Tactical discussion for FM16 (and FM17?)

[BillHoudini24]

This by any means isn't a rant. I'm not trying to be agressive at all to the creators, the developers, or even the public. I'm playing FM since 2005, I was 10 years old at the moment, so I grew alongside this wonderful game. The following thread will be my view on this year's tactics, what I hope to see on FM17 and I would like you to elaborate with me, if you find my ideas and my findings interesting.

First of all, this year things didn't go as planned in my main save -I play this save all year, but I start new ones for challenges like Youth Only, etc-. So 2015 to 2031 I managed struggling teams since it was an unemployed save and I ended up in my favourite team (Liverpool) when they were struggling in mid table status. I figured in all these fm years that in FM16's match engine you can't defend as well as before, due to broken Full/Wing Backs, Slightly Higher/Higher defensive line and the " Look for Overlap".

Roles as "Limited Full Back", "Box to Box Midfielder", "Limited Defender", "Ball Winning Midfielder", "Advanced Forward" and "Defensive Forward" look like they are worse than others -talk about that a bit later-. When I say worse, I mean they have less impact on the game, they are not responding as well in the role instructions and they always have less average rating than other roles.

Talking about average rating and game impact, there are roles this year that seem way overpowered in average ratings, in game statistics and overall impact. The most known example is the "Wing Back (Attack) role, but the list has many more, such as "Ball Playing Defender", "Full Back (Attack)", "Central Midfielder (Attack)", "Roaming Playmaker", "Advanced Playmaker", "Complete Forward", "Deep Lying Forward". These roles had in 25 fm years of testing (without instant result button) better impact no matter the shape of the tactic, no matter the level of the league, no matter the players. It seems there are shapes that are extremely overpowered with the right roles. I have saved in my browser many examples from different sites, where tactics totally illogical (4-2-4 shapes, shapes with 3 attackers on the same role, etc) are having crazy good results, winning the Premier League with Villa and Newcastle, etc. I won't use as an example the multiple Ballor D'Or winner Bellerin in many saves that I've seen on reddit, or the average rating of my Wing Backs and their assists (with lower than 10 crossing), because then my thread would be pretty much over.

Let's talk about Counter Attacking football now. I've created a tactic on the Official Football Manager Greek forum which was succesfull enough for other people -someone won the Europa League with Olympiakos-, but it doesn't work as it should, because of the role imbalance issue that I stated before. The Limited Fullbacks for example always are out of position, no matter the "Positioning" attribute. Wing Backs are out of position too, but you can live with that when they average 7.4 to 8.4 with 20+ assists/year. The same applies to "Ball Winning Mid" and "Central Mid". The first role always get yellow cards, gets out of position in the midfield and doesn't provide anything, but CM is different. Always in place, playing the ball right/left correctly, tackling and marking very well, with less cards. In my tactic I exploited that issue, the CM(A) scores for fun for some reason, the CM(D) is marking for 3 people in the midfield like Kante and my Limited Fullbacks are less trash, because of a DM(D) who's there to save their lives, everytime they sleep either in the corner, either when they are hugging my CBs.

I was always a fan of creating tactics. I never download other people's tactics, I see what they come up too, I get inspired by them and by real life managers (especially 13/14 Rodgers, Guardiola, Ancelloti and Klopp) and I come up with something myself. This year I couldn't get anything logical to work. 4-2-3-1 was always weak defensively, especially with a BWM. 4-3-3 with DM and Inside Forwards (Supp) was weak offensively, not many chances, bad build up on the attacking third and an invisible lone striker. 4-4-2 was just a mess, either high scoring and extremely bad defensively, or the other way around. Everything changed when I started seeing other peoples broken tactics (EUSEBIO's, Knap's, or tactics with big names like DESTROYER, GLADIATOR, YOU CAN'T LOSE EVEN WITH MY 5 YEAR OLD NEPHEWS AS PLAYERS etc). They all used the same broken roles (Wing Backs, CMs, WMs, APs, CFs), the same broken instructions (press higher up, overlap, prevent offside trap) and they stomped everyone. So I created a 4-2-4 with Wing Backs, CM(D), AP(S) and two wingers (AMR/L) and two forwards with the same role (DLF support) and miracle! It worked! But I don't enjoy it. My mid table Liverpool turned into a contender in 2030 after many disappointements, but it happened with an illogical tactic. Who in their right mind would play Attacking wing backs with wingers so forward on the pitch, only with 2 players in the middle of the park and two forwards with the same role/movement/mentality. I did it and unfortunately it worked.

If you read this until here you have the right to talk as badly as you want, you sir are a hero! 

*I really hope those things get fixed in FM17, because it really ruined my fun. I don't want to stomp everyone with Villa, I want to see what I imagine on the field. I want the roles to be balanced, no exploits, no broken instructions or specific roles. If that means less roles, so be it. But if I see another year of Bellerin winning Ballor D'Or, or my Wing Back with 9 crossing having 20 assists and 8.00 avg in the Premier League, I will lose faith in my favourite game of all time.

**If you want any screenshots, links, please be free to ask. I'm waiting for you to chat along. :-)

 

[Keyzer Soze]

Good post, and in fact points out some issues with the ME that already been discuss in previous threads.

Personally i dont think some roles are broken, but it's true that this year ME favors certain roles, being the WB/FB with attack duty the more obvious one.

But i think this happens not because the those roles are broken, but because the ME favors crosses (because the D-line don't defend them very well), and therefore favors roles that crosses often.

But let's be honest, these type of situations happen in every year version. Even last year, we had similar issues with Playmakers because it was too easy for players with instruction to make risky passes.

About the issue related with playing with two DLF, or playing with 2 or 3 players with the same role upfront, you must not forget about other variables that can have a big influence in the way a player plays the assigned role:

- Team Shape (more or less creativity)
- Players instructions
- Players prefer movements
- and of course, players attributes.

So you can have two players with the some role, but playing in a very different way.

 

Again, and like i said in the beggining, i agree with many things you have point out, but not in the conclusions. I don't think the some roles are broken. Some are just less/more effective because of issues related with the ME.

Nothing new.

 

[Craigus89]

SI have acknowledged that there are some issues crossing in this years ME, and clearly they won't leave it unchanged for FM17. All of the issues you speak of are well documented and talked about on the forums.

[BillHoudini24]

@herne79 is this ok? My experience of the game, not speaking generally and I would like your view on how bad on I am on Football Manager and how illogical things I say.

[BillHoudini24]

1 hour ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Good post, and in fact points out some issues with the ME that already been discuss in previous threads.

Personally i dont think some roles are broken, but it's true that this year ME favors certain roles, being the WB/FB with attack duty the more obvious one.

But i think this happens not because the those roles are broken, but because the ME favors crosses (because the D-line don't defend them very well), and therefore favors roles that crosses often.

But let's be honest, these type of situations happen in every year version. Even last year, we had similar issues with Playmakers because it was too easy for players with instruction to make risky passes.

About the issue related with playing with two DLF, or playing with 2 or 3 players with the same role upfront, you must not forget about other variables that can have a big influence in the way a player plays the assigned role:

- Team Shape (more or less creativity)
- Players instructions
- Players prefer movements
- and of course, players attributes.

So you can have two players with the some role, but playing in a very different way.

 

Again, and like i said in the beggining, i agree with many things you have point out, but not in the conclusions. I don't think the some roles are broken. Some are just less/more effective because of issues related with the ME.

Nothing new.

I see what you mean, but last year it wasn't so obvious and let's be honest. FM15's Playmakers had less impact and less avg rating imbalance than this year's Wing/Full Backs. In the end, I prefer Playmakers to be a bit favoured, they can change a game irl, they can transform a mediocre team to a good one, but a Right Back can't do that, no matter who he is.

About the two DLFs or other same roles upfront I agree, since I'm using a combination of small-quick and tall-strong Forwards. But I still think it shouldn't work. The 4 forwards I have on my team don't have any differenences in the PPMs in terms of movement with or without the ball. They should be confused on the field, going on the same places but it doesn't happen, they play like they're meant for each other. :-P

@Craigus89 Thank you for taking the time to commend here. I'm well aware that these things are mentioned seperately in other threads, but I wanted to talk about my experience and too exchange ideas about these issues collectively.

 

[herne79]

9 minutes ago, BillHoudini24 said:

@herne79 is this ok? My experience of the game, not speaking generally and I would like your view on how bad on I am on Football Manager and how illogical things I say.

Well first things first - are there issues with this year's ME?  Yes there are, in fact there are issues with every year's ME.  SI acknowledge this, are always working on improvements and I have no doubt FM17's will see another improvement.

However, I'd disagree with a lot of the issues you raise, although not perhaps in the way you might think.

Let's talk about the "broken full/wing backs" you mention as an example.  Are they "broken"?  No.  Could their on pitch behaviour be improved?  Yes absolutely, but more in relation to defensive positioning than so-called overpowered crosses.  Crossing from fullbacks isn't overpowered, however there can on occasion be a cross from a fullback that is a little too pinpoint accurate which players struggle to defend against.  Users then see this, and rather than spending much time designing their defensive system to help defend against this, they spend more time designing their attacking system to exploit this.  Thus you get people talking on forums about over powered crossing.

Now, I'm generalising there which isn't something I like doing.  There are experienced FM players who have struggled this year with designing their defensive system to cope, or to achieve tactical consistency or a myriad of other issues.  To me, that's a much more worthwhile debate to have than reading what people might be saying on some sub-Reddit.

In terms of the other positional roles you mention, it would perhaps be better if you posted your tactical system where you see these issues.  In my experience, roles such as the BBM, BWM, AF and DF that you mention as "look like they are worse than others" are actually some of the best roles in the game.  But each to their own experience and they, like every other role available, are only as good as the overall tactical system and the players being used.  I'm not saying "it's your tactics" - that would be wrong of me as I have no idea of what your tactics are - however in my experience it's perhaps more likely that you have tactical issues resulting from some kind of imbalance in your system.

This is why you'll always see Mods, and most others that offer help around here, asking for full and specific detail about your tactical system.  Otherwise all we can do is generalise.

All of this is, of course, not a comment on "how bad you are at FM" or "how illogical things you say are" to go back to your post quoted above.  The last thing I would do is draw any such conclusions about this.  That would be rude of me if nothing else.  You have an experience of FM just as I do and everyone else does.  If your experience has led you to these conclusions which differs to mine or others, then posting specific examples of these issues can only help in the long run - it'll either help you improve your tactical system or help SI improve the game.

[BillHoudini24]

Well, this is a good start to a conversation on this year's tactics. I will post my Liverpool (2030) tactic, it's results and I would like you to help me on why it works, because my personal opinion is that it shouldn't work by any means.

On the same time, we're going to compare together players in the lifespan of two seasons, where the only change was their role and see the difference in their stats, average rating and overall impact.

Let's start with my -working- tactic. It's a 4-2-4 on paper, but it works like a 4-4-2. Everything for my tactic can be found in this link. http://imgur.com/a/YDPRy (the players you see there are my second unit, I'm rotating before FA Cup Final)

The results with a 4-3-3 which couldn't work in many ways, my conclusion is due to some roles that are not working as they should -already mentioned them-. http://imgur.com/a/65vAw

In my opinion, this tactic shouldn't work. Firstly, there are only two players in the middle of the park, one of them being offensive minded, the wingers leave them way too open to counter attacks and possesion based football, a tactic with 3 CMs should destroy me but it doesn't. Second, how do I get results, goals and great highlights with 2 DLFs without any different P.Is? They play very well together, but I can't figure out why.

Lastly, let's take a look at 3 players. These 3 turned from mediocre to great, just by changing their roles. They don't do what I want too see on the pitch, but they play better, so I can't complain right? 

Example A, Stephen Ferguson-Defender Left.

He has amazing physical attributes, decent defensive attributes but a 9 in crossing. The first season he was used as a Limited Full Back (his best role according to his attributes) or as a Full Back (Defend). The second season I turned him into a Wing Back (Attack). Let's see the differences.

http://imgur.com/a/welAt

You can say that he played more in the second year, which is true. But check his defensive stats out as well. Huge improvement over a season, while his attributes remained exactly the same, the player had already reached his potential.

Example B, Robert Cross-Midfielder Centre.

He's the captain of the club, homegrown, great attributes all around. He has low Finishing and Bravery for Box to Box mid, but I gave it a try on 2029. The result was weird. High avg. rating but he wasn't really contributing to our game. A year later I turned him to his best role, which limits him in my opinion but something changed. Even though he has less dribble(!) in a more creative role, more shoots, more goals (even though the role is discouraged in shooting) and less average rating, he played a lot better. He's everywhere on the pitch, always making the right pass, always stopping(!) counter attacks, always scoring important goals inside the penalty area, where he shouldn't be in the first place.

http://imgur.com/a/QUVj8

Example 3, Frank Kalu-Striker

He's the classic Advanced Forward. Great mentals, good enough technicals, mediocre physically. In 2029 he played in his prefered role and as Poacher. He was really bad. Bad positioning, missing 4 out of 5 chances, he couldn't save his life neither as a lone striker, neither with a partner. The second season I decided to partner him with Bonazzoli and play them both as DLFs, because I saw in many tactics that this is an effective role in a 4-4-2. I was -and still am- really sceptical, but something changed as well. Better finisher, providing more, better passing, even though there was no change in his attributes, his P.A is reached as well.

http://imgur.com/a/GODg9

Any feedback? Sorry for the long posts, but I want to explain my thoughts as good as possible.

[Keyzer Soze]

1 hour ago, BillHoudini24 said:

About the two DLFs or other same roles upfront I agree, since I'm using a combination of small-quick and tall-strong Forwards. But I still think it shouldn't work. The 4 forwards I have on my team don't have any differenences in the PPMs in terms of movement with or without the ball. They should be confused on the field, going on the same places but it doesn't happen, they play like they're meant for each other. :-P

 

But for example, you see many tactis, for example in a 4123 formation, where people use in the midfield combo two CM with support duty. Same role, same duty.

Or going to the D-Line, how many tactic you see with two defenders with the same role/duty? And you don't see them going to the same ball, or marking/closing down the same player.

Do you also think that's illogical?

Despite having two players with the same role playing next to each other, it doesn't necessary means that both players will do the same and get on each other space.

I agree that it's not the common situation, particulary when talking about a forwards duo, but from that get to the conclusion that there is something wrong in the game i think it's stretching too much.  

[HUNT3R]

I'd ask why you have Look for Overlap selected, but Limited Fullbacks on Defend duty, who (according to their role) should stay back all the time and definitely not make overlaps?

Also, why you have Play Out of Defence, but Limited Fullbacks who (according to their role) will win the ball and get rid asap.

[BillHoudini24]

Oh that was a mistake, I recreated the tactic right now for the previous post and I clicked it habitually. 

Play out of Defense shouldn't be too bad in that situation, The LFBs can get rid of the ball, but the CBs will play the ball to my midfielders, that's what I wanted in the first place. 

Any observations about my working tactic and the examples I posted?

[Craigus89]

1 hour ago, BillHoudini24 said:

Snip

Is there not a chance that you have now chosen roles that allow those players to flourish?

I'm sure you realise that when creating a tactic and picking roles you cannot look at the roles and duties in isolation, you have to consider the whole picture, are they getting support etc.

Your example of the CM for instance, he is what I would call a stereotypical Advanced Playmaker, look at his PPM's too. Is there a chance that you had him in the wrong role in the first place, and now your tactic is more balanced based on the quality of your players, whether it looks like it should be or not?

[BillHoudini24]

Of course there is, I'm not saying that I'm perfect, or that both my tactics don't have mistakes, I'm just trying to figure out what was the key for the 4-2-4 to work.

I agree about my CM, he flourished as an AP indeed, but what about the other two examples? The DL is really crazy. He has 9 Crossing, his PPMs are "Stays back at all times", "Runs with ball down Left" and "Knocks ball past opponent". I can't really understand how that works, but it does. Your observations though made me want to start reading and studying guides about tactics once again, which I really enjoy, thank you guys for that.

[herne79]

Those 3 players first:

Stephen Ferguson - higher ratings as a wingback than a limited fullback.  Fullback ratings are about more than just defending.  Yes tackles are important, but so are completed passes and crosses.  So a limited fullback will probably be poor at passes/crossing because they basically just clear the ball.  They may not even tackle that much as they sit so deep, hope for an opposition winger to come along but that opposition winger probably sees them before they can get tackled and either pass or cross the ball.  TL;DR - limited fullbacks don't really do much, so they won't usually get high match ratings.  You also mention his 9 for crossing - I agree that isn't the best, however all that does is affect the quality of his crosses.  But now with 2 strikers in the box, the far side winger probably also getting into the box and the winger on his side nearby, he may not need much quality on his crosses in order for them to pose a serious threat.  It's kind of "hit the ball somewhere approximating a dangerous position and something might happen" to use an analogy.  I'd imagine his crosses to crosses completed ratio is fairly low.

Robert Cross - a little confused here.  You say "High avg. rating but he wasn't really contributing to our game" is kind of contradictory as player ratings are directly related to a player's contribution.  However, it's hard to say more about the BBM role as you haven't posted a tactic that contains one.  As far as his AP(s) role goes, again I'm a little confused as you say he's had more shots and goals, but his 2030 stats only say 2 goals and 1 assist?  However, his attributes tie in well to the AP role and in the 4-2-4 formation he'll be the "main man" - the only playmaker in the team and thus will attract the ball.

Frank Kalu - again, hard to talk about his Poacher role that you say he didn't do well at as there is no tactic posted.  Generally speaking (note the dangers of generalising) strikers are only as good as their service.  So he may have suffered here because his service wasn't quite up to scratch, but again the tactic is missing so impossible to be specific.  In the DLF role, he probably is getting the service - an AP behind him feeding him through balls, two wingers and attacking wingbacks banging in crosses to latch onto, and another fairly creative striker alongside him to provide lay offs and shooting opportunities.  That may also explain why the 2 DLFs work well together - lots of supply, lots of movement.

Which brings me onto the 4-2-4 tactic.  I dislike playing against this formation, it causes me all kinds of problems - overloads down the flanks, dangerous crosses, two strikers are always a threat, an energetic playmaker bossing the midfield.  It's kind of an attacking 4-4-2 and similar to an aggressive 4-2-3-1.  Width is created by the generous flank play which pulls defenders out of position for a double striker team to take advantage of.  You're overloading the flanks and final third and if that doesn't work, you have a Playmaker to make lethal through balls as a back up plan.  The downside is that when you get caught out, it'll be in spectacular fashion - looking at the games you've lost, you've conceded at least 3 goals in all bar one of them (which you lost 2-0).  Further, because you have all 4 advanced players on a support duty, they aren't just lumping the ball forward being hopeful - they'll be passing and moving and at a fairly brisk pace, so hard to defend against.

The bottom line is there are tactical systems that can be created by the very creative user base to basically do what you (and others) are doing that the game designers probably didn't envisage when making the game.  Whilst some people may say these type of tactics are exploitative or not very realistic, personally I think they are a good thing as it very ably demonstrates the flexibility of the tactical creator and the creative freedom we as managers are allowed by SI.

Good on you for realising you weren't achieving what you wanted out of the game and turning it around by using a creative solution.  I'd still suggest the issues you were seeing that you outlined in the OP were (perhaps!) more related to tactical issues than problems with the ME, but that's kind of irrelevant.  The important thing is you spotted issues and did something about it - and for that you should be applauded.

[BillHoudini24]

First of all, thank you for this in depth respond, now I see some things I didn't see when I started this thread. That makes my effort worthwhile and this thread too. 

My CM was playing BBM in 2029 paired with an Deep Lying Playmaker. Behind them was a BWM. I completely messed up the screenshot, I couldn't remember all the roles, but I found an old screenshot, unfortunately it was in Greek language. 2029 he had 2 goals and 1 assist as a BBM, 2030 he flourished in his new role, but the problem(?) is that I see him playing better defensively too, in a role that doesn't defend by definition. It felt like his positioning and marking got better by changing the role, but now I see that the change in formation and instructions played a major part as well. 

I think the factor that made my old tactic disfaction was that I was closing down more and had a normal defensive line. That made the shape imbalanced and caused my midfield to colapse at times, because the BBM roams from position, the BWM is closing down much more so he leaves the back 4 unprotected and the DLP wasn't enough to prevent this from happening, especially with mediocre defensive attributes. Now it all seems a lot clearer and comprehensive.

This journey in FM16 made me realise many things about tactics. I thought I was good enough in that department with popular tactics in a Greek forum, but obviously I needed to refresh my knowledge, study a bit more, talk with other people with experience and stop looking at which role is more favoured than others. I'm really looking forward in FM17 in order to start creating tactics again the old fashioned way, just by imagining what I would like to see on the pitch. I have two months left though on this save, I will try to come up with something new, even though my 4-2-4 seems to work most of the time, just for the sake of it.

Lastly, I think the average rating should be a bit improved. For example, you talked about the role of Limited FullBack, which gets lower avg.rating due to less participation on the play. This shouldn't be happening, average rating should take into consideration each player's role and calculate that as well. You can't judge a Limited Defender by the important passes he make, or by the goals he scores. The same applies to every role.

[herne79]

11 minutes ago, BillHoudini24 said:

I see him playing better defensively too, in a role that doesn't defend by definition

Just a quick word on this sentence.  Generally speaking you are correct, however you are perhaps forgetting one very important factor - the player himself.

Make Mesut Ozil an Advanced Playmaker and you'll have all sorts of tricks, flair and awesome passing. but not much defensively.  Make Arturo Vidal an Advanced Playmaker and you'll have an entirely different beast.  

This is kind of what's happening here - whilst your player has all the qualities you would normally associate with an AP, he also has other defensive qualities.  He has a great work rate, he can mark and tackle, his physical and mental attributes are second to none.  Put all of that together into the AP role and you'll get the lovely passing you'd expect but also a player who will be willing to run all day long to help the collective team effort.

Roles are about more than just the definition - they are also modified by the player used in the role.

Oh and yeh, I also think player ratings could be improved in some areas, but so long as a player is actually doing what I want him to do I don't really mind what his rating is.

[BillHoudini24]

@herne79 Btw thank you for this amazing thread you wrote back in January, about your 4-4-2. It helped me improve my 4-4-2 (that crazy 4-2-4 is no more) and now I'm seeing what I wanted to see in the first place from my team.

I changed a few things in my defence, I made it more balanced all around and the result was great. I'm not scoring as I was with the 4-2-4 which is normal, but after 5 games in the Prem I have the best defence, which would be a joke in the previous years. This might be the year for my Liverpool side. (sound familiar irl )

[Ji-Sung Park]

I have always been a defender of the crossing issue, or at least asked people to have a realistic view on it. For instance, 2 out of 3 goals in the Sunderland-Everton game came from crosses. Just to use an example. Have a look at all the weekend action on goalsarena or similar, there are tons and tons of goals each round from crosses.

There are two or three issues I have that aspect tho, one is that players with low crossing ability can relatively easily cross the ball in and hit their man. Example: yesterday I played an away match against Leipzig. Two times Timo Werner was able to cross the ball, under pressure, to reach the head of Selke. His crossing ability is 11. Both crosses nearly at the touchline. The same can be said of Leverkusen and Bellarabi. Crossing is 12. He will rush towards line and cross like a God for Hernandez to head home. Not saying that this couldn't happen IRL, it absolutely could, once in a while, just not every time I play them. But Germany is unique in that sense on FM, because 17 teams out of 18 use 4-4-x-x variety formation.

The other issues I have are already mentioned, somewhat disorganized fullbacks et al.