Tactical Theorems and Frameworks '09

[Finknottle]

I've just had a quick shufty at the TT&F guide. Page 13, para; two. It mentions that "a cautious manager can drop the starting mentality [DCs] to five". I assume that that is for the standard mentality? My other query is when lowering settings [defensive] and raising settings [attacking], it does only apply to the outfield players [as it states] and that the GKs mentality remains constant throughout, the three tactic sets? Apologies if this is a daft question. Kind regards.

[crouchaldinho]

I've just had a quick shufty at the TT&F guide. Page 13, para; two. It mentions that "a cautious manager can drop the starting mentality [DCs] to five". I assume that that is for the standard mentality?

Yes, I think that's right.

What is important to remember is that you need to have a minimum of five players on the mentality that you want your team to have in the tactic, e.g. 5 players on attacking if you're aiming to create an attacking tactic. So if you're adjusting DCs, you need to be sure that, when you adjust the rest of the players, that doesn't totally change the overall mentality of your team. I hope that makes sense.

To be honest, I would just stick to the recommended suggestions for now and see how you get on to start with. Once you feel like you've got the hang of it, you can then adjust and play around.

My other query is when lowering settings [defensive] and raising settings [attacking], it does only apply to the outfield players [as it states] and that the GKs mentality remains constant throughout, the three tactic sets? Apologies if this is a daft question. Kind regards.

TT&F recommends altering your GK mentality accordingly.

Hope that helps,

C.

[RossoneriGunner]

One thing I will say when lowering defensive and raising attacking mentalities, is watch out that you dont leave a big gap in midfield and the two struggle to keep in touch with each other.

[jaycar]

I think its meant to be along the lines of, if the defensive unit default is 8, you can lower it by 3 to 5 to be a more cautious manager, but you also have to lower the mentalities of the attacking unit by 3 to 9, otherwise you may start to get gaps.

[vrv]

I am going to sound like an idiot but I need help interpreting one of the framework

The Nike Defence

Manager Type: José Mourinho

Although this mentality structure is basically an adaption of the Rule of One (see page 14), it is ideally suited to those that wish to play the Mourinho way. It is exceedingly control-orientated and specifies more individual mentality settings than any other system. It closely mirrors Mourinho's tactics in two ways. Firstly, it employs an athletic covering DC to support a powerful destroyer in the manner of the Carvalho/Terry Chelsea partnership. Secondly, the MCd sits slightly deeper than he would in the Rule of One, which equates to how Mourinho employed Makélélé. Like all Rule of One tactics, it suits the Mourinho-type manager as it can do well without excessive creative freedom.

GK: 7

DCd: 6

DC: 8

FB: 10

MCd: 9

ML/R: 11

MCa: 12

FCs: 13

So the numbers stand for the amount of ticks on the individual sliders right?

[crouchaldinho]

I am going to sound like an idiot but I need help interpreting one of the framework

So the numbers stand for the amount of ticks on the individual sliders right?

Ticks... well, notches... yes!

Count them in from the left-side. Start out by putting the slider in the far left side. That's '1'. Then every click to the right counts upwards: '2', '3' etc. until you reach 20 at the far right.

C.

[Wayne\'o]

most people rave on about defenders having low CF, when defenders have low cf i find some times they end up just standing htere not knowing what to do, giving htem high CF i notice they will oftern make the decision to come for a header or go in for a tackle?

are you sure Cf only works as an attacking kind of freedome?

[heathxxx]

It can depend a lot on their attributes in fairness though. I've often found at lower levels, give a CD too much CF and you get someone who gives the ball away too much in dangerous places, or leaves his position too often.

Clearly higher quality players with good attributes can handle higer CF.

I am an advocate of low CF with the exception of 2-3 forward players, as I like to run a tight system.

[Hazzydeepy]

I dont understand this at all - the Managerial Type & Mentality Systems and the match strategies. How come in the match strategies wwfan tells us a good mentality for the respective strategy, but when it comes to mentality systems he tells us the individual mentality for each player. Sorry if this doesnt make sense but what Im trying to say is that I dont know if I should now use team mentality (as match strategies indicates) or to use individual player mentalities (as Managerial Type & Mentality Systems indicates). Apart from that this is a truly oustanding guide - fantastic achievment wwfan and co.

[crouchaldinho]

How come in the match strategies wwfan tells us a good mentality for the respective strategy,

That's an example of a recommended average mentality that you could base your mentality system on.

but when it comes to mentality systems he tells us the individual mentality for each player.

That's just an example of how the various mentality systems work individually using the 'standard' approach.

I should now use team mentality (as match strategies indicates) or to use individual player mentalities (as Managerial Type & Mentality Systems indicates). Apart from that this is a truly oustanding guide - fantastic achievment wwfan and co.

Pick the mentality system you want to use and then adjust it according to the suggested average mentality for the match strategy.

Hope that helps!

C.

[DanGLiverpool]

2 hours of my life well spent, now if only double sociology, which is 20 minutes less, was that interesting.

Very well written guide, moulded some tactic out of it, whether I did it good or not is now up to test.

Thanks to everyone who spent a lot of time doing this.

[Hazzydeepy]

So Crouchaldinho - If I am getting you correctly - you are saying that I should pick a mentality system and increase/decrease every players mentality according to match strategy, but still follow the rule. So for example, for the rule of one If I want to attack I should increase the GK's and DC's mentality and increase each position by one accordingly?

[crouchaldinho]

So Crouchaldinho - If I am getting you correctly - you are saying that I should pick a mentality system and increase/decrease every players mentality according to match strategy, but still follow the rule. So for example, for the rule of one If I want to attack I should increase the GK's and DC's mentality and increase each position by one accordingly?

Yes, sounds like you've got it.

Basically, taking the 5x5 'Rafa' theory just because it's easy to explain, your balanced tactic would be: defensive players on 8, attacking ones on 12 (something like that anyway). So then, your attacking one might be: defensive players on 13, attacking players on 17 (for instance). The same rule applies, you're just moving up in your overall 'average mentality. So the average mentality of the balanced is 10 and the average mentality of the attack in this example is 15.

So, choose your mentality framework and then apply the same idea.

Does that help? Bit hard to explain without sounding too technical.

C.

[Wayne\'o]

Yes, sounds like you've got it.

Basically, taking the 5x5 'Rafa' theory just because it's easy to explain, your balanced tactic would be: defensive players on 8, attacking ones on 12 (something like that anyway). So then, your attacking one might be: defensive players on 13, attacking players on 17 (for instance). The same rule applies, you're just moving up in your overall 'average mentality. So the average mentality of the balanced is 10 and the average mentality of the attack in this example is 15.

So, choose your mentality framework and then apply the same idea.

Does that help? Bit hard to explain without sounding too technical.

C.

what would the CF be in this instance?

[crouchaldinho]

what would the CF be in this instance?

Well, broadly speaking, more CF for attacking and less CF for defensive.

C.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

An example of why I love this thread:

I have created around this T&TF a 442 tactic set. here is my experience from last night:

As St Etienne, home to Marseille in Ligue 1 of France, the odds are slightly against me but we are in fine form. Knowing they would come at me either 4411 or 451, I decide to stick with my usual wwfans Standard 442 (I think I set all the tactic set up as Nike defence).

They are set up as 4231, with 3 AM's (I hate that, it feels like they have 5 in midfield AND 4 in attack at all times!. The game is scrappy early on, I have slightly less of the possession but both teams nearly score from Keystone Cops goalmouth scrambles. Their midfield is not overwhelming mine as I feared. I feel I may need to go defensive (NB. Closing down a previous cup tie with 442 Defensive I noticed that I actually started to tear apart an attiackng opposition, Defence quite literally becomes the best form of Attack!) then I score mid 1st half. I give it 5 mins and really am not comfortable with the way the play is going so I switch to 442 Defensive (wwfans inspired of course). This looks better but Marseille equalise, around the same time they change formation to a 442 diamond (I think they may have changed just after their equalliser, hopefully in response to my change of tactics rather than as a reaction to their goal - I was hoping to make them change things!). Up until now I had 1 DC man marking their lone SC and the other DC zonal marking, watching breaks from the 3 AMC's & generally helping out. As I am defensive and they are now more conventional I feel I have the upper hand, naturally I man mark their 2 SC's with my 2 DC's.

The 2nd half swings wildly in my favour, I score 2 goals and have another disallowed right near the end. Won 3-1

To sum up, my 442 tactic set based on wwfans T&TF really gives me a feeling of control. Probably the 1st time ever in the FM series that I could envisage what I needed to do and then tinker efffectively knowing that the stability of the tactics & formation would give me a platform to seize the initiative.

[Hazzydeepy]

Thanks a lot crouchaldinho - I think I understand now.

[Death.]

Is it just me or does the download for the crib sheet not work?

It just comes up with a page saying "Not Found".

[heathxxx]

Oh dear... I've gone wandering again

My biggest problem these days is not any particular settings, not any particular formations (though I rarely use the standard 4-4-2), not any particular "mentality".

My problem is now deciding on a "favorite" system as I used to do. Through the use of TT&F over the years, I've managed to adapt things and come up with such a wide variety of systems that all work very well for different levels of teams, I now have the problem of being very undecided which I actually "prefer". Hence why I've gone "wandering"

I don't think it will be long before the game starts calling me "Tinkerman" and my "Tactical Consistancy" attribute drops below 10.

The strangest aspect of this most recent dilemma is that in the current save I'm playing, I'm not encountering any particular problems regards to changes in formations affecting overall team performance. This has often been something that many, including myself, have staunchly suggested not to do. Past experienced has pointed at regular formation changing confusing your team. Most often, it's been thought that changing formation often is a big "no", but changing settings within a formation is "safe".

Anyone else tinker with formations without problems?

[crouchaldinho]

heathxxx - totally subjective opinion of course, but I'm sure changing formations has had an effect on my team's performances in the past. There is an in-game hint that warns against changing systems all of the time.

Could it be that you have a highly adaptable group of players now who are able to cope with your tinkering?

C.

[heathxxx]

Crouchaldinho - yeah, that hint has been around for the past few releases. It's only really in FM09 that I've mixed formations in the same save though.

One possibility I suppose is that the game might see some of the variations I'm using as a generalisation of one formation. For example, I have used lots of different "shapes" that could arguably be called 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 "variants".

Not so sure about a "highly adaptable group of players" with regards to their overall quality given I'm currently managing Altrincham in the BSP, though I do always look for players who can play multiple positions. The main reason for this is that I can maintain a smaller squad given club finances, rather than have the "ideal" of a 1st 11 and a 2nd 11 as cover. A good example here is that I have a defender who is "Natural" in DL & DR and "Accomplished" as a DC. I also have midfielders who are at least "Accomplished" in positions other than those they're "Natural".

Those multiple player positions could of course explain a lot, but I'm still not so sure. It just seems that what before was quite a dodgy approach, now seems less so.

[Rashidi]

heathxxx - totally subjective opinion of course, but I'm sure changing formations has had an effect on my team's performances in the past. There is an in-game hint that warns against changing systems all of the time.

Could it be that you have a highly adaptable group of players now who are able to cope with your tinkering?

C.

I don't believe that changing formations a lot has an adverse effect on the game. For one thing you get the achievement of being called a "Tinkerman" and hard to read. It all depends on whether the tactics have been set up right. I remember pre 9.03 I got newcastle to finish 2nd and they kept changing tactics almost every game.

[Wayne\'o]

i think changing formations is only bad if that means you are constantley changing the playing personel in that starting 11, i think squad rotation is needed more in 9.0.3 because of fitness drops..

Bit when you have players that can be adapdable and have more than 1 playing possition i dont think a different system would be that bad, allthough if you look at the English National team, they can't play any thing other than a 4-4-2 it recent times..

Quick question. if you play a 4-5-1 on a pitch that your scout has said "the pitch is on the small side, we will need to sit deep and player's in midfeild will need to work hard to find space"

if it's a flat 5 in midfield, would playing as wide as possible be better or playing narrow? wouldn't narrow just pack the midfield area and make it more harder to find space? also playing on a small pitch, would a higher rate of CF be of benifit so these creative players can find more space? as it refers, players will have to work harder, is that in workrate stat or closing down via the tactical instruction?

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

An example of why I love this thread:

I have created around this T&TF a 442 tactic set. here is my experience from last night:

As St Etienne, home to Marseille in Ligue 1 of France, the odds are slightly against me but we are in fine form. Knowing they would come at me either 4411 or 451, I decide to stick with my usual wwfans Standard 442 (I think I set all the tactic set up as Nike defence).

They are set up as 4231, with 3 AM's (I hate that, it feels like they have 5 in midfield AND 4 in attack at all times!. The game is scrappy early on, I have slightly less of the possession but both teams nearly score from Keystone Cops goalmouth scrambles. Their midfield is not overwhelming mine as I feared. I feel I may need to go defensive (NB. Closing down a previous cup tie with 442 Defensive I noticed that I actually started to tear apart an attiackng opposition, Defence quite literally becomes the best form of Attack!) then I score mid 1st half. I give it 5 mins and really am not comfortable with the way the play is going so I switch to 442 Defensive (wwfans inspired of course). This looks better but Marseille equalise, around the same time they change formation to a 442 diamond (I think they may have changed just after their equalliser, hopefully in response to my change of tactics rather than as a reaction to their goal - I was hoping to make them change things!). Up until now I had 1 DC man marking their lone SC and the other DC zonal marking, watching breaks from the 3 AMC's & generally helping out. As I am defensive and they are now more conventional I feel I have the upper hand, naturally I man mark their 2 SC's with my 2 DC's.

The 2nd half swings wildly in my favour, I score 2 goals and have another disallowed right near the end. Won 3-1

To sum up, my 442 tactic set based on wwfans T&TF really gives me a feeling of control. Probably the 1st time ever in the FM series that I could envisage what I needed to do and then tinker efffectively knowing that the stability of the tactics & formation would give me a platform to seize the initiative.

More reasons to love this thread & the game, this time whilst being disappointed!

Im St Etienne, Away (UEFA 2nd leg)vs Racing Santander. Won 1st (home) leg 4-2, was 3 up in 20 mins they fought back 2 goals then I scored with the last kick.

So thinking about the 2nd leg, as scout reports highlighted, I was vulnerable to conceding the 2 goals they required, especially to a team that had previously put 2 past my otherwise tight defence. My quandry was should I go 442 Defensive of 442 Standard (wwfans). I chose standard. I have to add that the default Ass Man team talk was to say nothing, I had to change this to "Good Luck" - maybe a mistake?

I conceded mid 1st half so switched to 442 defensive. I looked a little tighter & created more chances but conceded again mid 2nd half - it was always coming!. So I switched to 442 attacking and after next to no time went 424 (wwfans 442 attacking but with the wingers playing FR/L. No avail, lost 2-0. dumped out on AGR.

It was always a chance this would happen and I felt like Racing Santander had done a number on us but still loved the game! Not sure that would have happened in previous FM games. WWFAN, I am keeping the faith!

[crouchaldinho]

I don't believe that changing formations a lot has an adverse effect on the game. For one thing you get the achievement of being called a "Tinkerman" and hard to read. It all depends on whether the tactics have been set up right. I remember pre 9.03 I got newcastle to finish 2nd and they kept changing tactics almost every game.

You could well be right Rashidi1. On my latest season in FM09, I spent a lot of time switching between formations (correctly set up variants of 4-4-2). It isn't that I lost any matches but it did seem to me that the performances were slightly better when I had decided to implement just one of the formations permanently.

For instance, during my run of results when I was switching formation all of the time, I found I was conceding goals more often and rarely keeping clean sheets. When I decided to switch to one formation permanently, I was suddenly keeping clean sheets. The actual results achieved didn't vary that much, just the quality of performances and the defensive stability.

I'm working with a bunch of young players in BSS. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a difference between changing formations regularly with them and doing it with a Premier League team like Newcastle.

Of course, it's all very subjective and doesn't prove anything at all. But this was my general feeling.

C.

[Flek]

I have a doubt maybe not entirely related to tactic, but more with player ratings. Taking as example the Ajax's winger Leonardo, who was wonderfull technical skills, and some key mentality stats, but he has a very low Work Rate. What can you expect from such a player? If he is played down the wing maybe he won't create much chances for others, because he doesn't "work" that much. Can we expect him to have a regular high performance level?

How can we tacticaly take the most out of these kind of lazy players?

[Wayne\'o]

I have a doubt maybe not entirely related to tactic, but more with player ratings. Taking as example the Ajax's winger Leonardo, who was wonderfull technical skills, and some key mentality stats, but he has a very low Work Rate. What can you expect from such a player? If he is played down the wing maybe he won't create much chances for others, because he doesn't "work" that much. Can we expect him to have a regular high performance level?

How can we tacticaly take the most out of these kind of lazy players?

only thing i can think of would be to give him high CF with free role and low closing down, basicly he would have to be your main creative player all be it on the right wing, no point telling a lazy player to go close down players and work hard, cos he just wont bring it off. you may have to sacrifice CF for other players in your team to enable him to be lazy, but i assume you want him to be creative?

[Hazzydeepy]

I seem to be having a problem with Bolton. My attack and Midfield is fine and I am scoring more than goals. But I seem to conceding far too many. I am playing a basic 4-4-2 and have decided to adopt the rule of one match strategy which gives me a lot of possession, chances but lots of mistakes at the back as well. Can anyone suggest anything which will help me with Bolton such as marking, defensive line, closing down, tempo , different mentality system etc. or a combination of these things which will help me to stop leaking goals. Its very frustrating as I have got the attacking side going well but my defensive side is not going well at all. Thanks in advance.

[heathxxx]

You could well be right Rashidi1. On my latest season in FM09, I spent a lot of time switching between formations (correctly set up variants of 4-4-2). It isn't that I lost any matches but it did seem to me that the performances were slightly better when I had decided to implement just one of the formations permanently.

For instance, during my run of results when I was switching formation all of the time, I found I was conceding goals more often and rarely keeping clean sheets. When I decided to switch to one formation permanently, I was suddenly keeping clean sheets. The actual results achieved didn't vary that much, just the quality of performances and the defensive stability.

I'm working with a bunch of young players in BSS. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a difference between changing formations regularly with them and doing it with a Premier League team like Newcastle.

Of course, it's all very subjective and doesn't prove anything at all. But this was my general feeling.

C.

Well, my next dilemma is if it's worth me posting a new thread on my approach and my tactics.

The team I'm working with at the moment is Altrincham in the BSP (Predicted to finish in the relegation zone). At the start of the season I raided French amateur clubs for players, to get those with reasonable enough attributes to work well at this level with my tactics. Many from my coach reports are "League 1" or "League 2" standard, which clearly helps, but my season so far has been phenomenal to say the least and it's not like I've landed a bunch of quality Premiership rejects or anything.

League - So Far

P:32 W:32 D:0 L:0 F:76 A:6 GD:+70 Pts:96

FA Cup

4th Qualifying vs. Buxton (lower non-league) (A) W2-1

1st Round vs. Scunthorpe (League 1) (A) D2-2 Replay (H) W2-1

2nd Round vs. Darlington (League 2) (H) W1-0

3rd Round vs. Colchester (League 1) (A) D1-1 Replay (H) W2-0

4th Round vs. Arsenal (Premier) (H) L4-1

Note: in the games against Scunthorpe and Colchester, away from home, we were losing at half-time. Some choice words and subtle changes made a big difference. Against Arsenal, the team played very well and created a few chances, but the gulf in quality was there for all to see! Not a bad result considering that "big 4" had beaten League 1 or lower teams by more than 6 goals in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

Other Cups Summary

Conference League Cup - In Final, yet to play.

FA Trophy - 4th Round (QF), yet to play.

As you can see, in the league & cups my team has been remarkable.

Much of this is down to my attention to detail and my "tinkering" (I've had the game about two or three weeks now, playing this save, to give you an idea of how long my games can take! ) The core of my "system" works on the themes of a defensive unit along the lines of RoO and a support and attack along the lines of Bo2. I like "working" with merged or "hybrid" systems that might not look good on paper, but do get results. Think of it as a Hillman Imp with a Porche engine strapped in the back.

At the moment I'm not sure if I should do a the thread with my tactical approach as I was planning this weekend, because inevitably it will get the usual "great - it's worked wonders" or "it's poo, my team lost every game!" responses, because people generally don't read the additional info about my approach and just download the tactic. I guess I take more time with the game than many, who just want an "instant success - press here for the download" approach. That said, I'm always looking for something that can do almost that, but nothing that works as well as my tactics + my approach to the game.

The thing is, my approach is nothing "magical". Just plain common sense. If something needs changing before or during a game, I change it, along with the players in my 1st 11 to suit those changes. I'm not an FM "Guru", though I've always done well because of my general footballing knowledge, translating "real" tactical ideas into "FM" ideas by understanding how to work with the game's tactical settings. Frustrating and as limited as the psychological part of the game is, I can work with it effectively enough.

I think I'll play another season or two with this save before I do post anything "definitive".

[jch]

Huge fan of this thread and thanks very much to all involved. Brilliant read and has transformed understanding and enjoyment of game!

Some people obviously have a lot of experience of setting up their own tactics and thus instinctively know what attributes relate to what individual instructions and I would be grateful for info relating to this. I totally understand the mentality side of things and how the team sliders operate what I cant seem to get from this thread and others is how to get the best out of my individual players based on their strong attributes and how that relates to their invidual sliders.

The obvious ones such as strong players (in the correct positions ie mcd or fcd) hold up ball, good dribblers on right mentalities RWB etc, flair and decisions for increased cf, stamina and fitness relating to closing down,long shots, pace etc are often mentioned but are there other essential ones that I am missing? I read on many forums phrases such "tweak tactics to suit your players strenghts" but then just as often there is no dedicated elaboration as to how to do this or the combos are so numerous its confusing. I experiment a lot on this but it is clear that there are many experienced tactic builders around who totally can match attributes to individual instructions and i would be grateful for a steer to main ones i should be concentrating on. Although I do understand that the combos are too niumerous to list all of them. I do think these correlations are mention in various threads but either this is going over my head when reading these threads or i have yet to see a detailed thread listing each player attribute and how that is best brought out in the individual!I suppose there is a danger of muddying the waters with too much varied instruction.

I enjoy setting up the mentality frameworks and building tactics around them but I feel i dont have the understanding as to how to pick out individuals strenghths and relate them to instructions.

What are the attributes that translate the best into individual instructions?

I am close,with the help of great threads like this ,to building my own robust tactics but still feel i need a steer on bringing the best out of players based on attributes and instructions.

Great job!!!

[Hazzydeepy]

Can anyone help me with my Bolton problem - the post is a few posts up ^^^^^^. I will be grateful for any help, thanks.

[Rashidi]

You could well be right Rashidi1. On my latest season in FM09, I spent a lot of time switching between formations (correctly set up variants of 4-4-2). It isn't that I lost any matches but it did seem to me that the performances were slightly better when I had decided to implement just one of the formations permanently.

For instance, during my run of results when I was switching formation all of the time, I found I was conceding goals more often and rarely keeping clean sheets. When I decided to switch to one formation permanently, I was suddenly keeping clean sheets. The actual results achieved didn't vary that much, just the quality of performances and the defensive stability.

I'm working with a bunch of young players in BSS. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a difference between changing formations regularly with them and doing it with a Premier League team like Newcastle.

Of course, it's all very subjective and doesn't prove anything at all. But this was my general feeling.

C.

I have never believed in the adage that you have to stick to one formation. While its better to stick to one cos your players become better over time playing it, it isn't as good when you find yourself stuck in a situation where you are playing with a team that has managed to block your route to goal. Its time's like this when you need to start thinking out of the box, and this is where you need to have the skill and knowledge to make various kinds of formations.

If you find that you are playing a match where you are faced with a team which is playing a game that is exclusively wing-attack, you may find that your best route to goal could be via a 4231 formation, where you leave the 6 at the back to contend with the flank attacks and concentrate through his middle.

Most people start a game looking for the best players for their particular formation, but few consider having 3 different kinds of formation for different kinds of games. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your formation, but there is something amiss when you become too stubborn to change when facing an intractable foe.

[wez007]

Great read guys.

One question I have though, how much of this applies to FML? I have implemented a slighty altered nike defence into a 433/541 attacking formation and its proved so much more solid. Im ranked 7th in my GW with an average squad of work horses.

I just dont see a lot of mention to FML when implementing the TTF, I was wondering how much certain elements were affected when you compare the FML ME to the FM ME. To me personally it seems somewhat differant.

Just wondered what your take on this is?

[RossoneriGunner]

Can anyone help me with my Bolton problem - the post is a few posts up ^^^^^^. I will be grateful for any help, thanks.

Everything you want to know can be found in TT&F '09. Either read it online or download it, print it out and use it as a reference guide.

[crouchaldinho]

I have never believed in the adage that you have to stick to one formation.

I don't believe in that either Rashidi and that's not what I said. Top sides switch formations with great regularity.

However, it is less rare to find teams changing formations in real life at the lower levels. That's all I was saying and I was just wondering if that is reflected in the game is some way.

While its better to stick to one cos your players become better over time playing it,

Yes, this is basically what I was trying to say. I feel as though with the non-League team I am managing, I am more consistent sticking with one simple formation.

Most people start a game looking for the best players for their particular formation, but few consider having 3 different kinds of formation for different kinds of games. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your formation, but there is something amiss when you become too stubborn to change when facing an intractable foe.

I understand what you are saying and I do sometimes change shape during games when I'm looking for a goal or attempting to be more defensive, so I am not too stubborn to change. However, I would also argue that you can change the shape of your team, rather than the formation, by using different combinations of mentality and forward runs. In this respect there is a lot of difference between the shape of my defensive 4-4-2 and my attacking one.

I'm certainly not preaching that switching formations is totally wrong and you shouldn't do it. It is just my general feeling that I have achieved better consistency by sticking with my current formation, rather than switching week in, week out. As you say, perhaps this is because my players have become better with more time playing it.

C.

[heathxxx]

I enjoy setting up the mentality frameworks and building tactics around them but I feel i dont have the understanding as to how to pick out individuals strenghths and relate them to instructions.

What are the attributes that translate the best into individual instructions?

I am close,with the help of great threads like this ,to building my own robust tactics but still feel i need a steer on bringing the best out of players based on attributes and instructions.

It's always subject to opinion, but I think there's a guide on the forums here somewhere that has guidelines for "key" attributes to look out for when assigning players to a position or role.

This is something I marry together with tactics very well, as I'm more inclined to build teams around my tactics, rather than the reverse.

Through such an approach, I believe it's possible to over-acheive with a squad of quite average players, but players who are more or less ideally suited to your chosen tactics, positions and roles in the system.

Perhaps one of the other posters or mods can point you in the right direction for such a "what key attributes suggested for what position" guide. I'm still getting my head around the forum changes, such as posting of images etc... that used to be a lot easier with the old "buttons"

[higgins]

I have never believed in the adage that you have to stick to one formation. While its better to stick to one cos your players become better over time playing it, it isn't as good when you find yourself stuck in a situation where you are playing with a team that has managed to block your route to goal. Its time's like this when you need to start thinking out of the box, and this is where you need to have the skill and knowledge to make various kinds of formations.

If you find that you are playing a match where you are faced with a team which is playing a game that is exclusively wing-attack, you may find that your best route to goal could be via a 4231 formation, where you leave the 6 at the back to contend with the flank attacks and concentrate through his middle.

Most people start a game looking for the best players for their particular formation, but few consider having 3 different kinds of formation for different kinds of games. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your formation, but there is something amiss when you become too stubborn to change when facing an intractable foe.

I know that this could work well, but I think that you could adapt your tactic well to your opponent style of play without altering the shape of it, but just tweaking the tactic using your team settings panel.

Your approach could be useful managing large team with lots of different players to cover every position on the pitch, but if, for example, I'm using a tactic without a dmc and I don't have any in my team, it could be not so productive change to a 4231 formation.

Doing so I should play 2 players out of position, not advisable imo.

[heathxxx]

I know that this could work well, but I think that you could adapt your tactic well to your opponent style of play without altering the shape of it, but just tweaking the tactic using your team settings panel.

Your approach could be useful managing large team with lots of different players to cover every position on the pitch, but if, for example, I'm using a tactic without a dmc and I don't have any in my team, it could be not so productive change to a 4231 formation.

Doing so I should play 2 players out of position, not advisable imo.

It's easier to change formations around if you have players who are at least "Accomplished" if not "Natural" in a number of positions. For example, based on DMC's, I signed two players in my squad who were "Natural" at MC, but also "Accomplished" as DMC´s.

I play one of my MC´s with a barrow or Forward Runs "Rarely" (same thing now), so that effectively when my opponents have the ball, he's dropping deep and moving more into the DMC position. It's my belief that having players that are "Natural" or "Accomplished" in positions relating to where they are instructed to move on the pitch, helps greatly with tactical flexibility.

It's one of the reasons I build my teams around my tactics and not the reverse. I look for players who can fill a specific role and have suitable attributes as well as the positional abilities.

Recently for example, because I use an AMC, AML, AMR line behind my striker, I try to sign players who can play in all three positions and as a bonus, are "Either" footed (or fairly strong in the weaker foot). This affords me the possibility of adding "Swap Position with..." to all three positions. If the striker can play other roles too, I've hit the jackpot, because I can emulate effectively the forward approach of Man Utd, even with my humble Altrincham team

Something as flexible as this is extremely difficult for the AI defenders to mark effectively and has been an approach I've used for most of the previous FM releases before FM09.

Signing flexible players is very important to the way I approach tactics and tactical "flexibility". I've even found that I can sign pretty average players, but ones who suit the roles I have in mind for them well, and over-acheive with them.

[higgins]

It's easier to change formations around if you have players who are at least "Accomplished" if not "Natural" in a number of positions. For example, based on DMC's, I signed two players in my squad who were "Natural" at MC, but also "Accomplished" as DMC´s.

I play one of my MC´s with a barrow or Forward Runs "Rarely" (same thing now), so that effectively when my opponents have the ball, he's dropping deep and moving more into the DMC position. It's my belief that having players that are "Natural" or "Accomplished" in positions relating to where they are instructed to move on the pitch, helps greatly with tactical flexibility.

It's one of the reasons I build my teams around my tactics and not the reverse. I look for players who can fill a specific role and have suitable attributes as well as the positional abilities.

Recently for example, because I use an AMC, AML, AMR line behind my striker, I try to sign players who can play in all three positions and as a bonus, are "Either" footed (or fairly strong in the weaker foot). This affords me the possibility of adding "Swap Position with..." to all three positions. If the striker can play other roles too, I've hit the jackpot, because I can emulate effectively the forward approach of Man Utd, even with my humble Altrincham team

Something as flexible as this is extremely difficult for the AI defenders to mark effectively and has been an approach I've used for most of the previous FM releases before FM09.

Signing flexible players is very important to the way I approach tactics and tactical "flexibility". I've even found that I can sign pretty average players, but ones who suit the roles I have in mind for them well, and over-acheive with them.

Agree, flexibility add great value to your players and could help you if you have banned or injured players, notably for smaller teams.

It's only a personal choice, I don't like changing the shape of my team, as I don't like tactic sets (a tactic when it's raining, one when the sun is shining, one for short pitch, one when your Ass. manager got a headache and so on...), I prefer tweaking my usual shape altering the needed settings.

[heathxxx]

I also am not a fan of "sets" for tactics. I find most changes can be made simply and effectively from the "base" tactic I use, be they to the shape (formation) or to the mentalities.

"Utility" or "multiple position" players are especially invaluable at smaller clubs with smaller squads, but are also very handy at any level. Good old John O'Shea springs to mind

[higgins]

I also am not a fan of "sets" for tactics. I find most changes can be made simply and effectively from the "base" tactic I use, be they to the shape (formation) or to the mentalities.

"Utility" or "multiple position" players are especially invaluable at smaller clubs with smaller squads, but are also very handy at any level. Good old John O'Shea springs to mind

I think we use similar approaches, we think about a tactic and then look for the players that could fit well the tactic we created.

This approach let you be much more creative than any others, that's why I like it.

[heathxxx]

It's also difficult to try and translate it to other people though, as I'm trying to do in a draft I'm writing up at the moment that I hope to post tomorrow.

There's no specific concrete cast way of playing the game and there's no guarentee what will work for one person, will work for another. I just know that when I post my tactic and approach, most people will just download the base tactic and then probably say it doesn't work for them, does work for them but....

That's what always makes me laugh when I see topics containing words like "Wonder", "Brilliant", "Unbeatable", in the title. They're usually the ones with the most hits.

If what I post helps just a couple of people enhance their game experience by looking at things with a more open mind, I'll be happy.

[crouchaldinho]

It's also difficult to try and translate it to other people though, as I'm trying to do in a draft I'm writing up at the moment that I hope to post tomorrow.

There's no specific concrete cast way of playing the game and there's no guarentee what will work for one person, will work for another. I just know that when I post my tactic and approach, most people will just download the base tactic and then probably say it doesn't work for them, does work for them but....

That's what always makes me laugh when I see topics containing words like "Wonder", "Brilliant", "Unbeatable", in the title. They're usually the ones with the most hits.

If what I post helps just a couple of people enhance their game experience by looking at things with a more open mind, I'll be happy.

heathxxx - be prepared for a whole bunch of people to come in to your thread and say 'this doesn't work at all for me' despite the fact that they haven't really read your post properly and they haven't even followed your instructions. Furthermore, they will have played only one game, probably against Manchester United away, and lost. They will realise that your tactic is not the miracle worker they were seeking and they will be off, not before telling you that you've got it all wrong!

Also expect people to come in and argue with you about the way you have set up your tactic. They will normally have very confused notions about the different tactical choices but will write to you as though you are an idiot using plenty of exclamation marks, like this!!!!!!!

'Tight marking is bad on this game!!!!!' 'If you don't close down heavily you will leave gaps in your team!!!!!'

Of course, you get one or two people who really try and when it works well for them it is really pleasing.

Good luck with your thread and I will read it will interest.

C.

[mista T]

Too right Crouch, and I know who you are referring to

[higgins]

It's also difficult to try and translate it to other people though, as I'm trying to do in a draft I'm writing up at the moment that I hope to post tomorrow.

There's no specific concrete cast way of playing the game and there's no guarentee what will work for one person, will work for another. I just know that when I post my tactic and approach, most people will just download the base tactic and then probably say it doesn't work for them, does work for them but....

That's what always makes me laugh when I see topics containing words like "Wonder", "Brilliant", "Unbeatable", in the title. They're usually the ones with the most hits.

If what I post helps just a couple of people enhance their game experience by looking at things with a more open mind, I'll be happy.

True, if I can give you an advice (but probably you're more experienced than me) don't upload your tactic, at least not when you start your thread, begins a tactical discussion so you will have the opportunity to test it properly, letting other people getting used to your style of play, you will have less but probably better followers.

Otherwise you will have to cope with many people that will say, after 3 matches played with some crappy players, "Sorry but your tactic doesn't work"!!

[higgins]

heathxxx - be prepared for a whole bunch of people to come in to your thread and say 'this doesn't work at all for me' despite the fact that they haven't really read your post properly and they haven't even followed your instructions. Furthermore, they will have played only one game, probably against Manchester United away, and lost. They will realise that your tactic is not the miracle worker they were seeking and they will be off, not before telling you that you've got it all wrong!

Also expect people to come in and argue with you about the way you have set up your tactic. They will normally have very confused notions about the different tactical choices but will write to you as though you are an idiot using plenty of exclamation marks, like this!!!!!!!

'Tight marking is bad on this game!!!!!' 'If you don't close down heavily you will leave gaps in your team!!!!!'

Of course, you get one or two people who really try and when it works well for them it is really pleasing.

Good luck with your thread and I will read it will interest.

C.

Ehi lads, I had a great idea, we could open "the tactical builders moaning thread", it could be a huge success.

[heathxxx]

Heh, I worked with a few threads of my own and with a couple of other's tactics for FM08, so remember the different things you've all mentioned well.

Although I've made a link on another thread for the actual base tactic, I'm probably more likely to do the opening post about the overall "approach" I use, but will obviously refer to the tactic and why I've used it.

To be honest, I'm not worried about the feedback, but am more interested to get the cogs turning in people's heads. What's worked for me has worked for me and if others can learn from my thoughts, then great. I'm not concerned about how many people decide to view or use my approach, but to create a point of discussion and something that people can work with.

The age of the Uber-Tactic died a number of releases ago and although people have found ways to exploit the match engine in various minor ways, there's nothing like the "Diablo" tactic that exploited the match engine of the time in every way possible and with any team. I used it at the time for a short while but soon became bored of the "novelty" that it was. "Wow... I've just beaten Man Utd 18-0 with Macclesfield Town!!".

Anyway, I'm still working on the draft, so you'll have to bear with me. I think that alone will bore the life out of people who want to just download a "miracle" tactic.

[ALH]

It's also difficult to try and translate it to other people though, as I'm trying to do in a draft I'm writing up at the moment that I hope to post tomorrow.

There's no specific concrete cast way of playing the game and there's no guarentee what will work for one person, will work for another. I just know that when I post my tactic and approach, most people will just download the base tactic and then probably say it doesn't work for them, does work for them but....

That's what always makes me laugh when I see topics containing words like "Wonder", "Brilliant", "Unbeatable", in the title. They're usually the ones with the most hits.

If what I post helps just a couple of people enhance their game experience by looking at things with a more open mind, I'll be happy.

Well Heath, I have to be the first to thank you. Happened by chance to come across your tactic posted above the other day as I was looking for ideas to improve my Llangefni squad. I was already overachieving in the welsh league and had qualified for UEFA cup second time.

Gave your tactic unchanged a go, and wow....my lower league club are playing fantastic. We reached 3 rounds in in the UEFA cup (unheard of) and earned nearly 700,000....which is a fortune in the welsh league (think BSN/BSS!).

I tweak the long shots on one or two players who cant quite fit it....but the players are playing fantasic football, especially as my average age is 19 and my oldest player is 22.

I like your approach and philosophy. As a 25 year FM veteran (thats not my age...thats the years Ive been playing FM/CM...was it really 1983 when I played the first one??!). Thanks for teaching an old dog one or two new tricks

[vasilli07]

Anyone can give me some advice on what settings i can give to Robbie Keane? Poacher? Advanced playmaker? I already given Defoe the poacher settings.

[heathxxx]

Well Heath, I have to be the first to thank you. Happened by chance to come across your tactic posted above the other day as I was looking for ideas to improve my Llangefni squad. I was already overachieving in the welsh league and had qualified for UEFA cup second time.

Gave your tactic unchanged a go, and wow....my lower league club are playing fantastic. We reached 3 rounds in in the UEFA cup (unheard of) and earned nearly 700,000....which is a fortune in the welsh league (think BSN/BSS!).

I tweak the long shots on one or two players who cant quite fit it....but the players are playing fantasic football, especially as my average age is 19 and my oldest player is 22.

I like your approach and philosophy. As a 25 year FM veteran (thats not my age...thats the years Ive been playing FM/CM...was it really 1983 when I played the first one??!). Thanks for teaching an old dog one or two new tricks

Glad things worked out well for you ALH. It's over-acheived for my Altrincham team in the BSP as well. The trick is going to be doing more work on it to get it to do the same thing with lower to middling clubs in the top-flight of European leagues like the EPL.

I'm still working on the full draft for the post but am hoping I might be able to get it up tonight, after the Man Utd game against Fulham of course! I'm just about to head out to my local bar who's patrons are now all "converts" to supporting Man Utd, regardless of all the Spaniards who play for Liverpool It's a small village bar and I'm the only Brit that goes in there, but they love their footy and always put the English matches on for me.

Anyway, just a quick question for anyone that knows...

Can I post in HTML on the forums now? I miss the old forum buttons for BOLD, UNDERLINE, ITALICS, etc... but can save my Word document in HTML format and post it that way if it's possible?