Fluid v Structured

[jstu9]

I know there are other factors involved, but are these statements in general basically true?

1. Fluid systems are better for attacking. Structured are better for defending.

2. If I had a fast defense and an ordinary attack it would make sense to play more fluid.

3. If I had a very good attack but ordinary defense it would be better to play structured.

[westy8chimp]

can of worms. id say neither true nor false. depending on your duties and roles. fluid for instance with a deep line will bring midfielders and strikers back as a unit to defend. So in theory should bolster a weak defence. Structured ... you would need to set more defend/support duties on your mids and attackers to force them to help out

I play structured if my midfield has a classic 'break play up' midfielder (bwm/dm/cm(d)) paired with a 'creator' (RPM/REG/AP/DLP) because I would want the team to funnel through the playmaker ... if I had a team where they all had reasonable technical stats and teamwork, work rate... then I'd use fluid.

[Sebas]

Basically, shape modifies two tactical aspects: Compactness and Creative Freedom.

• A more structured mentality will:
  • Make your more attacking and defending duty players deviate from the team mentality you choose, hence reducing compactness.
  • Instruct your players to stick to their instructions by reducing creative freedom.
• A more fluid mentality will:
  • Make your more attacking and defending duty players play along the choosen team mentality, hence increasing compactness.
  • Instruct your players to express themselves more by increasing creative freedom.

Therefore, in general a structured shape is better if you want your team to stick to their instructions and duties, while a more fluid shape is better if you prefer a more homogeneous approach, with players playing in a less rigid mentality structure, encouraging the interchange of positions, while having the freedom to express themselves and deviate away from their instructions. That is not to say that a structured shape is better for defensive or a fluid shape is better for mentality. Both shapes have their pros and cons and you can perfectly create a defensive/fluid or a attacking/structured tactic.

So, with regards to your questions:

1. No as explained above. Although i generally prefer a structured approach when defending as it reduces creative freedom, while encouraging my strikes to play a more attacking game in order to counter more frequently. Compactness can be worked around by choosing the same duties across the line.
2. No. A fluid defense will play higher up than a structured defense (because their mentalities will get closer to your mentality barometer which is the choosen team mentality) but the effect is not that pronounced to make it less viable to slow defenders. Mentality has a much bigger effect on D-Line than shape.
3. Again no. A structured attack will play higher, with less creative freedom altough with a greater amount of risk (because of the mentality increase), while your defense will drop because of the mentality decrease, but thats about it. This statement in particular doesn't make much sense to me tbh.

If you wanna learn more about shape, i HIGHLY recommend O-Zil to the arsenal's recent threads. He has been recreating lots of real life tactics while toying around with the concept of shape and explaining the differences and the effect of that instruction compared to the rest. The Wales's 2016 euro tactic is a favorite of mine and it shows the effects of a counter-attacking tactic on a very structured shape and the value of that instructions when playing with a technically limited squad.

 

[dojoneil]

After lots of reading on the forum, and of course playing the game, and after struggling to get my head around it all, I'm beginning to think that the best way to explain the difference between Structured and Fluid is to say that Structured suits/encourages Specialists, while Fluid suits/encourages Generalists. Obviously there are lots of nuances around creative freedom, risk, duties, compactness, attributes, mentality and so on, but all those terms are confusing if you don't understand the basic premise, so ignoring all of them for a moment, I don't think it's incorrect to say that:

- When playing Highly Structured, Defensive players will concentrate mostly on defending, while attacking players will concentrate mostly on attacking.

- When playing Very Fluid, defensive players will contribute to the attack, while attacking players will contribute to defending.

Perhaps that's the starting point for looking at Mentality and Team Shape. Once I understood this, lots of other things I was struggling with immediately fell into place (see the nuances mentioned above).

[LCFCEaves31]

 

2 hours ago, dojoneil said:

After lots of reading on the forum, and of course playing the game, and after struggling to get my head around it all, I'm beginning to think that the best way to explain the difference between Structured and Fluid is to say that Structured suits/encourages Specialists, while Fluid suits/encourages Generalists. Obviously there are lots of nuances around creative freedom, risk, duties, compactness, attributes, mentality and so on, but all those terms are confusing if you don't understand the basic premise, so ignoring all of them for a moment, I don't think it's incorrect to say that:

- When playing Highly Structured, Defensive players will concentrate mostly on defending, while attacking players will concentrate mostly on attacking.

- When playing Very Fluid, defensive players will contribute to the attack, while attacking players will contribute to defending.

Perhaps that's the starting point for looking at Mentality and Team Shape. Once I understood this, lots of other things I was struggling with immediately fell into place (see the nuances mentioned above).

I am struggling, cannot get my head around this game anymore.

[Fosse]

1 hour ago, LCFCEaves31 said:

 

I am struggling, cannot get my head around this game anymore.

I've never subscribed to that theory personally. However a more structured system means that players are much more likely to do exactly what their instructions tell them to do because they have less creative freedom.

[cns180784]

On 2/10/2017 at 18:39, dojoneil said:

After lots of reading on the forum, and of course playing the game, and after struggling to get my head around it all, I'm beginning to think that the best way to explain the difference between Structured and Fluid is to say that Structured suits/encourages Specialists, while Fluid suits/encourages Generalists. Obviously there are lots of nuances around creative freedom, risk, duties, compactness, attributes, mentality and so on, but all those terms are confusing if you don't understand the basic premise, so ignoring all of them for a moment, I don't think it's incorrect to say that:

- When playing Highly Structured, Defensive players will concentrate mostly on defending, while attacking players will concentrate mostly on attacking.

- When playing Very Fluid, defensive players will contribute to the attack, while attacking players will contribute to defending.

Perhaps that's the starting point for looking at Mentality and Team Shape. Once I understood this, lots of other things I was struggling with immediately fell into place (see the nuances mentioned above).

This is pretty much exactly what i thought these differences in team shape mean, so to me that is clear.

Whats less clear is why would you use more structured over fluid and vice versa? and what about flexible? my theory is if you have a hard working team then a more fluid system would work better. This is the case especially for attacking players as they wont help out with defending if they wont put the work rate in. So if you have a hard working team then great...but what if your defence is in general technically poor? with poor decisions and composure? i wouldnt want them to come forward and contribute to attacks myself...have them stay back and play it simple, no nonsense. So more structured it would be for me in that case but if they have good technical attributes with at least reasonable composure and decisions, coupled with hard working attacking players then very fluid all the way. So i think to state that a more fluid system favours more attacking football i'd agree because naturally it increases the amount of creative freedom at the expense of defensive shape...and when an attack breaks down theres' always the vulnerability of a counter attack with defenders likely to be out of position. For me managing Villa a more fluid shape would only be used when a team is parking the bus with no real pace up front, or its near the end of a game and they're holding on to a result. 

Now if i was managing Barca or Man City i would go very fluid, probably just flexible or fluid against the other big teams.

 

[westy8chimp]

Quote

Now if i was managing Barca or Man City i would go very fluid, probably just flexible or fluid against the other big teams

why?

I would almost certainly go structured (MSN as a an attacking trio that I wouldn't want dropping too deep to defend... playmakers and full backs in support ... cbs and an anchor man who I wouldn't want going forward)

or flexible (because the squads mental strength is good enough to let them choose for themselves given any situation) 

[herne79]

9 hours ago, cns180784 said:

This is pretty much exactly what i thought these differences in team shape mean, so to me that is clear.

Whats less clear is why would you use more structured over fluid and vice versa? and what about flexible? my theory is if you have a hard working team then a more fluid system would work better. This is the case especially for attacking players as they wont help out with defending if they wont put the work rate in. So if you have a hard working team then great...but what if your defence is in general technically poor? with poor decisions and composure? i wouldnt want them to come forward and contribute to attacks myself...have them stay back and play it simple, no nonsense. So more structured it would be for me in that case but if they have good technical attributes with at least reasonable composure and decisions, coupled with hard working attacking players then very fluid all the way. So i think to state that a more fluid system favours more attacking football i'd agree because naturally it increases the amount of creative freedom at the expense of defensive shape...and when an attack breaks down theres' always the vulnerability of a counter attack with defenders likely to be out of position. For me managing Villa a more fluid shape would only be used when a team is parking the bus with no real pace up front, or its near the end of a game and they're holding on to a result. 

Now if i was managing Barca or Man City i would go very fluid, probably just flexible or fluid against the other big teams.

 

The roles and duties you give your players defines their behaviour.  A Wingback (attack) for example is going to get up and down the line to support the attack and help out in defence whether you play Highly Structured or Very Fluid (or anything in between).

Team Shape then modifies that behaviour to encourage (or not) attacking play.  So when you say such things as "but what if your defence is in general technically poor? with poor decisions and composure? i wouldnt want them to come forward and contribute to attacks myself...have them stay back and play it simple, no nonsense" you're talking about player roles and duties, not Team Shape.  If you want a defender (say a Fullback) to stay back and play it simple, give him a defend duty with PIs of less risky passes / shorter passing.  If you want him to get forward a lot and stick crosses into the box, give him an attack duty.

For example - a Fullback (defend) + Highly Structured will primarily focus on his defensive duties.  He'll still get forward on occasion, but that'll be the exception not the rule.  Now switch to Very Fluid and he'll still primarily focus on his defensive duties, but now he'll get forward a little more often.  Just a little though, he won't suddenly turn into an attack minded monster.

Team Shape, Mentality, Team Instructions modify player behaviour.  Roles and Duties are what define that behaviour in the first place.

[James9]

I would recommend you to watch the Bustthenet YouTube channel which is hosted by Rashidi. He explains it all and even has videos you can watch to show you how structured team shapes and fluid shapes work within the game. I would also recommend you sign up to his Patron page and get his book. He goes into to detail on how to play the game. 

[cns180784]

4 hours ago, herne79 said:

The roles and duties you give your players defines their behaviour.  A Wingback (attack) for example is going to get up and down the line to support the attack and help out in defence whether you play Highly Structured or Very Fluid (or anything in between).

Team Shape then modifies that behaviour to encourage (or not) attacking play.  So when you say such things as "but what if your defence is in general technically poor? with poor decisions and composure? i wouldnt want them to come forward and contribute to attacks myself...have them stay back and play it simple, no nonsense" you're talking about player roles and duties, not Team Shape.  If you want a defender (say a Fullback) to stay back and play it simple, give him a defend duty with PIs of less risky passes / shorter passing.  If you want him to get forward a lot and stick crosses into the box, give him an attack duty.

For example - a Fullback (defend) + Highly Structured will primarily focus on his defensive duties.  He'll still get forward on occasion, but that'll be the exception not the rule.  Now switch to Very Fluid and he'll still primarily focus on his defensive duties, but now he'll get forward a little more often.  Just a little though, he won't suddenly turn into an attack minded monster.

Team Shape, Mentality, Team Instructions modify player behaviour.  Roles and Duties are what define that behaviour in the first place.

Thats kind of what i've always thought in regards to roles and duties defining what a player does. It seems to me that player roles and duties (PI's) override team instructions. For example you have say 1-3 players all attempting more risky passes which you have forgot to address after you change your TI's to shorter passing and retain possession. Or say you could remember to change roles or remove PI's for more risky passes but then forget that one or two your players has the "tries killer balls often" trait so this would lead to those players attempting through balls and likely to give the ball away.

Like you say i see now how Team Shape, Mentality and Team Instructions modify player behaviour but in some cases like the one above, roles and duties and/or PI's can override these totally.

[st.cronin]

I have interpreted it this way - structured means that I have more control over how a player behaves. Fluid means he will more often deviate.

That's why wwfans guide limits the specialist roles in fluid setups - because those roles generally have specific instructions i.e. hold up ball, sit wider, move into channels.

[Dr. Hook]

3 hours ago, cns180784 said:

Thats kind of what i've always thought in regards to roles and duties defining what a player does. It seems to me that player roles and duties (PI's) override team instructions. For example you have say 1-3 players all attempting more risky passes which you have forgot to address after you change your TI's to shorter passing and retain possession. Or say you could remember to change roles or remove PI's for more risky passes but then forget that one or two your players has the "tries killer balls often" trait so this would lead to those players attempting through balls and likely to give the ball away.

Like you say i see now how Team Shape, Mentality and Team Instructions modify player behaviour but in some cases like the one above, roles and duties and/or PI's can override these totally.

They stack with each other- so if you have the more risky passes on a player and you put the team on retain possession, that player will have more or less the default risky passes setting .

[Dr. Hook]

2 hours ago, st.cronin said:

I have interpreted it this way - structured means that I have more control over how a player behaves. Fluid means he will more often deviate.

That's why wwfans guide limits the specialist roles in fluid setups - because those roles generally have specific instructions i.e. hold up ball, sit wider, move into channels.

It does mean that in terms of increased creative freedom which would see players try some things they might not otherwise do. However, the main change is that mentalities are altered so that on a fluid setting your defenders are going to take a bit more risk going forward and your attackers a bit less. Structured works the opposite way. The most noticeable change you can see in the match engine is how involved in transitions your attacking and defensive players are. That is basically what shape governs in terms of how your team plays.  Because this is so, it is perfectly fine to use specialist roles in fluid systems- I do it all the time and so do many others. What is most important is to be aware what is changing when you move between fluidity and structure.

[EuanDewar]

I think the amount of threads that get started on a weekly basis about this issue should probably tell SI something

[knap]

The original guides and mentality frameworks are still available.

TacticalTheorems10.pdf

Tactical Theorems and Frameworks09.pdf

[Rashidi]

Shape splits mentality hence risk. Duties work to split mentality and risk too. So an attacking duty tends to get forward and try more things that a support duty won't.

Shape splits mentalities, a structured shape may see players within a team adopt distinct risk profiles, so the attacking duties will tend to try more riskier stuff that includes passing movement etc. So a structured team shape could see more players stick closer to their risk framework.

On more fluid settings everyone is likely to sing the same song. The only differentiation now would be specific roles that have mentality hard coded or duties. A team on a very fluid setting would be like an orchestra playing the same song in different harmonies. While a structured system would be like listening to different orchestras playing different songs.

To assert that a side seeking to play defensive should be on structured is wrong. A side can easily play on fluid too. Structured allows you to exploit space with certain roles and duties.

i think enough has been  written in the guides. It's just that every year people skip the guides and come up with the own logic. 

The AI will change mentality/shape and duties in a game sometimes multiple times. So it's good to understand how shape affects your transitions.

 

[st.cronin]

2 hours ago, Dr. Hook said:

It does mean that in terms of increased creative freedom which would see players try some things they might not otherwise do. However, the main change is that mentalities are altered so that on a fluid setting your defenders are going to take a bit more risk going forward and your attackers a bit less. Structured works the opposite way. The most noticeable change you can see in the match engine is how involved in transitions your attacking and defensive players are. That is basically what shape governs in terms of how your team plays.  Because this is so, it is perfectly fine to use specialist roles in fluid systems- I do it all the time and so do many others. What is most important is to be aware what is changing when you move between fluidity and structure.

 

2 hours ago, Dr. Hook said:

It does mean that in terms of increased creative freedom which would see players try some things they might not otherwise do. However, the main change is that mentalities are altered so that on a fluid setting your defenders are going to take a bit more risk going forward and your attackers a bit less. Structured works the opposite way. The most noticeable change you can see in the match engine is how involved in transitions your attacking and defensive players are. That is basically what shape governs in terms of how your team plays.  Because this is so, it is perfectly fine to use specialist roles in fluid systems- I do it all the time and so do many others. What is most important is to be aware what is changing when you move between fluidity and structure.

Right, I know - I consider that an extension of my interpretation. Defenders defend - they adhere to the role and instructions in a structured setting.  In a fluid setting they are more likely to attack etc. 

[Dr. Hook]

3 minutes ago, st.cronin said:

 

Right, I know - I consider that an extension of my interpretation. Defenders defend - they adhere to the role and instructions in a structured setting.  In a fluid setting they are more likely to attack etc. 

Fair enough, but I was merely disagreeing with the 12 step guide on this point and articulating why I don't feel that you should feel bound to limit the roles you use based solely on shape

[st.cronin]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Hook said:

Fair enough, but I was merely disagreeing with the 12 step guide on this point and articulating why I don't feel that you should feel bound to limit the roles you use based solely on shape

I don't always follow the guide either...

To put my interpretation another way, structured means my guys will adhere to my instructions.  Fluid means they are more likely to respond to game situations. So in fluid too many pis or specialist roles, in theory your tactics could fall apart. Whereas in structured you need to give your players specific instructions...

[Rashidi]

33 minutes ago, st.cronin said:

I don't always follow the guide either...

To put my interpretation another way, structured means my guys will adhere to my instructions.  Fluid means they are more likely to respond to game situations. So in fluid too many pis or specialist roles, in theory your tactics could fall apart. Whereas in structured you need to give your players specific instructions...

You are now pigeon-holing Space. SI have designed it in such a way that you can use different shapes with the same team in the same match. This means that you can respond to in game changes whether you are using structured or a fluid shape. And in both cases you can control how your players perform using the right roles and duties. You seem to think that a team is more likely to adhere to your instructions following structured, what I am saying is that a team playing fluid can do the same thing. Shape affects how a team goes through transitions. The danger for most people is that they seem to think that a defensive system = structured and only good teams can use fluid shapes. That is wrong.  A weak team can use fluid settings as easily as any other team. 

The challenge is spotting how this affects transitions, which is why I keep asking to people to watch fluid teams during failed attacking transitions. If you have the wrong set of  duties you could see a bunch of players all packed an vulnerable to the through ball.   If you were to have 11 players in your team and you set quite a few of them on attack duties and you played very fluid on a high mentality - that combination alone will create in game situations where your team could be all over the place, and they would be slow in coming back for transitions. You could make that worse by playing with a compressed attacking shape (done via an increased dline and with high closing down settings in certain areas). 

I have tactics that are loaded with PIs in nearly every role except for the 2 central defenders and I don't have issues with switching between shapes and mentalities. The influence of roles on transitions is literally insignificant when stacked against Duties. Choose the wrong duties and your tactics will fall apart.

[yonko]

@Rashidi

Am I wrong in thinking that Team Shape is basically like adding layers to your formation in terms of how players participate in transitions? What I mean is this:

Very Structured = 5 layers - defenders, fullbacks, defensive midfielders, attacking midfielders, strikers

Structured = 4 layers - defenders, defensive midfielders (with fullbacks included), attacking midfielders, strikers

Flexible = 3 layers - defend, support, attack based on duties assigned (here where duties make the biggest difference)

Fluid = 2 layers - defenders, attackers (both responsible for help with transition phase)

Very Fluid = 1 layer - everyone participates in all phases of play

[Rashidi]

@yonko You are not entirely wrong when you are thinking about it in terms of transitions. 

Shape affects who participates and that's when we start looking at duties. And you are right duties play a huge role. 

Mentality affects risk, that's the big framework, then you have duties. These are the dots that get involved in transitions. There isn't a specific number and it's entirely dependant on the way people have set their duties up.

For example if I had a FB on Attack on the flan behind a Winger on Attack, during a transition the FB on attack is affected by the Winger because his movement is now "capped" because the winger could be taking his zones. 

Thats why duties work within the whole framework of risk and the way we distribute them in a team.

 

[IvanDimitrov]

Hello, I see in my team - FB attack duty everything is full mentality (green color in player instructions). This is when I play counter with flexibility. My sistem is 4-4-1-1 without DM. With 2 Cm (DLP and BWM) and AMC - CF. I change from flexibility to fluid and see my FB atack duty is green in player instruction on this position. If I change duty from attack to support or defend, mentality is becomes less full then, when my FB is. I change team shape and mentality, but FB everything is ok when duty is attack. If I change to support or defend, then FB is not respond to team mentality and in player instruction I see that.

 

I change all - team shape and mentality, and FB everything is ok, when duty is attack. FB attack. When I change to support or defend, individual mentality on this player no full respond to team shape and mentality.  

 

Please, coment this.

Thanks in advanc.

[craigd84]

And this is why i struggle making highly structured tactics lol give me fluid any day

[sipsi]

On 10.02.2017 at 21:39, dojoneil said:

that Structured suits/encourages Specialists, while Fluid suits/encourages Generalists.

This

[Rashidi]

2 hours ago, sipsi said:

This

What the heck is "this" supposed to mean???? Honestly even that quote is out of date. Once Shape got changed in FM16, everything pre FM16 changed. And that advice was for FM12!!!

[sipsi]

By "This." I meant this is the same idea I'm getting and using for my teams which I find useful. Never failed me yet. Sorry If I hurt your feelings.

[Rashidi]

19 minutes ago, sipsi said:

By "This." I meant this is the same idea I'm getting and using for my teams which I find useful. Never failed me yet. Sorry If I hurt your feelings.

No you didn't hurt my feelings, but leaving posts like that can be extremely annoying on the forums, and don't sit well with moderators. So either do a proper post or don't do one at all. We aren't mind readers after all :-)

[sipsi]

4 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

No you didn't hurt my feelings, but leaving posts like that can be extremely annoying on the forums, and don't sit well with moderators. So either do a proper post or don't do one at all. We aren't mind readers after all :-)

I understand, you're right. I'm also feeling a bit old(close to danny glover old) for this forums lately but trying to catch you guys up with the notion these days. Good day :-) 

[ajsr1982]

The clue really is in the name. Shape. If you think of your formation as a framework of dots or nodes held with bits of string, then how elastic do you want those bonds to be?

However, the important thing to remember is that it's only a tool to adjust the Mentality, Roles and Duties you've set in the first place.

Everyone seems to have their own take on it, but I think there's often an association between a high press and Very Fluid Shape, and it's not something I necessarily agree with. Take Klopp's Gegenpress for example. He's been quoted in several interviews saying that one of the underlying principles of the system is to attack in formation to minimise the defensive transition. To me, that's a Structured or Highly Structured system with careful selection of duties and PIs, which looks a lot like what Rashidi was talking about before. However, Klopp's teams appear to take on a high level of risk to score goals, so it's probably a Control/Attacking Mentality.

The same would go for Sacchi's Milan team, which was founded upon 'everyone remaining within 20 yards of one another.' To me, that's about as structured as you can get, and it would probably involve a lot of Support duties!

Very Fluid Shape would come in more for something like the Netherlands' Total Football teams of the 1970s, who were completely willing to dissolve their shape at any given moment.

That's my take on it anyway.

[westy8chimp]

I'm going to post something extremely annoying here ... as im suggesting a solution rather than providing it... mainly cos im at work when on forum... on FM when at home.

I suggest...

someone create a formation... and using that same formation show the difference with it set on each shape. without changing the formation at all.

then offer some explanation how using that shape they might change the duties accordingly to emphasise or offset their shape decision.

i.e. 442 attacking - very fluid ... I would expect my teams average position with the ball vs without the ball to be equally advanced... so if you joined the dots between the positions ... there would still be fairly obvious banks 442. attack duties would be slightly advanced in the bank and defend duties slightly deeper in the bank.

442 standard - highly structured ... i would expect more peaks and troughs in the with ball vs without ball position defensive bank would still fairly mirror the starting formation... unless i used attack duty where there would be a peak... midfield would be advanced.

below is a disgraceful and hard to understand illustration so an FM analysis would be much better  

blue line is without ball, red line with ball.