On wwfan's Theory of Tactical Fluidity and Specificity

[darthrodent]

I am sensitive to the fact that this probably does not deserve a thread all to itself, but I am afraid my response will get lost if I respond in his quite excellent Twelve Step Guide:

http://community.sigames.com/forumdisplay.php/18-Tactics-amp-Training-Discussion

I carefully read through his—I'm going to refer to wwfan in third person—guide and one theory really stood out to me as being really important:

The more 'specialised' (or less generic) one's system is, the more rigid it should be; the less 'specialised' (or more generic) one's system is, the more fluid it should be.

This is fascinating as far as I am concerned and consequently, I'd very much like to open a discussion around his theory. So to get things started:

— Does anyone agree/disagree with the theory? Why?

— What is the thinking behind the theory in practical, on-the-pitch footballing terms?

— How does this thinking manifest itself in game? What are the pros and cons?

Perhaps most importantly (for me at least):

What is the thinking behind the theory in Football Manager 2013 terms?

Is it a matter of Creative Freedom? By implementing a more rigid system is the rigidity of the system subtracting Creative Freedom from the specialised roles to the extent that we're left with a true depiction of how said roles should be played? By playing with more fluidity, is the user unwittingly contaminating those roles? Is it a mentality thing? Assuming the theory is indeed valid, what are the slider changes doing to make the system more coherent?

I think I'll leave it at that for now I think. Many thanks.

[joey7]

I started a thread yesterday about not only my tactics, but my understanding of football manager in general.

After the suggestions made in that thread, Id strongly agree that generic roles need fluid styles of football. In particular, I used 2 CM's with CM roles with support and defend duties on balanced, mixed results. Used them with fluid, going great. In contrast, previous FM I used a rigid style with a BWM and DLP and it worked alot better than when using balanced or fluid.

[kurach]

I actualy agree with wwfan. Less creativity freedom your players are using - it mean's that they'll follow your tactical instructions(Team and Player instructions like; width, passing, foward runs, etc.). So it is logical if you are not the best tactician to use more fluid system.

[darthrodent]

I started a thread yesterday about not only my tactics, but my understanding of football manager in general.

After the suggestions made in that thread, Id strongly agree that generic roles need fluid styles of football. In particular, I used 2 CM's with CM roles with support and defend duties on balanced, mixed results. Used them with fluid, going great. In contrast, previous FM I used a rigid style with a BWM and DLP and it worked alot better than when using balanced or fluid.

This is fine—I'll take you at your word—but if you could go more into why I'd would appreciate it. I am more interested in understanding the mechanics of the philosophy than knowing whether or not it works. Cheers.

[themadsheep2001]

Its the argument of specialisation vs generalisation, and whether you believe that a player should have a fixed role on the pitch or be able to do a bit of everything. Specialist roles are doing a particular action, as opposed to having a generic role.

Take Arrigo Sacchi for example:

He certainly subscribed to the idea of generalisation. He believed that all players must play an equal part in the system. Every player is as important in attack as in defence, and that the players need to understand that the team’s full potential can only be exploited if every player play within system fully.

This is a direct Sacchi quote:

I used to tell my players that, if we played with twenty-five metres from the last defender to the centre-forward, given our ability, nobody could beat us. And thus, the team had to move as a unit up and down the pitch, and also from left to right

So you can see his system was a tight, generalist unit where every one could do a bit of everything. he also believed in 5 played in front ofthe ball at all times, 2 of which were out wide; hence in FM you would pick a Fluid philosophy (5x5 split) and play 4-4-2. A specialist is supposed to be doing a specific job, so in effect in a generalist setup he becomes somewhat obsolete. After all, what's the point in that specialist of one thing, if everyone else is also able to do that job?

Alex Ferguson on the other hand preferred a more rigid system. Central Defenders primarily defended (though he liked one defender to bring the ball out) Full backs were a unit who defended and also were responsible for transitions (vertical play), the midfield were a deep duo also in charge of defending and transitions (horizontal play), then two wingers who were in charge of attack and transitions (this is why wingers were so important to Ferguson), and then forwards in charge of attacking play, though he played a split-forward line, where the deeper forward was also key to build up. Ferguson set his players up in bands of two, which means his philosophy in FM would be rigid.

In this setup you can field more specialists, as clearly there are set actions within this framework, ie a deep lying playmaker for defending and build up, a ball playing defender to enhance the ability to bring the ball out of defence

Creative freedom does not necessarily define philosophy, Man United players were allowed to use their heads within the system (more CF) and again movement does not necessarily define philosophy, United's front 4 are often allowed, and indeed encouraged to move off their positions and drag men out of position (more roaming)

[wwfan]

What is the thinking behind the theory in Football Manager 2013 terms?

Is it a matter of Creative Freedom? By implementing a more rigid system is the rigidity of the system subtracting Creative Freedom from the specialised roles to the extent that we're left with a true depiction of how said roles should be played? By playing with more fluidity, is the user unwittingly contaminating those roles?

The above pretty much sums it up.

[lewis999]

Ever since I saw wwfan talk about this and explain it, i've incorporated it into all of my games based on what team I am of course and it hasn't failed me yet. Won't alter my style now I don't think, it seems to give me more free looking football.

[deserter]

In regards to the real life football, consider this:

A) There's one manager that trains his team to play a 442 where he tries to teach his players how to play A certain position; what are the responsibilities of a winger or a striker or a midfielder. He gives general advice on how to play football; how should the team work with and without the ball. This manager will seek to create a flexible machine, where he considers the players capabilities to fulfill the responsibilities of the position when making his selections. He might select a more defensively adept player against an opponent that's strong in attack or a more attacking player if the opponent isn't that dangerous; the responsibilities of the player would however remain the same even if his ability to fulfill them is altered. The sub bench would likely be there mainly for the fresh legs or to relieve a struggling player of his duties. When things don't work, just do it better.

B) There's another manager that also uses 442 where he drills the players the play THE certain position; what are the responsibility of the left winger, or the defensive midfielder. He gives advice on how to play in that position for every situation that may arise. There are things that a midfielder should never do and things that he should always do with clear responsibilities for different situations. This manager will tend to drill his players specifically to maximize their strengths and can then impact the game by selecting a different type of player. For example he might start the game with a creative dribbler in the flank or a physical workhorse to defend the flank more solidly. This would change the teams approach for the game altogether. The sub bench would be seen as a tool for changing the dynamics of the team to be able to adapt to the different situations you find yourself within a match. When things don't work, introduce the plan B.

I'm sure you already figured it out but I'll spell it out anyway. A) is the typical fluid generalist type and B) is the typical rigid specialist.

[Guest]

I am not sure what the point is and the relevance to tactical set up in FM?

[RTHerringbone]

I am not sure what the point is and the relevance to tactical set up in FM?

It is enormously relevant; Style and Strategy together form the template of the way you play.

If you select a team full of specialised Roles and play at the Fluid end of the Style scale, the theory is that you won't be as coherent as with a more Rigid Style.

It's an important area because I think people see the word "Rigid" and assume that it is negative.

[Guest]

It is enormously relevant; Style and Strategy together form the template of the way you play.

If you select a team full of specialised Roles and play at the Fluid end of the Style scale, the theory is that you won't be as coherent as with a more Rigid Style.

It's an important area because I think people see the word "Rigid" and assume that it is negative.

I was referring to deserters post about "Real life football"

[Julien62740]

What do you call by "specialised role"?

[kurach]

Box to BOX mIDFIELDER, Poacher, limited defender, etc.. All roles which Tactical Creator never uses(it only uses "generic" roles like: Central Defender, Central Midfielder, Deep Lying Striker, etc.)

[agentvinz]

Its the argument of specialisation vs generalisation, and whether you believe that a player should have a fixed role on the pitch or be able to do a bit of everything. Specialist roles are doing a particular action, as opposed to having a generic role.

Take Arrigo Sacchi for example:

He certainly subscribed to the idea of generalisation. He believed that all players must play an equal part in the system. Every player is as important in attack as in defence, and that the players need to understand that the team’s full potential can only be exploited if every player play within system fully.

This is a direct Sacchi quote:

So you can see his system was a tight, generalist unit where every one could do a bit of everything. he also believed in 5 played in front ofthe ball at all times, 2 of which were out wide; hence in FM you would pick a Fluid philosophy (5x5 split) and play 4-4-2. A specialist is supposed to be doing a specific job, so in effect in a generalist setup he becomes somewhat obsolete. After all, what's the point in that specialist of one thing, if everyone else is also able to do that job?

Alex Ferguson on the other hand preferred a more rigid system. Central Defenders primarily defended (though he liked one defender to bring the ball out) Full backs were a unit who defended and also were responsible for transitions (vertical play), the midfield were a deep duo also in charge of defending and transitions (horizontal play), then two wingers who were in charge of attack and transitions (this is why wingers were so important to Ferguson), and then forwards in charge of attacking play, though he played a split-forward line, where the deeper forward was also key to build up. Ferguson set his players up in bands of two, which means his philosophy in FM would be rigid.

In this setup you can field more specialists, as clearly there are set actions within this framework, ie a deep lying playmaker for defending and build up, a ball playing defender to enhance the ability to bring the ball out of defence

Creative freedom does not necessarily define philosophy, Man United players were allowed to use their heads within the system (more CF) and again movement does not necessarily define philosophy, United's front 4 are often allowed, and indeed encouraged to move off their positions and drag men out of position (more roaming)

By 5x5 you mean 5 player defending and 5 attacking? Wouldn' that be a rigid system because defenders defend and attackers attack regardless of their duty? Because I think in fluid they attack and defend as a unit.

Also I find that many people still think fluid=sexy football with lots of movement, thus they set their philosophy to ''fluid'' but they have many specialised role such as AP,treq, DLP, BWM etc but still have success. Some also say that if you have many creative players like Arsenal, Barca etc you should use ''fluid'' or even ''very fluid'' regardless of their role because fluid give them more CF, which confuses me

[PeeKay]

The tactical Style mainly affects the players in two ways; Creative Freedom and Mentality.

- Rigid tactics reduce CF and Mentality is more defined

- Fluid tactics increase CF and Mentality is less defined

What does that mean? Well, players in a Rigid tactic will follow given instruction exactly, playing their assigned role and players in Fluid tactic will have more choice, even blurring the line between roles.

I'm not sure I fully convinced about specialised and generalised roles but some roles will benefit in a rigid or fluid style. Just like some players will benefit in a rigid or fluid. However, style should not impact design of a coherent tactical system. The roles assign fill specific functions, for example, there is only one role that allows MC's to make forward runs often and sometimes without the ball (CM(a)). Some of the comments above suggest that I should not be using the CM(a) because I have a fluid style, which nonsense. I see style as a flavour added to a tactic to pronouns elements that I want to promote.

[themadsheep2001]

By 5x5 you mean 5 player defending and 5 attacking? Wouldn' that be a rigid system because defenders defend and attackers attack regardless of their duty? Because I think in fluid they attack and defend as a unit.

Also I find that many people still think fluid=sexy football with lots of movement, thus they set their philosophy to ''fluid'' but they have many specialised role such as AP,treq, DLP, BWM etc but still have success. Some also say that if you have many creative players like Arsenal, Barca etc you should use ''fluid'' or even ''very fluid'' regardless of their role because fluid give them more CF, which confuses me

Nope, 5x5 is definitely Fluid in FM. Next time you have FM open change your view so that you have the mentalities showing and pick a Fluid 4-4-2. I believe you are thinking of Very Fluid, which has the players on the same mentality, so they are fully attacking and defending as a singular unit, Sacchi wasnt quite that fluid.

And I agree about the second part. People confuse fluid with extra movement. If people are looking for extra movement from their players they should be using "Roaming".

Some also say that if you have many creative players like Arsenal, Barca etc you should use ''fluid'' or even ''very fluid'' regardless of their role because fluid give them more CF, which confuses me

I wouldnt follow that logic. If a user wants want to give them more CF, then just make the more expressive via team instructions.

Rigid to fluid isn't necessairly about non creative to creative. Its about specialists to generalists.

[themadsheep2001]

The tactical Style mainly affects the players in two ways; Creative Freedom and Mentality.

- Rigid tactics reduce CF and Mentality is more defined

- Fluid tactics increase CF and Mentality is less defined

What does that mean? Well, players in a Rigid tactic will follow given instruction exactly, playing their assigned role and players in Fluid tactic will have more choice, even blurring the line between roles.

I'm not sure I fully convinced about specialised and generalised roles but some roles will benefit in a rigid or fluid style. Just like some players will benefit in a rigid or fluid. However, style should not impact design of a coherent tactical system. The roles assign fill specific functions, for example, there is only one role that allows MC's to make forward runs often and sometimes without the ball (CM(a)). Some of the comments above suggest that I should not be using the CM(a) because I have a fluid style, which nonsense. I see style as a flavour added to a tactic to pronouns elements that I want to promote.

A CM (A) is a generalist role as thus is fine in a fluid set up. You've just given him an attack duty that's all.

- Rigid tactics reduce CF and Mentality is more defined

- Fluid tactics increase CF and Mentality is less defined

Yet you can have a highly expressive rigid set up. Manchester United for the past 15 years are a classic example of this

[vkastanas]

What do you call by "specialised role"?

Check this out!

[Linkoping]

The tactical Style mainly affects the players in two ways; Creative Freedom and Mentality.

- Rigid tactics reduce CF and Mentality is more defined

- Fluid tactics increase CF and Mentality is less defined

This is what I generally always went by. To play a FLUID system requires the players to have very good creativity and decision making. Basically great mental stats. If they don't then I usually play Rigid.

This is me coming from the Blue Square Premier where my players aren't exactly geniuses. I don't see how you can play Fluid at that level?!

Conversely though, I am playing a very very whacky formation. Very non-generic. Therefore I should be playing Fluid?!

[Guest]

This is what I generally always went by. To play a FLUID system requires the players to have very good creativity and decision making. Basically great mental stats. If they don't then I usually play Rigid.

This is me coming from the Blue Square Premier where my players aren't exactly geniuses. I don't see how you can play Fluid at that level?!

Conversely though, I am playing a very very whacky formation. Very non-generic. Therefore I should be playing Fluid?!

I think that is a common misconception that you can't play fluid at a lower league club. The same goes for the fact that a non-traditional formation would require fluidity. I would really follow and stick to wwfans instructions with regards to fluidity and specialist roles.

[themadsheep2001]

I think that is a common misconception that you can't play fluid at a lower league club. The same goes for the fact that a non-traditional formation would require fluidity. I would really follow and stick to wwfans instructions with regards to fluidity and specialist roles.

Very much a misconception. People keep trying to rigidly tie CF to philosophy, when in truth it's not that straightforward

[PeeKay]

Very much a misconception. People keep trying to rigidly tie CF to philosophy, when in truth it's not that straightforward

Style/Philosophy is tied to CF; a change in style will change the Creative Freedom for a player. However, you are right that it is not that straight forward because of it effect on mentality and other factors.

On the other point, any tactic created, whether fluid or not, is "relative" to any league it is playing in. A role with a lower league player assign will still work (if the attributes are right) against other lower league teams. For example, a player with creativity and passing 12 could be the best playermaker in the lower leagues but it doesn't mean the a playmaker role can't be used because its a Specialised role.

This leads back to Generalised and Specialised roles. I think of roles in terms of basic to more advance (or sub sets). A simple example would be:

Limited Defender < Centre Back < Ball Playing Defender

A BPD can play as a CB or LD but an LD can do LD role well. This sort of links to the Generalised/Specialised but I would put Poacher to be a basic striker role ending as a Complete Forward (the linking roles varies depending on the type of striker). This is why I don't believe style has impact on deciding roles for a tactic.

[themadsheep2001]

Style/Philosophy is tied to CF; a change in style will change the Creative Freedom for a player. However, you are right that it is not that straight forward because of it effect on mentality and other factors.

On the other point, any tactic created, whether fluid or not, is "relative" to any league it is playing in. A role with a lower league player assign will still work (if the attributes are right) against other lower league teams. For example, a player with creativity and passing 12 could be the best playermaker in the lower leagues but it doesn't mean the a playmaker role can't be used because its a Specialised role.

This leads back to Generalised and Specialised roles. I think of roles in terms of basic to more advance (or sub sets). A simple example would be:

Limited Defender < Centre Back < Ball Playing Defender

A BPD can play as a CB or LD but an LD can do LD role well. This sort of links to the Generalised/Specialised but I would put Poacher to be a basic striker role ending as a Complete Forward (the linking roles varies depending on the type of striker). This is why I don't believe style has impact on deciding roles for a tactic.

Thats my point, its not rigidly tied at all. You shouldn't be purely thinking about CF when you pick style, but whether you want players doing a specific role, or players doing a bit of everything. It's certainly not the key defining factor between the two.

There is already a definition for specialist and generalist roles, they arent sub sets of each other:

Wwfan:

I consider the following to be specialist:

Target Man

Poacher

Trequartista

Advanced Playmaker

Deep Lying Playmaker

Ball Winning Midfielder

Anchor Man

Libero

These four roles can fit in either camp, depending on your interpretation.

Complete Forward

Defensive Forward

Defensive Winger

Ball Playing Defender

Generic roles:

Advanced Forward

Deep Lying Forward

Attacking Midfielder

Central Midfielder

Box to Box Midfielder

Defensive Midfielder

Inside Forward

Winger

Wide Midfielder

Wing Back

Full Back

Central Defender

Sweeper

I don't include keepers.

NB: I slightly amended it to take into account he later put the Box to Box as a generalist role:

Style most certainly does have an impact on specialist roles. The definition of very fluid is that everyone does everything, its the the ultimate generalist setup, so picking playmakers to perform that specialist role, starts to become obsolete when everyone is responsible for all actions anyway.

[Blancos]

The more 'specialised' (or less generic) one's system is, the more rigid it should be; the less 'specialised' (or more generic) one's system is, the more fluid it should be.

This is fascinating as far as I am concerned and consequently, I'd very much like to open a discussion around his theory. So to get things started:

— Does anyone agree/disagree with the theory? Why?

My friends said to me "Keep It Simple, Stupid!", so I'll try to give my opinion as simple as I can.

What wwfan wrote was a result from series of logical thinking. "Specialized" roles mean that the coach TOLD the players EXACTLY what to do, then the logical thinking is the players' freedom should be limited (by implementing more rigid system) so they don't get strayed too far from the coach's guidance.

On the other hand, "generic" roles mean that the coach ONLY TOLD the players GENERALLY on what to do, then the logical thinking is the player's freedom should be unleashed (by implementing more fluid system) so they have more creative ways to play than a general one

[Blancos]

And I agree about the second part. People confuse fluid with extra movement. If people are looking for extra movement from their players they should be using "Roaming".

Rigid to fluid isn't necessairly about non creative to creative. Its about specialists to generalists.

I play with the same understanding. When the game said "FLUID" or "RIGID", it's about player's responsibilities, not about their freedom of movements. STYLE is about how a team describes its players' JOB DESCRIPTIONS. RIGID style compartmentalized (clearly framed) every positions into specific job descriptions/roles, while FLUID style mixed the frame up a bit.

In terms of organizations, RIGID is more like a company, and FLUID is more like a community. Company and community apply some roles in them, but they manage their organization with different STYLE.