[Discussion/Suggestion] Fluid Tactics

[F3NT20]

THE IDEA:
Fluid formations/tactics during matches:
What this means exactly is the idea of an two in-game formations: One formation for when your team is attacking with the ball, and the Second formation for when you're defending without the ball.
There are numerous examples that can be used for this, we see it weekly in the PL.
When teams are defending they often have players behind the ball ... United tend to have a back six at times before looking to hit teams on the counter, Chelsea a back five and again hitting teams on the counter. We also see the other side, where sides like WBA set up in a rigid formation with 10 men behind the 

Obviously this would be a big change and probably have impact wider areas .. One area I would like to see improved on the back of this would be the tactical AI of opposition managers & in particular the transfer targets. Would someone like Mourinho really sign an attacking winger on the game if they dont have the work rate to get back into a defensive position?

I think a new system like this could have transform not only the tactical aspect of the game, but also change the AI's approach to transfers targets.

 

[Cougar2010]

This is in the game and has been for many years.

You can clearly see it when you watch games.

IRL players don't play in two positions, they play in one area & follow instructions.

In FM your defensive shape comes from the formation and defensive instructions while your attacks are shaped by the roles/duties/TIs/PIs.

[F3NT20]

@Cougar2010 i understand that the attacking 'shape' is influenced by the instructions ..... however there are no instructions where we can ask a player to slot into a defensive position when the team are not in possession of the ball.

The best example I can use is Mourinho at United.
On paper, the team lines up in a 4-2-3-1 formation. However, when they are without the ball, they tend to drop into a deep 4-1-4-1 formation (or sometimes a back 6 in certain games)... ready to hit teams on the counter.

The point i was trying to make, is that if i start with a 4-2-3-1 formation on the game, im unable to instruct the players to slot into a 4-1-4-1 formation when i dont have the ball.

Are you suggesting that i should set up with a deep 4-1-4-1 formation as my base formation and use the PIs/TIs to influence a 4-3-3 when attacking? Im not sure thats possible as players will be considered to be out of position and likely to play poorly?
 

[Cougar2010]

3 minutes ago, F3NT20 said:

@Cougar2010 i understand that the attacking 'shape' is influenced by the instructions ..... however there are no instructions where we can ask a player to slot into a defensive position when the team are not in possession of the ball.

The best example I can use is Mourinho at United.
On paper, the team lines up in a 4-2-3-1 formation. However, when they are without the ball, they tend to drop into a deep 4-1-4-1 formation (or sometimes a back 6 in certain games)... ready to hit teams on the counter.

The point i was trying to make, is that if i start with a 4-2-3-1 formation on the game, im unable to instruct the players to slot into a 4-1-4-1 formation when i dont have the ball.

Are you suggesting that i should set up with a deep 4-1-4-1 formation as my base formation and use the PIs/TIs to influence a 4-3-3 when attacking? Im not sure thats possible as players will be considered to be out of position and likely to play poorly?
 

Your formation is your defensive shape so in your example your formation should be 4141 NOT 4231.

The options are there, its up to you to use them.

[F3NT20]

11 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Your formation is your defensive shape so in your example your formation should be 4141 NOT 4231.

The options are there, its up to you to use them.

That makes sense .... so again, using the above example above, signing someone like Hazard wouldnt be a wise choice as he wont suit the 4-1-4-1 formation? Lets say Hazard prefers the Inside Forward role.

In a flat midfield four, there role of Inside Forward is replaced by other roles, thus making Hazard useless in this formation?

I assume thats where the approach to transfers comes in that i was referring to in the original post lol .... 

 

[Cougar2010]

19 minutes ago, F3NT20 said:

That makes sense .... so again, using the above example above, signing someone like Hazard wouldnt be a wise choice as he wont suit the 4-1-4-1 formation? Lets say Hazard prefers the Inside Forward role.

In a flat midfield four, there role of Inside Forward is replaced by other roles, thus making Hazard useless in this formation?

I assume thats where the approach to transfers comes in that i was referring to in the original post lol .... 
 

The difference between ML/MR & AML/AMR has been something of an issue for some users over the last few years.

Part of the problem IMO is that its an area where the defensive & attacking sides of the game meet and its about achieving balance/having realistic expectations.  Players aren't supermen that can't do everything, if they commit more to attacks then the defensive side of their game suffers, if they commit more to defensive then it will blunt their attacks a little.

Most people are very clear about what a ML & MR are and what you expect of them but AML & AMR are a little different.  A player in the AMRL spot will be more offensive but the trade off is they won't track back as early or as frequently when you lose the ball.  For me there are also two distinct types of player who get put into that spot.  Players who are more typically a ML/AML type will tend to be better defensively and track back faster & early.  Compare that to a AML/AMC/ST type of player like Hazard and you'll find they'll be slower to get back & complete their defensive duties.

Both of those are tradeoffs and as the manager you should be aware of the tradeoff and make your own choice as to how to use them within your tactic.

[Preveza]

I dont agree that your starting formation should also be your defensive shape. IRL, many teams transition differently defensively, and some players move into different positions when defending. In FM you CANNOT replicate this. Simple as that. Play a flat 442, and try getting one of the strikers to get back on defence. It wont happen. You would have to play a 4411 perhaps to have the AMC in a better defensive position. I remember following a game in the English championship this season, and during the post match, the manager stated that he wanted one of his strikers (they played FLAT 442) to track back and cover the holes in the midfield and be much more active on defence, and wanted him to track back and play as a midfield when the team defended. YOU CANNOT do this on FM.

[BMNJohn]

This conversation has been had there in some way. I invite to read the entirety of the thread as some good points were made here and there.

I personally and generally agree with the assessment that your on-screen formation should stop being your defensive formation.

[Rashidi]

On 14/07/2017 at 22:50, BMNJohn said:

This conversation has been had there in some way. I invite to read the entirety of the thread as some good points were made here and there.

I personally and generally agree with the assessment that your on-screen formation should stop being your defensive formation.

I stopped using the onscreen tactical grid to tell me what my overall shape is. Instead I use the with and without ball screens, which is a lot more accurate and shows the effects of PI/TI and ppms. 

I think there are tools already in the game that gives you the information we need. We just need to use it.

[BMNJohn]

On 20/07/2017 at 10:40, Rashidi said:

I stopped using the onscreen tactical grid to tell me what my overall shape is. Instead I use the with and without ball screens, which is a lot more accurate and shows the effects of PI/TI and ppms. 

I think there are tools already in the game that gives you the information we need. We just need to use it.

That's not what I was thinking about at all. I was thinking about something more in line with the recent PES games where you can set up an attacking formation and a defensive one very clearly, which isn't something I feel I can do in FM. For example, if I decide to play a 4-2-3-1, I generally want to defend in a 4-4-2 flat or 4-4-2-0 if I'm being really conservative. In FM I'd have to most likely line up a 4-4-2 and probably use one of the two strikers as a Treq, DLF or CF(S), but most likely a F9. Except that I don't feel they operate in the same zone on the offence that an "actual" AMC does on the offence, nor that they behave in a comparable way and you lose access to the AMC roles too. On the other hand, if I line up a 4-4-2-0, I lose access to the other striker roles and have to most likely use at least a SS paired with a creator.

In both cases, I also lose access to the IF, Wide TM or RMD roles too (although a RMD isn't exactly a player you'd make defend very often anyway) since AMR/AML on Attack duties don't defend at all unless they have the right combination of attributes/PPMs... even though I can get the Winger on Attack duty to defend when placed in the WM strata. While you can tweak the WM role to have the same instructions as a IF, I do not feel nor see that they move off the ball like an IF would: diagonally towards the box. You can very well ask them to sit narrower, but then you'd loose the advantage of being able to tell an IF to Stay Wider. So, because I want a player to drop back doesn't mean I want him to stop being a RMD/IF/EG/DLF, which isn't really possible in FM right now.

Guardiola's IWB wasn't really available until the role was "fixed" in 17.1, two years after its introduction in FM15 where the role was pretty much a IF on Support duty that happened to be a WB/FB... something that's ironically very easy to do with the WB(S) role and duty. Sometimes I'd also like to flatten a Diamond when defending, much like Juventus used to do when they played a 4-4-2 Diamond: Vidal IIRC would drop in the midfield from his usual AMC position.

So yes, I do wish that the players would  be able to very clearly and easily use different formations when attacking and defending just like I can when I play PES, which is among the things that were pointed at in the thread that I linked to. It's different than players taking different positions based on their role and duty, which is already possible. I do feel that it would require quite the revamp of the tactic screen and of the tactic system overall of course, so i don't expect to see it anytime soon to be honest. I don't even think the AI would be able to cope with this considering that they're already not exactly that great.

EDIT: Well it was worded better there.

 

[Neil Brock]

Reviewed so locked.