PASS: Deconstructing the Frameworks

[redmark]

Four years ago (the last time I spent any real time on FM, despite buying 11-13), I posted a tactic and discussion (http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/196342-Liverpool-4-4-1-1-quot-Pass-and-Move-quot-Paisley-Era) around the similarities between a ‘Paisley-era’ 4411 and Rafa Benitez’s Liverpool side (the idea at least, came prior to the decline of Torres, ownership issues and Rafa’s demise). Unfortunately in retrospect, the thread wandered to become a little too focused on which FM players made good signings for the system, etc, but did raise some interesting points (to me).

After the horrors of Hodgson and swift euphoria then underwhelment of the second coming of Dalglish, the time has come to revisit tactical portrayal of a promising Liverpool team (as it seems, many others are trying to do). The shape of Rodgers’ system(s) is certainly a little different to those of Paisley, Dalglish mk.1 and Rafa, but I think there are strong commonalities in approach, which are more interesting in trying to replicate – and, I feel, ask some searching questions of the ‘frameworks and guidelines’ that have become perceived wisdom in FM analysis.

As four years ago, some quotes to illustrate the guiding philosophy, to illuminate what Liverpool sides of old actually did, and to set some parameters for how to approach this in FM terms.

Sacchi: The harmonic movement of 11 players, who are always active, with or without the ball.

Shankly: Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.

Sacchi again: Liverpool were up there with Brazil, Holland and Ajax as the teams that most excited me. They were one of my main reference points for the way they married individual ability with collective ability to create a marvellous continuous style of play.

Harmony, movement, simplicity, passing, control, collectivity, fluidity.

…

After a brief, casual and disastrous attempt to implement these ideas with some out-of-practice and somewhat random selection of mentality, style, team instructions, player instructions, roles and duties, I spend a bit of time reviewing the (excellent) threads on various approaches to the game on this forum, with obvious particular attention to wwfan, THOG, llama and Cleon.

The Twelve Step Guide. Pairs and Combinations. The Mentality Ladder. What do I learn, or remember?

Fluid is not really fluid, as such. Balanced can be more fluid than fluid, and very fluid isn’t so extremely fluid it lacks cohesion. Too many team or player instructions on top of default (mentality/style) settings can confuse things, or take tendencies to unwanted extremes. Mentality, style, roles and duties can complement each other, or utterly conflict and confuse. Specialists versus generalists, proportionate to the relative fluidity of approach. But if fluid isn’t fluid, should it be where it is on the scale of specialists vs generalists? Should ‘balanced’ therefore have fewer specialists than ‘fluid’? Should fluid be treated as two entirely separate attacking and defensive units, with their own specialist/generalist quotas?

The pairs and combinations of roles and duties; combining attack, defence and support within a unit, or on a flank. A defensive duty alongside an attacking duty, preferably with a support duty somewhere nearby. Or something. Heaven forbid a substitution with a player that doesn’t quite fit the framework. Tactical priorities, mentality structures and ladders. Fluidity measured by position, role, duty, strategy or some combination of those? If I need to adjust during a game, within a given tactic, which is most flexible? Changing style/approach is a single click, but only ‘works’ (in terms of affecting individual tactical priorities throughout a team) with very fluid. With balanced, tactical priority is dominated by duty; but some positions/roles don’t permit some duties, so how would I adjust their tactical priorities on the fly (leaving aside the issue of changing the ‘duty’ on 7 or 8 players to reflect a simple shift in emphasis)?

Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.

Hmmm.

…

Time to re-assess what it is that I *actually want to do*, how (and whether) I can do it, and how that fits (or not) with the frameworks and guides to how FM’s tactics and match engine actually work.

One of the interesting discussions (with davehibb, RT and lam) that came out of my 2010 tactics thread was the idea (which I’d entirely forgotten, in my brief disastrous FM14 experiment, until reviewing my own thread) of not actually giving players much instruction at all. Not differentiating between ‘roles’ too much. Allowing the choice of player to (strongly) influence performance and execution of the role. One example discussed was that if you play Gerrard and Mascherano together as ‘central midfielders’ with the same (absence of) specific instructions, they should play very differently. Football is played by footballers; footballers have personalities. I shouldn’t need to tell the match engine that Gerrard and Mascherano (or perhaps Coutinho and Henderson, to get with the times) are different players. So, I won’t.

What do I actually want to ‘use’ tactics for in the game? Well, whether at any given moment I want to attack, or defend, or counter, or keep the ball. ‘Mentality’, I suppose. Yet those informative threads hint that mentality doesn’t always quite mean what I might think it means. Depending on style/approach, roles and duties, team instructions and player instructions, a defensive mentality can be attacking and ‘counter’ isn’t necessarily the best mentality for counter attacking. To avoid these complications, and to keep in mind what I’m actually trying to do, my set-of-three-tactics should provide a range of ‘attitudes’ I can switch between, while a (relatively) consistent shape and system don’t require multiple substitutions and I don’t need to worry if player X’s instructions, as opposed to player Y, clash in a switch from attitudes A to B.

I understand, from many highly intelligent writers on both FM and actual football, that symmetry is bad. One fullback attacks, the other sits. One midfielder holds, the other supports an attack. One wide man cuts in, the other maintains width. One flank has an overlapping fullback, the other a defensive player to compensate for a lazy winger. One centre back is aggressive, the other reactive. But I like ‘symmetry’ – or perhaps, harmony, collectivity, fluidity. Of course, I don’t want both fullbacks to move forwards and backwards identically, in synch, regardless of what’s happening. However, I do want both fullbacks to have the scope to go forward and to defend, as fits the situation. I want a wide player to cut inside during one attacking movement, but to thread a through ball or whip in a cross on another. I want whichever central midfielder is best placed, and best able, to support an attack at that time, not to have defined that in advance. I don’t want to have to micro-manage to every opposing player, or every change of momentum in a game.

Back to personality: Glen Johnson and Jon Flanagan do not, and should not, play the same way – any more than they play the same way as Jose Enrique or Aly Cissokho; equally, no player should do only the same thing repeatedly without variation. But that should be a result of their decision making, attributes and abilities, not (necessarily) instruction. I don’t want (and will forget) to tweak the player instructions or duties every time I have an injury, or rest a player. I do want players to use their decision making, their awareness, their PPMs and their attributes to do what comes naturally, or what’s best in a given situation.

‘Simplicity’ in tactical creation should allow seamless switching between attitudes in response to game situations, without the need for too many additional changes or determining whether a multitude of team or player instructions need setting or resetting. This is not aiming to create a ‘fits all’ tactic that never needs tweaking; on the contrary, it’s trying to create a set-of-three tactics that I can use flexibly and dynamically to adjust, without painful micromanagement and layering detailed managerial ‘shouts’ on a supposedly fluid and expressive tactical framework. It’s trying to create tactical flexibility that I will actually use. It’s trying to create a tactic that does what I want it to do on the pitch, without having to ‘game’ the match engine, which ‘sounds and feels right’ – that is, if I want to attack, I want to be able to use an attacking mentality, without the lingering doubt that some lower mentality actually better suits what I’m trying to do in context of the roles, duties and tactical priorities of the players on the pitch.

In short, to use a topical example being discussed on the forums, the idea is to *not* need to counter-intuitively use ‘counter’ mentality if I want to recreate possession-obsessed Barcelona.

So. How?

…

What attitudes (‘mentalities’) do I want to have available with 3 tactics ‘slots’?

Control the ball, patient build up, vaguely bossing possession without being all tiki-taka about it, probing yet incisive attacks. Plan A, to be used a majority of the time and, if I’m winning comfortably in a game, doesn’t need changing for the sake of it.

Attack. Whether it’s because I’m 1-0 down with 10 minutes to go in a vital game, or I want a 4-0 blitz against Arsenal for the opening 20 minutes.

Counter. Against good opposition, soak up pressure, hit them on the break. Big away games, blunt an opposition attacking spell at Stoke, or withstand a fightback late in a game.

That’s three. I’m going to be managing the mighty Liverpool; I can live without a backs-to-the-wall defensive tactic (Carragher has retired, after all). However, a ‘defend-with-the-ball’ or conserve energy variant on Plan A would be useful; lower tempo, more focus on retaining possession, take a breather etc. Overall though I decide that most settings will be the same as in Plan A; this can be managed with a few team instructions and a simple single ‘attitude/mentality’ click.

So control, attack and counter it is. At this point, I decide that my control, attack and counter ‘attitudes’ must use, respectively, control, attack and counter ‘mentalities’, as defined by the game. Anything else is too counter-intuitive and will lead to endless second guessing and tweaking the moment a single highlight looks slightly odd. If these mentalities don’t always do exactly what we expect them to, in the context of other factors – style, instructions, roles and duties – then the solution should to be to clarify and simplify those factors. If some combination of styles, instructions, roles and duties leads paradoxically to ‘counter’ being the most effective possession mentality, then it is those styles, instructions, roles and duties that are conflicting, complicating and confusing the issue. Right?

I make a second decision. My pairs and combinations will apparently contradict most rules of ‘Pairs and Combinations’; and the ‘Twelve Steps’ concept of balancing defence and attack duties, too. When I draw a line vertically down the pitch, the two halves will be identical in shape and function. Both fullbacks will share the same role, duties and instructions (if any). Centre backs too – including both having either cover or stopper duty at the same time. Central midfielders and wide/inside forwards will mirror each other.

If I’m playing two utterly different personalities at fullback, their personalities, not my instructions, will determine how the players ‘interpret’ the role. Of course, I buy and train and pick the players. I don’t tell them what to do every second of the game. This decision determines the next: where possible, certainly in Plan A, everyone should be on a ‘support’ duty. Infact, with one exception, this determines that any roles which do not allow a support duty should not be used. (The exception is Half Back; I want to split my CB’s).

The harmonic movement of 11 players, who are always active, with or without the ball.

Not pairs and combinations of contrasting yet complementing roles and duties. Harmony. Actual fluidity, or fluency. What could more harmonious than universal ‘support’ duties, symmetry of basic shape and equality of role?

Now, where my philosophy and the Twelve Steps do agree, is that a truly fluid system should have generalised, not specialised, roles. Infact, I’ll take this a little further in central midfield in particular and designate a pair as simply ‘central midfielders’. If Henderson is to act as a box-to-box player and Coutinho as an advanced playmaker, they should do so through their ‘personalities’; attributes, qualities, PPMs and decision making. If I substitute Allen for Coutinho, or Alberto for Henderson, I don’t need to change their ‘role’, they’re different players with different personalities and qualities.

Another principle is that team and player instructions should be at an absolute minimum. This allows tactics to be as flexible as possible as a ‘neutral’ starting point. If team instructions allow, for example, ‘higher tempo’ or ‘lower tempo’, it is more flexible to start with neither selected; I can quicken or slow as a situation requires. If I’ve already started at ‘higher tempo’, I have less room for manoeuvre without switching to a different tactic or mentality. Likewise for players, if I spot an opportunity or issue which could be addressed with a single instruction, where do I go if it’s already selected? I’d need to tweak role or duty or position. There should be scope for the initial adjustment to be incremental, not fundamental.

There will be a handful of team instructions – only those which are fundamental, such as play out of defence, work ball into box and pass into space. I won’t insist on shorter passing or particular tempo/defensive line/pressing however, because I want those to be firstly set by the overall approach and the players selected, then with flexibility to be tweaked for, or during, particular games.

...

And that, for now, is it. Where’s the tactic? Where’s the pics? Coming tonight/tomorrow. I haven’t played a season with the tactic yet (played 5 or 6 games, between first draft of this and posting it) and this isn’t smart-after-the-event justification of an approach I already know works. It might crash and burn. Pairs and Combinations, Twelve Steps and Mentality Ladders might eat me alive. Regardless, I’ll run with the idea, and hope to provoke some discussion, for a season with regular updates during the season, whether I win the title by March, or am sacked in October.

With apologies to wwfan, THOG, llama and Cleon: this isn’t really about rejecting their guides and ideas – they’ve been exceptionally helpful in re-learning the game and 'deconstructing' the frameworks actually involves accepting some elements – but as an exercise in using that tactical knowledge. To deconstruct the complexities and apparent conflicts, to understand how breaking the rules can be liberating in pursuit of a clear, simple strategic – rather than tactical – objective and to try to get back to what we actually want our team to do on the pitch.

If I’m playing an RPG or a grand strategy game, I don’t dissect the mechanics and mathematics to produce the best possible result. That, in my view, would be dull. I play the game. I accept the abstractions, the framework and the role play. If I’m playing a football management game, I want to be able to accept the game’s abstractions and presentation at face value. If a mentality is called attacking, let’s use it to attack. If I want to counter, let’s use counter mentality, not control mentality with a given set of roles and duties that produce a more effective version.

I love the fact that sliders have disappeared from FM tactics. My hypothesis here is that the tactical theorems, frameworks and guidelines around style, mentality, roles, duties and instructions remains conditioned by a slider mentality, taken to a counter-productive level (for some players). That in trying to understand how styles, mentalities, roles, duties and instructions affect each other and work together, we’re setting them against each other, using one set of tools to overcome the negatives of the over-use of another. To obscure and distort what the basic intention should be. To play football, with footballers. The starting point, therefore, should be a simple tactic – not to apply rules of thumb, but to put players on the pitch with some relatively flexible ideas as to how they should play. Situational variations and adjustments can then be applied to a simple, intuitive foundation, rather than atop a swaying tower of blocks of conflicting shapes and sizes, where every addition needs a counterweight, or overshadows an item lower in the ever growing pile.

What is happening inside the black box? I don’t care – I want the match engine to produce pretty football as I envision it, to score goals, to win games.

[redmark]

Ok, so here are the tactics. They barely warrant screenshots, being rather simple. (Average ratings displayed are 21/09/2013, after 5 league games and first CC game).

Plan A: Dominate/Control

Player Instructions: Goalkeeper - Distribute to defenders. That's it. No other player instructions.

All players with support duty where allowed; wingbacks, ball playing centrebacks (both cover, to drop off slowly from control's naturally quite-high line), a halfback (defence), two 'central midfielders', two inside forwards (inverted favoured feet, to cut inside naturally) and a complete forward. Ideally I would have a sweeper keeper, but Mignolet doesn't really fit that.

The intial intention - though I love Lucas - is to use Gerrard in the halfback role, as he has very promisingly in recent games IRL, dropping between the centrebacks in early phases of possession. My hope is that he will also back-up attacking play when camped in the opposition's half, with his attacking/creative 'personality' removing the need to instruct him to do so. Coutinho and Aspas in particular need a bit of positional development.

Plan B: Blitz/Attack

(The image is missing one team instruction - Higher Tempo).

Player Instructions: Goalkeeper - Distribute to defenders. That's it. No other player instructions.

As you can see, fullbacks, centre midfielders and attacking trio all change from 'support' to 'attack' duties. Centre backs change from 'cover' to 'stopper'. Half Back changes to Regista. Very aggressive and energetic, anticipated to be used only in small bursts.

Plan C: Counter

Player Instructions: Goalkeeper - Distribute to defenders. That's it. No other player instructions.

'Fluid' mentality, based on posts suggesting a natural fit with counter-attacking, i.e. a cautious/rigid defensive unit and a fluid attacking unit. I've rarely used 'counter' strategies, so may tweak (e.g. to add more team instructions) as I go, depending on how it performs. If and when I do use this to start a game, will probably use Lucas at HB, moving Gerrard into CM.

Note: there are some player edits, pending the data patch sorting out a few issues (so my players will no doubt differ from yours). Nothing too major (title odds improved from 14/1 to 12/1, level with Spurs). Gerrard stamina improvement and small DM boost (not to 'natural'), Sterling's physical and all-round development, Sturridge more realistic CA/PA, Suarez/Coutinho small tweaks, some youth player PA changes that won't take effect for a couple of years and PPMs for three or four players (mostly the forwards). Brendan Rodgers as assistant manager.

[redmark]

Some stuff about the players being used and their 'personalities' in selected positions...

[RTHerringbone]

Terrific and interesting post.

I love the idea that you want to explore whether "personalities" can effectively give the balance that Duties do.

It's refreshing to see someone attempt something completely new and I'll follow this with interest.

[Seagullfan]

Excellent idea and really looking forward to seeing how things pan out when you strip it down to the most manageable level

[alinp]

It's a brave step and I'm sure many which watch with interest.

On the "personlities" effect, I was playing last night and having given SG some extra training so he was accomplished at DM, I had him playing as HB whilst Lucas was injured. Seventy-odd minutes in with the game still finely balanced at 0-0 (was v MU who are far better in FM than the Moyes reality), who should drive forward, play a wall pass with Suarez, and slot home from 8 yards, but The Steven Gerrard.... Only SG's "personality" would have done this from half back - you'd never catch Lucas even that far up the pitch!!

[pndc]

I'll be following this thread with great interest. It's a wonderful opening post, and really relates well with how some people want to approach man management and tactics. I especially am looking forward to seeing your choices regarding fluidity and creative freedom, as I wonder if this approach will work with a rigid or very rigid structure and without extra creative freedom. I can imagine that some problems might arise.

Good luck with the endeavour

[themadsheep2001]

Excellent opening post. It's how I build a tactic. I know the style and concept of how I want to play and I build backwards.

What attitudes (‘mentalities’) do I want to have available with 3 tactics ‘slots’?

Control the ball, patient build up, vaguely bossing possession without being all tiki-taka about it, probing yet incisive attacks. Plan A, to be used a majority of the time and, if I’m winning comfortably in a game, doesn’t need changing for the sake of it.

Attack. Whether it’s because I’m 1-0 down with 10 minutes to go in a vital game, or I want a 4-0 blitz against Arsenal for the opening 20 minutes.

Counter. Against good opposition, soak up pressure, hit them on the break. Big away games, blunt an opposition attacking spell at Stoke, or withstand a fightback late in a game.

I really like this. This is the kind of thinking I use to build my team.

One of the interesting discussions (with davehibb, RT and lam) that came out of my 2010 tactics thread was the idea (which I’d entirely forgotten, in my brief disastrous FM14 experiment, until reviewing my own thread) of not actually giving players much instruction at all. Not differentiating between ‘roles’ too much. Allowing the choice of player to (strongly) influence performance and execution of the role. One example discussed was that if you play Gerrard and Mascherano together as ‘central midfielders’ with the same (absence of) specific instructions, they should play very differently. Football is played by footballers; footballers have personalities. I shouldn’t need to tell the match engine that Gerrard and Mascherano (or perhaps Coutinho and Henderson, to get with the times) are different players. So, I won’t

Personality is vital to me. I don't know how many people do this, but everything I do, from transfers to team talks to tactics are all interlinked and seamless. I buy hard driven players, demand the best of said players (because they can take it) and play aggressive football to boot. I'm not going to have a soft Adel Taraabt type player at the heart of my highly aggressive 4-2-3-1 etc.

will be following this closely

[redmark]

Thanks for the interest so far .

Early development and results - unfortunately, I didn't take notes and am posting a couple of days later, so don't recall every tweak of instructions (though there weren't many). As that's part of the point of this, I will take proper notes of adjustments in future.

Pre-season was reasonably promising in terms of results (3 wins, 2 draws), but with a little disruption to planning with injuries to Johnson, Gerrard and Sturridge; all would be fit for the league opener, but lacking match fitness.

PL1: Liverpool 3-1 Sunderland

Sakho (41) after scrappy corner pinball. Sunderland equalised (59) from a low cross; poor marking and error by Enrique failing to collect initial tackle and allowing the cross. Henderson (68) late run into the box and a nice finish to make it 2-1 after a nice bit of pressure and passing/movement with all midfield/wingbacks/forwards in good attacking proximity. Henderson again (77), good strike from the edge of the area, having been involved in the move 3 or 4 times from the halfway line, to linking up outside the area and getting onto a simple Johnson-Aspas combination to finish. 50/50 possession overall, but dominated chances 22/5 (2 clear cut, 5 half chances, 4 long shots). Didn't change base tactic, but may have increased tempo when 1-1 (annoyed at not taking notes!).

PL2: Southampton 2-2 Liverpool.

Bizarre and exciting game. Went with normal 'Plan A' (control/vfluid) and dominated early. Sakho (6) header from a corner. Rickie Lambert sent off for a second yellow on 23 minutes. Sturridge (26) took advantage of simple defensive error on the edge of the box, stroked the ball past the keeper. Continued to dominate 1st half against the 10 men. Southampton missed a penalty just before half time, won from the usual scrappy corner pinball. Still continued to dominate in the second half, but at some point (after an hour or so as Southampton started to get a few highlights) made (wrong) team instruction changes to 'Plan A2' (from 'control' to standard, lower tempo, retain possession, etc). Southampton went more attacking, and scored goals in the 73rd (nice run by Clyne, cutback and cool finish) and 84th minutes (simple through ball from Ramirez, as Sakho got sucked into closing him down and vacating his position, Rodriguez running off the other CB into the space Sakho vacated). I wanted personality... Sakho a little over-aggressive and eager. Went attacking for the last few minutes to no avail. Only 45% possession overall, 22/10 chances (3 cc, 4 hc, 4 ls).

CC1: Liverpool 1-0 Hartlepool.

Sturridge winner, tucking in from 12 yards in a crowded area after a knockdown and layoff from a corner, with virtually the last kick of the game. 69% possession, four players over 100 passes, 20/1 chances (2 cc, 8 hc, 5 ls), but a little lacklustre. Played second-choice midfielders and inside forwards.

PL3: Tottenham 2-1 Liverpool.

Should probably have started with 'counter' strategy, but went with the 'Plan A2', lowering to standard mentality, retain possession/lower tempo instructions, etc. Spurs dominated possession throughout (60%), but Liverpool dominated on chances throughout (finished 13/16, but most Spurs chances actually came when I was chasing the game, but before pulling one back). Capou (8 mins) scored the third goal conceded already from a wide player attacking Enrique and cross/cutback. Chadli (56) scored an awful goal; another cross from the other flank, but this time Mignolet had started diving to cut the cross out, while Chadli simply stepped in front of him (several yards away, Mignolet dived very early) and tapped into an empty net. Switched to attacking, Aspas (68) eventually sidefooting a Sterling cross, after Aspas had fed him from the halfway line. Spurs went defensive, few more chances - no highlights at all in the last 15 minutes.

Second poor experience with 'slowed down' Plan A.

PL4: Liverpool 2-1 Villa.

Gerrard (21) with a 20-yard freekick, from a slightly wide angle against only a 2-man wall. Benteke (26) equalised; slightly similar to one of Southampton's goals, as one of my CB's paid too much attention to the AMC/deep striker, Benteke ran off the back of the other CB into the gap, simple long ball over the top. Sterling (42) after reasonable midfield buildup nearing the penalty area, then Aspas to Sturridge to Sterling, a little acceleration past the fullback and struck across the keeper. Rather quiet second half, on top (54% poss, 17/3 chances overall).

PL5: Liverpool 2-0 Fulham.

Another Gerrard freekick (5), from the corner of the box with no wall at all and the keeper apparently asleep. Nice attacking run from Aspas, layoff to Sturridge near the penalty spot and a big deflection off Hangeland for an own goal (39). Again, vaguely dominant (52%, 17/9 shots, 2 cc, 4 hc), without looking like scoring too many more. And we didn't. Infact, I recall switching to 'attack/blitz' at 2-0 up, but it seemed to upset the momentum if anything.

Overall, reasonably promising while not entirely so, with Suarez's ban expiring. Gerrard (from half back) and Henderson in particular are getting forward and getting efforts in on goal, with both scoring a couple. Aspas, Sterling and Sturridge have all scored one and look fairly 'fluid' in breaks and attacking play, with Aspas contributing 3 assists. Coutinho has been quiet, with some decent interplay around the edge of the box, but sloppy in possession at times - presumably, due to not yet being accomplished in the MC role. Despite deliberately using a 'cover' duty for both centre backs, a couple of goals have been conceded as a result of one getting sucked into the opposing AM space and the striker running into the gap left behind; other goals coming from Enrique allowing low crosses/pullbacks.

I won't be describing every goal of the season, but want to note any patterns particularly to how I'm conceding at this stage.

The next 2 games are away at Everton in the cup, and Man United in the league. Given my poor performance with the 'slow' tactic so far, I'll use the proper 'counter' tactic to start these games.

[redmark]

I'll be following this thread with great interest. It's a wonderful opening post, and really relates well with how some people want to approach man management and tactics. I especially am looking forward to seeing your choices regarding fluidity and creative freedom, as I wonder if this approach will work with a rigid or very rigid structure and without extra creative freedom. I can imagine that some problems might arise.

Good luck with the endeavour

As outlined in the OP, a large part of what I want to get from this is indeed 'fluidity'. It certainly would be very different for a 'rigid' approach. But that's also partly what I mean about roles, duties, player instructions... once you start to layer instruction upon duty upon role, how 'fluid' is that anyway? I know one of wwfan's (I think) guides is that a 'fluid' style should have minimal (0-1) 'specialised' roles; I think it should also have rather minimal player instructions and, perhaps, variations from a 'support' duty. Anything else seems to me to imposing rigidity (i.e. management instruction) on supposed fluidity.

[THOG]

Terrific thread, looking forward to seeing where it goes.

The funny thing is how these different playing styles actually model the different philosophy settings. There are the Rigid managers with their frameworks and theories, and then there are the Fluid managers who ignore them.

[Dr. Hook]

As outlined in the OP, a large part of what I want to get from this is indeed 'fluidity'. It certainly would be very different for a 'rigid' approach. But that's also partly what I mean about roles, duties, player instructions... once you start to layer instruction upon duty upon role, how 'fluid' is that anyway? I know one of wwfan's (I think) guides is that a 'fluid' style should have minimal (0-1) 'specialised' roles; I think it should also have rather minimal player instructions and, perhaps, variations from a 'support' duty. Anything else seems to me to imposing rigidity (i.e. management instruction) on supposed fluidity.

Nice write-up and enjoyable read. I like where you are headed with this, especially this bit: "I don’t want (and will forget) to tweak the player instructions or duties every time I have an injury, or rest a player. I do want players to use their decision making, their awareness, their PPMs and their attributes to do what comes naturally, or what’s best in a given situation."

Ever my dream with FM.

[redmark]

Counter Attacking

I've not got much experience with counter attacking tactics, from previous FM games. I tend to stick to a 'dominate' tactic, and occasionally flick to 'counter' if I'm getting battered. With 'tactic familiarity', though, I figured I needed to actually have one ready to use. After the opening matches listed above, I then had a run of three away games, at least two of which seemed to be the right time to give it a try. The tactic, as in the second post, is a basic 'counter' mentality, with a 'fluid' style (based on the idea that 'fluid' actually has a defensively disciplined unit and a fluid attacking unit; perfectly suited to the players available in such games). There's one change I need to make to the outline of the tactic above: Mignolet should be set to 'quick throw', not 'defenders collect'. I don't want him hoofing the ball, but a slow counter attack isn't really the idea, either.

CC2: Everton 3-1 Liverpool.

Despite the scoreline, this match was quite satisfying, tactically (in terms of counter-attacking, at any rate). In-form Everton saw about 58% possession throughout, and had a numerical edge in shots. However - after selecting 'work ball into box', after 25 minutes of counters ending in hopeful long shots - we had much the better opportunities. Everton's were restricted almost entirely to set pieces, while Suarez and Aspas (Sterling in the second half) effectively carried the ball on the counter, usually setting up Sturridge who was unlucky not to score and hit the woodwork twice. The score was 1-1 at half time - both goals coming from corners, despite our breakaway chances. It remained finely balanced, end-to-end stuff, until Mamadou Sakho inexplicably chested the ball into his own net after an hour, before conceding a penalty 5 minutes later. After 10 uneventful minutes of higher tempo, high pressing 'dominate' tactic, a switch to all-out attack saw precisely zero further chances.

PL6: Man Utd 2-2 Liverpool.

Exciting and exhausting. Started with counter strategy. Suarez, in his first post-ban league game, tormented Rafael and Vidic on the counter, winning a penalty from Vidic and scoring after beating Rafael at the end of a 50-yard run. Each time, United equalised through aerial dominance at set pieces. Gerrard then missed his second penalty, before Vidic received the second of two yellow cards. We switched to 'plan A' dominance against the 10 men, but United cleverly countered by going to 3 at the back. In all, the counter strategy conceded possession (55/45) and numerical shot advantage to United, but carved out more clear cut chances, while United were largely reduced to long shots and set pieces.

PL7: Norwich 0-2 Liverpool.

Started with plan A dominance tactic. After 25 minutes, dominating possession but not creating any chances. Switched to counter. Maintained possession advantage and gradually created a small number of relatively good chances. Scored with two Agger headers from corners, with Sturridge and Suarez again finding a keeper in good form. Coutinho's best game so far from the CM position, creative and playing penetrating through balls. Naturally, he was injured in training a couple of days later and will miss 5 weeks.

October international break, with a run of 5 or 6 very winnable games to come, before facing Arsenal, Man City and Chelsea before Christmas. Lying 5th in the table, behind Chelsea, Stoke (!), Man Utd and Everton. Arsenal are in the relegation zone, City a place below us.

[Shrewnaldo]

Really enjoyed your opening posts. Reminds me a bit of the old 'universal mentality' approach from FM08, maybe 09? Nevertheless, it's brought a few ideas into my head that I hadn't considered for a while - particularly the use of a symmetrical, 'support' heavy tactic.

I'm looking forward to reading a bit more and I'm particularly looking forward to reading your thoughts on the use of PPM's to augment the 'personality' of a particular player.

Also, I'm shamelessly stealing some of the concepts and will run a few 'Tactics, what tactics?' experiments myself.

[redmark]

I'm not going to give the 'game by game' summaries as they're probably adding little, but have played through to about March of that first season.

We stuttered through for a few games after that previous update, with the odd 1-0 or 2-1 win (or defeat) with occasional glimpses of pass-and-move, contrasting with dull games of few highlights, low pssession and being susceptible on the counter, or from set pieces. I made a couple of tweaks to the base ('control') tactic; to tell the IF's to 'sit narrower' to try and get them more heavily involved (a 'positional' instruction, not a behavioural one, so not conflicting with the basic idea). At the same time, with tactical familiarity at a good level, I switched to 'attacking movement' match practice. Performances picked up slightly, and Sturridge (usually played as the central striker) scored his first goal for something like 8 or 9 games. We then went on a run, along the lines of W5, D2, L2, in all competitions, where no one but Sturridge scored, with three braces in that spell. Possession was still fragile and the two defeats were against sides we should have been beating. Defensively, a tweak to the defensive corner tactic seemed to help - removing men from the posts, putting a couple at the edge of the area and, generally, making it a less congested six yard box.

Things changed, when Chelsea beat us 4-0 at Anfield. Despite the 'attacking' nature of the 'control' philosophy, we created little. Such passing movement as there was became tentative against their physical and well-drilled defensive unit. Eto'o scored a hatrick from counters and set pieces, before Torres came off the bench, danced through the defence and walked the ball into the net. In an absolute first in my FM career, I was called into the boardroom to explain the result and, after the board failed to be impressed with my reasoned position that, given a greater degree of freedom, responsibility and expression, it was actually the player's fault, was warned that a loss in the following game at Hull would see me sacked. It was mid-December.

I went back and reviewed my notes of games, highlights and player stats. A few things stood out.

My 'attacking' tactic was next to pointless, and I'd lost any faith in when or how to use it. It's main result seemed to be a complete absence of highlights; too obvious perhaps, too easy to defend.

My 'control' tactic was effective at times, but seemed to be contributing heavily to a couple of the main issues. Firstly, that my IF's weren't getting into the game enough. Suarez (usually left IF, sometimes right) had scored 1 goal by mid December, with a handful of assists; Aspas about the same. Sterling, in fewer games, had contributed a little better in terms of assists. On reviewing highlights, despite the recent change to 'sit narrower', the IF's still seemed to be getting the ball wider than I'd like and, very often, stayed wide as they ran with the ball, or even went wider. Secondly, my three central midfielders were doing much of what I wanted - short passing, using the wingbacks, staying within touch of the forwards, moving as a cohesive whole - but at times seemed to be occupying the same space, in each other's way and frequently seemed to have to reconsider a pass when another player, stood a couple of yards away, blocked it.

One clear change was to remove 'work ball into box' - in too many highlights, it seemed to translate to 'wall ball into net'. Players were passing up the chance of shooting from the edge of the box, not just from 35 yards. It seemed likely that Suarez, in particular, would benefit from a little more freedom of decision making.

The other was a more fundamental issue, it seems, with the 'control' philosophy. This was producing a very high defensive line (no team instruction used generally about Dline) - during phases of possession, more than without the ball (when the dual 'cover' duties of the centre backs was overall working quite nicely). Central midfield was cramped, players getting in each other's way and squeezing and restricting passing triangles. Moreover, it seemed that the lack of vertical space was both squeezing the IF's into wider positions and not providing enough room to move into when carrying the ball.

Finally, of course, I was struggling to get above 55% possession even when on top at home, and frequently dropping to 45% against decent opposition.

I succumbed to another guideline - that 'control' is more attacking than it sounds (though not one which fundamentally changes the concept) - deleted my 'attacking' tactic, demoting 'control' to Plan B and switched my 'Plan A' to a standard (rather than control) philosophy. For set starting options, I selected 'retain possession', 'pass shorter' and 'play out of defence'. 'Pass into space' and 'work ball into box' were not selected (though 'pass into space' would frequently be used in the match preview, along with 'higher tempo' and 'hassle opponents', where I wanted to start with greater attacking intent). My 'counter' strategy had generally worked reasonably well when used, and was kept (though used less frequently, as things turned out).

Things improved almost instantly. Hull were dispatched 2-0, warding off the immediate threat of the sack. Suarez, Sterling and Aspas began to thrive in the vertical spaces opened up, running at the centre of defences more effectively. Central midfielders Coutinho and Henderson operated more intelligently in the space, probing with passes, switching play and getting forward in support when the opportunity arose. Both Everton and Chelsea (with only marginally weakened sides) were dispatched 5-1 at Anfield in the FA Cup. The IF's began to score as both they and Sturridge began to regularly see more clear cut or half chances.

With better 'feel' for the relationship between tactical options selected and what was happening on the pitch, I was better able to adjust with incremental instructions to change emphasis during a game. The new plan A with a higher tempo/hassle opponents/pass into space was often enough to step up a gear without needing to resort to the now-plan B 'control' tactic. Similarly, lower tempo/drop deeper could be successfully used to regain control after a flurry of opposition highlights and possession, with the 'counter' tactic only rarely needed under pressure.

From late December through to March, we had spells of 5 and 7 successive wins, often comfortable, moving from 8th/9th in the table to a comfortable top four spot (with Stoke, of all teams, our nearest challengers - Arsenal were still scrapping just above the relegation zone, City had sacked Pellegrini in their mid-table slumber and the ridiculously overrated United players were 13 points clear of Chelsea). Sturridge became almost a goal-a-game striker in that spell, while it was rare that at least one of the IF's wouldn't pop up with a goal, with both CMs and Gerrard, usually at half back, contributed a few between them.

Only later during the spell did I switch attention back to PPMs and 'personality' as much as I'd initially wanted to (having set a few in motion early in the season), having focused on the core tactic and the 'look and feel' of the basic shape and structure on the pitch. Should post a bit more about that tonight (and probably restart a game to work on personality more, though I'm going to be away for a week shortly).

[alinp]

Any chance of a screen shot of your current Plan A?

Thanks

[Wesley6]

I'm really enjoying this, keep it up! Thinking about it, this is how FM should be really. You don't tell say Riquelme to be be an Enganche, thats just what he is. You pick him and that's how he is going to play. In the same way, some players are going to cut inside from the flanks and some will stay wider.

I think I'd actually prefer less player roles in the next version of FM and have the game rely more on what the actual players are going to do. In fact I'd be in support of scrapping them completely. You want a center back who is going to bring the ball out of defense? Sign a player who is going to play like that. I think it would encourage far better scouting (by the human manager) and squad building which, to me, are the best part of the game.

[jamez_b]

I'm really enjoying this, keep it up! Thinking about it, this is how FM should be really. You don't tell say Riquelme to be be an Enganche, thats just what he is. You pick him and that's how he is going to play. In the same way, some players are going to cut inside from the flanks and some will stay wider.

I think I'd actually prefer less player roles in the next version of FM and have the game rely more on what the actual players are going to do. In fact I'd be in support of scrapping them completely. You want a center back who is going to bring the ball out of defense? Sign a player who is going to play like that. I think it would encourage far better scouting (by the human manager) and squad building which, to me, are the best part of the game.

I think though the player roles are there for when you don't have Riquelme but you want the player you do have, to play like Riquelme. You can achieve that through training a set of attributes or setting rigid tactical instructions to mold a player to the style you want to play.

I think these are just different approaches to management which makes FM such a brilliant game given how differently you can approach a team.

[Weden]

Has 14.3 had any effect on your game or style in general?

[redmark]

I've been on holiday for 10 days. Just updated to 14.3 and will be updating the thread over the next couple of days.

[alinp]

I've been on holiday for 10 days. Just updated to 14.3 and will be updating the thread over the next couple of days.

Fascinated by the link in your OP to your FM10 tactic... have been playing with some TI's based on that thread and will post tonight, but I have to say I do like the way it gets them playing. Have you been tempted to recreate?

[redmark]

Fascinated by the link in your OP to your FM10 tactic... have been playing with some TI's based on that thread and will post tonight, but I have to say I do like the way it gets them playing. Have you been tempted to recreate?

I bought FM14 quite recently and don't always get a lot of play time; and when I do (always playing Liverpool), I prefer to work with something close to what the manager is trying to do - and edit the manager in as my assistant (unless it's Hodgson). While the current squad might be squeezed into that 4411 tactic, it wouldn't be ideal for Gerrard in particular at this stage. In very old versions of FM I often experimented with Gerrard as the deepest midfielder, before he was reinvented by Rafa, and want to try that out for a while yet. If I get a good save going, it might be something to look at as he retires and new players come through.

[alinp]

As promised, these are the TI's I've tried to come up with based on your Pass & Move thread...

At the moment, I am applying them to a very Brendan-esque 433

[Midnight Rob]

Just thought I'd see what happened with this thread? The Mad Sheep is it (mod) deleted two posts I did in this thread without infraction, I think/presume because I questioned some of the concepts although I really liked the opening post and was actually intrigued to see if some the great ideas actually worked out?

[redmark]

Good timing for a bump .

I'll try and update the thread very shortly - had a busy few weeks. I have managed to play the game a bit, but pretty much only a season in that time, but not to update. And it has been very successful .

[themadsheep2001]

Good timing for a bump .

I'll try and update the thread very shortly - had a busy few weeks. I have managed to play the game a bit, but pretty much only a season in that time, but not to update. And it has been very successful .

Good to hear. What I like most is the fact that it shows there really isnt one way to play this game, what matters most is having a coherent system, and knowing how to adapt to where its working/not working.

It's arguably on this point that FM shows it strengths the most. Much like the sport it aims to replicate, it can taken on via both "simple" and "complex" theories, much like the many real life theories. And you need not find yourself pigeon-holed playing one way or another.

[DreamsDefined]

Good timing for a bump .

I'll try and update the thread very shortly - had a busy few weeks. I have managed to play the game a bit, but pretty much only a season in that time, but not to update. And it has been very successful .

Great! I got a little sad when I saw it was the end of the thread

Loving a different approach to tactics in FM. Don't get me wrong, I love the stickied guidelines and have read them over and over, but sometimes think they're a little too dominant in discussions... stifle creativity perhaps? I guess you can't be creative until you understand the engine though.

Anyway, looking forward to more!

[davehibb]

I can't believe I've missed this thread.

Fantastic OP (and I even got a mention ). I've struggled getting into a Liverpool save so far. I've started a few and done a season and then waned. Maybe I just have a complex of proving Liverpool can win the league and then move on. Or maybe it was the pre-patch underrating of players and never quite having confidence in developing Sterling and also, buying loads of players with the season 1 prize money... I dunno. Not managed to get that long term feel so far.

I'll certainly be paying attention to this thread from now on though... And starting another LFC save I think. I've already jotted down a formation with roles on a scrap of paper before I head home.

Looking forward to the updates.

[redmark]

So, the revised tactic:

Not a lot of change. Mentality dropped from Control to Standard, Fluidity remains 'Very Fluid'. For the first third of the season, the only set team instructions were Retain Possession and Play Out of Defence; but I was selecting Pass Into Space almost every game, so added it to the tactic. Again, the only player instructions are Distribute to Defenders for the keeper, and 'Sit Narrower' for the two IF's. No others.

During games, I used all or some combination of Hassle Opponents, Higher Tempo and Push Higher Up at times; either chasing a game (with a mentality shift to Control or Attacking, but quite rarely), or more often when already on top to try and 'blitz' an opponent. More rarely, when trying to kill off a game, increase possession or reduce long shots (very occasionally an issue), I would use Shorter Passing, Work Ball Into Box and/or Lower Tempo.

In terms of players:

I had very few injuries in all, with the main changes in the team relating to Suarez's suspension and one short injury. Sterling was out for 3 months mid-season, else would have played more games (in the standard formation above) at Aspas' expense. Aspas performed well though when he did play. The front three was more 'symmetrical' when Aspas played, but lacked Sterling's pace.

In a handful of games earlier in the season (including successive impressive wins over Chelsea and Tottenham), I played Sturridge right, Sterling left and Suarez up top; Sturridge scoring a hat-trick cutting in from the right against Spurs. I used this switch occasionally later when leading in games, too.

More detailed discussion on players, PPM's, personalities etc to follow - but how did it all turn out?

Well...

(Glenn Hoddle led Aston Villa to a very early relegation and an FA Cup win).

The entire starting XI (including the Sterling/Aspas interchangability) in the top 30 players for Average Rating:

[redmark]

I'm at work, so without the details and being able to talk about PPM's too much in this post, but (as it's a quiet work day) wanted to talk more about the player personalities, what I was trying to get - and whether it worked or not - and hopefully generate discussion rather than just posting some successful screenshots. Some thoughts on what I'm considering doing differently, either in season 2, or game start 2 (well, 3 - or 4, including that aborted near-sacking that prompted the thread).

Starting at the back, there's not a lot to say about the goalkeeping (SK/S) position. His one player instruction - distribute to defenders - worked well enough, with plenty of highlights (mostly extended, sometimes comprehensive) beginning with a Mignolet short kick, or collecting the ball from an opposition attack and throwing out. One point to note is that the Gerrard 'Half Back' role didn't do quite what I hoped, from this position at least. With the ball in Mignolet's hands or at a goal kick, the fullbacks stayed in line and Gerrard dropped into a 'back five', with the central defenders not really splitting (and fullbacks not pushing on) until the ball was in the second 'quarter' of the pitch (i.e. just inside our own half). While this is defensively sound, it's not what I was envisaging based on how Rodgers (and others) actually implement it - which would be with the centre backs positioned just off the corners of their own penalty area, the fullbacks close to the halfway line, and the 'half back' 5-10 yards outside the D in those restart situations. We had no goals conceded (or any highlights, that I remember) from being caught out playing out from the back, at least with the ball being lost in defence, though there may have been a couple with hurried balls into pressure in midfield.

GK changes considered - none (see halfback).

The fullbacks (WB/S) largely did what was expected, with the above caveat of their starting position not being quite what I'd hoped when using a half-back to split the centre backs. Both got forward in 'support' of the play, befitting their duty, rather than ahead of it. Johnson learned 'Gets Forward' late in the season, while Enrique started with it. Both overlapped quite naturally (without the team instruction) in suitable passages of play, with the inside forwards drifting inside or the central midfielders using them at the right moments. Interestingly (particularly given the perceived abilities of the two) Enrique finished with 7 assists, while Johnson had none. I'd need to search through the goals to be sure, but I suspect this was partly a result of the positioning and 'personality' of the IF's on their respective sides. Enrique would frequently have Suarez (with a 'Gets Forward' PPM, amongst many others) to pick out, loitering between penalty spot and near post; on the other flank, Sterling and Aspas tended to pull out, or back, to the edge of the area when Johnson overlapped. If he found either of them (or Henderson, the usual CM on that side) with a pass, they would tend to pass again rather than shoot, so Johnson may have had plenty of 'assists to the assist'; his general link up play in highlights was good. No goals from either fullback, and few chances that I recall. Apart from the assists, there were some small statistical differences - Enrique (as expected, Does Not Dive Into Tackles) made fewer tackles - but (I recall) made more key ones. He also, more surprisingly, ran with the ball more than Johnson, perhaps because the right-footed Sterling stayed a little wider on his flank than Suarez did on the left, giving slightly fewer opportunities to overlap. It's interesting given the assists, dribbles and key tackles figures that Johnson actually finished with a higher average rating.

FB changes considered - positioning them as actual WB's? Not a massive priority, and almost certainly defensively problematic.

In terms of player types - and training PPM's for the younger players at the club - this is an interesting position for Liverpool, with clear opportunities to upgrade at both positions in the near future (and some decent options within the club, young British options outside, or mirror-image right and left Brazilian options from Porto ). Key PPM's to focus on are/were Runs with ball (generally, or down specific flank), Gets Forward, Does Not Dive Into Tackles and perhaps Knocks Ball Past Opponent (though this proved rather unpopular with coaches advising on likelihood of success). Others to consider, with a temptation to mix a 'retain possession' general principle with tendencies to look for penetration opportunities, are Killer Balls (to play short-ish diagonal balls in behind, rather than the Long Passes PPM).

More to follow...

[redmark]

The centrebacks (both BPD/C) showed possibly the clearest statistical evidence of different personalities, based on attributes and PPMs. Sakho - Marks Tightly, Dives Into Tackles - had almost twice as many tackles per game as Agger - does neither of the above. (By the way, though a dual left-footed pairing is unusual (and it seems, Rodgers is loathe to try it), I saw no issues with it in game; though perhaps it also contributed to Johnson's attacking figures being slightly lower than Enrique's, if Agger - played on the right of the pair - tended to pass inside rather than out?).

Anyway. I'd had an idea of wanting to play a pair of Sakho-style aggressive defenders, with the apparently contradictory 'Cover' duty. The idea was/is for the CB's to slowly back off, to the edge of the area, maintaining shape and allowing the midfielders to make the first challenges - but, if the ball came to the striker early in a move, within their 'zone', to be in a position to challenge hard and fast. And it sort of seemed to work; it turned out to be useful to have the 'Agger' type alongside to compare to, statistically and in the highlights. We were not the best team defensively (United were ridiculously strong defensively for the first half of the season, and conceded only 5 at home all year), but strong enough. A good proportion of conceded goals were probably 'consolation' efforts in games well won. Sakho was also the more dominant in the air, while Agger, predictably, had a better pass completion rate (though his assists were, I think, all following corners).

I quite like the concept of the aggressive Sakho personality as above, balanced (contradicted?) with the 'cover' duty. Interestingly, a high proportion of goals conceded came from passes, rather than crosses, from the opposition left - perhaps Agger's passivity and cover duty causing him to not be tight enough with balls played in from his 'side'? There are of course a number of combinations to try, to test this out thoroughly - and I'm not going to try them all (the 'doubly-balanced' Sakho cover, Agger stopper; the 'doubly-emphasised' Sakho stopper, Agger cover). The simplest solution I'll probably go with on a restart, would be to pair the similarly aggressive Skrtel with Sakho, both on cover duty (though benching Agger will feel awkward); and of course to see what can be done with potential younger partners for Sakho in the future. Defensively, I want to persist with the 'aggressive CB'/cover duty idea, while having more passive (defensively) fullbacks; I don't want them diving into a tackle as they try and get back into position after an attacking phase.

In terms of passing/possession/tempo, I attempted to get both CB's to learn the 'Stops Play' PPM (along with Gerrard; see later for 'Dictates Tempo'), to simulate a patient 'rest with the ball' function at the back. Agger succeeded, Sakho did not. Which sort of fits an aggressive, impatient personality, I suppose. With young players I've focused initially on the two aggressive defensive PPMs, will try 'Stops Play', but am also tempted to throw in a Long Passes/Killer Balls/Switch Flank PPM, to provide a bit of variety to passing patterns and a 'direct' option to contrast just slightly with the overall 'Retain Possession' team instruction (which seems rather dominant, with a solitary long ball assist in 90 goals scored). Basically, recreating Alan Hansen takes a bit of doing.

[redmark]

I can't believe I've missed this thread.

Fantastic OP (and I even got a mention ). I've struggled getting into a Liverpool save so far. I've started a few and done a season and then waned. Maybe I just have a complex of proving Liverpool can win the league and then move on. Or maybe it was the pre-patch underrating of players and never quite having confidence in developing Sterling and also, buying loads of players with the season 1 prize money... I dunno. Not managed to get that long term feel so far.

I'll certainly be paying attention to this thread from now on though... And starting another LFC save I think. I've already jotted down a formation with roles on a scrap of paper before I head home.

Looking forward to the updates.

I've played about 5 or 6 games of season 2 and don't think I can continue it just now - but that's mostly because of superstitious guilt at selling a couple of players who are still absolutely vital to our real-life title chances (the sharp-eyed will notice from above screenshots that I also sold Lucas Leiva in January, replacing him with Lucas Silva) . Which is a shame, because those 5/6 games had gone very well, all wins, more goals each game than the last, none conceded.

[max787]

Very similar philosophy to SFraser's "meet the system" thread: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/265090-Meet-The-System

Good thread, hope you continue updating!

[redmark]

Gerrard, in the half back role. Seven goals, seven assists, the most passes per game on the team, the highest pass completion in the league and 10th best overall by average rating. Went well. Well, no, not really. All 7 goals were penalties (he also missed two). Almost all of the assists were corners. Sure, his role as midfield fulcrum was a success, completing 69 passes per game at 88% completion. Assists from long raking passes? None. Highlights featuring long raking passes? Erm, none, that I recall.

He played the half-back role well enough; but he played the role, without any of his personality being imposed on the style of play. Even in the real Rodgers setup, while his goals are predominantly set piece affairs now, he still provides assists and attack-starting balls from deep. That didn't come across, at all, in the play.

Why? Well, the obvious conclusion is the half-back role itself. I chose that role not because it best suited Gerrard's current role (it doesn't; that would probably be DLP, or Regista), but because it simulated splitting the centrebacks. However, as outlined above, it didn't really even do that quite in the way I'd hoped. Sure in the middle third (or middle two quarters) of the pitch, Gerrard performed the link between defence and attack perfectly; dropping behind the back line when required to offer an outball, keeping the ball amongst the back three/five, playing it into the feet of Coutinho and Henderson. In a sustained period of possession and forward movement, he'd even get within 40 yards or so of goal. But in 40-odd games, 10-15-20-25 attacking highlights per game, I don't recall a single ball of more than 20 yards to switch play to one fullback or the other; not a single diagonal ball to Suarez/Sterling to stretch the opposition defence, not a single through ball from the centre circle for Sturridge to run onto.

His PPM's should certainly allow them - Killer Passes, Long Passes - and while Retain Possession should (by design) not make them the primary style of pass, it shouldn't prevent them entirely - and Pass Into Space should encourage them a touch. No, the conclusion must be that the half-back role (and it's enforced Defend duty, the only non-support duty in the team) is overly prohibitive on that freedom of expression.

This role, despite the overall results and (relatively easy) title win, was essentially a failed experiment, for what I wanted it to do. It 'worked', but was the one position that, as the only 'specialism' and the only restricted 'duty', didn't play out in the spirit of the concept - to exhibit the personality of the player in the position. There was virtually no difference in performance when Gerrard was subbed for either Lucas, Leiva or Silva.

In a restart then (and, briefly, in a revised tactic for season 2), this role is a certainty to be changed. The somewhat limited benefit of splitting the two centrebacks does not justify the handicapping of this pivotal position - and personality. In my brief adjustment for season 2, I changed the role to Regista. However in my restart, I will remember the principles of the thread and change it to a simple 'defensive midfielder/support', allowing the player's personality to, hopefully, determine how the role plays out depending on who is performing it.

[max787]

You could try Gerrard as a Libero attack, it's a role which is working well for me. Big change to the shape though, and it would probably take ages to get your tactic fluid again.

[redmark]

You could try Gerrard as a Libero attack, it's a role which is working well for me. Big change to the shape though, and it would probably take ages to get your tactic fluid again.

That's not really in the spirit of what the tactic is trying to do, though. The only reason for the HB/D role/duty originally was to split the CB's (and that hasn't worked quite how I wanted, and certainly not so well that it's untouchable). The complaint with it isn't that it wasn't a "success" - it was, in terms of a solidly performing Half-Back - it's that it was the most restricted role on the team, the position with the least 'personality' overruling one of the main 'personalities' (in terms of range of ability and PPM's) in the squad. It really made no difference whether I selected Gerrard or Lucas there. The correction - so that Gerrard can play the role like Gerrard, and Lucas like Lucas, without duty or instructional changes between them, within the ideas of the OP - has to be a simple DM/S role/duty; like it probably should have been originally.

[davehibb]

Great analysis Redmark. I'm looking forward to seeing how this evolves for you and how happy you are with it in terms of it resembling the way we're playing at the minute.

I started up a new LFC save last night. Just played a few preseason games so far. I have about a dozen friendlies arranged, mostly against Irish, Welsh and non-league teams. Not sure how much that will enlighten me before the season begins but hopefully the tactic will be almost fluid and confidence will be high.

I set up like this:

GK - GK(D) - Mignolet

DR - WB(A) - Johnson

DL - WB(S) - Enrique

DC - CD(D) - Skrtel

DC - CD(D) - Agger

DM - HB(D) - Gerrard

MC - BBM(S) - Henderson

MC - AP(A) - Coutinho

AMR - IF(S) - Sterling

AML - IF(A) - Suarez

SC - CF(s) - Sturridge

I agree that the Half Back role isn't suited to what Gerrard os doing at the moment. I was thinking of changing that myself after just a few friendlies. I might be wrong but don't the more 'generic' roles allow players to play to their strengths and PPMs? Or did I just dream that?

How did Stevie do for you as a Regista? That was my thinking for when I load up tonight?

[redmark]

I might be wrong but don't the more 'generic' roles allow players to play to their strengths and PPMs? Or did I just dream that?

Well, that's what the discussion a few years back in that thread was about and a large part of what I'm trying to determine or demonstrate with this tactic . So far, I think, quite successfully in terms of both style/'personalities' coming through, as well as results.

edit: Try it out all over the pitch! Works particularly well, I think, for the front three (analysis to come...).

How did Stevie do for you as a Regista? That was my thinking for when I load up tonight?

I'd only played 5 or 6 games, very successfully in terms of results. I hadn't yet done any analysis on how it was working out specifically for Gerrard. I played those games fairly half-heartedly, already thinking I was going to do a restart and so don't recall from highlights much about Gerrard's role. Possibly nothing too drastically improved I suppose, or I'd have noticed it more readily. I can have a look at the stats and perhaps some highlights tonight, though.

[davehibb]

I'll have a tinker too later tonight if I get the chance.

I hate that it takes so long to get tactics fluid in this version. I mean, look at the various systems Rodgers has used this season and how hard it would be to get 3 different systems fluid in game, let alone different versions of the same formation.

[redmark]

I'll have a tinker too later tonight if I get the chance.

I hate that it takes so long to get tactics fluid in this version. I mean, look at the various systems Rodgers has used this season and how hard it would be to get 3 different systems fluid in game, let alone different versions of the same formation.

In general, I found focusing heavy tactics training during pre-season, then tactical match training for a month or so, got familiarity up quite nicely. Then I could switch to average intensity 'balanced' training and attacking movement, which always helps.

What I did find, to go back to another of the OP principles, was that the 'generic' qualities of the base tactic allowed me to adjust to in game situations with a handful of instructions, or where something more was needed, a step up or down in mentality (and occasionally if going to 'counter', setting fluidity to 'fluid'). In the spirit of the OP, it all became very incremental, very intuitive and generally worked quite well, in terms of stemming a run of opposition highlights, increasing possession or penetration, etc.

What that then allows, is to use the other two tactics slots for different formations. The other stuff - mentality, fluidity, passing style etc - all stays largely the same anyway. In pre-season for Season 2, I was able to get about 80% familiarity pre-season with the alternative shapes of the recent Rodgers diamond, and a 352; and still have time to use 'match training' for team cohesion to integrate a few new players (mostly infact, loan returnees).

[redmark]

Central midfield, like central defence, involved two rather different players (Henderson and Coutinho), playing the same generic role and duty - CM/S. Unlike central defence, the statistical evidence is a little (though not entirely) inconclusive on how the different 'personalities' imposed themselves on the positions, so the following analysis is based much more on the 'impression' formed from probably a few thousand highlights, almost all involving one, and often both, often repeatedly in a given passage of play.

Statistically, both got a fair number of assists (10/11), both made a couple of tackles per game. Henderson (Simple Passes, Gets Forward, Looks For Pass, learned Dictates Tempo) made a few more passes per game (66 vs 57), a little more accurately (84% vs 81%) and scored a little less often (2 vs 5). Coutinho (Dribbles Through Centre, Killer Passes, Comes Deep and learned I think both Dictates Tempo and Plays One-Twos) dribbled more frequently, took more time on the ball, played a little more ambitiously in advanced areas. Henderson just edged the comparison on average ratings, but Coutinho spent the first six months training as a plain 'CM', during which time he was often rated around 6.7-6.8, and his match ratings began to overtake Henderson's regularly in the second half of the season.

Henderson or Coutinho - and usually both - are heavily involved in probably the vast majority of highlights the team/tactic generates: whether it's a slow build up from the back through the centre, or a rapid break down a flank which then checks back and works the ball around the edge of the opposition penalty area. Sometimes an IF or Sturridge will even patiently and unselfishly check back from within the area if their path to goal is blocked, for Henderson/Coutinho to recycle the ball around the edge of the area and work an opening. Some of it is patient and slow, some of it sharp and incisive, with movement in the channels from the IF's and Sturridge. Overall, very nice to see.

With one small caveat, the two central midfielders played out quite nicely in terms of 'personality' - Henderson's industrious, one-touch simple passing and movement, Coutinho drifting past opponent in midfield and picking angled passes around the edge of the area. The caveat would be that, like Gerrard from deeper (if a little less extreme), there were relatively few clear early, deeper 'through ball' attempts from Coutinho to pick an attacking runner. Perhaps, to be discussed next up, there weren't quite enough forward runs to pick out.

In terms of PPM's, those mentioned above seem to be suitable starting points for this box-to-box versus playmaker combination. I've been toying with trying to get everyone bar the defence and Sturridge to learn 'Dictates Tempo', and the forward five with 'Plays One-Twos' (with a couple of failures). Coutinho really needs a second season to fully assess, as an 'accomplished' CM, but his general involvement, creativity and improvement over the season was promising. Coutinho would probably also benefit by improving his long shot attribute, with a number of opportunities from the edge of the box being (quite realistically) a little underwhelmingly hit at the keeper.

[redmark]

I'd only played 5 or 6 games, very successfully in terms of results. I hadn't yet done any analysis on how it was working out specifically for Gerrard. I played those games fairly half-heartedly, already thinking I was going to do a restart and so don't recall from highlights much about Gerrard's role. Possibly nothing too drastically improved I suppose, or I'd have noticed it more readily. I can have a look at the stats and perhaps some highlights tonight, though.

On the huge sample size of six games (CS, 4PL, CL), Gerrard as Regista seems to have been a little more influential a little higher up the pitch than as a half-back (naturally enough). Two assists, one a cross after taking a corner and the ball being fed back out to him; the other from a higher starting point in midfield - a chipped through ball for Sturridge to run onto! Positive, but as mentioned I'll probably go with DM/S in my restart, anyway.

[redmark]

The inside forwards (IF/S - single instruction, Sit Narrower) in the system were predominantly Suarez (from the left), Sterling (mostly right, occasionally left) and Aspas (right). Sturridge played a handful of games from the IFR position, and the odd 10-15 minute spell there late in games (usually in this case, Sterling going left and Suarez, or January signing and sub Raul de Tomas, up top).

All told, we probably got 35-40 goals from the IF positions and 25+ assists (mostly intricate passes around the box and pull backs, a few crosses from Sterling) - a good return, I think. The assists were shared fairly evenly; Suarez scored about the same number of goals from that role as did Sterling, Aspas and very occasionally Sturridge combined, in about half the total games. From the highlights, Suarez's ability, 'personality' and PPM's saw him creating and finishing more of his own chances, was more likely to be central in the area when a fullback was on the overlap, and was generally the most direct - all very realistic, I think (one PPM change - and Suarez alone could have almost every attacking PPM - was 'Tries First Time Shots', which I think is one of the more accurate). He also scored 5 or 6 direct free kicks over the course of the season. Sturridge was a revelation from the right*, in the handful of games I started him there, scoring a hat-trick in a 5-0 thrashing of Spurs early in the season: also more direct in terms of attacking goal than either Sterling or Aspas. Aspas rated quite well, but was the least pacy/direct option; his goals were mostly from cutbacks, or rebounds; he did get several assists cutting inside and threading a short diagonal across to Suarez cutting inside the opposite fullback quite nicely.

Overall, some of the build up play and probing around the area was wonderful to watch, with fullbacks and central midfielders joining in some very fluent passages of play. The one 'gap' perhaps between the real Liverpool attacking trio and in game, was that those runs beyond the defence happened mostly in a limited area in or close to the penalty area, with play compressed and to run onto a short through ball, rather than running from deeper onto a through ball from deeper central areas, earlier in play. Possibly a result of the general 'Retain Possession' instruction, but I'm likely to experiment further with greater us of PPM's such as Gets Forward, Moves Into Channels, and even Breaks Offside Trap, to see if those prompt greater use of the existing 'Tries Killer Balls' PPM's from Gerrard and Coutinho.

* I generally like the Sturridge quick goalscorer type to play up top; however it would be very tempting (and perhaps equally a reflection of how Liverpool have lined up in many games) to use Sturridge right, Sterling left and Suarez as a 'false nine'.

As the striker (CF/S), I played Sturridge mostly. He scored 30 goals in 36 league games - perhaps 5 or 6 of those goals came from a handful of starts from the right. Sturridge's PPM's (a little edited; it seems the SI researcher once saw him score from 25 yards and so set him as 'Shoots With Power', when infact the vast majority of his goals are stroked into the corner of the net from 10-18 yards) include Place Shots, Move Into Channels, Runs With Ball Often. I successfully trained 'Tries to Round Keeper' by the end of the season. His goals were of three main types; plenty of little diagonal runs off the CB to leave a one-on-one with many saved, but enough in the corners; near post runs for short/low crosses and several snap shots/drives from the corners or edge of the area in slower, intricate build up. He also contributed 11 assists, mostly I think to Suarez, in those numerous pleasing buildups and interplay between the front players around and inside the box. One PPM I'm always tempted to give Sturridge from the start is 'Breaks Offside Trap'. This play through didn't have it selected, which may or may not contribute to the slight lack of deeper through balls earlier in phases of possession.

Overall for my three forward players (and particularly in respect to younger players with no PPM's), I'm looking to focus on them learning Cuts Inside, Runs With Ball, Moves Into Channels, Plays One-Twos, perhaps Breaks Offside Trap. Dictates Tempo may be handy for the wide players (as well as all three central midfielders).

[davehibb]

So, having thought about the ethos of this thread and the style and appraoch that is trying to be achieved I realised that my original approach was the 'framework' approach, rather than the simple one. Rigid philosophy and lots of specialization.

Having re-read the goals and analysis so far, I'll be rethinking my approach to this save. I'm about half way through preseason, so I'm not too botehred about losing the little familiarity I have accumulated to this point and I'll be going with the more generic roles and as scary as it might be for me, a standard, rather than counter, mentality and fluid/very fluid philosophy. That said, I do feel that the counter mentality and a pressing game works well, so that may be something I review but in terms of roles etc.I'll try and go with more generic ones and let the player's 'personalities' dictate how those roles are interpreted.

It's then my job as manager/coach to train the players at my disposal to have the 'personalities' that fit within my system. Much like Rodgers has done with Stevie for instance. As I have the in game editor I might just see if I can edit in Brendan as my assistant... Or possibly start over and do it in the full editor.

So some questions from the analysis Redmark has shared so far.

Goalkeeper - I'm not Mignolet's biggest fan. I think he's a great shot stopper but I think his distribution is suspect and that at times his decisions and aerial ability isn't the best. Having said that, it sounds like he's worked well in the sweeper keeper role. Has he really been comfortable in that role for you?

Full Backs - I'm interested to hear how things go with them being set to wingbacks. It should see them slightly more advanced than previously. Have you found this and do they offer good angles for the centre backs and defensive midfielder to pass to?

Centre backs - I'm not a fan of the 'cover' duty. I prefer the straight up 'defend' duty from my centre halves but again using a kind of counter intuitive role/duty combination it seems to have worked for you. Have you tried the double aggressive Skrtel/Sakho combination? And kept them both as BPD© and how did it fare?

Defensive midfield - Have you gone for the plain DM(s) role as opposed to a more specialized DLP or Regista and how has it worked out?

Midfielders - Again, the two CM(s) seems to go against all my FM13&14 Jedi training but I think I'll give it a go and be less specialised in my approach. Moulding these guys is pretty exciting for me with Rossiter and Chrivella(sp?) to be brought through. Do you find that these guys cover back adequately or do the back four seem exposed at times?

Inside forwards - Again having these guys and infact the entire front three on support duty seems to go against convention but the return in terms of goals and assists is impressive. It sounds like the interplay in and around the box is pretty close to how the team plays in real life too so excited to give that a try.

Did you get much testing in last night?

[redmark]

So, having thought about the ethos of this thread and the style and appraoch that is trying to be achieved I realised that my original approach was the 'framework' approach, rather than the simple one. Rigid philosophy and lots of specialization.

Having re-read the goals and analysis so far, I'll be rethinking my approach to this save. I'm about half way through preseason, so I'm not too botehred about losing the little familiarity I have accumulated to this point and I'll be going with the more generic roles and as scary as it might be for me, a standard, rather than counter, mentality and fluid/very fluid philosophy. That said, I do feel that the counter mentality and a pressing game works well, so that may be something I review but in terms of roles etc.I'll try and go with more generic ones and let the player's 'personalities' dictate how those roles are interpreted.

It's then my job as manager/coach to train the players at my disposal to have the 'personalities' that fit within my system. Much like Rodgers has done with Stevie for instance. As I have the in game editor I might just see if I can edit in Brendan as my assistant... Or possibly start over and do it in the full editor.

I always edit in the manager as my assistant, except when it was Hodgson .

As mentioned earlier in the thread, 'Fluid' seems a bit counter-intuitively not-especially-fluid. This approach I think should work best with 'Very Fluid', dropping to 'Fluid' only when dropping mentality to 'Counter' during a game (which I did, very occasionally).

So some questions from the analysis Redmark has shared so far.

Goalkeeper - I'm not Mignolet's biggest fan. I think he's a great shot stopper but I think his distribution is suspect and that at times his decisions and aerial ability isn't the best. Having said that, it sounds like he's worked well in the sweeper keeper role. Has he really been comfortable in that role for you?

I'd more or less agree with your doubts about Mignolet in this system, but it does seem to have worked out ok (I made no edits to Mignolet). 30 goals conceded is a little higher than I'd like, but pretty decent. I don't recall a particular 'type' of goal we were susceptible to, except perhaps on the counter - wide players getting behind a fullback and then cutback passes, and a few crosses (see fullbacks, below). Overall the system seemed quite strong against direct central breaks and Mignolet was good (befitting his attributes) in central one-on-ones. In terms of distribution, 81% is pretty good for a keeper; he always played the ball short except under extreme pressure and I don't recall a single incident (though a couple I thought might develop) of passing out to a defender who lost the ball under pressure. However - moving Gerrard from halfback to DM might change this dynamic slightly, if the CB's get put under more pressure without Gerrard dropping quite as deep to assist.

Full Backs - I'm interested to hear how things go with them being set to wingbacks. It should see them slightly more advanced than previously. Have you found this and do they offer good angles for the centre backs and defensive midfielder to pass to?

I quite like the way the WB's played out; they would always offer an outlet outside a CM or IF, roughly level with the ball, before getting further forward on the ball and getting to the byline in possession (they would tend to cutback, or pause and work the ball back across outside the penalty area, rather then pump in a cross, which I also quite liked). They didn't tend to get in advance of the ball much on the overlap (I presume, from other threads, a result of the 'support' duty), either in attacking positions (which was ok) or deeper (which was sometimes a little less pleasing, as the backline could stay quite flat until someone found a pass inside to a CM, or an IF dropping deep). They could be susceptible to a quick break down the flank at times, which I guess is to be expected, but not so frequently that it became much of a concern. All in all, quite satisfied with the fullbacks; I don't really want marauding Brazilian types, but a few more assists from Johnson would have been nice, and the odd goal from getting into the area late if attack builds down the opposite flank. Something to explore with PPM's, probably.

Centre backs - I'm not a fan of the 'cover' duty. I prefer the straight up 'defend' duty from my centre halves but again using a kind of counter intuitive role/duty combination it seems to have worked for you. Have you tried the double aggressive Skrtel/Sakho combination? And kept them both as BPD© and how did it fare?

I've often felt CB's were a little too aggressive in FM, and hated a CB getting selling himself in a challenge 40 yards out and an opponent running on unopposed to score. As I said earlier, the idea then is for both CB's to be slowly backing off as the opposition come forward, but for their PPM's to kick in with an aggressive challenge if the opportunity arises earlier in a move. Looking back at the stats, it seems the Agger/cover combination was too passive - he didn't get a single booking all season, for example, and made significantly fewer tackles than Sakho, while a high proportion of opposition assist came down his side. I started a game last night, but didn't progress any. I do intend to give the Skrtel/Sakho combination a full season. However, if it turns into a 'career' game, the most promising youngster is Ilori; with some editing, after watching some good appearances from him in his current loan spell. Again, he's a more passive/reactive type, good on the ball and with long passing ability and lightning pace.

Perhaps, recalling my own principles of this thread, I should be going with 'defend' duties for both CB's and letting their personalities determine if they're stoppers or covers? I'll give that some more thought before playing further.

Defensive midfield - Have you gone for the plain DM(s) role as opposed to a more specialized DLP or Regista and how has it worked out?

Yes, definitely going for the plain DM/S role, but no games played yet.

Midfielders - Again, the two CM(s) seems to go against all my FM13&14 Jedi training but I think I'll give it a go and be less specialised in my approach. Moulding these guys is pretty exciting for me with Rossiter and Chrivella(sp?) to be brought through. Do you find that these guys cover back adequately or do the back four seem exposed at times?

Their defensive work was very good, with both making a good number of tackles and interceptions. If the opposition had a spell of possession, they held shape well and would shuttle across the pitch provided (mostly) quite good coverage. At times, their starting positions could be a little narrow and occasionally an opponent would seem to 'trigger' the closing down zone of both CM's and the HB simultaneously, which could look a little odd being harried by three players. Depending on the speed and flow of an opposition move, the CM's would shuffle across well (the IF's also tracked back quite well, I like to think due to the 'universal support' duties, to a given point that just about coincided with the CM's drifting out to pick them up). However a quicker move could expose the narrowness and overload the fullback.

Inside forwards - Again having these guys and infact the entire front three on support duty seems to go against convention but the return in terms of goals and assists is impressive. It sounds like the interplay in and around the box is pretty close to how the team plays in real life too so excited to give that a try.

Again my only doubt with the front three was the lack (apart from the striker) of many through balls from slightly deeper, picking out a run behind the defence; certainly this seems likely to be partly a result of the support duty maintaining a certain 'shape' in attacking phases. This is where I'd like to try more Move Into Channels/Break Offside Trap/Gets Forward PPM's in the IF roles, to see how they interact with the universal support duties. Overall though, going back to the 'harmonic movement' of the OP's quotes, it certainly delivered broadly what was being asked of it, and 90 goals is a nice return. I'm tempted to give the Sterling left, Sturridge right, Suarez up top combination a go; but also might experiment with the 'diamond' shape in some games.

Did you get much testing in last night?

None at all . I checked a little of how Gerrard had done as Regista in those few season 2 games, looked at some more stats and started a new game but got no further than the initial meet-the-board-and-assistant. Hopefully pre-season at least tonight.

[As mentioned, I do edit a few players in terms of PPM's and where I disagree with the researchers on specific qualities and a number of the young players - well, it's my game and I watch a lot of them in real life . It can take me 2-4 weeks sometimes to get through a season if I'm busy, so if anyone else would like to give this tactic a try on another team, I'd love to see how it fares.]

[davehibb]

Thanks for the additional feedback mate. I'll hopefully get a little time tonight to restart the tactic, if not the save.

[alinp]

Wondered whether you had thought of making some duties "Automatic", so that come that time you switch to Attack (for whatever reason), such players will respond accordingly. My thoughts would be just 1 of the CM's & 1 of the FB's rather than both?

[Time_Consumer]

Great thread, thanks a lot. I'm gonna give this tactic and approach a try. Maybe with Liverpool, maybe i'm gonna try it with a different team, not yet decided. Anyway, good work, redmark!

[redmark]

Wondered whether you had thought of making some duties "Automatic", so that come that time you switch to Attack (for whatever reason), such players will respond accordingly. My thoughts would be just 1 of the CM's & 1 of the FB's rather than both?

I haven't thought about 'automatic' for a while, though did wonder about it in the past. But it would have to be symmetrical . How many positions have an 'automatic' duty?

[themadsheep2001]

I haven't thought about 'automatic' for a while, though did wonder about it in the past. But it would have to be symmetrical . How many positions have an 'automatic' duty?

FB, ML/R and CMs last time I checked.