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

[Äktsjon Männ]

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 teams wants to sit higher and wants the ball and wants it always.

Ok, all of this is fine. But you are conceding the ball because of the urgency in your play. Sure you win it back right away, which is good, but you then willingly concede it again by rushing into another shot.

Every major point in your post can be achieved with a lower strategy, right down to counter. You can press high on whichever strategy, you certainly can win the majority of possession. As I said, I dominate possession against much better teams on the counter strategy.

[RTHerringbone]

The problem here appears to be a lack of willingness to compromise.

Logically speaking, the a, b and c in post #50 are fine, but they can equally be flipped on their head, and it is the reverse side of the coin that needs to be given some consideration.

It's fine asking for help, but in doing so there needs to be some willingness to open the ears.

[yonko]

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.

There is no problem in people having their own way of playing. But you keep posting about having problems with your way of playing and when me or Cleon tells you something, you say that doesn't work for you. Even now, you say Control doesn't work for you....why, you don't know. Ok find your own solutions then.

[SnUrF]

This

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

-SnUrF

[petergoddard]

There is no problem in people having their own way of playing. But you keep posting about having problems with your way of playing and when me or Cleon tells you something, you say that doesn't work for you. Even now, you say Control doesn't work for you....why, you don't know. Ok find your own solutions then.

When I say it doesn't work it's not because the strategy sucks or I don't like it. It's the opposite, it's the strategy I most like. So, by saying it doesn't work I'm assuming a inhability of my own to make it work :-) It's a sort of cycle, I've went through also with FM13: started with Control and fail, then tested a lot of ideas, read a lot, read again, test a lot, test again, stick a bit with Attack, tune instructions... and then, finally, I managed to work with Control.

You might be confusing "keep posting problems" (that would also mean I post a lot... and I don't) with fine tunning something that works.

[petergoddard]

Ok, all of this is fine. But you are conceding the ball because of the urgency in your play. Sure you win it back right away, which is good, but you then willingly concede it again by rushing into another shot.

Every major point in your post can be achieved with a lower strategy, right down to counter. You can press high on whichever strategy, you certainly can win the majority of possession. As I said, I dominate possession against much better teams on the counter strategy.

I was hoping the retain possession TI would do something about that urgency and I also agree with you: it's like someone said (Cleon ? RT ? not sure), any defensive strategy can offensive and any offensive strategy can be defensive.

Can you be more specific when you say "dominate possession" ?

[Torskus77]

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.

A B and C all sound correct at first listen, if Alex Ferguson was telling me this, then I'd probably take it as gospel. Problem with it is, it's not all actually true. Largely it would depend on the players you had, and their ability to do what you were asking of them. Some of most successful sides ever played counter attacking football. You don't need the ball for long periods in a game to win it, in fact allowing the opposition to come on to you constantly, get frustrated and leave holes at the back is still a tactic used by sides all over the land today.

I read an article once that stated that out of all the goals ever scored anywhere in recorded professional matches, the largest % were scored with counter attacks, I have no idea who took the time to compile this survey, or even if it is true, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Good managers analyse the strengths of their side, get the best out of what they have. They may have a long term vision of how they'd like to play, but you can't play like Arsenal if you don't have the required personnel.

[difran8]

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.

This is spot on, but leads to the irrational -yet effective- way of playing attacking against big teams and standard against smaller ones . The advice that one should not take the naming of the strategies too literally is very true.

[petergoddard]

A B and C all sound correct at first listen, if Alex Ferguson was telling me this, then I'd probably take it as gospel. Problem with it is, it's not all actually true. Largely it would depend on the players you had, and their ability to do what you were asking of them. Some of most successful sides ever played counter attacking football. You don't need the ball for long periods in a game to win it, in fact allowing the opposition to come on to you constantly, get frustrated and leave holes at the back is still a tactic used by sides all over the land today.

I read an article once that stated that out of all the goals ever scored anywhere in recorded professional matches, the largest % were scored with counter attacks, I have no idea who took the time to compile this survey, or even if it is true, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Good managers analyse the strengths of their side, get the best out of what they have. They may have a long term vision of how they'd like to play, but you can't play like Arsenal if you don't have the required personnel.

Absolutetly. That's why A, B and C are only applied to one of the teams I'm managing because I have the players to do it. With the other team, with a lot weaker players the way of thinking has to be different.

There isn't a magic strategy that works with every teams, neither in FM, neither in football, all strategies, all philosophies / ways of approaching football have strenghts and weakenesses, we can only rely on the way each one thinks football and, sure, apply it to the work force we have.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I was hoping the retain possession TI would do something about that urgency and I also agree with you: it's like someone said (Cleon ? RT ? not sure), any defensive strategy can offensive and any offensive strategy can be defensive.

Can you be more specific when you say "dominate possession" ?

By dominating possession I mean I get 55-65% of the ball against most sides of a similar quality, 50-55% against stronger teams, generally. But it's just an observation for me, I don't focus on it. This comes as a byproduct of my approach, I don't view it as the end goal.

It's all really is going round in circles. What is it that you expect to achieve? Higher efficiency with the same urgency in the opposition half as your current approach? These things contradict each other. If you want higher efficiency you need more space and time for shots. If you want more space you have to somehow get the opposition out of the way. Think about what your approach does. You compress everything towards the opposition goal. They will all be sat there in a small space defending all game. That you score as many as you do against this is an achievement. There is no small tweak that makes this approach efficient. So the question goes back to 'is there even a problem and what do you think it is in specific terms'. Do you want to become more efficient or not? Because if you do you have to compromise some parts in your approach, and the advice is all here in this thread. If you disagree with it then it's a perception problem and no-one can help you.

[petergoddard]

By dominating possession I mean I get 55-65% of the ball against most sides of a similar quality, 50-55% against stronger teams, generally. But it's just an observation for me, I don't focus on it. This comes as a byproduct of my approach, I don't view it as the end goal.

It's all really is going round in circles. What is it that you expect to achieve? Higher efficiency with the same urgency in the opposition half as your current approach? These things contradict each other. If you want higher efficiency you need more space and time for shots. If you want more space you have to somehow get the opposition out of the way. Think about what your approach does. You compress everything towards the opposition goal. They will all be sat there in a small space defending all game. That you score as many as you do against this is an achievement. There is no small tweak that makes this approach efficient. So the question goes back to 'is there even a problem and what do you think it is in specific terms'. Do you want to become more efficient or not? Because if you do you have to compromise some parts in your approach, and the advice is all here in this thread. If you disagree with it then it's a perception problem and no-one can help you.

That's about the same values I achieve with the minor league team I'm managing and with this one the focus is not about possession... and very happy with it

You are being objective and that's a nice approach, also requires me to be also objective: this was intended (as posted at the title) as a really minor issue and not some panic "help me, help me, I'm lost". Considering the top team is winning, stats on shots and chances (I'm including ccc's, half chances and hitting posts) are fine, the real issue (and again, minor issue) is missing the target. Then I added, it's not long shots because they are low and matches that I have more long shots is because of direct free kicks. I also added that I watch the matches, full matches, and I don't find severe problems of lack of space (but people seems to want to create one where there isn't), although I agreed that sometimes there is a kind of lack of support to my WB's, mostly my left WB and as for this issue, Cleon's was indeed very helpful with his tip. So, although I have come to find to win more easily against strong teams (because they don't park the bus), I have been trying how to fine tunning the missing the target minor issue... that's the only and real problem. Since it's the only problem, I don't see the point to insist in changing a strategy knowing that it would change everything.

[RTHerringbone]

I'd like to know how this Porto team fares in big European games.

Barring the odd big game in the domestic division, the top league in Portugal really is Porto and Benfica vs. the rest.

In Europe, the quality ups and I'd be interested to see if the ultra-aggressive attacking style works there.

If it doesn't, it is an even bigger hint regarding Mentality.

[petergoddard]

Do you think Dortmund is big enough for Porto ?

[Äktsjon Männ]

That's about the same values I achieve with the minor league team I'm managing and with this one the focus is not about possession... and very happy with it

You are being objective and that's a nice approach, also requires me to be also objective: this was intended (as posted at the title) as a really minor issue and not some panic "help me, help me, I'm lost". Considering the top team is winning, stats on shots and chances (I'm including ccc's, half chances and hitting posts) are fine, the real issue (and again, minor issue) is missing the target. Then I added, it's not long shots because they are low and matches that I have more long shots is because of direct free kicks. I also added that I watch the matches, full matches, and I don't find severe problems of lack of space, although I agreed that sometimes there is a kind of lack of support to my WB's, mostly my left WB and as for this issue, Cleon's was indeed very helpful with his tip. So, although I have come to find to win more easily against strong teams (because they don't park the bus), I have been trying how to fine tunning the missing the target minor issue... that's the only and real issue.

I gave you advice on that. Look at individual chances and see if you can find patterns. Report back what the patterns are. Not statistical patterns, just observations on why do you think these shots are missed and who are the players missing them. Chances are no fine tuning will make it any better without a mindset change though.

Better yet, upload some pkm's. I'd like to take a look myself and I'm sure others will as well.

[petergoddard]

I gave you advice on that. Look at individual chances and see if you can find patterns. Report back what the patterns are. Not statistical patterns, just observations on why do you think these shots are missed and who are the players missing them. Chances are no fine tuning will make it any better without a mindset change though.

Better yet, upload some pkm's. I'd like to take a look myself and I'm sure others will as well.

Sorry, that was the part I forgot to mentioned in the last post :-) your advice regarding shooting patterns.

[petergoddard]

This could be a good example... lots of block shots

[Äktsjon Männ]

Could you upload the .pkm please?

[petergoddard]

how do I do that ?

edit: it has 100kb, not sure if this is correct

http://www.mediafire.com/download/kdbosp844pa8pvi/FC%20Porto%20v%20Vit.%20Setúbal.pkm

[Äktsjon Männ]

Click on the match result, then upper left corner click save match. Then go to your documents/sports interactive/football manager 2014/matches folder and search for the relevant pkm file which would look something like fc porto v vit. setubal.pkm. Then upload that file on a server like sendspace (http://www.sendspace.com/) or something.

[petergoddard]

100kb is it ok ? just posted the link on the post above

[petergoddard]

Another example

http://www.mediafire.com/download/ssmiw28b4a9b6a8/FC%20Porto%20v%20Fiorentina.pkm

[Cleon]

You have the issues I mentioned in my very first reply lol

[Steve Odom]

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.

If I would be up to your tactic and ideas, I would find it very easy to win, even with a less able squad just because of the rigid thoughts you have on football tactics. I would just sit deep and narrow and be exploiting the gaps your players leave when countering you. In fact, that is the way most of the AI teams are playing against me right now and I'm using the narrow/deep approach against them all the time. They create a lot of chances, yes, but hardly any good ones. In order to improve on your tactics you will have to make a compromise between the targets you set here. Having the ball is fine, having it in front of the opposition's goal at all times is just plain dangerous and ineffectice. You are just making their defenders dig in even deeper.

If I were to judge your statements here I woudl say

a) is just false, you just need a few seconds for a counter to succeed and having 100% of posession isn't a viable option.

b) is false too: if you have the ball against a tucked in defense you won't score enough goals to be really an attacking side.

c) this is the only one I partially agree with. You could however force the oppostion to come out of their trenches in order for your own forwards to score. That is what great tactics are about. Accepting the fact you won't have space is just wrong. You can force the opposition to do what you want if you put some effort into it.

[Äktsjon Männ]

how do I do that ?

edit: it has 100kb, not sure if this is correct

http://www.mediafire.com/download/kdbosp844pa8pvi/FC Porto v Vit. Setúbal.pkm

Ok, watched that. It's a perfect example of bombarding a side sat deep in their box. What do you say is your own perceived problem with the match and how it plays out? Personally I can't see one good chance created by your team apart from set pieces. You scored from a tight angle through a GK mistake, and from a brilliant individual play. Do you expect to score more goals from the shots you took in that particular game?

[petergoddard]

Ok, watched that. It's a perfect example of bombarding a side sat deep in their box. What do you say is your own perceived problem with the match and how it plays out? Personally I can't see one good chance created by your team apart from set pieces. You scored from a tight angle through a GK mistake, and from a brilliant individual play. Do you expect to score more goals from the shots you took in that particular game?

One or two, yes, I would

[petergoddard]

If I would be up to your tactic and ideas, I would find it very easy to win, even with a less able squad just because of the rigid thoughts you have on football tactics. I would just sit deep and narrow and be exploiting the gaps your players leave when countering you. In fact, that is the way most of the AI teams are playing against me right now and I'm using the narrow/deep approach against them all the time. They create a lot of chances, yes, but hardly any good ones. In order to improve on your tactics you will have to make a compromise between the targets you set here. Having the ball is fine, having it in front of the opposition's goal at all times is just plain dangerous and ineffectice. You are just making their defenders dig in even deeper.

If I were to judge your statements here I woudl say

a) is just false, you just need a few seconds for a counter to succeed and having 100% of posession isn't a viable option.

b) is false too: if you have the ball against a tucked in defense you won't score enough goals to be really an attacking side.

c) this is the only one I partially agree with. You could however force the oppostion to come out of their trenches in order for your own forwards to score. That is what great tactics are about. Accepting the fact you won't have space is just wrong. You can force the opposition to do what you want if you put some effort into it.

a) well, I didn't say nothing about 100%, but if you think is false, give me an opponent that scores without having the ball

b) same here, try to score without having the ball. you might win 1-0 or 5-0 but as long as you have the ball the possibility to score increases

c) I said the same a few posts above, there is always a different strategy to sit deeper and and try to trap the other team out of their defense and nail them with counter. But strategies and philosophies are still different things.

[Äktsjon Männ]

One or two, yes, I would

Which ones in particular? As I say I can't see a single good scoring chance apart from set pieces. The rest are all either shots from a narrow angle against a well positioned GK, closed down and often blocked by defenders or shots from outside the box. The best chance in the match outside of headers from set pieces is actually created by your opposition at 61:30, albeit missed horribly. Can't you see how that is a much easier one than any of yours despite being right on the edge of the box?

[Steve Odom]

a) 'Without' implies you have 100% off the ball, you are saying counter attacking tactics don't work; this is false.

b) again, you're saying posessions is everything; wich is false.

c) I know, but you are rigid in your approach of things, I'm not. I score as well when being utterly demolished possession-wise as vice versa.

If you don't believe me, read Ackters thread.

[petergoddard]

well I use the word "without" because you stated that is false a team that hasn't the ball can't score, but at A) i stated "possibility", but ok, now you are trying to discuss semantics

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!!!

As for the screenshot, well you had 32% ( ?) of time with the ball, maybe if the other team was able to reduce that time you wouldn't score, maybe they weren't good keeping the ball or hassling your players. It seems a nice counter strategy, I don't like to play counter and with no possession but I don't come out here criticizing. You like it ? Fine! Your team wins playing counter ? Awesome. But don't tell people their ideas or their philosophy about footbsall is false because they're different from yours.

Along with semantics you are putting words in my mouth, since I never said counter-attack doesn't work or that sucks. I simply presented 3 points of how I look at football and this doesn't mean other views are wrong. So, your point... it's no point at all

Yes, for me, possession is everything... anything wrong with that ? It's a way of thinking football and looking at it as good as any other. Again, I miss the point of stating that an idea as false or wrong, because you simply disagree

[Steve Odom]

a) is still false. If they have the ball 5% of the time just in front of your GK and behind your defenders, they will easily finish you off.

It is you who is using semantics and it is you who tries to implement tactical ideas you do not understand. You are describing the 'Dutch school' but fail to realise they do put effort in having the ball at the right places. The implementation of your tactical idea lacks any real coherence because of that. Now you either listen to Cleon, Äktsjonn Männ, diffran8, Torkus77,.. who offer you sound advice on a problem you are facing, or you don't ask for any help at all. After all, what's the point in asking for help if the only thing you're after is keeping things as they are? You might win games but you will not win with nice football with your current settings for a number of reasons already mentioned before. If five men call you drunk, you better lie down.

I never put words in your mouth, I just pouinted out the flaws in your way of thinking, if you find that offensive that really isn't my problem.

[Cleon]

Ok, watched that. It's a perfect example of bombarding a side sat deep in their box. What do you say is your own perceived problem with the match and how it plays out? Personally I can't see one good chance created by your team apart from set pieces. You scored from a tight angle through a GK mistake, and from a brilliant individual play. Do you expect to score more goals from the shots you took in that particular game?

Totally agree with this. He had lack of movement, no real chances, no space to work in, couldn't break down the defence etc.

All the answers to fix his issues have already been presented in the thread by people.

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.

A - True in a sense but also means the more riskier it will be to be hit on the counter attack if you lose the ball. Another reason why people post saying the AI scored with their only shot due to counter attacks. Hence some of your screenshots the AI have scored with 2 or 3 shots....

B - Wrong. You've got possession for the sake of it and aren't using it in dangerous positions. So not sure how you think you'll score when you can't even break down the opposition and have to rely on set pieces? You even admitted this yourself earlier in the thread.

You've had all the answers you need to fix the issues. So its really down to you if you use it or not or carry on the way you are. Pointless asking for help if you just dismiss everything people tell you though, this isn't the first time you've asked for help and been given it to completely ignore people. Which is you choice at the end of the day but if this is the case then I'll close the thread because its pointless and a waste of time people going out of their way to offer advice and solutions to your problems if you aren't going to use it and listen.

Sure you're getting results but once those set pieces dry up you'll be struggling for goals.

[peleJunior]

This thread is bizarre. OP your trying to smash down a brick wall with a chisel. You have your ideals but you forget one tiny tiny thing, the opposition aren't going to just let you do it. You have to adjust your principles when facing the brick wall. Look at how that Guardiola team started to get found out, Chelsea set up the wall and beat them, Barcelona wouldn't adjust kept coming through the middle. Heck, even Celtic were nicking points off them, the cracks were starting to appear. Bayern and Brazil then showed another way to beat them.

It was gloirious and joyous for about 3 to 4 years and they were the best team on the planet and beautiful to watch, in the end teams just stopped playing against them, their matches were boring stale affairs - Barcelona versus deep defense ad nauseum. Another thing to note is, any team in the world can clock up high possession stats when the other team has absolutely no interest in having the ball. Which in fairness, Barcelona were facing alot.

[petergoddard]

a) is still false. If they have the ball 5% of the time just in front of your GK and behind your defenders, they will easily finish you off.

It is you who is using semantics and it is you who tries to implement tactical ideas you do not understand. You are describing the 'Dutch school' but fail to realise they do put effort in having the ball at the right places. The implementation of your tactical idea lacks any real coherence because of that. Now you either listen to Cleon, Äktsjonn Männ, diffran8, Torkus77,.. who offer you sound advice on a problem you are facing, or you don't ask for any help at all. After all, what's the point in asking for help if the only thing you're after is keeping things as they are? You might win games but you will not win with nice football with your current settings for a number of reasons already mentioned before. If five men call you drunk, you better lie down.

I never put words in your mouth, I just pouinted out the flaws in your way of thinking, if you find that offensive that really isn't my problem.

Really ??? Ok, show me one football match where that has happened, just one match, show me a team with 5% possession finishing off the other easily.

You seem to don't undertsand the difference between tactics and ideas: when I presented mine in three simple points (but it seems they are not so simple for you), they were just that: ideas, a philosophie. But for you different ideas than yours are false or wrong ideas, because you were clear stating they were false and with some ridiculous false acusation of being saying that counter sucks. Either you need glasses or you just don't read. On top of this you call me rigid, hummm, that's curious coming from a guy that states counter-attack is some kind of holy graal. Well, maybe for you it might be and that's just fine with me... for others isn't. But ok, your logic is limited to that so you are unable to conceive others. I guess you also failed to read that I stated and presented two different tactics with two different ways of approaching, so it's clear who's the rigid here.

Pointing flaws in tactics is one thing, stating that ideas are false is completly different. Ideas can be easier or harder to implement in tactics and I have my own share of difficulties to implement them, no problem recognizing this as everyone should be able to recognize it. But this doesn't mean mine are false, as anyone else.

[petergoddard]

This thread is bizarre. OP your trying to smash down a brick wall with a chisel. You have your ideals but you forget one tiny tiny thing, the opposition aren't going to just let you do it. You have to adjust your principles when facing the brick wall. Look at how that Guardiola team started to get found out, Chelsea set up the wall and beat them, Barcelona wouldn't adjust kept coming through the middle. Heck, even Celtic were nicking points off them, the cracks were starting to appear. Bayern and Brazil then showed another way to beat them.

It was gloirious and joyous for about 3 to 4 years and they were the best team on the planet and beautiful to watch, in the end teams just stopped playing against them, their matches were boring stale affairs - Barcelona versus deep defense ad nauseum. Another thing to note is, any team in the world can clock up high possession stats when the other team has absolutely no interest in having the ball. Which in fairness, Barcelona were facing alot.

That's the point Pele, right on target. Difficulties against a few opponents don't make ideas false, just mean something tactical or strategical isn't correct... and those were great examples.

[petergoddard]

Totally agree with this. He had lack of movement, no real chances, no space to work in, couldn't break down the defence etc.

All the answers to fix his issues have already been presented in the thread by people.

A - True in a sense but also means the more riskier it will be to be hit on the counter attack if you lose the ball. Another reason why people post saying the AI scored with their only shot due to counter attacks. Hence some of your screenshots the AI have scored with 2 or 3 shots....

B - Wrong. You've got possession for the sake of it and aren't using it in dangerous positions. So not sure how you think you'll score when you can't even break down the opposition and have to rely on set pieces? You even admitted this yourself earlier in the thread.

You've had all the answers you need to fix the issues. So its really down to you if you use it or not or carry on the way you are. Pointless asking for help if you just dismiss everything people tell you though, this isn't the first time you've asked for help and been given it to completely ignore people. Which is you choice at the end of the day but if this is the case then I'll close the thread because its pointless and a waste of time people going out of their way to offer advice and solutions to your problems if you aren't going to use it and listen.

Sure you're getting results but once those set pieces dry up you'll be struggling for goals.

That's what i'm saying: improving things in the tactical or strategic aspect is one thing, an idea / philosophie being false or wrong is a different thing.

[mikcheck]

Cleon, counter strategy and play wider can be a good combination against teams who park the bus?

[Steve Odom]

Really ??? Ok, show me one football match where that has happened, just one match, show me a team with 5% possession finishing off the other easily.

You seem to don't undertsand the difference between tactics and ideas: when I presented mine in three simple points (but it seems they are not so simple for you), they were just that: ideas, a philosophie. But for you different ideas than yours are false or wrong ideas, because you were clear stating they were false and with some ridiculous false acusation of being saying that counter sucks. Either you need glasses or you just don't read. On top of this you call me rigid, hummm, that's curious coming from a guy that states counter-attack is some kind of holy graal. Well, maybe for you it might be and that's just fine with me... for others isn't. But ok, your logic is limited to that so you are unable to conceive others. I guess you also failed to read that I stated and presented two different tactics with two different ways of approaching, so it's clear who's the rigid here.

Pointing flaws in tactics is one thing, stating that ideas are false is completly different. Ideas can be easier or harder to implement in tactics and I have my own share of difficulties to implement them, no problem recognizing this as everyone should be able to recognize it. But this doesn't mean mine are false, as anyone else.

But your idea has its flaws, which have been pointed out on several occasions. The 5 % thing is an example to point them out. I did not state said team would only have 5% off the ball in general, I'm saying should they have 5% off the ball in dangerous positions, you will get slaugthered. That is where your general idea is false. I didn't even state the counter attack is the holy grale at all and I'm clearly not the one hung up on semantics here.I showed you a game of mine (and linked you to Ackters thread where you will find a lot of those) where a team that didn't had a lot of posession won the game and rightly so. So your point about having the ball is completely false. A team that doesn't have a lot of posession can have a lot morer dangerous posession then it's opponent. That is clearly the case because it gets backed by evidence.

There hasn,'t been one user defending your idea, including Cleon, so you might want to reconsider your attitude in accepting help. If you don't, it is your choice in the end. I just don't think your thread deserves any attention if you don't. Then it becomes waisting peopls time and the thread will probably get closed.

You seem to be still hung up on a general idea about the Dutch school but seem to lack any real understanding of it, hence your struggles to create any real chance.

[petergoddard]

But your idea has its flaws, which have been pointed out on several occasions. The 5 % thing is an example to point them out. I did not state said team would only have 5% off the ball in general, I'm saying should they have 5% off the ball in dangerous positions, you will get slaugthered. That is where your general idea is false. I didn't even state the counter attack is the holy grale at all and I'm clearly not the one hung up on semantics here.I showed you a game of mine (and linked you to Ackters thread where you will find a lot of those) where a team that didn't had a lot of posession won the game and rightly so. So your point about having the ball is completely false. A team that doesn't have a lot of posession can have a lot morer dangerous posession then it's opponent. That is clearly the case because it gets backed by evidence.

There hasn,'t been one user defending your idea, including Cleon, so you might want to reconsider your attitude in accepting help. If you don't, it is your choice in the end. I just don't think your thread deserves any attention if you don't. Then it becomes waisting peopls time and the thread will probably get closed.

You seem to be still hung up on a general idea about the Dutch school but seem to lack any real understanding of it, hence your struggles to create any real chance.

No, opponents don't miss shots, don't miss a pass, nothing, and my players don't close down, they just watch, all it takes is 5% possession in my last third of the pitch and I'm done.

You insist in mixing things: my ideas don't have flaws, it's a philosophie as valid as any other... what you don't understand, and I said this several times, the tactical aspects for implementing these ideas might have flaws. It's two different things !

I want my team to use the philosophie xyz and for that I'm thinking of tactical aspects blabla, and strategical aspects 123... hum, these and these are messing things up, I have to change it. So, is the philosophie you want to use false ???? No, but some tactical procedures to implement it were. Get it ??? As long you don't understand this, you are just leading this thread to a discussion that is not even being discussed.

As for evidence is completly subjective:

a) its a lot easy to find evidences the other way around

b) you are using an example of a lower league team, when this discussion has been about a top team and I have said and repeated and repeated that for a lower league team I don't even use the ideas stated above (although I use a same attacking strategy with different aspects)

[peleJunior]

Had any luck creating the space?

[Steve Odom]

No, opponents don't miss shots, don't miss a pass, nothing, and my players don't close down, they just watch, all it takes is 5% possession in my last third of the pitch and I'm done.

You insist in mixing things: my ideas don't have flaws, it's a philosophie as valid as any other... what you don't understand, and I said this several times, the tactical aspects for implementing these ideas might have flaws. It's two different things !

I want my team to use the philosophie xyz and for that I'm thinking of tactical aspects blabla, and strategical aspects 123... hum, these and these are messing things up, I have to change it. So, is the philosophie you want to use false ???? No, but some tactical procedures to implement it were. Get it ??? As long you don't understand this, you are just leading this thread to a discussion that is not even being discussed.

As for evidence is completly subjective:

a) its a lot easy to find evidences the other way around

b) you are using an example of a lower league team, when this discussion has been about a top team and I have said and repeated and repeated that for a lower league team I don't even use the ideas stated above (although I use a same attacking strategy with different aspects)

Any change anyone will propose here will change your philosophy just because it isn't a viable way of playing FM, or football for that matter. Like I said before, your strategic thinking lacks any thoughts on how you are going to score. You don't create space, in fact you even reduce your own space to work in. So your base philosophy is lacking, not your implementation of the general idea. You can be attacking and score a lot of goals, but not by putting your opposition on the back foot all the time, that's just ridicilous.

a) this wouldn't be because it's not your style implemented in those cases, but a more thought out strategy. Overloading doesn't work because it makes the opposition defend and will put a lot of bodies in the box, hence a lot of half chances and no real ones.

b) it doesn't matter if a team is classed as Lower league or not, the ME is just the same. When I'm better then the opposition my tactic does seem to give me more of the ball, but not because I try and go for that.

[petergoddard]

Had any luck creating the space?

Working on that. There are some possibilities: a) instead of the triple IF / AF / IF, changing them to IF / AF / W or IF / Treq (DLF / F9) / IF... this I think might help something. I have used the DLF before but I felt he was not enough participative in the matches. Now, this could have happened not because of the DLF role but because of other roles.

I will also look onto the Control strategy once more, it's a strategy I enjoy very much. In FM13 I went through an 8 year save, half of it with Attack and the other half with Control, both possession based... with FC Porto it must be always possession based. I've said this previously that I have some difficulties setting a Control strategy right from the beggining, so I start with Attack and I go through some fine tunning until I'm able to change it to Control. Won everything in portuguese competitions, 3 Europe Leagues, 3 European Super Cups and 1 one Champions League... I think I can call it very successful considering it was FC Porto.

Also I think there are the ppm question that some people is not considering in their suggestions, comments and critics. I like my players to express themselves so I use a lot ppm's, I think they are essential when using very high CF tactics.

[petergoddard]

Any change anyone will propose here will change your philosophy just because it isn't a viable way of playing FM, or football for that matter. Like I said before, your strategic thinking lacks any thoughts on how you are going to score. You don't create space, in fact you even reduce your own space to work in. So your base philosophy is lacking, not your implementation of the general idea. You can be attacking and score a lot of goals, but not by putting your opposition on the back foot all the time, that's just ridicilous.

a) this wouldn't be because it's not your style implemented in those cases, but a more thought out strategy. Overloading doesn't work because it makes the opposition defend and will put a lot of bodies in the box, hence a lot of half chances and no real ones.

b) it doesn't matter if a team is classed as Lower league or not, the ME is just the same. When I'm better then the opposition my tactic does seem to give me more of the ball, but not because I try and go for that.

I think we have to agree on disagree. What you call philosophy / ideas / way of thinking football I call it tactical and strategical aspects, so there's no use of argueing about carrots when another person talks about potatoes.

With that I agree: I'm against overload strategy from a working basis... although I have looked into several users tactics using it with great results, but it's not my beach.

Do you mean that the ME has no way to distinguish between lower league teams and top teams, so it behaves the same way ?????

[Steve Odom]

The ME calculations are the same yes. It doesn't distinguish lower league teams from Barcelona. You can play the Barcelona style in the Faroese premier league without any difficulties except from some less disirable effects due to their lack of technique.

[petergoddard]

The ME calculations are the same yes. It doesn't distinguish lower league teams from Barcelona. You can play the Barcelona style in the Faroese premier league without any difficulties except from some less disirable effects due to their lack of technique.

That's something I was very able to do in fm13, during the seasons my lower league team was playing against other weak teams it was very easy to use a possession based tactic. Then we were promoted in sucessive years until the first league and, obviously, I had to introduce several changes and leave the possession style... either I would leave it or I would be relegated: pragmatism won!

Can you be more specific about those calculations ?

[petergoddard]

Had any luck creating the space?

For now I changed my IF to wingers, so now I'm on with

right CWB (attack)

CD block

CD cover

left WB (support)

HB

right DLP (support)

left AP (attack)

right Winger (support)

left Winger (attack)

AF (attack)

Stats have improved: 4-0 win, 71% possession, 23 shots, 6 on target (this has to improve a lot), 4 long shots. But what has really increase is: 4 shots at bars, 6 ccc's, 3 half chances, 8 key passes