For FM 21 they should include the option to perform two formations (offensively and defensively). Explain case (RB Leipzig tactic vs Atlético)

[Gastofm]

A particular case to explain my request is yesterday's game between RB Leipzig vs Atlético Madrid.

 Julian Nagelsmann proposed a "3-3-3-1" (3-1-5-1 / 2-2-5-1 in attack) in which the "Wingbacks" (Angeliño and Laimer) became wingers who proposed amplitude to the attack, while the "Wingers" closed to generate numerical superiority in the center of the field, as if they were "false Attacking Midfielders". That currently in the FM20 can be done.
 Now, the problem lies in this point: RB Leipzig in defense changed to a "4-2-3-1", in which one of his "Wingbacks", Laimer, became a "Midfielder Defensive". Currently in the game, it is not possible to generate a formation without ball position without doing "Mark Specific Player", this section is no longer a zonal defense. In the section "Mark Specific Position" it is not effective, because it doesn't really do the job. I can tell a "Wingback" that I made a "Mark Specific Position" in the midfield position and not do it (even marking the position of an opponent).

[Gastofm]

For example, Maurizio Sarri also established a defensive formation. It started from a 4-3-3 or 4-3-1-2 but defensively it was a 4-4-2.

[gam945]

The formation in the Tactics section is the defensive shape. Now try to choose players roles and instructions that will lead to the shape being altered into a new one, and you will have a defensive (default) formation as well as an attacking formation. That's how I see it.

[Impacto]

2 hours ago, gam945 said:

The formation in the Tactics section is the defensive shape. Now try to choose players roles and instructions that will lead to the shape being altered into a new one, and you will have a defensive (default) formation as well as an attacking formation. That's how I see it.

That is correct. But still, it should be stated in game, as far as I know the game does not tell you that.

I am in favour of having two tactical screens, offensive and defensive as in real life teams are in very different shape when they attack and when they defend. I don't see it happening soon though, as it will require quite a big change in how the game works. 

[sporadicsmiles]

1 hour ago, Impacto said:

That is correct. But still, it should be stated in game, as far as I know the game does not tell you that.

 

It should, I think a lot of the guide for making tactics needs an overhaul to explain better what things are going. You come across the same mistakes over and over again on the tactics forum because things are not well explained.

1 hour ago, Impacto said:

I am in favour of having two tactical screens, offensive and defensive as in real life teams are in very different shape when they attack and when they defend. I don't see it happening soon though, as it will require quite a big change in how the game works. 

I have to disagree here. Because as we note it is already in the game, and it is implemented well in the game. You can implement pretty much anything sensible as it is. And breaking things up into attacking and defending, you would also need two additional screens. One for attacking transitions and one for defensive transitions. Which just makes things unmanageably complex. You have to be able to control what your team does when it wins/loses the ball to get from attacking to defending. This is pretty easy to understand right now based on roles and duties, plus whatever team instructions you use. Once split, it will be much harder to control how your players change. I think the current way tactics work is pretty decent, but poorly documented in the game. 

[Muja]

On 15/08/2020 at 09:39, Impacto said:

I am in favour of having two tactical screens, offensive and defensive as in real life teams are in very different shape when they attack and when they defend.

I agree. 

On 15/08/2020 at 09:39, Impacto said:

I don't see it happening soon though, as it will require quite a big change in how the game works. 

On this, I disagree. 
Basically:

On 15/08/2020 at 11:03, sporadicsmiles said:

as we note it is already in the game, and it is implemented well in the game

So, what we need in my opinion is not a second tactical screen, but a view screen. 
A screen that will show you how the team will dispose itself in attacking formation.
You still set that up in the normal tactical screen we have, but in the other screen you see the results of your decisions.

They already implemented something similar recently (the colour of the boxes of the field, depending on how well covered it is) but I think this second screen would be pretty easy to make and would give the player more infos on what his tactical choices actually do in terms of positioning on the field in the two phases

[Gastofm]

On 15/08/2020 at 02:49, gam945 said:

The formation in the Tactics section is the defensive shape. Now try to choose players roles and instructions that will lead to the shape being altered into a new one, and you will have a defensive (default) formation as well as an attacking formation. That's how I see it.

Even so, with a 4-2-3-1, the offensive tactic of the named example could not be carried out. Laimer playing "Shuttler" or "Mezzala", does not generate the amplitude that is needed.

[h3nrique_SEP]

when i play with a 4-1-4-1 with inverted wing-backs, i cannot say to my wingers to don't drop to help defense, and if i switch to a 4-3-3 to do so, i cant play with IWB's because the role needs a advanced player on the wing

Edited August 17, 2020 by h3nrique_SEP

[Neil Brock]

Reviewed so locked.