just don't like the fact that formerly retired players are used for this.

I would like to propose an alternative to the Returning Stars draft at the end of a season. Instead of making it a draft of returning formerly retired players, make it more like the MLS drafts, where young players, upcoming talents are drafted into the squads. The teams that have performed the worst are allocated the best youths, whereas the better teams get the worse youths.

The benefit of this system is, in my eyes anyway, that retired players stay retired. If you don't like the concept of players retiring and being removed from your game, don't play games such as FM 2010 or FM Live. Players retire, deal with it. Don't bring them back to have them sit at some AI drone and smudge their reputation they have built up within a GameWorld.

Seriously, sometimes it pains me to see which kind of players are wasting away at the AI drones in CFA and CIFA in Miller. Just a quick look at the players wasting away at AI drones. Michael Ballack, Thomas Kahlenberg, Carlos Vela, Marek Hamsik, Serdar Tasci, Younes Kaboul, André-Pierre Gignac, Arjen Robben, Edu, Raul Garcia and many, many more.

Replace these big names with young talents and at least you won't be tarnishing the players reputation and you won't reward these managers for being crap AI drones. In order to make something of these youths, they will have to actively develop them or if they're looking for a quick fix, they can sell them.

Pretty please, can you make it so SI?

Height Is No Longer Cosmetic

FM has for many years taken the approach that the Jumping attribute was based on HEIGHT + JUMPING. Beyond this Height had ZERO bearing on anything whatsoever. The leaden footed Peter Crouch has Jumping ~20 because of his tallness, the much springier Michael Owen has Jumping ~10 because of his shortness. Crouch wins the header of course.

The Jumping attribute was how high a player's HEAD gets. The Match Engine compared the two Jumping attributes and job done.

Hidden away in the release notes for the Match Engine upgrade it now says that the Jumping attribute is based solely on JUMPING. The leaden footed Peter Crouch would have Jumping ~5, the much springier Michael Owen would have Jumping ~15. Crouch still wins the header though because his Height is factored in by the ME.

As the stated above, and I am now quoting Marc Vaughan, jumping does NOT mean physically how many inches a player can jump - it is an indication of the height a player can reach while jumping, hence height is a large factor in this.

If you doubt this then consider the following - you're 1.60 tall, I'm 2 metres tall ... chances of you being able to jump heigher than me are pretty darn slim.

Even if I have absolutely NO jumping ability and can get barely 10 centimetres off the floor you'd still have to jump 40 centimetres in order to match my natural height advantage.

As such considering that 'jumping' is an indication of how high a player can jump in the game and as such has a factor of height in it I don't think its unreasonable to indicate what I did.

Obviously you can get short players in the game with reasonable jumping (ie. Mr. Owen - 1.80 & 9 jumping) and tall players who can't jump (ie. me in a previous game - 2 metres & 9 jumping ). But if both players are good jumpers than obviously the taller one will have a natural advantage (hence 20 jumping isn't likely to be held by a 1.60 tall player).

So in short, the Jumping attribute is now how high a player's FEET get. The ME combines the Jumping attribute with the player's Height and compares the two results, which is a significant change! As people have questionned earlier, how is this going to be reflected in the Jumping attributes of existing players? To reflect the new ME Crouch should have his Jumping adjusted down to ~5 (well, a fairly low figure - certainly not 20) and Owen should have his adjusted up.

Basically, if a ball is played to your 1.95 tall striker that is 1.90 off the ground then the striker can head the ball without jumping. The 1.85 defender will need to jump to reach this ball so his jumping skill comes into play. The player that does not need to jump will have the advantage in this case as he will not be affected by penalties to strength, agility etc.

If the ball is played higher than 1.95 off the ground then they both need to jump. In this case the player with the highest jumping would have advange (other secondary skills used in the calculation would include strength, determination, agility, positioning etc)

In short, your small DC with high jumping would generally be okay unless he comes up against a giant with good aerial and secondary skills.

My 4-4-2 / 4-2-4 Hybrid; An Alternative To The Ultra-Narrow Formations

The last week or so, I have been trying to come up with a way to counter the ultra-narrow formations dominating the GameWorld, without backing away from the formations and style of play I have been using since day 1. After an initial dramatic dip in form, I think I have now found a way to deal with the ultra-narrow formations, without abandoning my traditions.

These ultra-narrow formations rely on the fact that their central midfielders will drop wide to mark your own wide players, whilst forming a compact block defensively. Alternatively, when such a narrow formation attacks, the wide players of your own team seem very inept at picking up the narrow players moving out to the flanks from the middle on.

I have now found a way to make my 4-2-4 work against these narrow formations. Yes, I admit I have narrowed my formation a bit to bolster my defence, but I also re-distributed the roles within the team. Instead of two inside forwards, I am now only using an inside forward on the right and an actual winger on the left. Upfront, I am using a Trequartista on the right and a Targetman in the centre. In midfield, I am using an attacking deep-lying playmaker and a defensive ball-winning midfielders. At the back, there are two man-markers and two wing-backs in front of a sweeper keeper.

It works like this. At both ends of the pitch, the team’s shape adapts and evolves when in possession to expand the pitch and to create space for their flair players. In defence, the defensive midfielder Cleverley drops in as a centre-half to allow the actual centre-backs Miguel Ferreira and Samba Sylla to spread the width of the pitch, allowing Claudino and Jovanovic as wing-backs to venture forward.

The main effect of this is that is suddenly transfers a huge defensive responsibility onto the two opposition wide midfielders. When you're fielding a narrow formation, your main attacking threat was coming from the wings. My strategy meant it was very difficult for the opposition's wide players to track my wing-backs and then have the energy to attack them at pace. Many opposing wingers looked exhausted by the end of a game.

Upfront, the main movement was the combination of right winger David Hall and trequartista Ivan on the right-hand side. Hall starts wide, meaning the opposing team's wingback assumes he is the player he should be picking up. But then Hall starts drifting inside, which means the opposing teams wing-back usually tracks him into the centre, which in turn opens up space for Ivan on the right-hand flank.

Why Pace Is Such An Important Factor In Youth Development

In the past ten years, pace has become arguably the most important quality for young footballers in real life. FM Live tends to mimic this development, as pace is becoming more and more important. In fact, it's one of the key attributes the best teams scout for.

The reason for this probably lies in the increasing tendency for teams to play on the counter-attack, which means a fair amount of pace if a necessity to exploit the space the other teams are leaving going forward. It makes sense too, when you draw the opposition onto you, space opens up at their back for you to exploit, which works best if your players are fast and able to break away quickly.

The nature of modern football has meant that counter-attacking has become a major feature of almost every top club in Europe, and pace obviously plays a key role in this. The players on the pitch are more technically gifted players, matches are played on mostly pristine pitches perfect for passing on, and defenders are less able to escape bookings for cynical fouls. It even makes sense that teams are utilising a more conservative approach.

I picked up a nice comparison in regards to this topic on Zonal Marking, which I have quoted below.

The Arsenal side of seventy years later offers a good comparison. Theo Walcott versus Sebastian Larsson. Who is the better player on the ball? Walcott is a good dribbler; Larsson is more able to pick out an intelligent pass. But because Theo Walcott can sprint 100m in eleven seconds, and Larsson is quite sluggish (by Premiership standards), Walcott has been given four seasons’ worth of opportunities to impressin the Arsenal first team, whilst Larsson was discarded after only three league appearances, with an Arsenal coach hinting at the time that Larsson’s lack of pace made him incompatible with Arsenal’s system.

Take away the issue of pace, and there’s not that much difference in ability between the two. Indeed, it could be said that Walcott relies on his pace as much as any Premiership footballer today – Pete Gill at Football365 (perhaps slightly harshly) commented in the wake of Arsenal’s 0-3 defeat to Chelsea, ‘It’s just incredible that a football player of Theo Walcott’s stature has so little football talent. But for his pace he wouldn’t be a professional player. He has nothing else.’ Walcott’s own father puts it more politely, saying that ‘pace has been his killer edge over others’. But of course, you can’t take away the issue of pace, which is why Larsson is now at a mid-table club, and Walcott remains challenging at the top of the league.

Basically, for those of you complaining that it is not realistic that pace is so important in a player, give your head a wobble and try to actually watch real life football once in a while. Pace may not be the most important asset a youngster can have, but it certainly helps if you manage to snap up some pacey players to nurture and develop.