Two tactics... same minor problem (and waiting for Cleon's friendly invitation to help :-)

[petergoddard]

Following my recent posts at the General Forum...

Let me say that I'm not suffering or in depression with the game :-) I'm managing FC Porto and winning, so I'm posting after Cleon's kind suggestion to try and solve a minor problem described at the end.

right WB (attack) - shorter passing, cross more often, cross from deep, get further forward, close down more

right CD (block) - shorter passing

left CD (cover) - shorter passing

left WB (support) - shorter passing, cross more often, cross from deep, close down more

HB - shorter passing

right DLP (support) - run wide with ball, close down more

left AP (attack) - run wide with ball, close down more

right IF (support) - shoot less often, sit narrower, roam from position, close down more

left IF (attack) - shoot less often, get further forward, stay wider, roam from position, close down more

AF (attack) - shoot less often, shorter passing, close down more

Strategy / Philo: attacking / very fluid

TI: retain possesion, shorter passing, pass into space, work ball into box, play out of defence, drill crosses, much higher defence line, roam from positions, hassle opponents, get stuck, tighter marking, more expressive.

Main ideas: right IF cuts inside occupying the space left from the DLP and openning space for my right WB; my left IF stays wider to allow space to my AP and also he gets further forward to be more close to my AF. Both left IF and AP are supported by my left WB

Finally, there are lots and lots of ppm's

Review: possession is very good (65-70, sometimes more), 15-25 shots per game, 5-10 chances

Problems:

a) match results are always 2-0, 3-1, 3-0 and a lot of goals are from corners

b) although a good amount of shots, very few are on target... long shots are also very few.

EDIT: forgot to say a very important detail, the 3 midfielders are set to man mark, left AP to opponent right MC, right DLP to opponent left MC and my HB marks the attacking midfielder. This is the set against teams playing 4231. Against teams playing 442 its the same but my HB is released from the man mark because I need him to help against the 2 forwards. It's very important that the DLP and the AP man mark and also have as ppm mark tighter.

Now, the second tactic that I'm using in a lower league with also success but with the same problem.

it's a deep 4231, very fluid and attacking

Right Fb (attack) -shorter passing, cross more often, cross from deep, get further in, close down more, mark tighter

CD (cover) - shorter passing, mark tighter

CD (block) - the same

Left FB (support) - shoot less, shorter passing, cross aim to the middle, close down more, mark tighter

right DLP (support) - close down more, tackle harder, mark tighter

left DM (support) - shoot less, get further in, close down more, mark tighter

Right Winger (support) - shoot less, shorter passing, cross aim to the middle, roam from position, tackle harder, mark tighter

Trequartista - shoot less, drible more, shorter passing, mark tighter

Left Winger (attack) - shoot less, shorter passing, cross aim to the middle, roam from position, tackle harder, mark tighter

Advance Forward - shoot less, drible less, shorter passing, move into channels, roam from position, tackle harder, mark tighter

TI: shorter passing, more pass into space, play out of defence, drill crossing, hassle opponents, get stuck in, mark tighter, lower intensity

So, these are different tactics tailored to the very different teams. The first is a possession based tactic, the second is not. As I said, I'm not suffering with defeats and draws, both teams are winning in their respective leagues... but the (minor) problem is the same and its like a pattern. Both teams have a good amount of shots, a good amoun of ccc's and half chances (also hitting the posts) but they simply miss the target leading to a constant series of winnings 2-0, 3-0, 3-1, 2-1.

[Cleon]

Any chance you can post some screenshots of the shots you've had so I can see the types they are and what areas they are from? I already have an idea what's wrong with both set ups but would like to see a screenshot of those too if its no bother please.

The first tactic is the Porto one yeah? Just wanted to double check.

[Cleon]

Following my recent posts at the General Forum...

Let me say that I'm not suffering or in depression with the game :-) I'm managing FC Porto and winning, so I'm posting after Cleon's kind suggestion to try and solve a minor problem described at the end.

right WB (attack) - shorter passing, cross more often, cross from deep, get further forward, close down more

right CD (block) - shorter passing

left CD (cover) - shorter passing

left WB (support) - shorter passing, cross more often, cross from deep, close down more

HB - shorter passing

right DLP (support) - run wide with ball, close down more

left AP (attack) - run wide with ball, close down more

right IF (support) - shoot less often, sit narrower, roam from position, close down more

left IF (attack) - shoot less often, get further forward, stay wider, roam from position, close down more

AF (attack) - shoot less often, shorter passing, close down more

Strategy / Philo: attacking / very fluid

TI: retain possesion, shorter passing, pass into space, work ball into box, play out of defence, drill crosses, much higher defence line, roam from positions, hassle opponents, get stuck, tighter marking, more expressive.

There is such a thing as too attacking especially when you are a good side yourself. All you do when you are a top team and attack is reduce the space in the final 3rd of the pitch because the opposition will be here crowding it out. It's a mistake many people experience who post on the forums because they believe attacking is the best form of attacking but it isn't. You need space to work with too if not you are shooting from range or trying to force your way into the box and hoping for the opposition to make a mistake.

I spoke about this specifically here in this thread;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/377489-Creating-A-Tactic-Design-Create-and-Maintain

I'll post in here what I posted above though and show you how I deal with sides who sit back;

Breaking Down The Walls

There are quite a few options I could use when facing stubborn sides who sit deep and are hard to break down. I could be relentless and do attack after attack in the hope that sooner or later I force them into a mistake and that they buckle under the constant pressure. This approach tends to have more shots but less accuracy because the higher you play and the more aggressive you are then the more cramped the final third becomes.

Another option would be to try and force them up the pitch more by going counter attacking and hope they had to push on more. You’d be surprised how many times this can actually work due to the opposition becoming more adventurous. The down side is they will still probably be solid at the back and set up well, normally narrow too. So it can still be tricky.

Or you can take the approach I’ve just used against Port Vale;

Port Vale lined up with a bog standard 4-4-2 so I knew I’d find space behind their midfield and with the half back I had the numbers advantage in the middle. So what I decided to do was switch from the attacking strategy to a control one so I wasn’t positioned too high and removed the push higher and faster tempo shouts so I could actually play at a slower pace. This meant that I’d be deeper than normal which in turn gives me more space to work with. Space and movement is the key for beating any side who sits deep and is happy to defend against you. For a bit of extra security I also used the retain possession shout and the exploit the middle one too. This was so I could impose myself on the game from a central position and force Port Vale’s midfield duo to mark my players which shouldn’t be an issue because the half back should be more like a central midfielder in this game so I’d always have a free man in the centre.

This automatically creates space without me doing anything because Vale’s midfield either drop off and sit deep to protect their defence and stop runners from my midfield. Which would mean my central duo would be more like AMC’s and would be in great positions to feed the wide men the ball, especially on my right side were the wide midfield cuts inside and supports, this would create an overlap on the inside.

Or they push up and try and hassle my midfield pairing which creates space behind them for the free midfielder or wide midfielder to run into. It could go either way and I’ll have to see how it goes during the game itself.

You can see once the game starts how deep I am compared to normal. The yellow line is roughly where we normally take up position. You can see already that my two central midfielders have space which means they can dictate the game and hopefully influence it more.

This screenshot shows Port Vale have 8 men back in this move. It also highlights my central three and the triangle they create giving whichever one of them on the ball a passing option. It might look like I don’t have any options but I actually do because any kind of long/direct/through ball now would split Port Vale open and put them on the back foot. It would be hard to defend against too because it would catch them out and make the defenders flat footed because they are still atm and 2 of my players are actually in movement. So I’d say this gives me the advantage and edge if the ball does reach one of the highlighted options.

The players actually took none of those options though and saw something which I didn’t which resulted in this goal;

That’s the deep lying playmaker, advanced playmaker and the half back all combining and doing exactly what I wanted them to do. I actually think this goal highlights how important it was for the player to have space to run into and make movement from deep. If I was more attack minded for this game then the space he ran into before the pass for the striker would have been congested and wouldn’t have existed.

The first real time Vale committed men forward moments after the goal above, this happened;

Do you see why I always bang on about space and movement? It’s so vital and important for winning games that the strikers have support, especially if you use a lone striker. Its a quick counter attacking move but it exposed their MC’s when they pushed on too far. It just allows me to dictate through the centre.

The third goal I scored came from a corner.

I’m not set up to create lots of chances but instead the tactic relies on creating quality good chances. You’ll get more of an idea when I post more about this at a later date.

The game played out as you’d expect, I had lots of possession, a few good chances and restricted them to just blocked shots.

The individual players actually had lots of passes between themselves;

And the heat maps looked like this;

I know some of you might be disappointed by this post and was expecting more maybe, but this is all the changes I did. I believe I play the game in a very simplistic way and don’t make drastic changes. My threads always seem more detailed than the way I actually play the game because I’m trying to translate how I play across. But I play at a very high speed and I truly believe that less is more when it comes to minor tweaks based on what is happening on the pitch.

The changes I made for this game took about 10 seconds to do and I just thought about it logically and looked at were I could do the damage from and how I can take advantage of that. Hopefully it comes across okay and you can see and understand why I did the changes, I’ve tried to explain it the best I can but it doesn’t always come across right when trying to write down the way you think

Using an attacking strategy like you do takes all the free space and deep movement away especially as you use two IF's. You are just further adding to problem of cramped space.

Now lets look at your instructions you use too.

TI: retain possesion, shorter passing, pass into space, work ball into box, play out of defence, drill crosses, much higher defence line, roam from positions, hassle opponents, get stuck, tighter marking, more expressive.

The ones I've bolded are the worrying ones for me. You want to work the ball into the box yet at the same time encourage people to pass into space. Let's look at what these shouts do;

Pass into space - It increases through balls so the players pass the ball in front of the receiver so he can run onto the ball. It’s great for creating space and forcing the opposition’s players to try and make a tackle.

Yet you don't really have much space when teams are defending deep against you and its hard to stretch an opponent and give your players something to run onto when you are so aggressive in your approach of attacking.

Work Ball Into Box –

This tells players to use long shots rarely. This is useful if you think your players are shooting too often. Or if you find you want to keep possession and be more probing.

Again this is great but your IF's will be very advanced to begin with and very high but they are cutting inside. This just makes it easier to defend against and gives you no real width or people getting in behind the fullbacks.

All these issues amount to this what you posted;

Review: possession is very good (65-70, sometimes more), 15-25 shots per game, 5-10 chances

Problems:

a) match results are always 2-0, 3-1, 3-0 and a lot of goals are from corners

b) although a good amount of shots, very few are on target... long shots are also very few.

Hence why you have very few shots on target and rely on set pieces.

I don't have time to do a detailed reply for both but this should give you a better idea why its happening. What you think is a good set up and the reasoning for doing them actually are. however you've not factored in the opposition denying you the space that is needed to play. If everything is happening centrally like in this tactic then shots will always suffer due to lack of movement and variety in attack.

[Cleon]

Just saw you post this btw;

I'm thinking that these would be acceptable numbers if long shots were high but they are not. Then I think it's a little bit odd beating Dortmund 3-1 and other strong steams and when playing against very weaker teams I have the same 3-1, maybe just maybe a 3-0.

The reason for this is the bigger teams give you the space because they don't sit back against you. So when this happens your approach is actually good. But against weaker sides you've got it completely wrong hence the post above because these sides don't give you that space because they soak everything up and hit you on a counter attack.

You have to work harder attacking the lesser sides but against the bigger sides the emphasis is more on how you are defending.

[petergoddard]

Thanks :-) I have to read your post wisely and for now let me just say that the retain possession instruction a to try to reduce the risk of players actions with an attacking strategy. Then several ppm's in all players are all focused in possession... still, let me go deep in your post :-)

[Cleon]

Thanks :-) I have to read your post wisely and for now let me just say that the retain possession instruction a to try to reduce the risk of players actions with an attacking strategy. Then several ppm's in all players are all focused in possession... still, let me go deep in your post :-)

Possession means nothing. It's what you do with it that counts and you are using it poorly in the above set up imo.

[peleJunior]

Just saw you post this btw;

The reason for this is the bigger teams give you the space because they don't sit back against you. So when this happens your approach is actually good. But against weaker sides you've got it completely wrong hence the post above because these sides don't give you that space because they soak everything up and hit you on a counter attack.

You have to work harder attacking the lesser sides but against the bigger sides the emphasis is more on how you are defending.

Analysis tab is great tool for this, the average positions of your opponents are all camped in there own half! It becomes obvious to the eye aswell after awhile. It's all about the space, creating space and the penetrating it. I think it becomes frustrating for some players not saying you OP, because they want to play in an idealistic way without changing much.

[RTHerringbone]

Barcelona have so much to answer for. Their habitual command of possession (more so under Guardiola) has people obsessed with it.

The idea that having 70% possession is good is easily misplaced, and possession without proportionate penetration is worthless.

[petergoddard]

Just saw you post this btw;

The reason for this is the bigger teams give you the space because they don't sit back against you. So when this happens your approach is actually good. But against weaker sides you've got it completely wrong hence the post above because these sides don't give you that space because they soak everything up and hit you on a counter attack.

You have to work harder attacking the lesser sides but against the bigger sides the emphasis is more on how you are defending.

Well, that I have to agree with. With FC Porto and the possession based tactic, the real really crushes sitting higher on the pitch and sufocating but it has some kind of difficulty scoring against weaker sides.

I undertand your main idea about crowded space but I have to ask if that was the case wouldn't that make my players to seek for long shots ? That's what I find curious because they don't seek long shots, actually they find the space to shoot (low long shot numbers) but they keep missing the target

[petergoddard]

There is such a thing as too attacking especially when you are a good side yourself. All you do when you are a top team and attack is reduce the space in the final 3rd of the pitch because the opposition will be here crowding it out. It's a mistake many people experience who post on the forums because they believe attacking is the best form of attacking but it isn't. You need space to work with too if not you are shooting from range or trying to force your way into the box and hoping for the opposition to make a mistake.

I spoke about this specifically here in this thread;

Using an attacking strategy like you do takes all the free space and deep movement away especially as you use two IF's. You are just further adding to problem of cramped space.

Now lets look at your instructions you use too.

The ones I've bolded are the worrying ones for me. You want to work the ball into the box yet at the same time encourage people to pass into space. Let's look at what these shouts do;

Pass into space - It increases through balls so the players pass the ball in front of the receiver so he can run onto the ball. It’s great for creating space and forcing the opposition’s players to try and make a tackle.

Yet you don't really have much space when teams are defending deep against you and its hard to stretch an opponent and give your players something to run onto when you are so aggressive in your approach of attacking.

Work Ball Into Box –

This tells players to use long shots rarely. This is useful if you think your players are shooting too often. Or if you find you want to keep possession and be more probing.

Again this is great but your IF's will be very advanced to begin with and very high but they are cutting inside. This just makes it easier to defend against and gives you no real width or people getting in behind the fullbacks.

All these issues amount to this what you posted;

Hence why you have very few shots on target and rely on set pieces.

I don't have time to do a detailed reply for both but this should give you a better idea why its happening. What you think is a good set up and the reasoning for doing them actually are. however you've not factored in the opposition denying you the space that is needed to play. If everything is happening centrally like in this tactic then shots will always suffer due to lack of movement and variety in attack.

My idea is to give some options to the players in order for them not being caught on possession, that's why I went for Pass Into Space and the Drill Crosses. Also I'm trying to create some assymetries WB (attack); IF (support) / WB (support) / IF (attack) with the supporting IF sitting narrow using the free space from the DLP and allowing space to his WB. At the left flank, I push the IF (attack) further forward and sit him wider to allow space to the AP. I would hope these assymetries would some how compensate a risk of crowded space.

[Cleon]

Well, that I have to agree with. With FC Porto and the possession based tactic, the real really crushes sitting higher on the pitch and sufocating but it has some kind of difficulty scoring against weaker sides.

I undertand your main idea about crowded space but I have to ask if that was the case wouldn't that make my players to seek for long shots ? That's what I find curious because they don't seek long shots, actually they find the space to shoot (low long shot numbers) but they keep missing the target

Not always no and you admitted yourself everyone has possession based PPM's. So you just seem to be passing it about not doing much with it.

Go to squad overview > report > stats and take a screenshot for me please and do the same but this time goals/goal asists please.

[Cleon]

My idea is to give some options to the players in order for them not being caught on possession, that's why I went for Pass Into Space and the Drill Crosses. Also I'm trying to create some assymetries WB (attack); IF (support) / WB (support) / IF (attack) with the supporting IF sitting narrowe using the free space from the DLP and allowing space to his WB. At the left flank, I push the IF (attack) further forward and sit him wider to allow space to the AP. I would hope these assymetries would some how compensate a risk of crowded space.

No because you are too high up the pitch and the opposition are just sat back against you. It's clearly an issue because you mentioned you don't have many good chances. Anything you get will be scraps or rushed shots.

[petergoddard]

Barcelona have so much to answer for. Their habitual command of possession (more so under Guardiola) has people obsessed with it.

The idea that having 70% possession is good is easily misplaced, and possession without proportionate penetration is worthless.

very obssessed thank you

[petergoddard]

No because you are too high up the pitch and the opposition are just sat back against you. It's clearly an issue because you mentioned you don't have many good chances. Anything you get will be scraps or rushed shots.

I have chances, ccc's half chances and posts, also a good amount of key passes. Really this was never my problem, I wrote about it in the general thread.

[Cleon]

Okay I'm done then pointless trying to help you if you think nothings wrong blah blah. I have better things to do.

[petergoddard]

Posting some examples.

This was the match with the highest long shots I had, a kind of exception to the rule. Looking at posts, ccc's and half chances its 10 chances for scoring.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I undertand your main idea about crowded space but I have to ask if that was the case wouldn't that make my players to seek for long shots ? That's what I find curious because they don't seek long shots, actually they find the space to shoot (low long shot numbers) but they keep missing the target

There's no simple answer here. You have identified a pattern through statistics, but now you have to analyze on a more detailed level as to why each shot is missed. Go through all shots on the analysis tab and see if you can find patterns. Are the shots rushed? Lots of one touch shots from an angle, off balance? Lots of blocks? One particular player missing a lot, or even players from the same position, which is already a pattern.

Generally though I can't help but question what your expectations really are. You employ a very attacking and risk taking strategy but you also want efficiency. You win most games but seem to expect to win them by even bigger scorelines by virtue of having a certain amount of shots. It doesn't quite work like that. To be more efficient with your shots the right answer often is to shoot less. you can't expect to consistently win 5-0 though or you will never be satisfied.

[petergoddard]

Okay I'm done then pointless trying to help you if you think nothings wrong blah blah. I have better things to do.

???? Where did I said nothing is wrong ??? you stated that I'm not creating chances and I answered that was not the problem I raised at the general forum.

[Cleon]

Posting some examples.

This was the match with the highest long shots I had, a kind of exception to the rule. Looking at posts, ccc's and half chances its 10 chances for scoring.

25 shots and only 9 on target is an issue. Those stats aren't even good stats, look at the blocked shots etc all links with the lack of space and the opposition sitting back.

[Cleon]

???? Where did I said nothing is wrong ??? you stated that I'm not creating chances and I answered that was not the problem I raised at the general forum.

I didn't say you didn't create. I said you don't create good chances like you keep saying you do. You just seem to not see the issues even when being shown what they are.

[petergoddard]

There's no simple answer here. You have identified a pattern through statistics, but now you have to analyze on a more detailed level as to why each shot is missed. Go through all shots on the analysis tab and see if you can find patterns. Are the shots rushed? Lots of one touch shots from an angle, off balance? Lots of blocks? One particular player missing a lot, or even players from the same position, which is already a pattern.

Generally though I can't help but question what your expectations really are. You employ a very attacking and risk taking strategy but you also want efficiency. You win most games but seem to expect to win them by even bigger scorelines by virtue of having a certain amount of shots. It doesn't quite work like that. To be more efficient with your shots the right answer often is to shoot less. you can't expect to consistently win 5-0 though or you will never be satisfied.

Well, at this screenshot I posted there were 8 shots blocked and its indeed too much... you might have a good point with angle of shots.

[petergoddard]

25 shots and only 9 on target is an issue. Those stats aren't even good stats, look at the blocked shots etc all links with the lack of space and the opposition sitting back.

Perhaps setting the line defence a little deeper would help instead of very high

[Cleon]

Perhaps setting the line defence a little deeper would help instead of very high

Not really no because your strategy is the issue. It's the whole compactness and the relentless attacking. It's great that you get 70% possession but if you are using it wisely then its all worthless.

[petergoddard]

Not really no because your strategy is the issue.

Well, i'm still looking to develop a Control one, always had very good results with Control

What do you make of this ?

My idea is to give some options to the players in order for them not being caught on possession, that's why I went for Pass Into Space and the Drill Crosses. Also I'm trying to create some assymetries WB (attack); IF (support) / WB (support) / IF (attack) with the supporting IF sitting narrow using the free space from the DLP and allowing space to his WB. At the left flank, I push the IF (attack) further forward and sit him wider to allow space to the AP. I would hope these assymetries would some how compensate a risk of crowded space.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Not really no because your strategy is the issue. It's the whole compactness and the relentless attacking. It's great that you get 70% possession but if you are using it wisely then its all worthless.

Well not quite, as he is winning.

Perception and expectations are the real issue imo. When you win most games 2-0, 3-1 or 3-0 like he says he does then there really is no real issue as far as I can see. But you can't have risk taking quick attacking play coupled with above average efficiency unless your team is something ultra special on an individual level. This is something that so many people fail to grasp as it's so easy to manage the former in this game yet such a challenge to achieve the latter.

[Cleon]

Well not quite, as he is winning.

Perception and expectations are the real issue imo. When you win most games 2-0, 3-1 or 3-0 like he says he does then there really is no real issue as far as I can see. But you can't have risk taking quick attacking play coupled with above average efficiency unless your team is something ultra special on an individual level. This is something that so many people fail to grasp as it's so easy to manage the former in this game yet such a challenge to achieve the latter.

Well it is if you read the thread, he said most goals come from corners. So my above comment is correct.

[petergoddard]

Well not quite, as he is winning.

Perception and expectations are the real issue imo. When you win most games 2-0, 3-1 or 3-0 like he says he does then there really is no real issue as far as I can see. But you can't have risk taking quick attacking play coupled with above average efficiency unless your team is something ultra special on an individual level. This is something that so many people fail to grasp as it's so easy to manage the former in this game yet such a challenge to achieve the latter.

Well, that's true :-) I started the thread saying that it's a minor problem :-) I'm winning matches, I'm winning titles, 1st season lost the semi-finals against Barcelona but I had sent-off's in both matches and in both matches until we were playing with 11 players we were winning at home and away. So it can be all messed up :-)

Even so I think its very acceptable some kind of problem with crowded space, ok... but what about the other tactic ??? I'm not using IF's, I'm using wingers, and I haven't set the defence line muche higher, its just by default. Results are quite the same, 2-0, 3-0, 3-1 and I think it makes a difference competing in a lower league.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Well it is if you read the thread, he said most goals come from corners. So my above comment is correct.

Hyperbole surely, as with the scorelines he says he usually wins by surely corners can't count for the majority - otherwise we really are talking about a ME issue here. In any case, lots of shots lead to lots of corners, which lead to goals. Yet again, no real issue as what matters at the end of the day is the win.

So yeah, if higher efficiency is the goal, your comment is relevant. But is it? If the end goal is to win every game by a huge margin then surely there is no right answer apart from building a team of Messis and Ronaldos.

[Cleon]

Edit - In fact I'll delete that I really can't be bothered to argue that grass is green etc in replies to the above comment.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Edit - In fact I'll delete that I really can't be bothered to argue that grass is green etc in replies to the above comment.

I can't see the reason for your snappy tone. My point is that what the OP is looking for is unrealistic and not really achievable. You can't expect to play a quick attacking game while having lots of shots and be efficient at the same time. Your suggestion is a good one if he wants to be more efficient. I'm saying either way is fine as long as your expectations are in line with reality.

[petergoddard]

So, I have changed a few things because I think I might also was telling players to rush things.

a) Unticked pass into space

b) Unticked Much Higher defence line (no instruction being used)

c) Play narrow and exploit the flanks is now ticked

d) Less Intensity

With these changes I just beat Sporting 3-0, 19 shots, 9 on target (a little better), 7 long shots (this was because direct free kicks), 2 ccc's, 4 half chances (both low numbers). Felt that players are not so eager to get to the goal, until 75 minutes I was with 75% possession, team lost some shape in the last 15 minutes but I had a few players with 70's% fitness.

[Cleon]

I can't see the reason for your snappy tone. My point is that what the OP is looking for is unrealistic and not really achievable. You can't expect to play a quick attacking game while having lots of shots and be efficient at the same time. Your suggestion is a good one if he wants to be more efficient. I'm saying either way is fine as long as your expectations are in line with reality.

Because you tried to be smart in your answer and took it away from what the user actually asked for in the thread that's why.

My point is that what the OP is looking for is unrealistic and not really achievable.

Yes it is and it can. Don't see what is unrealistic by wanting to score more goals and have more chances on target. It's not unrealistic at all and to suggest so is ludicrous.

Hyperbole surely, as with the scorelines he says he usually wins by surely corners can't count for the majority - otherwise we really are talking about a ME issue here.

He said it count's for a lot of them. No need for you to overreact though and think its a ME issue when it happens to 1 isolated person.

In any case, lots of shots lead to lots of corners, which lead to goals. Yet again, no real issue as what matters at the end of the day is the win.

Nothing to do with what the user asked for so this is irrelevant. He is winning but if he isn't getting as many shots on target as he'd like and a lot of goals are from corners then he can improve his play and it is possible to score more from open play if he works on these.

So yeah, if higher efficiency is the goal, your comment is relevant. But is it? If the end goal is to win every game by a huge margin then surely there is no right answer apart from building a team of Messis and Ronaldos.

You do this a lot especially in GQ and miss the point of what the user is actually asking for and start rambling about something else. Your post is pointless because the user has highlighted what he wants so yes my comment was relevant and actually about what the user is trying to achieve unlike yours.

You can't expect to play a quick attacking game while having lots of shots and be efficient at the same time

This we agree on.

So please don't tell someone he is being impossible in his expectations when he can work on them and actually try and improve his goal ratio. For a club like Porto this shouldn't be much of an issue and even turning a few 3-0's into 4+ nils will make a massive difference. Not sure what the obsession seems to be lately with people telling users they can't achieve what they want when they actually can.

[Cleon]

So, I have changed a few things because I think I might also was telling players to rush things.

a) Unticked pass into space

b) Unticked Much Higher defence line (no instruction being used)

c) Play narrow and exploit the flanks is now ticked

d) Less Intensity

With these changes I just beat Sporting 3-0, 19 shots, 9 on target (a little better), 7 long shots (this was because direct free kicks), 2 ccc's, 4 half chances (both low numbers). Felt that players are not so eager to get to the goal, until 75 minutes I was with 75% possession, team lost some shape in the last 15 minutes but I had a few players with 70's% fitness.

Do you ever pause the game randomly when attacking and look at your players positions to see what kind of support they have and the positions they take up when in an attacking move? It's the best way to see things.

Your side will often lose its shape though because you hassle opponents and have roaming from positions activated.

[petergoddard]

Can we get back to the issue gentlemen ? Thank you :-)

I need a review about the changes I made with TI and with this... Also I'm trying to create some assymetries WB (attack); IF (support) / WB (support) / IF (attack) with the supporting IF sitting narrow using the free space from the DLP and allowing space to his WB. At the left flank, I push the IF (attack) further forward and sit him wider to allow space to the AP. I would hope these assymetries would some how compensate a risk of crowded space.

[petergoddard]

Do you ever pause the game randomly when attacking and look at your players positions to see what kind of support they have and the positions they take up when in an attacking move? It's the best way to see things.

Your side will often lose its shape though because you hassle opponents and have roaming from positions activated.

yes I do sir, Yes I do... there is only a situation that there is some lack of support, it's not often but it happens and I don't like: sometimes my WB's stand alone with no support from the IF's or the midfielders. I like the team to have lots of movement with and without the ball and I think having the cutting inside IF's and the midfielders running wide with the ball allow this movement. So, although it's not often I was hoping my midfielders would support more the WB's.

[Cleon]

Can we get back to the issue gentlemen ? Thank you :-)

I need a review about the changes I made with TI and with this... Also I'm trying to create some assymetries WB (attack); IF (support) / WB (support) / IF (attack) with the supporting IF sitting narrow using the free space from the DLP and allowing space to his WB. At the left flank, I push the IF (attack) further forward and sit him wider to allow space to the AP. I would hope these assymetries would some how compensate a risk of crowded space.

You'd still have 2 IF's and an AP in the same space, how would this make it less congested? When the IF's get the ball they'll still come into the centre. You need someone to make movement somewhere that can drag a defence wide or make a defensive player follow him etc then this will create an hole.

Not sure I can be much more help though I'm away in a few hours. Hope you find what you want though

[Cleon]

yes I do sir, Yes I do... there is only a situation that there is some lack of support, it's not often but it happens and I don't like: sometimes my WB's stand alone with no support from the IF's or the midfielders. I like the team to have lots of movement with and without the ball and I think having the cutting inside IF's and the midfielders running wide with the ball allow this movement. So, although it's not often I was hoping my midfielders would support more the WB's.

When your looking at this movement though who is making space for the IF's to run into it? You might very well have movement but if the players are running into a crowded area it won't help matters because they'll have no where to go once there.

For example on my own save I wanted to use 2 IF's who sit narrow and cut in all the time. Now to supplement this I decided to use a F9 so he dropped deep and links the 2 IF's. Not only this but he normally gets his marker to follow him which creates a gap for the IF's to run into. And because I use a complete wingback when the IF's come inside the WB's carry on their runs and offer me width so there is always a passing option.

[petergoddard]

You'd still have 2 IF's and an AP in the same space, how would this make it less congested? When the IF's get the ball they'll still come into the centre. You need someone to make movement somewhere that can drag a defence wide or make a defensive player follow him etc then this will create an hole.

Not sure I can be much more help though I'm away in a few hours. Hope you find what you want though

Yes you can, don't think of leaving now

But doesn't it make the difference having a supporting IF cutting inside to the free space of the DLP and an attacking IF wider and getting further ????

That one is easy, I can change the AF to a trequartista :-)

[petergoddard]

When your looking at this movement though who is making space for the IF's to run into it? You might very well have movement but if the players are running into a crowded area it won't help matters because they'll have no where to go once there.

For example on my own save I wanted to use 2 IF's who sit narrow and cut in all the time. Now to supplement this I decided to use a F9 so he dropped deep and links the 2 IF's. Not only this but he normally gets his marker to follow him which creates a gap for the IF's to run into. And because I use a complete wingback when the IF's come inside the WB's carry on their runs and offer me width so there is always a passing option.

I have to confess that my first option was the F9 and I have also to recognize that I had lots of problems with this role, this guy was just receiving the ball and bang!!! I'm going to shoot this thing right from here... oh I'm at the midfield, ok it doesn't matter. Then I tried a supporting DLF with two attacking IF's, it was better but.... finally, I changed to the current support / attack IF but ok I'm willing to change the AF to a Treq.

[Cleon]

I have to confess that my first option was the F9 and I have also to recognize that I had lots of problems with this role, this guy was just receiving the ball and bang!!! I'm going to shoot this thing right from here... oh I'm at the midfield, ok it doesn't matter. Then I tried a supporting DLF with two attacking IF's, it was better but.... finally, I changed to the current support / attack IF but ok I'm willing to change the AF to a Treq.

I'm not saying you should change. I'm saying you should look at what's actually happening in your game and see who the players creating the space are, who the players are using this space and generally just look at the movement to see if its intelligent movement creating space or using it. Rather than just having movement that doesn't do anything.

The above was just an example of what I created and wasn't meant as a 'change to this'. I'm just trying to get you to think of things in your own game and knowing what you are looking for.

[petergoddard]

and what about this

But doesn't it make the difference having a supporting IF cutting inside to the free space of the DLP and an attacking IF wider and getting further ????

I know, I know, believe me I have a good old habit of watching my matches. I have thought of the CWB possibility but I was with some doubts that a CWB would expose too much my defence. Since I have unticked the vey high defence line and left it by default it might actually a good option to try. Also, I was hoping the ppm's would solve some of the supporting problems but maybe my AF is obstructing some space even with the drop deeper ppm.

by the way, why does goals count as ccc's ???? shouldn't they be different ? a goal is a goal, a clear chance does not have to be a goal... right ?

[Äktsjon Männ]

snip

By Christ you really are precious.

I'll refrain from any further back and forth but will simply address this as it's akin to a personal attack, which is a bit too much coming from a mod imo.

You do this a lot especially in GQ and miss the point of what the user is actually asking for and start rambling about something else. Your post is pointless because the user has highlighted what he wants so yes my comment was relevant and actually about what the user is trying to achieve unlike yours.

If you're going to accuse me of something like this then I'd rather you point out specific examples as and when this supposedly happens. Seeing that I rarely post here or about tactical issues in GD I find that suggestion without any backing ludicrous. The comment you took offense on was just a passing observation based on the premise for this thread and the posts in the feedback thread that preceded it. It also wasn't disagreeing with you in any way.

Anyway, back on topic

So, I have changed a few things because I think I might also was telling players to rush things.

a) Unticked pass into space

b) Unticked Much Higher defence line (no instruction being used)

c) Play narrow and exploit the flanks is now ticked

d) Less Intensity

With these changes I just beat Sporting 3-0, 19 shots, 9 on target (a little better), 7 long shots (this was because direct free kicks), 2 ccc's, 4 half chances (both low numbers). Felt that players are not so eager to get to the goal, until 75 minutes I was with 75% possession, team lost some shape in the last 15 minutes but I had a few players with 70's% fitness.

What's the reasoning behind narrow + exploit flanks?

Also, your defensive line will still be very high with an attacking strategy. Def. line, tempo and width are relative to strategy so you have to account for this when making further changes through shouts.

I have thought of the CWB possibility but I was with some doubts that a CWB would expose too much my defence. Since I have unticked the vey high defence line and left it by default it might actually a good option to try. Also, I was hoping the ppm's would solve some of the supporting problems but maybe my AF is obstructing some space even with the drop deeper ppm.

by the way, why does goals count as ccc's ???? shouldn't they be different ? a goal is a goal, a clear chance does not have to be a goal... right ?

As above. Your line will still be very high on more attacking strategies, but using a CWB is more about having appropriate cover than the defensive line. For example, it's good to have a sitting player on the same side of the pitch as your CWB as he will slot in there and cover.

What do you mean with the last question? A goal will still be scored from a chance. The CCC shot is just there to indicate how many of your shots are good chances regardless of the scoreline. You can't rely on the stat too heavily though as it's subjective and not that reliable in the game.

[yonko]

peter,

If using DLF(S)+2 IFs(A) was working better, then why did you change it to AF(A)+IF(A)+IF(S)? And now you want to change the ST to Treq role? Why?

I told you some time ago to change your strategy from Attacking to Control and now Cleon is telling you the same. I've noticed that you kind of ask people for opinion and/or advice but then dismiss it and continue doing pretty much the same.

[petergoddard]

By Christ you really are precious.

What's the reasoning behind narrow + exploit flanks?

Also, your defensive line will still be very high with an attacking strategy. Def. line, tempo and width are relative to strategy so you have to account for this when making further changes through shouts.

As above. Your line will still be very high on more attacking strategies, but using a CWB is more about having appropriate cover than the defensive line. For example, it's good to have a sitting player on the same side of the pitch as your CWB as he will slot in there and cover.

What do you mean with the last question? A goal will still be scored from a chance. The CCC shot is just there to indicate how many of your shots are good chances regardless of the scoreline. You can't rely on the stat too heavily though as it's subjective and not that reliable in the game.

The reason is telling my players to stick closer (narrow), the opponent will also do so opening more space at the flanks, then we explore these wide channels. I might also try a woder + exploit the middle to exploit the inner channels.

I know and I want my defense line high... I'm not keen with droping the defense line and going for fast transitions, that's not my style nor the way I think football. I was considering that the Retain Possession TI will make my players dwell with the ball that's why I tried the balance it with more passing into space but it's a good point when I'm asked "what space ???" lool.

Whenever I score a goal the ccc's stats increase, I don't think its correct. A ccc it's a chance of scoring, it's a goal.

[Äktsjon Männ]

The reason is telling my players to stick closer (narrow), the opponent will also do so opening more space at the flanks, then we explore these wide channels. I might also try a woder + exploit the middle to exploit the inner channels.

I know and I want my defense line high... I'm not keen with droping the defense line and going for fast transitions, that's not my style nor the way I think football. I was considering that the Retain Possession TI will make my players dwell with the ball that's why I tried the balance it with more passing into space but it's a good point when I'm asked "what space ???" lool.

Whenever I score a goal the ccc's stats increase, I don't think its correct. A ccc it's a chance of scoring, it's a goal.

Why would you equate deeper line with fast transitions though? You don't have to press very high to play a slower tempo game. In fact this is how strategy works in FM. More cautious strategies mean lower tempo, lower mentality meaning less urgency and generally shorter passing, although this varies between philosophies.

As for the ccc question, a goal is not always a ccc. A goal can however be scored from a ccc. 'Chance' does not imply that it can't be taken.

[petergoddard]

peter,

If using DLF(S)+2 IFs(A) was working better, then why did you change it to AF(A)+IF(A)+IF(S)? And now you want to change the ST to Treq role? Why?

I told you some time ago to change your strategy from Attacking to Control and now Cleon is telling you the same. I've noticed that you kind of ask people for opinion and/or advice but then dismiss it and continue doing pretty much the same.

Well the DLF (s) + 2 IFs (A) worked well than using a F9 that's true. The AF plus 2IFs with one supporting turned out to work even better.

Asking for opinions is just that... asking for opinions and either we get to the conclusion that they really improve our ideas or they simply don't. Is this a problem ??? I don't think so! Everyone has his own logic and thinking and ideas about football and how our teams should play, if other ideas improve our own that's great since we should be willing to learn... I am :-) but this doesn't mean we have to stick to third party ideas without observing it on the pitch.

Control isn't working for me, I haven't dig enough to find the reasons why but I will. As for crowded space, I still have doubts: as I said I watch my matches, I see my players getting inside the opponent's box and shooting... and missing in front of the GK or the GK making great saves. So why is it a problem of crowded space ? I'm not seeing that although my doles and duties might tell that, but I use a lot of ppm's and this is an important part of players behaviour with and without the ball. As for Cleon's suggestion of a CWB, indeed yes, and I worte that I had seriously considered that option but since I have an instruction of a very high defense line (by the way, this doesn't make any sense in attacking strategies, it should be unavailable) I was afraid of exposing too much.

[petergoddard]

Why would you equate deeper line with fast transitions though? You don't have to press very high to play a slower tempo game. In fact this is how strategy works in FM. More cautious strategies mean lower tempo, lower mentality meaning less urgency and generally shorter passing, although this varies between philosophies.

As for the ccc question, a goal is not always a ccc. A goal can however be scored from a ccc. 'Chance' does not imply that it can't be taken.

It's a trap... you sit deeper, invite the opponent to stay high and then you boost exploiting the flanks

[deosays]

Try to play a F9. It works better when you play lone striker.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Well the DLF (s) + 2 IFs (A) worked well than using a F9 that's true. The AF plus 2IFs with one supporting turned out to work even better.

Asking for opinions is just that... asking for opinions and either we get to the conclusion that they really improve our ideas or they simply don't. Is this a problem ??? I don't think so! Everyone has his own logic and thinking and ideas about football and how our teams should play, if other ideas improve our own that's great since we should be willing to learn... I am :-) but this doesn't mean we have to stick to third party ideas without observing it on the pitch.

Control isn't working for me, I haven't dig enough to find the reasons why but I will. As for crowded space, I still have doubts: as I said I watch my matches, I see my players getting inside the opponent's box and shooting... and missing in front of the GK or the GK making great saves. So why is it a problem of crowded space ? I'm not seeing that although my doles and duties might tell that, but I use a lot of ppm's and this is an important part of players behaviour with and without the ball. As for Cleon's suggestion of a CWB, indeed yes, and I worte that I had seriously considered that option but since I have an instruction of a very high defense line (by the way, this doesn't make any sense in attacking strategies, it should be unavailable) I was afraid of exposing too much.

Now we're going back to the territory that brought Cleon's wrath on me, but really the shots missed thing is a lot about expectations vs perception. To make sense of it you need to analyze the shots individually. Go to the analysis tab for a match where you think an unrealistic amount of easy chances were missed and click on each shot to view them. Consider every possibility - how much time does the player have to take the shot, is he being chased down? Is it from a narrow angle? Could it be off balance - this is tricky as the animations don't make this clear but you can tell by looking at the whole sequence and compare your observations to similar plays in real life.

The reality is that you do likely have to compromise, and the compromise is a more conservative strategy as has been said. It doesn't mean a switch to a completely different ideology, you need to get that obsession out of your head. I currently play mostly on counter strategy in my game and I play out of the back, control possession against most teams and create efficient chances. All that as a pretty low skilled lower league team. But I do not get 20 shots in a game.

You need to decide which is more important to you - efficiency or the urgency of play that your current tactic is getting you. You can get every other aspect of play with a lower strategy except that urgency in the attacking third that sees you average 20 shots per game.

[petergoddard]

Now we're going back to the territory that brought Cleon's wrath on me, but really the shots missed thing is a lot about expectations vs perception. To make sense of it you need to analyze the shots individually. Go to the analysis tab for a match where you think an unrealistic amount of easy chances were missed and click on each shot to view them. Consider every possibility - how much time does the player have to take the shot, is he being chased down? Is it from a narrow angle? Could it be off balance - this is tricky as the animations don't make this clear but you can tell by looking at the whole sequence and compare your observations to similar plays in real life.

The reality is that you do likely have to compromise, and the compromise is a more conservative strategy as has been said. It doesn't mean a switch to a completely different ideology, you need to get that obsession out of your head. I currently play mostly on counter strategy in my game and I play out of the back, control possession against most teams and create efficient chances. All that as a pretty low skilled lower league team. But I do not get 20 shots in a game.

You need to decide which is more important to you - efficiency or the urgency of play that your current tactic is getting you. You can get every other aspect of play with a lower strategy except that urgency in the attacking third that sees you average 20 shots per game.

I will check on those stats and take a better look how they made those shots.

I guess all ideas have their own legitimacy. My basis is simple:

a) the more time my team has the ball, less possibility the opponent has to score: you don't have the ball, you don't score, is as simple as this!!!

b) the more time my team has the ball, more possibility it has to score: you need the ball to score a goal, also very simple!!!

c) an opponent with more space means my team as less space, an opponent that sits higher means I have to sit deeper, it's a matter of right balance. If you sit deeper, it means you are further away from the goal, and if you are further away it means your players have to run more to get to the goal.

According to this basis, and let me say once again that all ideas have their own legitimacy, my team wants to sit higher and wants the ball and wants it always.