Quote Originally Posted by vad View Post
Here are some results.

Game 1. The opponent is close by strength. Zonal marking, low pressure, watched the game, did not change anything. Won 5:0.

Game 2. The opponent is stronger by a star, and higher level. Zonal marking, low pressure, watched the game. At minute 60 was losing 0:2. Switched to high pressure, man-to-man marking. Saw no improvement, the opponent scored one more goal. Lost 0:3.

Game 3. The opponent is stronger, 130 vs 127. Zonal marking, low pressure, watched the game, made no changes. Draw 0:0.

So from all looks it appears that the change is only about being "realistic", but it has no impact on the gameplay and on the chance to win. That is, if you set your team for high pressure and man-to-man marking, you will enjoy high realism of their losing condition twice faster, but their more intensive play will not translate into scoring more goals or losing less.

Such is Nordeus' definition of high realism.
I was thinking in that too... visual realism, because now, with logic, 2 different options of pressure waste different condition, but, the base is the same.
The key, are the players, and their internal proggramming, and all things in T11, as Ive said many times (wrong positions, morale, condition, victory bonus,... and +) affects just a little bit.
I've played with 0 condition many matches, noticed a increasing of % injury chances, but performance, can not be too different, game is not too "extense", to say a word, to simulate % per % every change.
So, simply, the best that managers can do, is belive in the players, play in low pressure, + zonal, and attending and doing the basic work that I always remind to managers, that is with the subs' + previous work testing players in positions and labours of corners + fouls, it have to be enough.