Possession: Makes no sense?!

[SeanH91]

I'm making this thread after months and months of frustration and bewilderment. I watch match after match and notice a trend that baffles me, and it is a trend of possession. Basically what I see is that in probably >90% of matches the team which finishes with the least possession wins. Now I know this happens IRL, and obviously it will happen, it's inevitable. But I just think it happens too much in the game. As I see it a team which has the lions share of the ball are more likely to create more chances therefore a higher chance of scoring more goals and, ultimately, winning. But what I'm seeing in the game is that less of the ball = high chance of winning.

Take my Arsenal save for instance. I've played 7 League games this season. In the 6 games that I've won I've had on average 41% possession, yet I've won 4 of these games by a 3 goal margin. In all of these games my team created roughly 7-8 chances more than the opposition. However in the 1 game that I've lost I had 60% possession, lost 2-0 and created just 4 chances to the oppositions 16.

My tactics have been made using inspiration from TT&F and just some well applied footballing logic. I've also tried lowering the tempo and using shorter passing to try and keep the ball more, but still I see my team with less possession if I win, and more if we lose or draw.

It just seems to me that dominating a game in the traditional sense (which is what I like to see more than anything from my teams) isn't possible in this game, and domination in this FM seems to be have less of the ball, but somehow create more.

[johnboy14]

The engine is flawed, you can't get Barcelona playing like barca and you can't get Arsenal playing like Arsenal.

[isuckatfm]

Throw up the 2 contrasting pkms and give us a gander

[kolobok]

Possession itself means (almost) nothing. A keeper can dwell on ball for half an hour , defs can pass ball to each other, etc. It all counts as possession. On the other hand, a very direct quick attack may take only few seconds from start to finish but be lethal almost every time it's launched.

Keep an eye on other stats: pass completion (and which players are the leaders in that department), interceptions, runs. They are more telling.

Lowering the tempo may help to control the game, but it also means that opposition has enough time to organize defense. So, if the opponent is defense-minded (which i guess most teams would be against Arsenal), your possession does not lead to more chances. In addition, you most likely play with quite attacking mentality. Hence your players try to organize an attack at first chance. In combination with relatively quick tempo, and given the quality of your players, it means that you create good chances on break, not by methodicaly building long attacks.

Finally, I believe the tendency you have noticed holds mainly in EPL. In Primera or Seria A you wouldn't see as much of this as most teams try to play a-la Barcelona style (with different success though).

[kolobok]

The engine is flawed, you can't get Barcelona playing like barca and you can't get Arsenal playing like Arsenal.

I made Everton play like Arsenal with no problem. Besides, the only common element between Arsenal and Barcelona is that they prefer move ball around a lot. Other than that they are quite different.

[terrybecker]

depends on what you call playing like arsenal. he never said arsenal and barca play the same.

the ME is really bad, not realistic at all, the game is played too fast, the ball is being kicked up by defenders no matter what. no possesion, simple passes seem impossible to put together, 1-2 are almost inextistent, no back passes, the opposition pressure too much without getting tired, fatigue has limited effect on players, the defensive lines are too high, totally unrealistic. and its concetrated on the wings too much. real life games are won in centre midfield. this is of course the ai, i already know my tactics suck.

[Avelives]

depends on what you call playing like arsenal. he never said arsenal and barca play the same.

the ME is really bad, not realistic at all, the game is played too fast, the ball is being kicked up by defenders no matter what. no possesion, simple passes seem impossible to put together, 1-2 are almost inextistent, no back passes, the opposition pressure too much without getting tired, fatigue has limited effect on players, the defensive lines are too high, totally unrealistic. and its concetrated on the wings too much. real life games are won in centre midfield. this is of course the ai, i already know my tactics suck.

My team play back passes and often pass the ball round in midfield, and so far about 25% of my goals have come through the centre (which considering I play a wing focused 442 is pretty high)

The only point I agree with is that defensive lines do play to high up the pitch and are rather unrealistic.

To go back to the OP, we often dominate possession and have only lost 1 game all season (1-0 away to Arsenal in the FA cup)

It all depends on the types of players you have and a myriad of other factors far to detailed for me to be arsed going into

[terrybecker]

post a pkm

[kolobok]

depends on what you call playing like arsenal. he never said arsenal and barca play the same.

the ME is really bad, not realistic at all, the game is played too fast, the ball is being kicked up by defenders no matter what. no possesion, simple passes seem impossible to put together, 1-2 are almost inextistent, no back passes, the opposition pressure too much without getting tired, fatigue has limited effect on players, the defensive lines are too high, totally unrealistic. and its concetrated on the wings too much. real life games are won in centre midfield. this is of course the ai, i already know my tactics suck.

What I call playing like Arsenal is players constantly moving, the ball is delivered upfront through series of quick, short, mostly one touch passes; almost every player can score (and scores), nobody knows where the danger would come from. And of course lots of through balls. On a defense side they play with pretty high def line as their defenders are not extremely good, so the best chance to retrieve the ball for them is to limit opponent's space for building up attacks. That's a quick summary. In FM it requires very well gelled team, so one of the key attributes I look at is teamwork. I have no player in my squad (except GKs) who has pass completion below 70%; all MCs and DCs have 80+; FBs and wingers a bit lower (I guess mainly due to crosses). IIRC I have about 10 players who scored more than 5 goals and only 2 or 3 who scored more than 10. Btw, the simple passing part is the easiest one. What's more difficult is to make your players to create something out of those passes. On a defense side I have 0.3 goals per game allowed. Not much like Arsenal, but my team is better gelled:) So I have no clue what AI's doing and where it's concentrating anything:D

[terrybecker]

yeah on paper your team sure sounds good, but im 100% certain when it comes to the ME and the actual game being played out its just like i described. post a pkm and prove me wrong.

[kolobok]

yeah on paper your team sure sounds good, but im 100% certain when it comes to the ME and the actual game being played out its just like i described. post a pkm and prove me wrong.

I will post a few pkms over weekend. However please note: I don't owe you anything (including proving you wrong) and frankly don't really care about your rant against ME or your opinion about my style of play. The only reason I will post the pkms is because I like what I see in my game and hope that it may inspire someone to work this game out rather than plug and play without real idea what's going on. I won't upload a tactic (some screenshots maybe) as I believe that there is no tactic that fit every team and even with "right" players some corrections should be made here and there. Also, as I said before, a very well gelled team, where players are willing to die for each other, plus a very thought through choice of players for each position in any given match are much more important than tactical instructions itself.

And of course, I will choose pkms where my team looks their best simply because again I want to show what's possible.

isuckatfm I would like your personal opinion on pkms I am goin to post. Please take a look at this thread over weekend. Any area where you think I could improve the tactic. Thanks.

[isuckatfm]

isuckatfm I would like your personal opinion on pkms I am goin to post. Please take a look at this thread over weekend. Any area where you think I could improve the tactic. Thanks.

Will do but I'm sure you will have seen the obvious stuff that I tend to pick up on

To be honest sounds like you are getting better football than I am

[SFraser]

I'm making this thread after months and months of frustration and bewilderment. I watch match after match and notice a trend that baffles me, and it is a trend of possession. Basically what I see is that in probably >90% of matches the team which finishes with the least possession wins. Now I know this happens IRL, and obviously it will happen, it's inevitable. But I just think it happens too much in the game. As I see it a team which has the lions share of the ball are more likely to create more chances therefore a higher chance of scoring more goals and, ultimately, winning. But what I'm seeing in the game is that less of the ball = high chance of winning.

Take my Arsenal save for instance. I've played 7 League games this season. In the 6 games that I've won I've had on average 41% possession, yet I've won 4 of these games by a 3 goal margin. In all of these games my team created roughly 7-8 chances more than the opposition. However in the 1 game that I've lost I had 60% possession, lost 2-0 and created just 4 chances to the oppositions 16.

My tactics have been made using inspiration from TT&F and just some well applied footballing logic. I've also tried lowering the tempo and using shorter passing to try and keep the ball more, but still I see my team with less possession if I win, and more if we lose or draw.

It just seems to me that dominating a game in the traditional sense (which is what I like to see more than anything from my teams) isn't possible in this game, and domination in this FM seems to be have less of the ball, but somehow create more.

The fundamental problem you are having here is not your possession and ball retention, it is the fact that most of your opponents are going to be playing a game where they defend by dropping a striker into midfield, and waste plenty of time by playing short simple passes back and forth between midfield, defence and the flanks. The reason you have lower possession is your inability to win the ball off of these opponents.

These possession trends are not flaws in the Match Engine, they are simply the outcome of a strong attacking side that cannot press the opponent and win the ball back against a highly defensive opponent packing the midfield and playing keep-ball as a critical component of their defensive strategy. You can puncture their defence when you get the ball and so the opponent tries to stop you having possession.

You are not looking at these stats in their correct context. It is not a trend whereby lower possession means more goals it is a trend where attacking sides and quality teams are coming up against strategies of defence by possession and cannot win the ball back often enough or quickly enough. You might be scoring goals against them but you are not defeating their strategy, you are winning matches despite failing to control the game.

Likewise in the game you lost it seems quite clear that the opponent had a strong and organised defence that your passing game failed to beat, while they refused to play defence by possession and instead played direct counter-attacking football. I would not be surprised if the team you lost to was Liverpool.

[SFraser]

The engine is flawed, you can't get Barcelona playing like barca and you can't get Arsenal playing like Arsenal.

depends on what you call playing like arsenal. he never said arsenal and barca play the same.

the ME is really bad, not realistic at all, the game is played too fast, the ball is being kicked up by defenders no matter what. no possesion, simple passes seem impossible to put together, 1-2 are almost inextistent, no back passes, the opposition pressure too much without getting tired, fatigue has limited effect on players, the defensive lines are too high, totally unrealistic. and its concetrated on the wings too much. real life games are won in centre midfield. this is of course the ai, i already know my tactics suck.

yeah on paper your team sure sounds good, but im 100% certain when it comes to the ME and the actual game being played out its just like i described. post a pkm and prove me wrong.

This is what is known as a Hard Pressing Game in defence and a Quick One Touch Passing and Movement offensive game through the heart of the midfield. I have countered their possession style of football by clogging the midfield and pressing hard, and have adapted my attacking play to exploit the lack of width and close proximity of my players with a superior tempo. They have been completely outplayed in every single area.

[kolobok]

Will do but I'm sure you will have seen the obvious stuff that I tend to pick up on

To be honest sounds like you are getting better football than I am

That's not about whose football is better. After all, Everton is actually very consistent team from the very beginning, so they are probably easier to succeed with than with many other teams. What's more important is having a fresh look and pick some details that might be fogged from me as I usually win anyway:)

[grimness]

I've used something similiar as SFraser on previous versions of FM and won everything but haven't tried it on 09 with only DCs and FWs having individual mentality. I fear I might get frustrated.

I've got idea from some older version when I saw Wenger tactic.

[terrybecker]

The fundamental problem you are having here is not your possession and ball retention, it is the fact that most of your opponents are going to be playing a game where they defend by dropping a striker into midfield, and waste plenty of time by playing short simple passes back and forth between midfield, defence and the flanks. The reason you have lower possession is your inability to win the ball off of these opponents.

These possession trends are not flaws in the Match Engine, they are simply the outcome of a strong attacking side that cannot press the opponent and win the ball back against a highly defensive opponent packing the midfield and playing keep-ball as a critical component of their defensive strategy. You can puncture their defence when you get the ball and so the opponent tries to stop you having possession.

You are not looking at these stats in their correct context. It is not a trend whereby lower possession means more goals it is a trend where attacking sides and quality teams are coming up against strategies of defence by possession and cannot win the ball back often enough or quickly enough. You might be scoring goals against them but you are not defeating their strategy, you are winning matches despite failing to control the game.

Likewise in the game you lost it seems quite clear that the opponent had a strong and organised defence that your passing game failed to beat, while they refused to play defence by possession and instead played direct counter-attacking football. I would not be surprised if the team you lost to was Liverpool.

i dont care about winning the ball back, the problem is when i have the ball. posession is so awkward, the best players seem to struggle with the simplest passes or ball control. especially in the middle of the pitch. try playing in wingerless formation, the play is so awkward and cluttered. no quick passes being made, no 1-2s. in real fotball thats where most of the game is played and won, in fm the most you will get is 2 short passes in the middle and the ball immediately being sprayed out wide. thats fine if i ask for it, but if i have technically gifted players in the middle i expect them to play through the middle and really hold the ball when i have it because of the superior quality of my players. i mean their technical ability is spelled out right in front of me in clear numbers, so i expect them to behave as such.

this is all because the game is designed in this way.

you guys have to realize that your tactics are always confined to the rules of the fm match engine and not the rules of real life football.

sadly the me is very far off.

[ironiman]

I notice many who come here to rant focuses mainly on tactics. I believe the game is "trying to" simulate real life soccer by including elements like relationships, team gelling, media and team talks, etc. Imagine those external factors to modify your players stats, I suppose by up to 50%, and that may be a conservative estimate, judging by how my team play sometimes. Eg, a player with 20 passing stat could be influenced by external factors to be actually 10 on the field, making a premiership player league 1 standard.

There are more to this game than just good players and tactics, and should be explored before making rash comments.

[SFraser]

try playing in wingerless formation, the play is so awkward and cluttered. no quick passes being made, no 1-2s. in real fotball thats where most of the game is played and won, in fm the most you will get is 2 short passes in the middle and the ball immediately being sprayed out wide. thats fine if i ask for it, but if i have technically gifted players in the middle i expect them to play through the middle and really hold the ball when i have it because of the superior quality of my players. i mean their technical ability is spelled out right in front of me in clear numbers, so i expect them to behave as such.

this is all because the game is designed in this way.

Well that is your problem right there. You have chucked four players into the centre of midfield and you think that the important Attributes are Technical Attributes, when infact the key Attributes are Anticipation, Composure, Creativity, Decisions and Teamwork. Technical skills are vastly over-rated because when your players are a yard ahead of the opponent in their heads every pass becomes a simple pass. Technical ability only accounts for the execution of moves. Your midfielders could have First Touch 20, Dribbling 20, Passing 20 and Technique 20 but if all they can see is a wall of opponents rampaging forward like a rugby line and they are afraid of the tackle then the ball is going out of play.

[SeanH91]

What terrybecker is saying is exactly what I'm seeing in my games. I decided to change to a 4-1-2-1-2 with 2 CM's, play narrow, short, quick passing. Here's the players and their required mental stats that play the 4 midfield positions:

DM: Palombo (Anticipation 16, Composure 13, Creativity 19, Decisions 15, Teamwork 16)

MC: Fabregas (Anticipation 19, Composure 18, Creativity 19, Decisions 16, Teamwork 17)

MC: Denilson (Anticipation 13, Composure 12, Creativity 15, Decisions 12, Teamwork 15)

AM: Arshavin (Anticipation 16, Composure 11, Creativity 16, Decisions 16, Teamwork 14)

Obviously Denilson (and maybe Arshavin) aren't world class in those stats, but they are still decent enough to string passes together. Yet I still see less of the ball, <70% pass completion, few chances. When the ball comes to one of the central players, even though their passing is set to the shortest possible, they still lob it out wide to my full backs or up to the strikers. Sometimes I do see what I'm wanting with quick short passes, 1-2's etc... But I'd say about 70% of the time they just don't so what I'm telling them to.

[SFraser]

You have 3 players with 13 and under Composure playing in a diamond midfield alongside 3 players with 16 and under Anticipation, playing a short passing and high tempo game in the English Premier League. Good luck getting that working.

You have also bought Palombo I see, and made the Cardinal Error of failing to match Creativity and Passing with Anticipation and Composure, not to mention playing a guy lacking Anticipation as a DMC. Man Mark Fabregas and your entire midfield will fall to peices. You could have got Dean Whitehead, Loic Perrin or Lucho Gonzalez for less.

The ME is not at fault here. It is actually working perfectly. It is you that cannot pick the right players for your formation or the right formation for your players. You are blindly hammering away at getting square pegs into round holes, oblivious to the fact that your players are completely inept at playing under the conditions you subject them to. Rushed passes, long punts and poor touches from players with Composure 13, 12 and 11. What exactly is your question/complaint/problem with the ME?

[SeanH91]

OMG I think it's all coming together in my head. What I'm doing is trying to force a way of playing onto players' who's stats deem them incapable of playing in such a way. I think my problem is not fully understanding what each stat means, and which stats compliment eachother. After learning this I need to know what instructions fit with these stats.

P.S. However I do think the players I listed above are underrated, I think Arshavin is a bit more composed that than, but that's not for here

Thanks SFraser, I hope to hear more from you

[SFraser]

I'm glad if my post helped you out. I may have been a little harsh with my tone but if you don't know how important things like Composure are you cannot immediately blame the ME.

Let me put my point another way:

If the passes themselves are simpler passes because you have lots of players in a small area then Creativity and Passing become less important but Anticipation and Composure become more important because they are easy passes at high speed under hectic conditions. At World Class level Passing and Creativity are still vital in that area for being able to see "difficult" short passes. You have a lot of great passers in your side but very few of them can play under hectic and cramped conditions. If you go down to Lower League level then some of the really low Anticipation scores down there means that some players will mis-place most passes or fail to see most passes coming towards them, no matter how easy or slow or how large the distance to prepare for the pass.

[kolobok]

Ok, as I promised here is the link:

http://files.filefront.com/New+WinRAR+ZIP+archivezip/;13943079;/fileinfo.html

I uploaded 3 pkms. The most representative in terms of style is probably match against Portsmouth as they are weaker team and at times allowed me to dance on the pitch. The match against Chelsea is not typical one - they played 4-DM-3MCs-AM-ST formation against me, so it would be stupid to attack through the middle. I focused passing down both flanks and played a bit more direct. The second goal in that game is something. The match against Liverpool is actually pretty good one. They are a good team so they didn't allow me to control the ball the whole match but t was not necessary. In that game SG played MR. Pay attention how many times he was closed down by my MCL. And no, I did not use any OI.

Maybe later I will drop some screenshots.

[terrybecker]

Well that is your problem right there. You have chucked four players into the centre of midfield and you think that the important Attributes are Technical Attributes, when infact the key Attributes are Anticipation, Composure, Creativity, Decisions and Teamwork. Technical skills are vastly over-rated because when your players are a yard ahead of the opponent in their heads every pass becomes a simple pass. Technical ability only accounts for the execution of moves. Your midfielders could have First Touch 20, Dribbling 20, Passing 20 and Technique 20 but if all they can see is a wall of opponents rampaging forward like a rugby line and they are afraid of the tackle then the ball is going out of play.

no, usually technical players will hold the ball ad draw the foul. i dont choose 4 technical mids because i like to play through the middle, i play through the middle cause i have 4 technical mids. and in real life thats where you get the most out of them.

[terrybecker]

I notice many who come here to rant focuses mainly on tactics. I believe the game is "trying to" simulate real life soccer by including elements like relationships, team gelling, media and team talks, etc. Imagine those external factors to modify your players stats, I suppose by up to 50%, and that may be a conservative estimate, judging by how my team play sometimes. Eg, a player with 20 passing stat could be influenced by external factors to be actually 10 on the field, making a premiership player league 1 standard.

There are more to this game than just good players and tactics, and should be explored before making rash comments.

i think they should focus on getting the gameplay right first then start introducing these other features. its almost impossible to simulate human relationships.

[terrybecker]

You have 3 players with 13 and under Composure playing in a diamond midfield alongside 3 players with 16 and under Anticipation, playing a short passing and high tempo game in the English Premier League. Good luck getting that working.

You have also bought Palombo I see, and made the Cardinal Error of failing to match Creativity and Passing with Anticipation and Composure, not to mention playing a guy lacking Anticipation as a DMC. Man Mark Fabregas and your entire midfield will fall to peices. You could have got Dean Whitehead, Loic Perrin or Lucho Gonzalez for less.

The ME is not at fault here. It is actually working perfectly. It is you that cannot pick the right players for your formation or the right formation for your players. You are blindly hammering away at getting square pegs into round holes, oblivious to the fact that your players are completely inept at playing under the conditions you subject them to. Rushed passes, long punts and poor touches from players with Composure 13, 12 and 11. What exactly is your question/complaint/problem with the ME?

are you seriously suggesting that that midfield cannot play a short pasing game in real life? they are not just technical, especially arshavin and fabregas, they are also playmakers. to be a playmaker you gotta see every move in your head, which should translate to high anticipation in the game. and fabregas is one of the best deep lying playmakers in the world, and whatever he lacks in aggresivenes palombo more than makes up for it.

[terrybecker]

I'm glad if my post helped you out. I may have been a little harsh with my tone but if you don't know how important things like Composure are you cannot immediately blame the ME.

Let me put my point another way:

If the passes themselves are simpler passes because you have lots of players in a small area then Creativity and Passing become less important but Anticipation and Composure become more important because they are easy passes at high speed under hectic conditions. At World Class level Passing and Creativity are still vital in that area for being able to see "difficult" short passes. You have a lot of great passers in your side but very few of them can play under hectic and cramped conditions. If you go down to Lower League level then some of the really low Anticipation scores down there means that some players will mis-place most passes or fail to see most passes coming towards them, no matter how easy or slow or how large the distance to prepare for the pass.

i dont understand why arshavin and fabregass cannot play in cramped hectic conditions? what do you think high technical abilty means? they are able to pass that ball accurately with a defender on top and slide it through two other defenders. they can receive it much better than any other players and so forth and so on.

technical players and especially playmakers are highly regarded because they can do this stuff under extreme pressure at the highest level. the only downside is the lack of defensive effort they put, however when they are in possession its almost impossible for them to lose it unless you foul them.

[Zebedee77]

i dont choose 4 technical mids because i like to play through the middle, i play through the middle cause i have 4 technical mids. and in real life thats where you get the most out of them.

If you have four technical midfielders who are lacking in critical mental attributes, then you have to play a much slower game. The problem is that a much slower game risks losing possession very easily against teams which play with a high tempo and with high pressing (as you seem to confirm with your earlier comments).

This is the reason why teams which are highly technical and play through the middle tend to flourish in leagues based in warmer climates where the heat prevents extended use of high tempo and high pressing tactics (does anyone genuinely still play solely through the middle outside of Africa (primarily because African football seems to produce direct running and strong central midfielders) and perhaps Argentina (wedded as many teams there are to the playmaker)?). Technical teams which play at a high tempo in eg England tend to consist of the very elite of players who have outstanding all round ability - not just technical skills. If you want to replicate this style of play, you have to look for players with a much wider skillset than just technique. SFraser gave some excellent pointers for this.

The results you describe for your tactics seem to describe perfectly the results of trying to force your players to play in a style which really does not suit them. If circumstances force you to have to play a certain way, then you adapt as best you can, finding out the limits of what your players can do while either squad building with a view to switching styles or improving the quality of player (or finding better balanced players for the role you want them to play) to make the style you're being forced to use work better.

From what you've said, if you have no other option, then you might be best advised to lower tempo until you hit a level where passes are starting to flow and then start figuring out just how high the creative freedom granted to your players will have to be to enable them to start pulling rabbits out of hats on a regular basis. I'd also advise giving your fullbacks freedom to bomb forward to at least provide the occasional bit of width.

[Mitja]

there's defenetly big issue with possession in FM09. imo there are two reasons for that. the first one is very obvious, closing down doesn't work, especially since 930 patch. closing down in FM was never as efficiant as in real life. the reason for that is becouse it's hard to code in ME for players to anticipate things in advance (players will wait for opp to receive the ball before they start pressing). it's been like that as long as I can remeber.

the other thing is defensive AI behaviour. in real life most teams that are defending (especially when facing much better opposition) relly on quick counter attacks and are generally playing safe football (long balls, many clearances etc). in FM Hull can easily play slow, short passing, Barca like football against Manchester United. it ends up that defending team has more possession than the team that should be in control. it's not that odd if you have in mind that closing down is flawed.

imo in recreating real life football stratigies FM09 made step back.

[kolobok]

I don't believe it's all about players. Anticipation = 16 is an excellent and not crucial stat for an MC, IMHO. Short passing game can be played with much less quality players. They will make mistakes, sometimes stupid ones, but that's another story. However, playing a narrow (DM-2MCs-AMC or 2DM-2MC) formation is really difficult even IRL despite some teams make it look easy. Aside from potential defensive problem (exposion to flanks) there is much more serious one on the attacking side - those formations are easy to shut down. Basically all you need is three hard working MCs (or 2 MCs and DM) with high ratings for stamina, workrate, tackling, anticipation, and teamwork. There will be at least 7 players in a relatively small box and 3 defensive players will ALWAYS outplay 4 offensive players in a small space. Simply close passing options. Higher def line will make things even more miserable as the space will be reduced even further. No wonder that the narrow formation midfielders pass to fullbacks every other time - they try to get some space. Same with defs - they simply puff it up just because passing to the middle is always risky - every zone there is marked. Is it unrealistic? Not at all. You can have the best midfielders in the world, but they won't be able to really win the battle. In a box-to-box square 4 on 3 play no midefileders will be able to make more than 4 passes in a row (unless, of course, the 3 are the amateurs). Even 4 on 2 would be extremely difficult if those 2 are Essien and Marscerano.

So the 4 need a real support. STs moving around (great off-the ball), FBs joining attacks, at least one of the MCs and AMC with free role, higher def line to make DCs a good passing option. Plus you have to play wide. If you use a narrow formation and play narrow - it's like pretending that the pitch is kid's size whilst it's not.

And reducing tempo will make things worse IMHO. The more time you give to your players to make a decision, the more time you allow for opposition to close down your defs. On a restricted space it will work better for defending team. High cretaive freedom given to all midfielders - asking for troubles. No matter how gifted they are at least 2 of them should be restricted, because otherwise you have a piano everybody can play but nobody can find and move to the scene.

To me all of the above is pretty clear from the beginning and 100% realistic. The fact that someone can make narrow formation work great IRL does not mean it's easy. First, that someone may not have faced a quality opponent who will make clowns out of the team. Second, that someone maybe just a great manager. It's up to you whether you decide to take the challenge and make the formation working or switch to something easier.

[terrybecker]

If you have four technical midfielders who are lacking in critical mental attributes, then you have to play a much slower game. The problem is that a much slower game risks losing possession very easily against teams which play with a high tempo and with high pressing (as you seem to confirm with your earlier comments).

This is the reason why teams which are highly technical and play through the middle tend to flourish in leagues based in warmer climates where the heat prevents extended use of high tempo and high pressing tactics (does anyone genuinely still play solely through the middle outside of Africa (primarily because African football seems to produce direct running and strong central midfielders) and perhaps Argentina (wedded as many teams there are to the playmaker)?). Technical teams which play at a high tempo in eg England tend to consist of the very elite of players who have outstanding all round ability - not just technical skills. If you want to replicate this style of play, you have to look for players with a much wider skillset than just technique. SFraser gave some excellent pointers for this.

The results you describe for your tactics seem to describe perfectly the results of trying to force your players to play in a style which really does not suit them. If circumstances force you to have to play a certain way, then you adapt as best you can, finding out the limits of what your players can do while either squad building with a view to switching styles or improving the quality of player (or finding better balanced players for the role you want them to play) to make the style you're being forced to use work better.

From what you've said, if you have no other option, then you might be best advised to lower tempo until you hit a level where passes are starting to flow and then start figuring out just how high the creative freedom granted to your players will have to be to enable them to start pulling rabbits out of hats on a regular basis. I'd also advise giving your fullbacks freedom to bomb forward to at least provide the occasional bit of width.

actually the reason it is not played in england is because of a lack of highly technical players. english managers up to the 90's only had available hard tackling or box to box midfielders. even now the most technical midfielder is lampard, who is still not as good technically as a continental or latin american midfielder.

now slowly but surely the foreign managers are buying more technical foreign players and eventually we will see chelsea or someone else play a diamond midfield with 3 technical players and a hard working def mid.

so it has nothing to do with the climate. otherwise african footballers would be the most gifted players in the world.

[terrybecker]

I don't believe it's all about players. Anticipation = 16 is an excellent and not crucial stat for an MC, IMHO. Short passing game can be played with much less quality players. They will make mistakes, sometimes stupid ones, but that's another story. However, playing a narrow (DM-2MCs-AMC or 2DM-2MC) formation is really difficult even IRL despite some teams make it look easy. Aside from potential defensive problem (exposion to flanks) there is much more serious one on the attacking side - those formations are easy to shut down. Basically all you need is three hard working MCs (or 2 MCs and DM) with high ratings for stamina, workrate, tackling, anticipation, and teamwork. There will be at least 7 players in a relatively small box and 3 defensive players will ALWAYS outplay 4 offensive players in a small space. Simply close passing options. Higher def line will make things even more miserable as the space will be reduced even further. No wonder that the narrow formation midfielders pass to fullbacks every other time - they try to get some space. Same with defs - they simply puff it up just because passing to the middle is always risky - every zone there is marked. Is it unrealistic? Not at all. You can have the best midfielders in the world, but they won't be able to really win the battle. In a box-to-box square 4 on 3 play no midefileders will be able to make more than 4 passes in a row (unless, of course, the 3 are the amateurs). Even 4 on 2 would be extremely difficult if those 2 are Essien and Marscerano.

So the 4 need a real support. STs moving around (great off-the ball), FBs joining attacks, at least one of the MCs and AMC with free role, higher def line to make DCs a good passing option. Plus you have to play wide. If you use a narrow formation and play narrow - it's like pretending that the pitch is kid's size whilst it's not.

And reducing tempo will make things worse IMHO. The more time you give to your players to make a decision, the more time you allow for opposition to close down your defs. On a restricted space it will work better for defending team. High cretaive freedom given to all midfielders - asking for troubles. No matter how gifted they are at least 2 of them should be restricted, because otherwise you have a piano everybody can play but nobody can find and move to the scene.

To me all of the above is pretty clear from the beginning and 100% realistic. The fact that someone can make narrow formation work great IRL does not mean it's easy. First, that someone may not have faced a quality opponent who will make clowns out of the team. Second, that someone maybe just a great manager. It's up to you whether you decide to take the challenge and make the formation working or switch to something easier.

im not talking about winning games, thats a different story. all i want to see is my players hold possession,pass the ball among them. it just seems to me if you play a diamond midfield they clatter each other give wrong short passes usually at his teamates back even though the passing attribute is 19 or something.

[googoo56]

imo in recreating real life football stratigies FM09 made step back.

I totally agree with you.

[kolobok]

im not talking about winning games, thats a different story. all i want to see is my players hold possession,pass the ball among them. it just seems to me if you play a diamond midfield they clatter each other give wrong short passes usually at his teamates back even though the passing attribute is 19 or something.

It does not matter what their passing attributes are. Football is about passing options first, and only next to it is the ability to use the options. In a narrow diamond formation you restrict passing options from the very beginning, so the whole idea of using technically gifted players goes down the toilette simply because they don't have any other option. You can provide such options using FBs; playing wide (so that MCs would cover at least a bit of MR-ML positions) asking AMC to move from one side to another (free role without too attacking mentality), etc. But you cannot assume your 4 midfielders will easily outplay even 2 defensive minded MCs, supported by good defs and ML/R. It's not going to happen IRL, nor in FM. We are not in 70s anymore and won't come back.

[outlaw_member]

What terrybecker is saying is exactly what I'm seeing in my games. I decided to change to a 4-1-2-1-2 with 2 CM's, play narrow, short, quick passing. Here's the players and their required mental stats that play the 4 midfield positions:

DM: Palombo (Anticipation 16, Composure 13, Creativity 19, Decisions 15, Teamwork 16)

MC: Fabregas (Anticipation 19, Composure 18, Creativity 19, Decisions 16, Teamwork 17)

MC: Denilson (Anticipation 13, Composure 12, Creativity 15, Decisions 12, Teamwork 15)

AM: Arshavin (Anticipation 16, Composure 11, Creativity 16, Decisions 16, Teamwork 14)

Obviously Denilson (and maybe Arshavin) aren't world class in those stats, but they are still decent enough to string passes together. Yet I still see less of the ball, <70% pass completion, few chances. When the ball comes to one of the central players, even though their passing is set to the shortest possible, they still lob it out wide to my full backs or up to the strikers. Sometimes I do see what I'm wanting with quick short passes, 1-2's etc... But I'd say about 70% of the time they just don't so what I'm telling them to.

I have exactly the same problem as the one being discussed in this thread, and I am also playing a 4-3-1-2 like the quoted poster. My midfield quartet is the the following for Fiorentina.

DMC- Gago (Ant:16 Com:15 Cre:17 Dec:16 Tem:13)

CM- Toulalan (Ant:18 Com:15 Cre:16 Dec:15 Tem:17)

CM- Montolivo (Ant:16 Com:13 Cre:17 Dec:13 Tem:15)

AM- Van Der Vaart (Ant:14 Com:15 Cre:17 Dec:16 Tem:13)

They are able to maintain possesion, but are unable to create many clear cut chances. Upfront, I have Rossi, Pogrebnyak, Gilardino(Now replaced by Keirrison) and Vantaggiatio as the 4 options for the two spots.

I use Gago as a deep lying playmaker, VDV as an advanced playmaker, and Toulalan and Montolivo as box-to-box midfielders.

[kolobok]

I have exactly the same problem as the one being discussed in this thread, and I am also playing a 4-3-1-2 like the quoted poster. My midfield quartet is the the following for Fiorentina.

DMC- Gago (Ant:16 Com:15 Cre:17 Dec:16 Tem:13)

CM- Toulalan (Ant:18 Com:15 Cre:16 Dec:15 Tem:17)

CM- Montolivo (Ant:16 Com:13 Cre:17 Dec:13 Tem:15)

AM- Van Der Vaart (Ant:14 Com:15 Cre:17 Dec:16 Tem:13)

They are able to maintain possesion, but are unable to create many clear cut chances. Upfront, I have Rossi, Pogrebnyak, Gilardino(Now replaced by Keirrison) and Vantaggiatio as the 4 options for the two spots.

I use Gago as a deep lying playmaker, VDV as an advanced playmaker, and Toulalan and Montolivo as box-to-box midfielders.

And they all - speak different languages, came from different football culture, and hence need time to become a team rather than a bunch of excellent players. In addition, looking at your team (I am sure defenders are aslo quality) I bet that most team play defensively against you. So I would not expect a lot of CC chances even in the future. But you can score without CCC. The fact that they can keep the ball is promising though.

[terrybecker]

It does not matter what their passing attributes are. Football is about passing options first, and only next to it is the ability to use the options. In a narrow diamond formation you restrict passing options from the very beginning, so the whole idea of using technically gifted players goes down the toilette simply because they don't have any other option. You can provide such options using FBs; playing wide (so that MCs would cover at least a bit of MR-ML positions) asking AMC to move from one side to another (free role without too attacking mentality), etc. But you cannot assume your 4 midfielders will easily outplay even 2 defensive minded MCs, supported by good defs and ML/R. It's not going to happen IRL, nor in FM. We are not in 70s anymore and won't come back.

no, in real football if you play a straight line 4 man midfield you restrict passing options. real football is all about triangles, and a diamond has more triangles than a straight line. plus its 4 vs 2 in the middle, thats a lot of space available to be exploited. i think you should brush up on real life tactics first.

[Zebedee77]

actually the reason it is not played in england is because of a lack of highly technical players. english managers up to the 90's only had available hard tackling or box to box midfielders. even now the most technical midfielder is lampard, who is still not as good technically as a continental or latin american midfielder.

now slowly but surely the foreign managers are buying more technical foreign players and eventually we will see chelsea or someone else play a diamond midfield with 3 technical players and a hard working def mid.

so it has nothing to do with the climate. otherwise african footballers would be the most gifted players in the world.

And the lack of abundance of technical players until this current generation in England has been down to climate and the pace of the play influencing style of play and therefore training over many decades, made worse by Hughes' insistance that direct football was the footballing future and so further limiting training techniques.

I doubt we will see a diamond midfield used widely by a top team again primarily because it results in exactly the kind of performance Manchester United sufffered from when they moved to a diamond midfield against Barcelona last season. It lacks width, is easily countered by a 4-2-3-1 (and a 3-5-2) with the result that control of central midfield is lost and is an anachronism which should now be considered a specific tool for specific counter-tactical purposes. That's real-life - in game, the AI isn't as responsive so you can get away with such tactics if you make the adjustments necessary to get the tactics working correctly.

[terrybecker]

And the lack of abundance of technical players until this current generation in England has been down to climate and the pace of the play influencing style of play and therefore training over many decades, made worse by Hughes' insistance that direct football was the footballing future and so further limiting training techniques.

I doubt we will see a diamond midfield used widely by a top team again primarily because it results in exactly the kind of performance Manchester United sufffered from when they moved to a diamond midfield against Barcelona last season. It lacks width, is easily countered by a 4-2-3-1 (and a 3-5-2) with the result that control of central midfield is lost and is an anachronism which should now be considered a specific tool for specific counter-tactical purposes. That's real-life - in game, the AI isn't as responsive so you can get away with such tactics if you make the adjustments necessary to get the tactics working correctly.

it is not easily countered, the only real problems it encounters are against deep defending teams, because of the lack of width the fullbacks have to constantly get forward to supply crosses leaving only 2 defenders vulnerable to counterattacks. against high caliber teams however the 2 fullbacks dont have to push up as much as there is space in the center of the field.

i would say manchester are the worst choice to play through the middle because they dont have the quality. carrick was actually trying really hard against barca in the cl final to playmake but his passing quality was really poor, for example.

chelsea, liverpool and arsenal could pull it off because they have technical players like benayoon, arshavin, xabi alonso, fabregas, lampard and so on.

[kolobok]

no, in real football if you play a straight line 4 man midfield you restrict passing options. real football is all about triangles, and a diamond has more triangles than a straight line. plus its 4 vs 2 in the middle, thats a lot of space available to be exploited. i think you should brush up on real life tactics first.

Well, speaking of triangles, 4-DM-2MCs-AML/R-ST has even more triangles, and you don't need to have wingers - you can use fast FCs there. So really you sacrifice at most one of your creative midfielders (though AMC can always play on wing, and making such creative wingers swap position - mmm.... joy to watch). But even in flat 4-4-2 you can easily create triangles by (in FM terms) altering mentalities, closing down, CF, etc. for midfield 4, and altering width in general; or (IRL terms) by asking one MC to drop a bit deeper, MR or ML (or both) stay a bit closer to the middle, one of the FBs to join attack more often, or instruct FBs that one of them should always try to join attack, but ONLY one of them, etc.

A bit of brushing up on real life.

Diamond itself came actually from old sweeper-stopper system, where stopper was in a sense deep lying DM, and there was an MC (who worked as advanced DM), AMC, ML and MR. Once SW-STopper transformed into flat defense there was a question how to cover a possible gap between 2 DCs. DM was deemed to be a solution, but then there were only 5 players left, so if one did not want to sacrifice a ST or AMC, a narrow diamond was the only real option. Especially, if a team had FB/WB (a-la Roberto Carlos). However, this system was never very popular anywhere.

Anyway, it all has nothing to do with the initial "problem" you mentioned about ME: players cannot pass to each other. You asked me to upload a pkm. Did you watch any of the pkms I posted? I don't really care what you think in general (because it's my game ) but they clearly show that it's not too difficult to make players play short passes.

And last, but not least - please, most of us don't know each other IRL. Let's assume that each of us has something to do with real football. You never know - maybe the next poster is actually Sir Alex:D So the fact that you coach a team in NY maybe a huge advantage over someone or maybe just as funny as playing FIFA and claiming you are the manager.

[Zebedee77]

it is not easily countered, the only real problems it encounters are against deep defending teams, because of the lack of width the fullbacks have to constantly get forward to supply crosses leaving only 2 defenders vulnerable to counterattacks. against high caliber teams however the 2 fullbacks dont have to push up as much as there is space in the center of the field.

i would say manchester are the worst choice to play through the middle because they dont have the quality. carrick was actually trying really hard against barca in the cl final to playmake but his passing quality was really poor, for example.

chelsea, liverpool and arsenal could pull it off because they have technical players like benayoon, arshavin, xabi alonso, fabregas, lampard and so on.

We're probably entering totally different territory to what this thread is for...

but the diamond is easily countered through flooding the midfield and by taking play out wide. A 3-5-2 and 4-2-3-1 offer the central solidity to flood the midfield and nullify the advantage of having 4 central midfielders in close proximity. As you point out, the need for the fullbacks to get forward becomes imperative to provide attacking width and so it suffers the basic problem which has seen Spain beaten and Brazil come close to being beaten by a well-drilled 4-4-2 - what's worse is that this is a formation specific problem rather than a straight issue of trying to balance out player strengths and weaknesses. At the top level of football, there is even less in the space in the centre of midfield unless the opposition are tactically inept. (Jonathan Wilson gives a quick analysis of Yugoslavia vs Finland in 2002 which makes the point about the diamond's functionality in the modern game very clear (p.329 of Inverting the Pyramid).)

If Liverpool played a diamond for any other reason than to meet a specific tactical challenge, then I'd be singing 'he's cracking up' without any irony

[terrybecker]

Well, speaking of triangles, 4-DM-2MCs-AML/R-ST has even more triangles, and you don't need to have wingers - you can use fast FCs there. So really you sacrifice at most one of your creative midfielders (though AMC can always play on wing, and making such creative wingers swap position - mmm.... joy to watch). But even in flat 4-4-2 you can easily create triangles by (in FM terms) altering mentalities, closing down, CF, etc. for midfield 4, and altering width in general; or (IRL terms) by asking one MC to drop a bit deeper, MR or ML (or both) stay a bit closer to the middle, one of the FBs to join attack more often, or instruct FBs that one of them should always try to join attack, but ONLY one of them, etc.

A bit of brushing up on real life.

Diamond itself came actually from old sweeper-stopper system, where stopper was in a sense deep lying DM, and there was an MC (who worked as advanced DM), AMC, ML and MR. Once SW-STopper transformed into flat defense there was a question how to cover a possible gap between 2 DCs. DM was deemed to be a solution, but then there were only 5 players left, so if one did not want to sacrifice a ST or AMC, a narrow diamond was the only real option. Especially, if a team had FB/WB (a-la Roberto Carlos). However, this system was never very popular anywhere.

Anyway, it all has nothing to do with the initial "problem" you mentioned about ME: players cannot pass to each other. You asked me to upload a pkm. Did you watch any of the pkms I posted? I don't really care what you think in general (because it's my game ) but they clearly show that it's not too difficult to make players play short passes.

And last, but not least - please, most of us don't know each other IRL. Let's assume that each of us has something to do with real football. You never know - maybe the next poster is actually Sir Alex:D So the fact that you coach a team in NY maybe a huge advantage over someone or maybe just as funny as playing FIFA and claiming you are the manager.

i have not watched your pkms because i havent had any time bu i will do so and report back what i see. i understand you dont care of my opinion about your games and i have no problem with that. im sorry but i didnt understand that formation you gave up there, did you mean 4-2-3-1? i know you can create triangles in a 4-4-2 with fm, but the problem is fm is trying to simulate real football not the other way around. irl though you cant though, the 2 central mids will be especially overwhelmed.

i didnt mention my managing to brag, i mentioned it to give real life examples from what i have seen and try to do and how i can relate that to the game.

[terrybecker]

We're probably entering totally different territory to what this thread is for...

but the diamond is easily countered through flooding the midfield and by taking play out wide. A 3-5-2 and 4-2-3-1 offer the central solidity to flood the midfield and nullify the advantage of having 4 central midfielders in close proximity. As you point out, the need for the fullbacks to get forward becomes imperative to provide attacking width and so it suffers the basic problem which has seen Spain beaten and Brazil come close to being beaten by a well-drilled 4-4-2 - what's worse is that this is a formation specific problem rather than a straight issue of trying to balance out player strengths and weaknesses. At the top level of football, there is even less in the space in the centre of midfield unless the opposition are tactically inept. (Jonathan Wilson gives a quick analysis of Yugoslavia vs Finland in 2002 which makes the point about the diamond's functionality in the modern game very clear (p.329 of Inverting the Pyramid).)

If Liverpool played a diamond for any other reason than to meet a specific tactical challenge, then I'd be singing 'he's cracking up' without any irony

i think we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the vulnerabilities of the diamond. tactics are purely a matter of opinion. besides spain play with wingers and brazil dont use a diamond so your point is not valid.

[Zebedee77]

i think we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the vulnerabilities of the diamond. tactics are purely a matter of opinion. besides spain play with wingers and brazil dont use a diamond so your point is not valid.

The link between Spain's 4-1-3-2, Brazil's 4-2-3-1 (kind of) and a diamond formation being the need to have at least one fullback pushing past the nominal winger (who tucks inside) to provide attacking width and so leaving space behind which a winger receiving a direct ball can utilise to deadly effect (I'll throw in Barcelona's current 4-1-2-3 into that group of tactics which will be exposed by a direct form of football - much as is found in English football).

Which kind of points to where our tactical appreciation leads to our disagreement

In any case, I definitely agree with the points raised by SFraser and kolobok regarding how it is necessary to have a broader view than technical ability alone when seeking to play in a certain fashion within the game.

[SFraser]

i think we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the vulnerabilities of the diamond. tactics are purely a matter of opinion.

At a very, very basic level tactics are a matter of practicality and no matter which way you cut it, it is entireally impractical to force your own possession or attack building game directly through the centre with no possible option to involve wide players or generate width whatsoever. Width is not simply an attacking option, width is what provides options in the first place and dramatically increases your ability to maintain possession at the very least.

Which of these formations is most likely to keep possession under pressure or with a loose pass and construct an attack? Which formation has the most choices for the AM ball player? Which one demands perfection and which one compensates for error? Which one actually allows each player to be an option?

DF---DF--DF---DF

---ST------ST---

-------AM-------

-----DF---DF-----

--DF---ST---DF--

-------CF--------

-------AM-------

The entire point of playing wide is to increase the space into which you can successfully pass and successfully receive the ball, to increase the options available for a successful aggressive pass. Two players playing alongside each other are a larger target to hit successfully than one playing behind the other. That is just the basic principle, it is obviously not always that simple but very often it is. If you lack width then what are your options other than perfect tactical dissection of the opponent combined to perfect execution under high pressure? None. Get four players in a line from flank to flank and the opponent needs four players to cover. Get four players in a line from box to box and the opponent needs one. There is a difference between attacking through the middle with lots of players and attacking through the middle while cutting the majority of your own team out of play. I don't see how the diamond midfield without wide men is feasible as in effect at the most critical phase of attacking play, the transition from defence to attack, there are only two-three passing options maximum for any player and they are straight through the middle.

[Zebedee77]

The way which the diamond works in possession is by bombing forward the fullbacks while dropping the defensive midfielder so deep that the formation flows into a 3-4-1-2. Shakhtar Donetsk played it in the Champion's League two seasons ago - they had exceptional fullbacks but once teams had figured out that their fullbacks got an easy ride and so could step into midfield to neutralise Shakhtar's fullbacks, and that wingers with pace running onto a direct ball was stupendously effective, Shakhtar were undone (AC Milan spanked them in both matches with their goals coming from set-pieces gained from exploiting the flanks, and a plethora of chances created by players stepping into the gaps behind the fullbacks).

This season their coach gave them some width in midfield too. And they went and won the UEFA cup.

[kolobok]

i have not watched your pkms because i havent had any time bu i will do so and report back what i see. i understand you dont care of my opinion about your games and i have no problem with that. im sorry but i didnt understand that formation you gave up there, did you mean 4-2-3-1? i know you can create triangles in a 4-4-2 with fm, but the problem is fm is trying to simulate real football not the other way around. irl though you cant though, the 2 central mids will be especially overwhelmed.

i didnt mention my managing to brag, i mentioned it to give real life examples from what i have seen and try to do and how i can relate that to the game.

Ok, no problem. Take your time. To be clear - I simply don't want a discussion regarding my game. If I decide I want it - I will open my own thread.

As for formation, it was quite popular in the 80s:

-----FC------FC-----

--------AMC---------

ML----------------MR

---------MCd--------

-------DCa(DMd)-----

DL-----------------DR

---------SW---------

One team I remember succesfully using it was USSR on EURO88. In fact, if USSR first choice DCa was not suspended in the final, we could have never seen the brilliant goal by Van Basten. Another (though with some variation towards today's diamond) was AC Milan in 1989-1990. About the same time I played as AMC in

In this formation MCd and DCa worked together to break attacks through the middle, DL and DR either man-marked opponent FCs (becoming in effect DCs), and ML/MR covered opposition MR/L. In addition, MCd worked as a link between attack and defense, while AMC played as trully free-role playmaker, appearing here and there. Later DCa and SW were transformed into 2 DCs, DL and DR role eventually became to cover flanks (MR/L) and support attack. But with AMC not doing much of a defensive work MCd could not cover the whole midfield. So the ML/R became MCL/MCR, and we have got diamond. However, using diamond requires FBs to play more like WBs, supporting attacks regularly.

That's the only way a team can provide AMC - a key figure in the formation - enough options to create good attacks. If both FBs stay back, the diamond has no width and therefore can be easily shut down.

As for real life 4-4-2 ability to create triangles - I believe that it really depends on players at your disposal and a couple Essiens would do better job than the whole diamond midfield with mediocre players.

[terrybecker]

At a very, very basic level tactics are a matter of practicality and no matter which way you cut it, it is entireally impractical to force your own possession or attack building game directly through the centre with no possible option to involve wide players or generate width whatsoever. Width is not simply an attacking option, width is what provides options in the first place and dramatically increases your ability to maintain possession at the very least.

Which of these formations is most likely to keep possession under pressure or with a loose pass and construct an attack? Which formation has the most choices for the AM ball player? Which one demands perfection and which one compensates for error? Which one actually allows each player to be an option?

DF---DF--DF---DF

---ST------ST---

-------AM-------

-----DF---DF-----

--DF---ST---DF--

-------CF--------

-------AM-------

The entire point of playing wide is to increase the space into which you can successfully pass and successfully receive the ball, to increase the options available for a successful aggressive pass. Two players playing alongside each other are a larger target to hit successfully than one playing behind the other. That is just the basic principle, it is obviously not always that simple but very often it is. If you lack width then what are your options other than perfect tactical dissection of the opponent combined to perfect execution under high pressure? None. Get four players in a line from flank to flank and the opponent needs four players to cover. Get four players in a line from box to box and the opponent needs one. There is a difference between attacking through the middle with lots of players and attacking through the middle while cutting the majority of your own team out of play. I don't see how the diamond midfield without wide men is feasible as in effect at the most critical phase of attacking play, the transition from defence to attack, there are only two-three passing options maximum for any player and they are straight through the middle.

yeah, you gave the otpion of a through the middle tactic which is the 2 st + am and an imaginary tactic which was the st cf am. i dont play everybody in a vertical line if thats what youre suggesting. i just dont place any midfielders on the extreme right or left. thats it. again you guys have the wrong ideas about football. instead of accepting criticism about the bad match engine youre trying to change my mind on which tactis i should be using. in fact this thread shouldnt even concern you since it doesnt apply to you because you like playing with wide players.

[terrybecker]

The way which the diamond works in possession is by bombing forward the fullbacks while dropping the defensive midfielder so deep that the formation flows into a 3-4-1-2. Shakhtar Donetsk played it in the Champion's League two seasons ago - they had exceptional fullbacks but once teams had figured out that their fullbacks got an easy ride and so could step into midfield to neutralise Shakhtar's fullbacks, and that wingers with pace running onto a direct ball was stupendously effective, Shakhtar were undone (AC Milan spanked them in both matches with their goals coming from set-pieces gained from exploiting the flanks, and a plethora of chances created by players stepping into the gaps behind the fullbacks).

This season their coach gave them some width in midfield too. And they went and won the UEFA cup.

ok dont talk about ac milan cause thats actually the formation i try to use but its is impossible to recreate in fm.

fb-cd-cd-fb

---dm---

--cm--cm

--am-am--

---st---

wheres the width in that? the ac milan formation is a converted diamond dropping back a st in a amc postion. they actually won the 2003 cl playing

fb-cd-cd-fb

----dm----

--cm--cm--

-----am----

---st--st--