Hello community,
At the 30-minute mark, I scored a goal and decided to revert to normal aggression to spare my players' physical strength (I chose to start the match in aggressive mode because I thought it would avoid any surprise goals, especially as I was trying out a 3-4-3 formation for the first time).
I immediately noticed a significant drop in the stats in all 3 sectors, so as two events took place I don't know how to explain it:

1. Change from aggressive to normal
2. Goal
   Our opponents also had a general drop in stats, but it wasn't as significant.

Any ideas?

As soon as you change a focus that affects the tactics of the match, you lose stats. And if you wait a bit without moving, it will go back up.

#match?mid=6609887&stats
It goes up a little but not that much and after 10 minutes.

I've never paid much attention to it, but now I'm wondering, does aggressive mode increase stats? Did the stats drop when you went back to normal?

Aggressive mode doesn't reduce the likelihood of surprise goals. As far as I know, if I've understood the idea correctly, it's that aggressive mode slightly increases your stats at the risk of picking up cards and injuries. So it's useful when you're outplayed

As I said, you lose stats with each tactical change. These stats rise again for about 15 minutes, so you need to find a certain balance:
Is changing a parameter really worth it or am I taking too many risks for not much in the end?

But I'm not a rocket scientist!

Fougch: Le mode agressif ne diminue pas la probabilité de se prendre des buts surprises. De ce que je sais, si j’ai bien compris l’idée, c’est que le mode agressif augmente un peu tes stats au risque de te prendre des cartons et blessures. Utile donc lorsque tu es dominé

Comme cela a été dit, tu perds des stats à chaque changement tactique. Ces stats remontent pendant environ 15mn, donc tu dois trouver un certain équilibre:
Est-ce que changer un paramètre vaut vraiment le coup ou est ce que je pren...

Yes... except that I take more cards playing normal than aggressive (or even very aggressive), which is pretty crazy to understand.

Last season, I took 4/5 reds playing without aggression. And I'm not the only one in my agreement.

Play a very aggressive match for 90 minutes and you'll be telling me! ..... in terms of the number of fouls and cards! If you haven't tried it out yet, you won't be disappointed with the results :) :) :)

As for the question about the correlation between the risk of injury (to your own players or to opposing players) and aggressiveness, I think that's a myth (even if this setting would be logical, in my opinion it doesn't exist).

So aggressiveness correlated with cards: yes, of course (even if, by virtue of the laws of statistics, anyone can come and give an isolated counter-example from a match).
On the other hand, aggression correlated with injuries is completely false.

myforsans: Joue un match en très agressif pendant 90 minutes et tu m'en diras des nouvelles !..... en termes de nombre de fautes et de cartons ! Si tu n'as pas encore testé, essaie et tu ne vas pas être déçu du résultat :) :) :)

Quant à la question de la corrélation entre le risque de blessures (de ses joueurs ou des joueurs adverses) et l'agressivité, je pense que c'est une légende (même si ce paramétrage serait logique, selon moi il n'existe pas).

Donc agressivité corrélée avec les cartons : oui c'e...

I played 2 games for 90' in a very aggressive style (I'd forgotten to change and I was playing with my young players), and you can imagine that I did make mistakes... but I didn't get any cards.

myforsans: Joue un match en très agressif pendant 90 minutes et tu m'en diras des nouvelles !..... en termes de nombre de fautes et de cartons ! Si tu n'as pas encore testé, essaie et tu ne vas pas être déçu du résultat :) :) :)

Quant à la question de la corrélation entre le risque de blessures (de ses joueurs ou des joueurs adverses) et l'agressivité, je pense que c'est une légende (même si ce paramétrage serait logique, selon moi il n'existe pas).

Donc agressivité corrélée avec les cartons : oui c'e...

And I'd go even further, the number of games where you get red cards when you're playing in normal... Within 10' your opponent also gets a red "for no reason", that's happened quite a few times.

As I say, it's a problem of statics, or more precisely of probabilities.

If I tell you that the more chances you have, the more goals you'll score, you're going to say: yes, of course, and nobody can argue with that.
However, all the clubs in France will be able to come here and give 1, 2,...3 examples of matches this season where they had more chances than their opponents and yet scored less.

If you roll a dice 10 times, in principle you'll get a 6 more times than an opponent who rolls it 3 times and yet from time to time it's 0-3 in their favour!

I think that the level of aggressiveness and its effectiveness depends not on one manager but on both.

If both managers play aggressively, the card/foul ratio is rather low because the match is 'balanced' in terms of commitment: both teams play close to the ball carrier, there are a few shoulder shots and the mothers are gently insulted. A good-natured but committed atmosphere.

If one of the two managers plays less aggressively than the other, a number of factors have to be taken into account, such as ball possession, the collective instructions, the balance of power in attack/defence, the intrinsic strength of the players, etc. But this is the scenario in which the card-to-foul ratio seems to be the highest.

In short, it's not the level of aggression that matters, but the difference in aggression between the two teams.