Jervaj Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Greetings everyone! Even if its not the most popular. and I myself probably enjoy more agressive styles, I always admired systems that were centered around a solid defence, not fearing leaving the possesion to their opposition that frustrates itself against their wall while they strike quickly and decisively when they are given the chance, settling matches with unaparalleled efficiency and consistency. I was inspired by an older topic by Cleon: "The School of the Defensive Arts" and I thought that when given the chance I should try to a run with a system that aims to hold that at its core, instead of just been an approach used out of neccesity for a particular match. And for a few reasons I had to drop my on going save and decided it could be a good moment to try and learn (a newbie as I am still in FM) before restarting my previous save again. I picked AZ Roma, even if defensive/counter attacking systems are usually not associated with top/good teams. But as I wanted this to be a style that I can make work constently I thought it was best to pick a team that can will face all kinds of approaches against him. Even defensive ones too. Also I liked the idea of making my defence as solid as the Roman legions were once upon a time. So here we go: I haven't yet tested it, but given that in my experience so far tactics and changes tend to take a bit to click and be played properly I was looking to have a bit of early input to avoid maybe the most obvious issues I could miss. I plan to update as I advance on the save with my experience with it to contrast with your comments. So, my idea was to have a more specialized system, with compressed block thats difficult to get through, but not so deep and passive as to invite too much pressure, yet inviting the other team forward enough so space opens, and then add quite agressive role/duty combinations to exploit those spaces once the ball is recovered. The CDs are set to pass shorter while the Regista to pass mroe direct. The idea is that, unlike on my other systems, CD's specialize and focus on defence and let the Regista channel the creative efforts and risky passes in the transitions. I choose Pelegrini precisely because he has great stats for a creative role and risky passes, only lacking some decisions and specially composure but I will focus to shore up that deficiency given he still has soem potential left and he's not too old. Im not used to be so agressive with my roles, and Im a bit worried if not really having a holding midfielder as I always did until now will be a problem. Truth that my usual formations are much more top heavy, and the 3 CDs alone should give a lot of solidity even if other positions surge forward, and the Cleon thread I mentioned showed you can afford this kind of roles and duties role when you are overall more defensive. After all Im a good team and want to be able to get through tough defences myself. My main doubts before properly seeing it in the field (which I will start this week) are the following: - Mentality: I considered the Balanced to Attacking Range to be mroe agressive due to the level of the team Im manging. But with my roles and duties I seem to already have a decent level of riskiness for the different individual mentalities. The only odd ball that I didnt expected is the CF been cautious. Though this is probably the thing that maybe I could adjust the easiest match to match depending on the opposition, no? I wonder if positive should be the baseline so I move up and down from there depending on match situation and opponent. - Second strikers role/duty: I thought of a TM at first. Thinking of counterattacking or other direct transitions, but it seemed too static and one dimensional for what I was trying to achieve. I thought of a DLF later to emulate a bit that behaviour and use better the space stretching the defence, but then I saw Dzeko and Zaniolo stats and though, why not both? With their stats, given them more creative freedom could be very useful to be the creative licence up pitch and make use the biggest space there is between my lines to strech the defence while beena threat both at short and long range themselves. Its my reasoning correct? Also, would an attack duty fit better to support more the other striker in situations they may be alone? By in game description it seemed that attack would not drop into space and try to create chances for himself rather than others, and I already have the AF to spearhead the line while was hoping the CF work with others to make use of the varying runs stretching the defence more than alone. - CMs: Do you think they are good as is or should they swap positions? I mirrored the duties of the strikers hoping there would be better vertical support and triangualtion. The roles were selected to have one provide more agressive runs while the other performs a more supporting (duh) role arriving later in atatck when they slow down to recycle possesion or provide late runs while tracking back more in defence (as I read BBM do). I thought of using two BBM as the roles and training tend to be more complete (as I really want them both contributing in attack and defence) and do get in the area eventually in attack, but I feared I may lack runners from deep until too late in the attacking phase. Diawara is also pretty bad at converting so I dont know if I maybe should add PI to refrain him from shooting. -Passing and tempo: I wanted counters to be one of my main tools, but despite the initial temptation and thinking of the varying kinds of opposition Im gonna face, I avoided more direct passing and left that to the regista as mentioned earlier, as I dont wanted others less suited hoofing themselves. I want to be versatile in attack against varying oppositions so I thought it may be better to not force things. Im hoping the overall tactical setup already promotes counters enough and the extra notch in tempo already gives a decent overall degree of speed and directness in attack without overdoing it or forcing things pointlessly when the opposition defence is already in place. - Tight Marking : I have read that in this kind of controlled blocks TM can be a pretty useful instruction, and my defenders should be good enough in several stats to pull it. Only worry is that I dont expect/aim them to be the fastest (unlike when Im playing with higher lines) so Im fearing they get beaten with through balls with no time to react due to been closer to goal. On the other hand, specially given there is not that much space behind, TM may mean they are able to contest the ball directly or hold the attacker the moment he recevives it instead of letting thems pace to try to run and beat them. In my agressive formations Im fond of using it and it seemingly works wek, but there I aim to have fast defenders and often have more space behind and time to try to catch an attacker and cover for mistakes. - Offside trap: It could be good for the extra compression. Worried for the same reasons that TM. Specially as SD's mentals are not as agreat as CDs - Discipline: I thought of increasing discipline for defensive consistency so the team overall roams less and specializes more, leaving the creative liberty to the roles that at tasked at doing so. Fear I could be limiting my players offfensively specially given the average quality of the team. Maybe something to use against top teams and drop against inferior ones? Thanks in advance for your comments and ideas. I hope to answer as I play it during the week and update with what I find in practice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Experienced Defender Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 If you want solid defense, then the tactic you posted is definitely not solid. Absolutely no defensive cover/protection for your attacking fullbacks - neither CM is played in either a holding or covering role; instead, both are runners. On top of that, even your DM is not a holder but a roaming and relatively attack-minded playmaker. Good vertical compactness achieved through your DL (standard) and LOE (lower) settings is hardly going to help when the setup of roles and duties is so heavily unbalanced. Plus, forcing opposition outside (a.k.a. narrow defensive width) is not a good idea when you use a narrow formation either, simply because your lone fullbacks will have an even more difficult job when dealing with wide opposition players, especially when they play in a non-narrow formation, because you are then already outnumbered on the flanks by default. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jervaj Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said: If you want solid defense, then the tactic you posted is definitely not solid. Absolutely no defensive cover/protection for your attacking fullbacks - neither CM is played in either a holding or covering role; instead, both are runners. On top of that, even your DM is not a holder but a roaming and relatively attack-minded playmaker. Good vertical compactness achieved through your DL (standard) and LOE (lower) settings is hardly going to help when the setup of roles and duties is so heavily unbalanced. Plus, forcing opposition outside (a.k.a. narrow defensive width) is not a good idea when you use a narrow formation either, simply because your lone fullbacks will have an even more difficult job when dealing with wide opposition players, especially when they play in a non-narrow formation, because you are then already outnumbered on the flanks by default. Thanks for the input! Your first point was indeed my main hesitation when designed this tactic at first as I mentioned, but doesnt that extra CD compensate somewhat for that? Been 3 of them I thought they would open wider if neccesary. The thing is, that I dared to try this is that I have seen several tactics around the forum apparently been successul without a holding midfielder. In fact, in the topic I mentioned Cleon used both SD as CWBs in attack (even more agressive than mine) and still had no holding midfielder despite only using 2 CDs which surprised me a lot. I wanted to be more conservative myself and looking at what I had available ended up with this. I feel like I need the fullbacks in attack as they are my main source of width, barring a roaming striker of midfielder, so I need them to run up early and agressively in the transtions. I did add the early crosses to a extent to balance that risk a bit so they dont need to get that deep to contribute (and also to speed transitions but thats not the point here) but I knew that I would have space there. Where would you get the holding/covering CM from? I feel like I needed a regista to be the specialized creative outlet in the back to initiate the attacks in this kind of system. I knew he was an agressive player and I picked the role with a lot of intent thinking on the attacking and creative part of the tactic, so the role been such is no contradiction. though I expected him sitting deep in defensive situations will help to some extent defensively. Would moving the BBM to CM(s) be enough? Given how you stated it, probably not. My main options in order of preference would be: - Have that left CM be more defensive (as Diwara hismelf is quite good defensively). CM (De) been the msot likely option. - Moving a CD to the DM strata alongside the regista. 3 CDs + a defensive DM feels like overkill and that they would get in each others way. so seems liek the place to get one. Im unsure what role would be the best though. - Making the Regista a DLP. The potential problem I see with the first one its I fear lack of support in slower attacks, but I dont have experience with a regista so maybe he goes up more/quicker than I think. For the second option,I dont see how replacing a CD with a DM gives me more cover though as it means the remaining 2 would have to sit tighter. Feels counter intuitive. Or do you fear precisely the space that may be left between the mdifield and the defensive line itself? By your statement it seemed the space on the wings was the main worry. I precisely added the CD's thinking it would help more with the width cover allowing the D line to stretch, than a single holding role in the midfield having to work alone. But I might well be wrong, as I said Im a newbie still in FM. The 3rd its my least preferred option, because I feel like the players I have for that position fit far better the Regista role, and that it would be more flexible and supportive when innitiating attacks. I fear a more static DLP + the 3 non creative oriented CDs would make me more vulnerable to counter press and lessen support in slower attacks. Again I dont have a lot of direct experience with the regista as its my first time trying the role and haven't seen it much in the opposition. But it looked interesting by the description and highlighted attributes, specially as the main creative guy in an otherwise more disciplined system. I may well think differently after trying it though. Theoretically there would be a 4th option, been lowering full backs duty but it feels like that would deprive me of width in attack at all. Last, about the narrow defence width. My thinking process was that a narrow defence would make passing through it more difficult, and that forcing the opposition wide would mean they have to rely more on crosses which are a less dangerous kind of attack, specially when Im featuring 3 CDs that go from devently to very strong in the air + a GK thats also decent in that department, and midfielders that are also decent in the air (should it be a longer attack when they have more men up). That been said, its a TI that I saw myself easilly dropping against team that have a lot of attack focus in the wings. Also, would regroup help in this kind of tactic or would it make the defence too passive? Any comments on the attacking side of things given we focused just on the defence so far? Thanks again for your help and input. Much appreciated! Edited January 18, 2021 by Jervaj Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Experienced Defender Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Jervaj said: our first point was indeed my main hesitation when designed this tactic at first as I mentioned, but doesnt that extra CD compensate somewhat for that? Been 3 of them I thought they would open wider if neccesary One single tactical element - be it a position, role, duty or instruction - cannot compensate for weaknesses elsewhere, especially when there are so many of them. Midfield is equally - and arguably even more - important for good defending as defenders. Because if your midfield setup is porous, those playing in the back line - regardless of their number (3, 4 or 5) - will easily crumble under opposition pressure, even if they are the best defenders in the world. Which is even more pronounced when you play defensive football, as you are doing by using the lower LOE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jervaj Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tikka Mezzala said: I'm playing around with this concept, too. The biggest error I am trying to avoid is ultra-passivity. It's tempting when thinking about defensive tactics to overcook the cautious instructions. The main lesson I have learned so far is that it's good to plan a couple of defensive strategies at least. Different teams pose different threats. I have never managed to create a tactic that is perfect for all occasions, though I am far from a successful tactician, to be fair. I'll definitely follow the thread and see if I can pick up any tips. I've had a read of some of the excellent articles in the pinned threads, including the one by Cleon that was mentioned in the OP. They've helped me avoid some common pitfalls. I mean, I feel like its impossible and it should be. At best you could have a tactic that is good enough in most ocassions. I plan to have variations but I wanted to have input in the base one first. Either way I prefer small variations in general so the tactic still fits the players and the training that I build towards. I have seen that its very possible to make notable changes to adapt to every opponent and still do great (Tactical gymnastics is such a great topic to read too. A true eye opener) but despite recognising that, my philosophy has always been that a bad plan well executed is preferable to a great plan poorly executed. And I can say from my limited experience that perseverance has its upsides too. Everytime I made changes after noticing something I want to adress, I feel like Im never convinced at the start but thing tend to actually start working better and more as I had planned it as time and matches go by without me doing anything else. 1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said: One single tactical element - be it a position, role, duty or instruction - cannot compensate for weaknesses elsewhere, especially when there are so many of them. Midfield is equally - and arguably even more - important for good defending as defenders. Because if your midfield setup is porous, those playing in the back line - regardless of their number (3, 4 or 5) - will easily crumble under opposition pressure, even if they are the best defenders in the world. Which is even more pronounced when you play defensive football, as you are doing by using the lower LOE. Ok. I get your point. A stronger backline cant compensate the lack of defensiveness of the midfield and that could be applied anywhere. I will have that in account, however it makes me even more curious as how are other setups so defensivelly solid when in paper and follwoing your advice they look like even more exposed than mine. I honestly thought that my midfield wasnt that porous. My stream of thought was like, yeah on the break it could potentially be wide open after an attack that has gone on for quite a while. But I feel like teams rarelly have so many people up field on the break, specially if I have been long on their half (wich is when the space would open). So I thought that the extra defender meant that even in those situations I wouldn't be outnumbered as when their numbers come up my midfielders would have come down too. The feeling I get from your comments is that the BBM and Regista may go up the pitch faster than I was thinking, while my idea is that they only really get far when Im holding possesion for a while. I had used BBM in the past in other formation and he seemed to defend quite a lot even if indeed he was not a holding/cover role. The other CM, despite the changes I went through, always was some kind of holding/cover role so maybe I didnt got to see the problem. I actually may test it a bit on purpose viewing full match to seeeactly how they behave and then decided what I want to remove. Also, you mention "especially when there are so many of them". What are the others? Because you mostly are mentioning the lack of holding defendrs for the attacking full backs. Theres the narrow thing but that basically doubles down on the wide openings. So I assume one holding midfielder wont do it as you see it. Please tell. We are here to learn! If the problem is bigger I could see using maybe both CMs as carrilero? Thats a covering position and with an extra focus on the wide areas, but I fear my strikers may be too isolated then which is hat I wanted to avoid with the starting setup. Im not experienced with that role either to judge properly so maybe is not the case. Edited January 18, 2021 by Jervaj Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Experienced Defender Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 43 minutes ago, Jervaj said: Ok. I get your point. A stronger backline cant compensate the lack of defensiveness of the midfield and that could be applied anywhere. I will have that in account, however it makes me even more curious as how are other setups so defensivelly solid when in paper and follwoing your advice they look like even more exposed than mine. I really don't know which setups you are referring to. 45 minutes ago, Jervaj said: Also, you mention "especially when there are so many of them". What are the others? I was referring to the weaknesses of your setup of roles and duties and listed them all in my first reply: - attacking fullbacks with no defensive cover from the midfield - porous midfield trio due to the absence of a single holding or covering role - narrow defensive width coupled with an also narrow formation On paper, that looks like "only" three. But the first 2 of those 3 are huge, so it's much more than "only". Even one tactical flaw or weakness can be enough to make a tactic unsound and unbalanced, let alone 2/3 or more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jervaj Posted January 18, 2021 Author Share Posted January 18, 2021 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said: I really don't know which setups you are referring to. To the first part. Im gonna link Cleon's one mainly because is the one I know how to find easy but tis not the only one I have seen: Of course his tactic and mine have some very notable differences, but doesnt really seem to adress the problem you mention as the mdifield its actually were we are more similar. Quote I was referring to the weaknesses of your setup of roles and duties and listed them all in my first reply: - attacking fullbacks with no defensive cover from the midfield - porous midfield trio due to the absence of a single holding or covering role - narrow defensive width coupled with an also narrow formation On paper, that looks like "only" three. But the first 2 of those 3 are huge, so it's much more than "only". Even one tactical flaw or weakness can be enough to make a tactic unsound and unbalanced, let alone 2/3 or more. To this. I have not disagreed. Didnt said it was a big problem. I just had lumped one and two together and wanted to be sure I wasnt missing something else. The third Im already removing that instruction. Im seeing how my team spreads without it and Im liking it. Im not used to playing such narrow formation so indeed it feels like narrow defence would have been overkill. Regarding the first two, what do you think of teach of the options to adress that I proposed in my second post? Edited January 18, 2021 by Jervaj Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Experienced Defender Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 32 minutes ago, Jervaj said: To the first part. Im gonna link Cleon's one mainly because is the one I know how to find easy but tis not the only one I have seen: Of course his tactic and mine have some very notable differences, but doesnt really seem to adress the problem you mention as the mdifield its actually were we are more similar Well, this Cleon's thread (and tactic) was from as long ago as 2014. Which is a version I haven't played anyway. We are now in 2021, and both the tactical creator and ME have been vastly improved in the meantime. 37 minutes ago, Jervaj said: Regarding the first two, what do you think of teach of the options to adress that I proposed in my second post? I really don't have the time to read such long posts in their entirety, sorry. Better post a screenshot of how you envision that revised tactic, and then I can tell you my honest opinion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleon Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 12 hours ago, Experienced Defender said: Well, this Cleon's thread (and tactic) was from as long ago as 2014. Which is a version I haven't played anyway. We are now in 2021, and both the tactical creator and ME have been vastly improved in the meantime. I really don't have the time to read such long posts in their entirety, sorry. Better post a screenshot of how you envision that revised tactic, and then I can tell you my honest opinion While the thread might be old, the principles are the same regardless of whether you play FM05 or FM55. Football/gaming principles will never change. It doesn't matter if the ME improves, gets worse or whatever, as its talking about the principles of defensive football and they'll always be the same on the game no matter how different it becomes visually. Principles/philosophies never grow old in football and will always be relevant. The same can said for FM. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleon Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 Quote Your first point was indeed my main hesitation when designed this tactic at first as I mentioned, but doesnt that extra CD compensate somewhat for that? Been 3 of them I thought they would open wider if neccesary. Your shape is actually fine and you don't have to compensate for things like is suggested, that is just one way of achieving something. However your role distribution could be questionable. You can be defensive and solid with an aggressive approach i.e use of roles and duties. What is important imo is that the team plays as one. This means if your team attacks you don't want to leave yourself exposed by being too defensive/passing in other areas. Sure, you will want some kind of cover but you shape as a team is the most important thing. Quote The thing is, that I dared to try this is that I have seen several tactics around the forum apparently been successul without a holding midfielder. In fact, in the topic I mentioned Cleon used both SD as CWBs in attack (even more agressive than mine) and still had no holding midfielder despite only using 2 CDs which surprised me a lot. You're overlooking one major point here and I'm not sure you quite understand the thread of mine that you keep referencing. I played on a lower mentality than you, which gives me the extra safety naturally compared to being on balanced for example. I played defensive as my mentality structure then used the roles to be more aggressive in the initial shape. This is vital for understanding why I selected the roles which I did. Whereas in your set up you have been a bit more aggressive in the overall balanced structure but been more passive with the roles and duties you selected. It's like you haven't fully committed one way or the other. This is where I did, I wanted to be defensive but use the roles and duties to select how aggressive I wanted the players to be. Also while the DM might not have been a traditional holding role that I use, I still used a DM position in the shape and that player still had defensive responsibilities. He was still some kind of holding player. This is also important to be aware of. Yes he was aggressive and drove forward when we had the ball but without it he was a typical defensive midfielder. So you shouldn't be too surprised it worked. Maybe you are just focusing too much on what they did when we had the ball and not when we didn't have the ball? As I certainly did have a holding player and the DM wasn't advanced beyond the rest of the team. In fact, the midfield was a solid compact unit and move up and down the pitch together leaving no gaps between to be exploited by the opposition. That is another reason why the DM was aggressive in possession so he moved with the rest of the team. If not he'd have held back too far and been on his own for all defensive duties, which is just an impossible task. Quote I wanted to be more conservative myself and looking at what I had available ended up with this. I feel like I need the fullbacks in attack as they are my main source of width, barring a roaming striker of midfielder, so I need them to run up early and agressively in the transtions. I did add the early crosses to a extent to balance that risk a bit so they dont need to get that deep to contribute (and also to speed transitions but thats not the point here) but I knew that I would have space there. Your base is actually much more aggressive than I was and then you are more passive with the roles compared to me. The fullbacks will always be apart of the attack regardless of how you set up. it's the nature of the position and roles available. All that changes is what they do when you change the roles but ultimately they will always be a source of width you can never negate this ever. You can change it somewhat with the role/duty/individual instructions but you can never eliminate the width the provide. Quote Where would you get the holding/covering CM from? I feel like I needed a regista to be the specialized creative outlet in the back to initiate the attacks in this kind of system. I knew he was an agressive player and I picked the role with a lot of intent thinking on the attacking and creative part of the tactic, so the role been such is no contradiction. though I expected him sitting deep in defensive situations will help to some extent defensively. Would moving the BBM to CM(s) be enough? Given how you stated it, probably not. This depends on what you want from the midfield as a collective and not individually. You need to understand how all the midfield roles you use work in tandem. A lot of the time the best role for a tactic isn't the individuals best role. Football rarely ever works like that. Quote My main options in order of preference would be: - Have that left CM be more defensive (as Diwara hismelf is quite good defensively). CM (De) been the msot likely option. With the regista still behind him? Why are you so set on the DM being the playmaker compared to lets say one of the CM's being a RPM for example? Just this simple change and a lot of your issues would vanish. You'd still get the same desired effect you originally wanted with the addition of being able to have a proper old fashioned DM if you really wanted. It's this kind of stuff I was talking about above when I said think about how all the roles combine together as a unit. Quote Moving a CD to the DM strata alongside the regista. 3 CDs + a defensive DM feels like overkill and that they would get in each others way. so seems liek the place to get one. Im unsure what role would be the best though. They won't get in each others way at all. Nor is it overkill. Your system is basically a 352. You seem to be willing to rip the entire tactic apart just to stick with the regista role for no apparent reason. If you want to stick with the role then build the tactic around the regista. Have the regista as the starting point and work from that. Quote Making the Regista a DLP. What does this really achieve? Why a playmaker? I'm not saying it isn't a good idea I'm just trying to understand your thinking. You say you can make the change but we need to understand your reasonings behind it, to actually understand. How do you see this working if you made the change, how does it make you more solid, how does it link with the rest of the midfield and so on. Quote The potential problem I see with the first one its I fear lack of support in slower attacks, but I dont have experience with a regista so maybe he goes up more/quicker than I think. This is why you need to understand how everything works. I know I keep repeating it but the biggest mistake 99% of people make on this forum is thinking about roles/changes in isolation rather than how it all works together. You can't make a good tactic without knowing how ever single details fits. It's like a jigsaw and every role/duty etc you use creates the finished picture. Quote For the second option,I dont see how replacing a CD with a DM gives me more cover though as it means the remaining 2 would have to sit tighter. Feels counter intuitive. Realistically the CD will give you the same protection and cover but from a slightly deeper area. The change wouldn't make the slightest difference overall. Quote Or do you fear precisely the space that may be left between the mdifield and the defensive line itself? By your statement it seemed the space on the wings was the main worry. I precisely added the CD's thinking it would help more with the width cover allowing the D line to stretch, than a single holding role in the midfield having to work alone. But I might well be wrong, as I said Im a newbie still in FM. Because you have a DM (actual position) the defensive line naturally drops deeper than when you don't have one in the side. If the space is still too big between midfield/defence you can easily negate this in the instructions by pushing the d-line further up and what not. So it's a none existent issue really. As for space on the wings this all depends on the formations you face. You don't need to cover every single bit of the pitch. Giving up space is fine. What matters is how you defend as a unit and deal with the space you give up. Also its a risk vs reward conundrum at times. Do the benefits of giving up space in these areas get offset by what you do in attacks from these areas? This will be different for every single person. Some might try and overcompensate for something that doesn't really matter. Just remember your using a 352 basically, so defending the wings is something that every single 352 has to think about. Your fullbacks, midfielders and 3 defenders should be able to cope with any danger. It's not like you don't have any defensive players or midfielders who won't help out. Even your fullback will defend. But for some reason, people in general speak like this never happens. Quote The 3rd its my least preferred option, because I feel like the players I have for that position fit far better the Regista role, and that it would be more flexible and supportive when innitiating attacks. But is the regista the best fit for the tactic?!! Quote I fear a more static DLP + the 3 non creative oriented CDs would make me more vulnerable to counter press and lessen support in slower attacks. This makes zero sense. How does one way or the other make you more vulnerable to the counter press? Also why does having non creative roles make attacks slower? You know that's not how it works right and that players who aren't creative can still be fast in attacks. In a lot of cases playmakers actually slow down play at certain times.......... I'm not sure why but you seem very set with your ideas and how stuff works in a very black and white sense which is giving you preconceptions of stuff and it really doesn't work like you think it does. Quote Last, about the narrow defence width. My thinking process was that a narrow defence would make passing through it more difficult, and that forcing the opposition wide would mean they have to rely more on crosses which are a less dangerous kind of attack, specially when Im featuring 3 CDs that go from devently to very strong in the air + a GK thats also decent in that department, and midfielders that are also decent in the air (should it be a longer attack when they have more men up). That been said, its a TI that I saw myself easilly dropping against team that have a lot of attack focus in the wings. Unless I'm missing something from your post, you aren't narrow in defence? You are narrow in attacks as you selected a narrow possession instruction................... 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guerin Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) If memory serves, the Cleon formation was possession oriented. That's a key factor behind the CWA. Your idea is to be risky/ careless with the ball. That's going to really accentuate the gaps your dual attacking fullbacks leave behind them. Picture this, you win the ball in your own half and the Regista plays a high risk direct ball up field. It gets intercepted (which will happen a lot with high risk long passing.) Your fullbacks and CMa and Advanced Fwd have all got forward incredibly aggressively (by virtue of attacking duties.) The opposition just has to play one ball and they're in behind your defense. Worse still, those aggressive players aren't going to press because of the LOE giving the opponent time and space to play that ball. Another situation, opponent is building up slowly and your team is in shape. There is going to be so much space behind your fullbacks for the opponent's midfield to play balls in behind. A DLPs and a Winger Attack can destroy your team in this shape. One way of thinking about attack, support, defend duties is how willing they are to leave the defensive shape without the ball. A defend duty will generally be averse to leaving position until the last possible moment, an attack duty will try to win the ball aggresively by leaving the defensive shape frequently. I'd probably say Cleon's art of counter-attacking football is a better article for what you're trying to create. For what its worth. I'd set up in a more traditional wingback back 5 and use a libero attack instead of regista for the style you want to create (should be easy to find a good one in Italy.) ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? WBs WBa/s CB La CB That should give you a flat back 5 without the ball but a similar shape to a 41221/ 4231 with the ball. Maybe instead of three midfielders could go for 2 midfielders and two wide-men striker up front. Edited January 19, 2021 by Guerin 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleon Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 1 hour ago, Guerin said: If memory serves, the Cleon formation was possession oriented. That's a key factor behind the CWA. Your idea is to be risky/ careless with the ball. That's going to really accentuate the gaps your dual attacking fullbacks leave behind them. Picture this, you win the ball in your own half and the Regista plays a high risk direct ball up field. It gets intercepted (which will happen a lot with high risk long passing.) Your fullbacks and CMa and Advanced Fwd have all got forward incredibly aggressively (by virtue of attacking duties.) The opposition just has to play one ball and they're in behind your defense. Worse still, those aggressive players aren't going to press because of the LOE giving the opponent time and space to play that ball. Another situation, opponent is building up slowly and your team is in shape. There is going to be so much space behind your fullbacks for the opponent's midfield to play balls in behind. A DLPs and a Winger Attack can destroy your team in this shape. One way of thinking about attack, support, defend duties is how willing they are to leave the defensive shape without the ball. A defend duty will generally be averse to leaving position until the last possible moment, an attack duty will try to win the ball aggresively by leaving the defensive shape frequently. I'd probably say Cleon's art of counter-attacking football is a better article for what you're trying to create. For what its worth. I'd set up in a more traditional wingback back 5 and use a libero attack instead of regista for the style you want to create (should be easy to find a good one in Italy.) ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? WBs WBa/s CB La CB That should give you a flat back 5 without the ball but a similar shape to a 41221/ 4231 with the ball. Maybe instead of three midfielders could go for 2 midfielders and two wide-men striker up front. This is that article btw if you want it will full images https://docs.google.com/document/d/12MLuV4T-0ljqhFSVvgq0wLiMIEjGxgskJqQfLTYEkSw/edit?usp=sharing 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
herne79 Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 4 hours ago, Cleon said: This is why you need to understand how everything works. I know I keep repeating it but the biggest mistake 99% of people make on this forum is thinking about roles/changes in isolation rather than how it all works together. You can't make a good tactic without knowing how ever single details fits. It's like a jigsaw and every role/duty etc you use creates the finished picture. If people only ever take one thing away from this forum, this is it. (Good to see you btw ). 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jervaj Posted January 19, 2021 Author Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, Cleon said: While the thread might be old, the principles are the same regardless of whether you play FM05 or FM55. Football/gaming principles will never change. It doesn't matter if the ME improves, gets worse or whatever, as its talking about the principles of defensive football and they'll always be the same on the game no matter how different it becomes visually. Principles/philosophies never grow old in football and will always be relevant. The same can said for FM. I was actually going to comment something similar. That your topic was about concepts and not a download tactic thing. And concepts in theory should still be the same no matter the version. By the way thanks for your contribution, didnt expected you in here. I actually was able to test the formation in a game agaisnt Milan and watched the full match or almost which gave a bunch of first impressions. 5 hours ago, Cleon said: You're overlooking one major point here and I'm not sure you quite understand the thread of mine that you keep referencing. I played on a lower mentality than you, which gives me the extra safety naturally compared to being on balanced for example. I played defensive as my mentality structure then used the roles to be more aggressive in the initial shape. This is vital for understanding why I selected the roles which I did. Whereas in your set up you have been a bit more aggressive in the overall balanced structure but been more passive with the roles and duties you selected. It's like you haven't fully committed one way or the other. This is where I did, I wanted to be defensive but use the roles and duties to select how aggressive I wanted the players to be. Well the thing is that I didnt want to recreate your tactic. I just mention the topic because of the inspiration when setting up defensively solid football. I may well have misunderstood the topic as Im not even really a big football fan and this is my first FM ever, but from what I gathered your attacking style revolved more around ball retention and shorter passing, while I wanted to be more agressive with the ball. I thought a more agressive base mentality was more suited for that kind of play and aimed to then gave myself the defence soldity I looked force with more conservative roles as you mention. Maybe Im wrong, just explaining my thought process. I didnt thought that would end somehow in a contradiction. Why is a somewhat higher mentality and less agressive role setup contradictive but a lower mentality + more agressive role setup not? Quote Also while the DM might not have been a traditional holding role that I use, I still used a DM position in the shape and that player still had defensive responsibilities. He was still some kind of holding player. This is also important to be aware of. Yes he was aggressive and drove forward when we had the ball but without it he was a typical defensive midfielder. So you shouldn't be too surprised it worked. Maybe you are just focusing too much on what they did when we had the ball and not when we didn't have the ball? As I certainly did have a holding player and the DM wasn't advanced beyond the rest of the team. In fact, the midfield was a solid compact unit and move up and down the pitch together leaving no gaps between to be exploited by the opposition. That is another reason why the DM was aggressive in possession so he moved with the rest of the team. If not he'd have held back too far and been on his own for all defensive duties, which is just an impossible task. Well, I didnt considered it holding as in compared to a more static role that doesnt go forward as agressively when in possesion. And seems Experienced Defender didn't either. But I got to say that I actually enjoyed a lot how my midfield trio worked together. The regista did had a lot of defensive contribution. In fact all 3 midfielders did, even in the wings. I dont think I really ever got overloaded, the only time someone had a "free" cross was because the forward wide player passed it back at the WB going up and he first touch crossed it before the defence could pressure/engage him. They also did move as a compact unit up and down the pitch for the most part as you comment. They were all the time like a triangle with the attacking CM slightly forward and the regista mroe central and further back, with a slgiht tendency to open to the right due to the space left. The position map shows this very well: It was interesting watching the match and learning about how the roles worked together. Quote Your base is actually much more aggressive than I was and then you are more passive with the roles compared to me. The fullbacks will always be apart of the attack regardless of how you set up. it's the nature of the position and roles available. All that changes is what they do when you change the roles but ultimately they will always be a source of width you can never negate this ever. You can change it somewhat with the role/duty/individual instructions but you can never eliminate the width the provide. So, does that mean I can get enough width even with lower agressiveness? All the topics I read and feedback from veterans seemed to point that FB(s) doesn't give enough wide support if there is no one else performing that responsability in the wing. Quote This depends on what you want from the midfield as a collective and not individually. You need to understand how all the midfield roles you use work in tandem. A lot of the time the best role for a tactic isn't the individuals best role. Football rarely ever works like that. Well. I want them to do several things. Be the ones starting quick transitions, support slower attacks with late runs from deep + been an outlet to recycle possesion out of the box, and track back a lot defensively to support the defence, making sure I quickly have many bodies behind the ball after possesion is lost. To be honest they seemed to achieve all this for the most part in the test game. Theres was one bit I didnt liked and will adress later, but it was minor and more on the attacking side. It was just a game of course, so hardly conclussive but it was agaisnt a top team that was playing a formation with a lot of wide presence, so it felt like a good example to test my concerns. Quote With the regista still behind him? Why are you so set on the DM being the playmaker compared to lets say one of the CM's being a RPM for example? Just this simple change and a lot of your issues would vanish. You'd still get the same desired effect you originally wanted with the addition of being able to have a proper old fashioned DM if you really wanted. It's this kind of stuff I was talking about above when I said think about how all the roles combine together as a unit. The reason that I decided to put the playmaker in the DM was so he was deep precisely and would be the one initiating the attacks. The idea is as I mentioned to make more use of faster transitions, so I wanted the one starting those transitions and attempting those risky passes been a talented player in the creative and technical sense. I thought that been in the DM strata the ball would be able to get very quickly to him often times and he would be the one making those risky passes instead of having to ask the defensive line to do this, which they may not be as suited to do. Im not particulary interested in a more "old fashioned" DM. If I were to move the regista up to a RPM (a role by the way that I ended using in my agressive possesion formation after some iterations and that I enjoyed) I would likely try first 3 midfielders then and just play one of them in a more holding role and if I see theres too much space between them and the D line in the defensive shape put him between the lines. But I havent seen this as an issue in other tactics. Quote They won't get in each others way at all. Nor is it overkill. Your system is basically a 352. You seem to be willing to rip the entire tactic apart just to stick with the regista role for no apparent reason. If you want to stick with the role then build the tactic around the regista. Have the regista as the starting point and work from that. I think I did a mistake here. I was thinking of DM's tendency to fall back between two central defenders, but Im thinking now thats a specific HB role thing, and not a DM's thing in general. I honestly dont think I will know how to build a tactic around (insert role/position here), maybe due to my lack of experience. I basically think of what I want from the team as a whole and then set a formation, roles, duties, TI and PI (in that order) that I feel will help me achieve that kind of football I want to see. Then doing small tweaks to try to tackle one by one "issues" I see. I put "issues" like that because its not neccesarilly something bad, it may be something that was simply unintended even if it doesn't cause a problem directly. Quote What does this really achieve? Why a playmaker? I'm not saying it isn't a good idea I'm just trying to understand your thinking. You say you can make the change but we need to understand your reasonings behind it, to actually understand. How do you see this working if you made the change, how does it make you more solid, how does it link with the rest of the midfield and so on. The "why a playmaker" is answered above. My reasoning around it was mainly in response to Experienced Defender that I needed a holding role in the midfield. The way I see it working its that it will stay deeper/go up the pitch more slowly while in possesion at the cost of more space between him and the other midfielders. Im uncertain of this last bit, but I also think it would be more central/static in defence as I noticed when I used one briefly in other tactics that they tend to press less, so I dont know if it would support the wings as much in a defensive situation. Quote This is why you need to understand how everything works. I know I keep repeating it but the biggest mistake 99% of people make on this forum is thinking about roles/changes in isolation rather than how it all works together. You can't make a good tactic without knowing how ever single details fits. It's like a jigsaw and every role/duty etc you use creates the finished picture. The point is that this is why I wrote that bit. To get help understanding how it works. The only other way of understanding how it works its seeing it in play, which Im doing too, but I wanted to compliment as there only so much time to test things out and I was hoping to clear some things up without needing to test out everything (though I can say I do enjoy the testing and tweaking a lot when I manage to realize thigns and solve them in my own). In this case in particular though, I have used a CM (De) before, in fact it ended been my main holding role in my more agressive formation. And even in a far more agressive system regarding TI's and such, I know it is a role that operates closer to the halfline than it does to the box while in possesion. Getting closer to the box only sometimes, and even then briefly, pulling back quickly. It may not be that bad if the Regista uses him as pass outlet to then overlap it and go further forward doing the support directly. But as I said, my lack of experience with the regista meant I couldn't tell outright. Now, basing myself in the game I played against Milan, I actually liked how this role moved about both in attack and defence. Only bit I didnt liked its that it got into the area in situations which it didnt seem very useful. After seen it in play I think I would prefer him maintaining the same movement but been a bit more conservative in the last third, staying preferably out of the area and only surging in to contest crosses or similar balls, given its likely to be a strong player. Quote Realistically the CD will give you the same protection and cover but from a slightly deeper area. The change wouldn't make the slightest difference overall. So here I was right it seeems. It wouldn't change much and to some extent the 3rd CD does give that extra holding cover. I did notice in my match that my CD's opened wide when neccesary which I enjoyed a lot. If the attacker tried to sue width one of my CD's was always defending around the line of the wide exterior edge of the box. Even going to press the wide player if neccesary. It was the FBs and the CMs doing this more often but when it happened those CDs and full backs tracked back to fill the back line really quickly, so I never felt exposed or like I was leaving gaps. Quote Because you have a DM (actual position) the defensive line naturally drops deeper than when you don't have one in the side. If the space is still too big between midfield/defence you can easily negate this in the instructions by pushing the d-line further up and what not. So it's a none existent issue really. As for space on the wings this all depends on the formations you face. You don't need to cover every single bit of the pitch. Giving up space is fine. What matters is how you defend as a unit and deal with the space you give up. Also its a risk vs reward conundrum at times. Do the benefits of giving up space in these areas get offset by what you do in attacks from these areas? This will be different for every single person. Some might try and overcompensate for something that doesn't really matter. Just remember your using a 352 basically, so defending the wings is something that every single 352 has to think about. Your fullbacks, midfielders and 3 defenders should be able to cope with any danger. It's not like you don't have any defensive players or midfielders who won't help out. Even your fullback will defend. But for some reason, people in general speak like this never happens. I didnt felt like I had any issue with the deepness of the d line. Mind that the balanced mentality also means its higher by default for the same setting than maybe something like your tactic in that topic that was mentioned. I felt it had a good balance overall. About the space, I kind of thought that space on the wings, while something to have in account given the formation is relativelly narrow, wasn't the worst deal because I should be better than most when dealing with crosses. And to be honest this match proved that as they didnt really get any decent chance from the side. This is soemthing I would have to see on the long run to properly evaluate though, as crosses tend to be by default risky chances. But even then, I didnt really fell exposed on the wing. Even as they were using 2 wide players I never got in a situation were a wide attacker was uncontested, and I think only 1-2 times they were able to get a 2vs1 and usually because it was very brief like the one I commented beofre. Heck, even several times I had 2 vs 1 on them while defending. Their wide personnel often had to pass back or just release the ball quickly in a gamble. I very much expected the FB specially to defend. The way I saw it (correct me if Im wrong) is that its more likely to be caught up the ptich because he goes up earlier and mroe agressivelly but it should track back more in defence. And this single game so far showed that. Compared to the WB(s) Im more used to I felt like the space left was actually smaller, just that they started runnin earlier in attack. Quote But is the regista the best fit for the tactic?!! Is it? I honestly dont know. Or at least didn't. I had never used it, but I thoguht it could fit given the description and what I had read. By this very small sample it feels like it does what I wanted him to. At the very least I very much believe that it met my expectations much more than what I think a DLP would do instead (to put an example given it was mentioned earlier). Quote This makes zero sense. How does one way or the other make you more vulnerable to the counter press? Also why does having non creative roles make attacks slower? You know that's not how it works right and that players who aren't creative can still be fast in attacks. In a lot of cases playmakers actually slow down play at certain times.......... I'm not sure why but you seem very set with your ideas and how stuff works in a very black and white sense which is giving you preconceptions of stuff and it really doesn't work like you think it does. You misread me here, or maybe I didnt express myself correctly. Sorry in advance, english is not my mother language. I didnt mean at any point that "having non creative roles make attacks slower". I meant that a DLP, by virtue of staying deeper in possesion, would give less support in slower attacking transitions as comapred to a regista, which as I could see does give quite the support. About the more vulnerable in the counterpress, I dont strongly affirm it for a reason. My thoguht of process was that the more static DLP would maybe struggle more to get open and the defenders would then be more likely to be abe to pass it among thesmselves or clear it given the other roles are surging forward. I may be perfectly wrong. Also, why do you feel that way in that I am "very set with your ideas and how stuff works in a very black and white sense which is giving you preconceptions of stuff". I is it due to the way I set out my posts? My intention is that instead of just pasting a tactic and asking how to improve I try to explain what I try to achieve and my thoguht process (why I did this, or what problem I thoguht this alternative could have) to achieve two things: - Make the reader know what I want to achieve so he /she has context and can adapt his advice and thoughts better in his answer - If my thought process/assumption is flawed, I precisely want someone to see it and tell me "Hey, thats not like that" Putting it down for others to see felts the easiest way to precisely clarify/correct wrong assumptions. At last, assumptions are something that seems indispensable to make, at least for someone newer like me. Maybe people like you that have played for years, and have more experience about overall football in real life too dont need to assume anything, because you inmediatly know pretty accurately what a given thing will mean. But for someone like me, and specially given how opaque the game itself can be at telling you what something exactly does, been even misleading at times, the only way to build a tactic at first its by assuming that a certain thing will work this way. Because if not you have nothing to work with and you are just putting in random roles and instructuctions waiting to see what happens (arguably my first tactic was something like that though I had informed myself a bit in places like this beforehand). The regista matter its a good example. I have only got about 3 seasons worth of play, in which I had never used a regista and had rarelly if at all seen it in the opposition. The only way for me to use it its by assuming it will behave in a certain way (based on the info available, but again its not the most detailed) and that that behaviour will fit my tactic. Another simpler example would be what you just said about the presence of a DM making the D line position itself deeper by default. I had no idea of this until you mentioned it now. This are the kind of thigns why I come to the forum to learn Quote Unless I'm missing something from your post, you aren't narrow in defence? You are narrow in attacks as you selected a narrow possession instruction................... I am/was. As you can see in the OP I have force opposition outside, which is basically defending narrower. I didnt use the the TI in the game though due to Experienced Defender advise, and I can say I feel like it was a very good idea. The midfielders are narrow enough in shape and I liked how the D line spreaded. Im wondering if the narrow in possesion instruction is necceary. I liked how it played out, but its the kind of thign I really need to see over a longer period of time. It seemed to help making people be back in position quickly after lossing possesion, and also making the mdifielders stay close to each other supporting one another as they go up the pitch. Maybe its the kind of instruction that can be removed against certain opposition. But this is another point entirely. Thanks a lot for taking the time to read, answer and contribute. Very interesting questions. I hope that with my answers you can see what Im going for and then advise me. Really means a lot. Edited January 19, 2021 by Jervaj Typos 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jervaj Posted January 19, 2021 Author Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Guerin said: If memory serves, the Cleon formation was possession oriented. That's a key factor behind the CWA. Your idea is to be risky/ careless with the ball. That's going to really accentuate the gaps your dual attacking fullbacks leave behind them. Picture this, you win the ball in your own half and the Regista plays a high risk direct ball up field. It gets intercepted (which will happen a lot with high risk long passing.) Your fullbacks and CMa and Advanced Fwd have all got forward incredibly aggressively (by virtue of attacking duties.) The opposition just has to play one ball and they're in behind your defense. Worse still, those aggressive players aren't going to press because of the LOE giving the opponent time and space to play that ball. Funny. Im actually considering already removing the PI from the regista given what I saw. May be forcing thigns too much, given the formation itself paired with the tempo seems to be already promoting that way of play on its own. It seems like it was indeed a good idea avoiding it as a TI but Im feeling not even the regista may need it. However, that been said, the event you mention happened several times yet I never felt like "The opposition just has to play one ball and they're in behind your defense". I never felt exposed inmediatly after losing the ball. I even lost it once due to a mistake where the ball was intercepted close to the midline in a short pass. But it felt everytime that the opposition started penetrating my side of the pitch I already had between 5 and 7 players behind the ball. When tehy recovered it deeper and tried the longer pass up it was usually outright intercepted/deflected. Of course, is just one match. i just lay out what I have seen so far. Quote Another situation, opponent is building up slowly and your team is in shape. There is going to be so much space behind your fullbacks for the opponent's midfield to play balls in behind. A DLPs and a Winger Attack can destroy your team in this shape. Why? Fullbacks track back a lot. even in attack duty. Both from what I read and from what I have seen, in this match at least. So if the enemy builds up slowly they are in line with the CD's everytime. The WB(s) Im used to leave more space behind from my (limited) experience. In the case of the FB and the OP tactic, the space would rather be in front of them due to their deeper positioning and lack of a secodnary wing player, wouldn't it? (in a slower build up I mean). Quote One way of thinking about attack, support, defend duties is how willing they are to leave the defensive shape without the ball. A defend duty will generally be averse to leaving position until the last possible moment, an attack duty will try to win the ball aggresively by leaving the defensive shape frequently. I'd probably say Cleon's art of counter-attacking football is a better article for what you're trying to create. I will certainly check it. Though I didnt wanted to be all about counter attack, just it been one of the important attacking tools. Mainly given that as a good team Im likely to face teams which play in a way against which counterattacks are not that useful if they decided to sit very deep, whcih I have seen already happening with a weaker team after having some success. Quote For what its worth. I'd set up in a more traditional wingback back 5 and use a libero attack instead of regista for the style you want to create (should be easy to find a good one in Italy.) ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? WBs WBa/s CB La CB That should give you a flat back 5 without the ball but a similar shape to a 41221/ 4231 with the ball. Maybe instead of three midfielders could go for 2 midfielders and two wide-men striker up front. Wouldn't wingbacks (specially if played in the wingback position) actually leave more space behind as you mentioned earlier? After all a formation is supposed to resemble more your defensive shape. Also, Im not sure Im seeing how this would make the formation more of a 41221/ 4231 in attack. Could you draw that shape? As I understand it (another role I have no experience with) the libero would go up in attack but never too far up. Like to the position of a holding midfielder maybe from some pics I saw of their behaviour. Wingbacks from experience I know are likely to go up a lot too. Even in support, they just wait a bit before commiting. So who would form the back 4 with the CB's? Also wouldnt there be 2 at the front or you are counting the CF in a second line? This is tangential but I didnt mention it before so I mgiht as well now. One of the things Im planning to change (or at least try out) is the CF in attack instead. He dropped more than I expected in the early phases, meaning the AF had no support. I lacked teeth in quick transitions because of that and the long balls been aimed directly to the AF who (unexpectedly) lost most contests. The CF is supposed to do that job but he was not up enough to do it, though he moved well otherwise in more patient attacks. In fact in the whole match I think I only got a decent counter and only the lack of finishing of my AF avoided from going in as he shooted terribly. I wonder if there is a way to make the balls to the AF be rather through balls (given the space is there and speed is what he can take advanatge of) and leave direct balls to position be for the CF. I thought of using pass into space but I dont know if it will mean they would try too often heightening risk even more and not taking advanatge of the CF strength to hold up defenders. 53 minutes ago, herne79 said: If people only ever take one thing away from this forum, this is it. (Good to see you btw ). Indeed. Problem is, it aint easy. It already takes a bit to understand what a given role will do itself until you have experience with it. Let alone all the potential combinations and such. Because its really no where to be seen outside of watching matches or here the forums. A clear simple example of such an interaction is how having a DM autoamtially affects the positioning of your D line as Cleon mentioned before. Until now I didnt consider it, but the point its that I didnt know it was a thing, and I assume this happens to others too. I think a lot of the time people try to think of how the changea affect those around it too, I know I try, even if Im sure I dont go as far as some of you do. But we fall into the same issue. The only way to do it is more assumptions. Its even worse because its assumptions over the already existing assumptions, so more chances that things go astray. But hey, its why we come here to the forum and spend the time writing this long posts. Im really enjoying this topic already, having learned some things and hoping for more. Surprised on how many names I knew already are appearing here. Thanks everyone for your contribution! Edited January 19, 2021 by Jervaj erne's quote 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleon Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 Quote By the way thanks for your contribution, didnt expected you in here. I actually was able to test the formation in a game agaisnt Milan and watched the full match or almost which gave a bunch of first impressions. No worries, the top appealed to me as it's a bit like how I've set up on FM21. Not the shape, I use a standard 352 but the principles. Looks like we both set out for something similar, so felt I was in a good place to offer actual advice. Also watching matches and making notes is 100% the way to go. As how something looks on paper very rarely plays out that way because attributes, teams you face, team you are, instructions etc all have an impact on behaviour. So can be difficult for anyone to offer actual advice if you don't have stuff to talk about from games that you have actually seen. If that makes sense Quote Well the thing is that I didnt want to recreate your tactic. I just mention the topic because of the inspiration when setting up defensively solid football. I may well have misunderstood the topic as Im not even really a big football fan and this is my first FM ever, but from what I gathered your attacking style revolved more around ball retention and shorter passing, while I wanted to be more agressive with the ball. I thought a more agressive base mentality was more suited for that kind of play and aimed to then gave myself the defence soldity I looked force with more conservative roles as you mention. Maybe Im wrong, just explaining my thought process. I didnt thought that would end somehow in a contradiction. Why is a somewhat higher mentality and less agressive role setup contradictive and lower mentality + more agressive tole setup not? It's not a contradictory. It's more you haven't really committed one way or another to the style you want to achieve, at least, not in the sense of the simplest way. Remember the roles and duties are what ultimately determines what someone does on the pitch and governs their behaviour. It's much easier to use a less aggressive base and be more aggressive with roles/duties than it is the other way around. If you use a slightly more aggressive structure then even with being more passive with roles and duties, the overall base is still slightly more aggressive. It's not that I'm saying it can't be done or is contradictory. It's more about there is a simpler, less hassle way of doing things. You seem to be going around the houses and making it more complicated than needs be. But that's just an observation and if you're more comfortable doing it how you are then ignore me and persist Quote Well, I didnt considered it holding as in compared to a more static role that doesnt go forward as agressively when in possesion. And seems Experienced Defender didn't either. People tend to talk in very black and white terms. There is no such thing as a static role, not in the sense people think. Even something like an anchorman will support the midfield and move about. He'll be much more restrained in some aspects, but he won't be static. I think that's the wrong word for describing because if your defensive shield was static he'd be no good either. He'll still close people down, pass the ball about and what not. How far he'll actually stray and what he does will be determined by his attributes that make up his skill set. I think this is a side people don't pay much attention to and neglect. But for me, it's probably the most important aspect on the entire game. I've wrote a lot about this over the years. Quote In fact all 3 midfielders did, even in the wings. I dont think I really ever got overloaded, the only time someone had a "free" cross was because the forward wide player passed it back at the WB going up and he first touch crossed it before the defence could pressure/engage him. I didn't think you'd be overrun. People see the shape on the tactics screen and then take wild guesses on what will happen. When the reality is, when you are attacking or in a defensive phase the shape you see on the formation overview isn't the one you'll see in game. Quote They also did move as a compact unit up and down the pitch for the most part as you comment. They were all the time like a triangle with the attacking CM slightly forward and the regista mroe central and further back, with a slgiht tendency to open to the right due to the space left. The position map shows this very well: This is great because it shows you are seeing how they worked together and taking notes. So by watching and studying them after a couple of games you can then expand this and see how they interact and support the attackers, how they help out the defenders and so on. Then you'll know if the midfield balance is right or perhaps it may need a slight refine. But based on what you've said so far, it's worth persisting with the midfield for now until you understand it a little better. Quote So, does that mean I can get enough width even with lower agressiveness? All the topics I read and feedback from veterans seemed to point that FB(s) doesn't give enough wide support if there is no one else performing that responsability in the wing. I'm not sure where this comes from but its not a hard and fast rule. A FB on support will still attack and aid the attack, he'll just do it from deeper areas that's all. I'd imagine in your set up in the games you've watched, he will have supported the midfield fine and supplied the attackers. Maybe it might not be enough for what your end goal is and that's fine. But study the role first and see how its linking with the players infront of him. Also what is it that you actually want from the fullback? As all the roles in this position will defend and attack. Some will just be more aggressive/direct than others. For example if you want to hit early crosses into the box for the strikers than a FB on support will be more than enough for this. But if you want them to get high up the pitch and be more of a byline/box threat then perhaps it isn't the role for you. Don't be put off by something just because of what you've read on here as 99% of the time those people are often wrong. Base any decisions you make on what you see happening. Quote Well. I want them to do several things. Be the ones starting quick transitions, support slower attacks with late runs from deep + been an outlet to recycle possesion out of the box and track back a lot defensively to support the defence, making sure I quickly have many bodies behind the ball after possesion is lost. To be honest they seemed to achieve all this for the most part in the test game. Theres was one bit I didnt liked and will adress later, but it was minor and more on the attacking side. It was just a game of course, so hardly conclussive but it was agaisnt a top team that was playing a formation with a lot of wide presence, so it felt like a good example to test my concerns. Based on the above you seem to be figuring this out now. Just carry on doing what you did in the opening example with the heat map etc. The only way to get a better understanding is to watch games/clips/events from the matches you play. Honestly that's the only way to truly learn what works. I think you'll be more than fine on this point though as throughout the thread you've shown a good understanding of everything :). Quote The reason that I decided to put the playmaker in the DM was so he was deep precisely and would be the one initiating the attacks. The idea is as I mentioned to make more use of faster transitions, so I wanted the one starting those transitions and attempting those risky passes been a talented player in the creative and technical sense. I thought that been in the DM strata the ball would be able to get very quickly to him often times and he would be the one making those risky passes instead of having to ask the defensive lien to do this, which they many not be as suited to do. This is perfectly fine. You know exactly what you want from the role and justified why you included this role. What I suggest now is you build around this role and play to its strengths. Again all of this will tie in with the above and what you see though. After a while you might come to a conclusion that you have to tweak things to take advantage of the regista more. On some occasions this might make choosing other roles easy as you might think along the lines of 'The regista is driving forward but I don't have anyone making runners beyond/along side him. So automatically you'd know that you wanted an aggressive/more mobile role. So you'd be looking at roles such as BBM/Mez/CMA which eliminates a lot of the others. That's just an example btw and not a suggestion on roles for you Quote I honestly dont think I will know how to build a tactic around (insert role/position here), maybe due to my lack of experience. I basically think of what I want from the team as a whole and then set a formation, roles, duties, TI and PI (in that order) that I feel will help me achieve that kind of football I want to see. Then doing small tweaks to try to tackle one by one "issues" I see. I put "issues" like that because its not neccesarilly something bad, it may be soemthing that was simply unintended. I'm confident you'll be fine based on what you've seen and posted so far. Give yourself some credit, you know more than you think My main advice here would be to carry on thinking and describing stuff like you did in the final sentence. It's perfect and how you should view things. Could also be worth making a mental/written note too on things like does it happen frequently or just every so often? Then perhaps look to see if it only happens against a specific role/formation and so on. Like you said, something might not be bad in the sense you have to panic. It could be a rare incident or unintentional like you say. Also only making minor changes is 100% the way to go. I've been saying this for 20+ years. Make small changes that you can keep track of and observe how something behaves. if you make lots of changes this gets lost. Quote The point is that this is why I wrote that bit. To get help understanding how it works. The only other way of understanding how it works its seeing it in play, which Im doing too, but I wanted to compliment as there only so much time to test things out and I was hoping to clear some things up without needing to test out everything (though I can say I do enjoy the testing and tweaking a lot when I manage to realize thigns and solve them in my own). I wasn't having a go at you here, so sorry if you thought that. It's more I'm trying to get you to question yourself and have validation for why you change something or for what you use, rather than not knowing why if that makes sesnse. I get the time thing too, it can also be frustrating. But keep doing what you do and you'll be more than fine Quote In this case in particular though, I have used a CM (De) before, in fact it ended been my main holding role in my more agressive formation. And even in a far mroe agressive systemr egrding TI's and such, I know thats a role that operates closer to the halfline that it does to the box while in possesion. Getting closer to the box only sometimes and even the briefly, pulling back quickly. It may not be that bad if the Regista uses him as pass outlet to then overlap it and go further forward doing the support directly. But as I said, my lack of experience with the regista meant I couldn't tell. Now, basing myself in the game I played against Milan, I actually liked how this role moved about both in attack and defence. Only bit I didnt liked its that it got into the are in situations which it didnt seem very useful. After seen it in play I think I would prefer him maintaining the same movement but been a more conservative in the last third, staying preferably out of the area and only surging in to contest crosses or what have you, given its likely to be a strong player. See, by me asking you a few questions you now know how the role functioned, the good bits, the bad and even possible issues. In the entire quote you clearly have a good handle of things and the behaviours you think should happen and what you want to see. The key now is finding the right balance elsewhere. But your responses come across as you knowing what you need to tweak next. Then rinse and repeat until you are happy Quote So here I was right it seeems. It wouldn't change much and to some extent the 3rd CD does give that extra holding cover. I did notice in my match that my CD's opened wide when neccesary which I enjoyed a lot. If the attacker tried to sue width one of my CD's was always defending around the line of the wide exterior edge of the box. Even going to press the wide player if neccesary. It was the FBs and the CMs doing this more often but when it happened those CDs and full backs tracked back to fill the back line really quickly, so I never felt exposed or like I was leaving gaps. Sometimes you might get overrun but those occasions should be rare rather than regular. I'd 100% say stick to thinking the way you are as its all logical reasonings you present and you can't go too wrong thinking logically about FM. Quote About the space, I kind of thought that space on the wings, while something to have in account given the formation is relativelly narrow, wasn't the worst deal because I should be better than most when dealing with crosses. And to be honest this match proved that as they didnt really get any decent chance from the side. This is soemthing I would have to see on the long run to properly evaluate though, as crosses tend to be by default risky chances In my own tactic I give away a lot of crosses down my right side because I use a CWB and a Mez attack on the same side. My CWB has something like 17 assists in 14 games and the Mez has 19 goals in 18 games. So giving up space and crosses here doesn't bother me because I gain so much by playing risky. And I'm confident my defenders can deal with most situations. I could deal with giving up the crosses here easily but then it impact my play when we have possession. It's important to remember we are trying to win rather than playing a perfect game. All shapes have specific weakness and strengths and perhaps drawbacks we can't really impact much. I see it as this in my own set up. Quote Is it? I honestly dont know. Or at least didn't. I had never used it, but I thoguht it could fit given the description and what I had read. By this very small sample it feels like it does what I wanted him to. At the very least I very much believe that it met my expectations much more than what I think a DLP would do instead (to put an example given it was mentioned earlier). This is brilliant because you didn't know but now perhaps you do. You just need to see it for a few more games but the early signs are good. Quote I didnt mean at any point that "having non creative roles make attacks slower". I meant that a DLP, by virtue of staying deeper in possesion, would give less support in slower attacking transitions as comapred to a regista, which as I could see does give quite the support. About the more vulnerable in the counterpress, I dont strongly affirm it for a reason. My thoguht of process was that the more static DLP would maybe struggle more to get open and the defenders would then be more likely to be abe to pass it among thesmselves or clear it given the other roles are surging forward. I may be perfectly wrong. Ah my apologies, I see what you mean now. A DLP can fast transition though too, it all depends on the player used. Player traits can be great here and also a curse as it can alter the type of behaviour you want. As you get more confident with tactic creating you can use this to manipulate a specific behaviour that you require. Quote Also, why do you feel that way in that I am "very set with your ideas and how stuff works in a very black and white sense which is giving you preconceptions of stuff". I is it due to the way I set out my posts? My intention is that instead of just pasting a tactic and asking how to improve I try to explain what I try to achieve and my thoguht process (why I did this, or what problem I thoguht this alternative could have) to achieve two things: - Make the reader know what I want to achieve so he /she has context and can adapt his advice and thoughts better in his answer - If my thought process/assumption is flawed, I precisely want someone to see it and tell me "Hey, thats not like that" Putting it down for others to see felts the easiest way to precisely clarify/correct wrong assumptions. At last, assumptions are something that seems indispensable to make, at least for someone newer like me. Maybe people like you that have played for years, and have more experience about overall football in real life too dont need to assume anything, because you inmediatly know pretty accurately what a given thing will mean. But for someone like me, and specially given how opaque the game itself can be at telling you what something exactly does, been even misleading at times, the only way to build a tactic at first its by assuming that a certain thing will work this way. Because if not you have nothing to work with and you are just putting in random roles and instructuctions waiting to see what happens (arguably my first tactic was something like that though I had informed myself a bit in places like this beforehand). The regista matter its a good example. I have only got about 3 seasons worth of play, in which I had never used a regista and had rarelly if at all seen it in the opposition. The only way for me to use it its by assuming it will behave in a certain way (based on the info available, but again its not the most detailed) and that that behaviour will fit my tactic. Another simpler example would be what you just said about the presence of a DM making the D line position itself deeper by default. I had no idea of this until you mentioned it now. This are the kind of thigns why I come to the forum to learn I didn't mean any offence here. It was mainly based on the persistent use of the Regista even though you had no idea what you expected or how it behaved and posted without watching it first. The way you've answered my questions show I was perhaps wrong and a bit hastily in coming to that conclusion though. As you've answered perfectly and gave reasons to why you use stuff. I can see pushy and arrogant I guess as I'm trying to get you to justify stuff. But that isn't for my benefit, its more to open your mind and the way you think. I'm trying to get you to know why you use something and not justifying your decisions to me, as it makes no difference to me at all. What you've said above about not having the experience and not knowing how stuff works is 100% the reason for why I ask the questions I do. It's all part of tactic building and me wanting you to question yourself on your choices and not just make decisions based on nothing so to speak. I'm trying to learn you techniques which most veterans of the game probably already have So sorry if it comes across rude etc, it's not my intention. I'd have ignored the topic if that was my intention. Quote I am/was. As you can see in the OP I have force opposition outside, which is basically defending narrower You've forced them outside, which means they go wide which in turn means you are wider. Forcing them inside would be narrower Quote Im wondering if the narrow in possesion instruction is necceary. I liked how it played out, but its the kind of thign I really need to see over a longer period of time. It seemed to help making people be back in position quickly after lossing possesion, and also making the mdifielders stay close to each other supporting one another as they go up the pitch. Maybe its the kind of instruction that can be removed against certain opposition. But this is another point entirely. When you are viewing a game next, keep pausing it at random intervals when you are attacking. Take a look around and see if its too narrow for your liking or if players aren't using width like you want and make a note. Rinse and repeat all game or several games then you'll have a better idea. A tip when doing this to be use different camera angles too so you can see the event from a different angle as its gives a different perspective sometimes. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jervaj Posted January 19, 2021 Author Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Cleon said: No worries, the top appealed to me as it's a bit like how I've set up on FM21. Not the shape, I use a standard 352 but the principles. Looks like we both set out for something similar, so felt I was in a good place to offer actual advice. Also watching matches and making notes is 100% the way to go. As how something looks on paper very rarely plays out that way because attributes, teams you face, team you are, instructions etc all have an impact on behaviour. So can be difficult for anyone to offer actual advice if you don't have stuff to talk about from games that you have actually seen. If that makes sense Sure. I appreciate it a lot. I can't upvote your post enough hehe. This is precisely the kind of conversation I wanted going. Quote It's not a contradictory. It's more you haven't really committed one way or another to the style you want to achieve, at least, not in the sense of the simplest way. Remember the roles and duties are what ultimately determines what someone does on the pitch and governs their behaviour. It's much easier to use a less aggressive base and be more aggressive with roles/duties than it is the other way around. If you use a slightly more aggressive structure then even with being more passive with roles and duties, the overall base is still slightly more aggressive. It's not that I'm saying it can't be done or is contradictory. It's more about there is a simpler, less hassle way of doing things. You seem to be going around the houses and making it more complicated than needs be. But that's just an observation and if you're more comfortable doing it how you are then ignore me and persist I think I understand you now. You see it more like you want to see the base at the bottom and add from there to go up (up been agressiveness/risk in this case). I dont know, maybe its the way of thinking. Im not sure if I could achieve the same play from my team with a lower mentality, specially given the equivalency is not very direct, as in I lower here this, and then up this there and its now the same. Specially due to the hardcoded role behaviour. For example imagine that after further using the tactic I decided I want the behaviour of a fullback like the one I already have in this starting formation. From what I seen in videos explaining how the different SD roles move, Im not sure I can achieve it just by setting a lower mentality and then a more agressive role like a WB/CWB (or using the WB position itself). But again its maybe that Im used at doing it in a different way. Quote People tend to talk in very black and white terms. There is no such thing as a static role, not in the sense people think. Even something like an anchorman will support the midfield and move about. He'll be much more restrained in some aspects, but he won't be static. I think that's the wrong word for describing because if your defensive shield was static he'd be no good either. He'll still close people down, pass the ball about and what not. How far he'll actually stray and what he does will be determined by his attributes that make up his skill set. I think this is a side people don't pay much attention to and neglect. But for me, it's probably the most important aspect on the entire game. I've wrote a lot about this over the years. I may have given another impression but when I say static of course I mean it in a relative way. Of course no player is just staying in a very reduced area its never going out of. Theres a lot of variables regarding the player itself and whats happening around him that determines that on top of the role, instructions, etc, given by you. With static I just mean that its more reluctant to move further away from its gravity point. I have read though, probably some of it from you, that depending on attributes some roles specially can really change a lot on how they behave. Usually related the most with things like work rate, bravery, agression, flair, etc. Even before I saw this, I had already noticed (or thought I did) that players overall tend to more the thing they feel comfortable with based on their overall attributes, not just mentals, but some of them really to seem to add a more notable impact in overall behaviour. Thats still something Im far to understanding a lot about, as in how much and what differences should I expect from certain attributes discrepancies. In fact I remember asking somewhere what would be the difference in behaviour between the two best passesr I had in another team. One had slightly more vision and passing while the other had much more flair. But I didnt got an answer. Quote I didn't think you'd be overrun. People see the shape on the tactics screen and then take wild guesses on what will happen. When the reality is, when you are attacking or in a defensive phase the shape you see on the formation overview isn't the one you'll see in game. I was honestly not too confident at first, but in practice I felt solid indeed and rarely overrun. The players moved well and there was defensive coverage in all the width of the pitch. Will have to see how the games go and observe if this continues and what tendencies I may notice. Quote This is great because it shows you are seeing how they worked together and taking notes. So by watching and studying them after a couple of games you can then expand this and see how they interact and support the attackers, how they help out the defenders and so on. Then you'll know if the midfield balance is right or perhaps it may need a slight refine. But based on what you've said so far, it's worth persisting with the midfield for now until you understand it a little better. Im wondering a slight change to the CML role due to the reasons I noted later in my post. But seeing so far how it behaved I may try the smallest one first. I need to have a better look at my attacks. I was paying more attention to the defence in that one even if I looked all around. I noticed they sitted narrow enough when in shape by default but were eager to go after the ball if it went to the wings for example, even two of them at times. If central they will still put some pressure once the enemy is on our half which felt appropaite so the opposition has to move and doesnt get too comfortable. Quote I'm not sure where this comes from but its not a hard and fast rule. A FB on support will still attack and aid the attack, he'll just do it from deeper areas that's all. I'd imagine in your set up in the games you've watched, he will have supported the midfield fine and supplied the attackers. Maybe it might not be enough for what your end goal is and that's fine. But study the role first and see how its linking with the players infront of him. Also what is it that you actually want from the fullback? As all the roles in this position will defend and attack. Some will just be more aggressive/direct than others. For example if you want to hit early crosses into the box for the strikers than a FB on support will be more than enough for this. But if you want them to get high up the pitch and be more of a byline/box threat then perhaps it isn't the role for you. Don't be put off by something just because of what you've read on here as 99% of the time those people are often wrong. Base any decisions you make on what you see happening. Well, some of the sources seem to be reputable like the pair and combinations guide pinged in this sub forum. It doesnt outright say its bad but it says its "dangerous" and you have to know what you are doing. Given in my case Im trying something I didnt have much experience with I decided to try first the theoretically more orthodox option, given the lack of width support. About what I want. Due to the approach wanting to favour counters (even if not as only option) and FB starting from deeper I thought them been agressive with their runs and starting them early would be helpful to help move the ball up quickly. Also to provide width up the pitch and stretch defences in slower build ups. The hit crosses early instruction may seem contradictory but its something I got fond on using after a few iterations with my other more agressive tactic ( I didnt had it for quite a while). In that one the wingbacks were still crossing from the byline/getting at box level vertically, but the TI meant that my attack angles were a bit more varied as I crossed from deeper sometimes and it seemed to help both in counters and vs deep defences which I started to face more as time progressed. So basically here I aim to replicate that with the FB. Someone that defends deep with the rest of the D line but in possesion provides width and variety of attack directions, while assiting quick transitions too. I have noticed one unexpected thing too, that they seem to play closer to the box overall. Well, it wasn't fully unexpected as I noticed both in game and in videos that they seem to have a lower focus on staying wide, and the narrow TI on top may be nuancing it more. But they do try to penetrate the area a lot relativelly. This happened with the WBs too in some sitations in my other tactics but it was rare. I want to wait though because Im not seeing it as a bad thing, as its meaning they are combining a lot with the CMs that come forward which its good given they would be more isolated otherwise lacking a wide partner. It does seem to help with them been back in defensive position faster as they have to cover a bit less distance. Im just unsure if they could end having too much in box action, as they dont seem to be so well suited attribute wise for it. Quote Based on the above you seem to be figuring this out now. Just carry on doing what you did in the opening example with the heat map etc. The only way to get a better understanding is to watch games/clips/events from the matches you play. Honestly that's the only way to truly learn what works. I think you'll be more than fine on this point though as throughout the thread you've shown a good understanding of everything :). Well, in this case I think I had figured it out more or less. The doubt was more what combination of roles would allow to fulfill all those tasks due to my lack of experience with some of them. I was also doubtful of how they would behave in those swift transitions when the ball gets ahead faster than them. I was curious if they would still be deep enough to quickly aid defence if the direct pass fails or would be already out of position. It seems the prior applies so far. They track back above expectations which pleased me a lot. Will keep following this in future matche to see how it evolves. Quote This is perfectly fine. You know exactly what you want from the role and justified why you included this role. What I suggest now is you build around this role and play to its strengths. Again all of this will tie in with the above and what you see though. After a while you might come to a conclusion that you have to tweak things to take advantage of the regista more. On some occasions this might make choosing other roles easy as you might think along the lines of 'The regista is driving forward but I don't have anyone making runners beyond/along side him. So automatically you'd know that you wanted an aggressive/more mobile role. So you'd be looking at roles such as BBM/Mez/CMA which eliminates a lot of the others. That's just an example btw and not a suggestion on roles for you I will certainly will have to observe the overall regista behaviour more in buildup. So far as mentioned he seems to be fulfilling the base premise mentioned, of a player that gets the ball quickly after recovery and its the one starting most plays, to see what can be useful around him. With the added bonus of staying relatively close to the CM giving them support in buildup. Quote I'm confident you'll be fine based on what you've seen and posted so far. Give yourself some credit, you know more than you think My main advice here would be to carry on thinking and describing stuff like you did in the final sentence. It's perfect and how you should view things. Could also be worth making a mental/written note too on things like does it happen frequently or just every so often? Then perhaps look to see if it only happens against a specific role/formation and so on. Like you said, something might not be bad in the sense you have to panic. It could be a rare incident or unintentional like you say. Also only making minor changes is 100% the way to go. I've been saying this for 20+ years. Make small changes that you can keep track of and observe how something behaves. if you make lots of changes this gets lost. Yeah, thats actually a good note. When something odd happens maybe look at the opposition too and see if it happens again in similar cirucmstances. Could make me think how to maybe tweak a bit vs certain rivals. Quote I wasn't having a go at you here, so sorry if you thought that. It's more I'm trying to get you to question yourself and have validation for why you change something or for what you use, rather than not knowing why if that makes sesnse. I get the time thing too, it can also be frustrating. But keep doing what you do and you'll be more than fine Oh, I totally get that approach, I have seen it often. Ask questions to the other side so they answers them to themselves. Its a very useful exercise, and one I precisely want to promote with this topics, so I dont felt like you are having a go at me. Dont worry Quote See, by me asking you a few questions you now know how the role functioned, the good bits, the bad and even possible issues. In the entire quote you clearly have a good handle of things and the behaviours you think should happen and what you want to see. The key now is finding the right balance elsewhere. But your responses come across as you knowing what you need to tweak next. Then rinse and repeat until you are happy Well, problem is that even when I have this kind of analisys laid out, I still struggle to know how can I get the behaviour I want. I had a similar issue with the CML and the IF's in the other formation I used, where I saw things I liked and things I wanted changed. I managed to find a happy balance, but it took me almost the full season and several iterations (even several roles with the CML which every time meant I also had to adjust the AMC and CMD due to their interactions) and even then in the IF's case I still sacrificed a bit on one end to achieve it, but I guess that makes sense too. The problem resides too in that sometimes you need to give your tweaks time before you see the results (as in achieving your objective with the change) which makes you even more hesitant if you are doing the right thing when you first implement then. For example in this case, my main option would be maybe making the BBM a CM(s). Feels like the most similar role, while maybe been less agressive in that last final part. BBMs seem to track back more though, as even the tactic view shows them slightly deeper, and that isn't something I wanted to lose. Also less horizontal mobility (in possesion at least) but that shouldnt be an issue in the formation, its not like it was using it much already unlike other roles. I will have to test and see though to compare the too in this setup. I dont know without doing it what it may end in. Also would have to see if this varies its position relative to the other 2 midfielders which is quite important on its own. Quote In my own tactic I give away a lot of crosses down my right side because I use a CWB and a Mez attack on the same side. My CWB has something like 17 assists in 14 games and the Mez has 19 goals in 18 games. So giving up space and crosses here doesn't bother me because I gain so much by playing risky. And I'm confident my defenders can deal with most situations. I could deal with giving up the crosses here easily but then it impact my play when we have possession. It's important to remember we are trying to win rather than playing a perfect game. All shapes have specific weakness and strengths and perhaps drawbacks we can't really impact much. I see it as this in my own set up. In mean, in theory this drawback also has a pro. I noticed that both wide players were often drawed towards me, even both been pass the box edge line, which means it opens space on their wings too that my agressive FB's may exploit on the break. Thing is I dont know if the pay off would be good enough, but crosses didnt got Milan a single good chance in this example so it may be an affordable price. FBs contributed to attacks in general in a tangible way, but specifically in quick transitions they didnt seem to be targeted like wide players were in my other formation. Maybe they start too deep for that. I will have to wait and see before reaching a conclusion. Quote I didn't mean any offence here. It was mainly based on the persistent use of the Regista even though you had no idea what you expected or how it behaved and posted without watching it first. The way you've answered my questions show I was perhaps wrong and a bit hastily in coming to that conclusion though. As you've answered perfectly and gave reasons to why you use stuff. I can see pushy and arrogant I guess as I'm trying to get you to justify stuff. But that isn't for my benefit, its more to open your mind and the way you think. I'm trying to get you to know why you use something and not justifying your decisions to me, as it makes no difference to me at all. What you've said above about not having the experience and not knowing how stuff works is 100% the reason for why I ask the questions I do. It's all part of tactic building and me wanting you to question yourself on your choices and not just make decisions based on nothing so to speak. I'm trying to learn you techniques which most veterans of the game probably already have So sorry if it comes across rude etc, it's not my intention. I'd have ignored the topic if that was my intention. Oh, as I said before dont worry. I fully get that concept of making others question themselves I mentioned. I use it outside of FM too myself jeje. In this case the reason why I put it there was clear. The problem was that I had no idea if it would do what I expected it to due to not knowing it as mentioned. But it felt like a good candidate for the intention given in game description and the reading I had done. As you said before the early signs are good so I will keep trying and observing him. Quote You've forced them outside, which means they go wide which in turn means you are wider. Forcing them inside would be narrower Damn, this is one of those things that frustrates me because the game is misleading. It literally shows your formation becoming narrower when you select the option. I assumed that sitting narrower its what makes the opposition rather go wide as the space is there. I guess I can see your point in that it could end stretching you wide too if they attack more through the wings. but it so confusing at first glance. This makes me think though. Would you consider in a narrow formation like mine using the opposite instruction to invite them to play through the center of the pitch where I have more bodies and are in theory stronger? May be something worh a consideration against some opposition. Balanced seemed well enough for the first match but there is still a lot left to see. Quote When you are viewing a game next, keep pausing it at random intervals when you are attacking. Take a look around and see if its too narrow for your liking or if players aren't using width like you want and make a note. Rinse and repeat all game or several games then you'll have a better idea. A tip when doing this to be use different camera angles too so you can see the event from a different angle as its gives a different perspective sometimes. Will do, thanks for the advice. I kind of did this with my other tactic and I saw I wasnt stretching defences enough when they played more compact/deeper. It made me remove the TI by default as I was using it too (thought it was only fairly narrow due to mentality). Also, on another topic. The oddest thing I actually saw in the match was that my GK kept on hoofing and giving the ball away. I didnt had anything specifically set for him, and before in the other tactic this used to work better and had more varied attempts. Its not only that he hoofs but that the decisions were terrible and seevral passes were even directly out of bounds. Even in the second half I asked him to risk less and pass shorter and he still did the same (the only change I did as I didnt want to tweak the tactic for this match but it was getting ridcoulous). I dont think he hitted a kick on target in the whole match. Maybe its because of Mirante's terrible vision stat. I may have to force him into a safer distribution. Maybe to my playmaker that should be close and can then attempt those passes if he sees the opportunity. This may also be related with what I commented answering to Guerin before. I noticed problems with my long balls in general and I think it may be related to the CF not been in a position to receive those balls and the AF simply not been built for it (unless is an over the top one). I really want to try CF in attack and compare behaviour in different situations to see if it indirectly helps in other regards like this one, and supporting the AF more, on top of not staying almost in the way of the CML. Thanks again for everything! Great discussion! Im off to play more matches. Edited January 20, 2021 by Jervaj Typos and grammar 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jervaj Posted January 22, 2021 Author Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) So, a quick update with my progress with this tactic. Pre season is over and I have been observing and noting some tendencies through it. Due to the starting friendly arrangements I faced varying teams, 2 top quality, 2 middle teams and 2 clearly inferior ones. This would be important because some things changed notably. Tactics used agaisnt me were basically 3-5-2 and 4-2-3-1 variations. These are my notes in different aspects, starting by zones of the field: Midfield: Really enjoying the Regista. Despite my somewhat blind shot due totlack of the role knowledge I think I achieved what I wanted from it. He does really get involved in the early creation both in more patient and direct attacks. Been the one that starts most of our moves and meaning our CD's rarelly have to perform any risky passes, usually been able to quickly connect with him. There is some clearances here and there but mostly make sense. Im yet to see any outrageous turnover by them. The biggest surprise was that in slower build ups I have noticed he does performe a semi holding role. Is a bit like the mirror of the CM(De) I know more. He doesnt play around the edge of the box. He moves up if needed but mostly with the ball and quickly moves back after releasing it, staying clearly behind both CMs, between them and just closer to the box than to the halfline opposite than the CM(de). So he still does some sweeping recovering deflected balls and acts as a deeper possesion recycling outlet. maybe been more eager to roam towards the sides to support an attack going through the wing though not as closely as maybe a RPM. The B2B was changed to a CM (s) and the tweak achieved its purpose. He works very similarly in defence, just prefering to stay slightly deeper in patient attacks, penetrating the area only on select ocassions. Its the role Im still the most open to play with but so far it looks good. The CM(a) hasn't been tocuhed like the Regista. It does tend to spearhead the "triangle" in faster transitions and in attack he does penetrate the area often but also come back out when needed. Seems to be very eager to move in and out constantly unlike other roles I experienced once they penetrate they rather stay in. I noticed though that in some games his average position can be lower than the CM(s) Defence wise, they behaviour is above expectations. They are quick to be in positon, specially the Regista placing hismelf rather deep shielding the D line. They are all eager to go press without overcommitting. Even the regista, compared to other DM roles, but Im finding that usulally more a boon than an issue. The 3 seem to be quite flexible with their triangle. Always move like a pack staying relativelly close nad shifting toward where the ball is but adapt the relative position to both press and still cover the central zones. Strikers: I have set the CF in attack duty instead and its likely it will stay like that. It has small drawbacks, specially as it lowers notably its defence contribution and means that very early on in transitions he is not an easy short pass outlet been more similar to the AF, but it also means he is much better placed to receive longer balls and support the AF. He does carry the ball forward quickly sometimes himself (specially Zaniolo as he is pacy and has a PPM that encourages center runs) but also lays the ball to the AF other times. Im now seeing the combine more as I first conceived. In slower attacks he still roams deeper and into the channels a lot and contributes both with moving the ball and finishing. I noticed that defensively both strikers do some early press even recovering the ball at times. Im temtped to ask them to press more to further reinforce this behaviour while the team repositions. Once the opposition is on my half they usually stay further up, though if the enemy gets too close to the halfline or pass back into their half they will sometimes try to sneak in a tackle/interception from behind, specially the CF. Defence: The CD's have performed as expected, nothing much to comment about that, maybe except that despite the standard DL they do get quite up the pitch at times in slower attacks to rpovide some minor support and sweep back balls/deflect counters. They are overall cautious both in attack and defence as intended. As mentioned in previous posts they open wider and even press in the wings when neccesary, if enemy transitions quickly into those spaces. About the full backs, after seen their behaviour in a few matches Im feeling more at ease with the agressive duty. Their role means that they indeed drop deeper forming a line with th CD's, and mixed with the overall instrunctions they seem to do quite quickly. Even when they are not there I have never really felt exposed in the wings as either the CD/CM on that side or the Regista covers, and a small delay is usually mroe than enough for the FB to be back in shape. In attack they are kind of always there when needed at different stages, working closely with midfielders and strikers, so they are giving me all the wide support I want. The formation means I rarelly overload the wings but I do have width yet they don't feel isolated. Im looking to them a lot toying playing both with the Narrow TI and without it, as they seem the most affected by it. Both seem to work,each with its pros and cons. Im still hesitating which one should be the default. As for more general behaviour and results. Every match I have had a possesion in the 40-48% range. I noticed that every match in the first half it tends to be on the lower side of that range and it grows slowly during the second. I dont know what to take of it. Alao we were hardly ever caught on the break, which was one if my worries at first. I always had very quickly a lot of bodies behind the ball, comfortably outnumbering the attackers. The worse transition was one time that they had 2 attackers against my 3 CDs. Which they ended stopping along halfway on my half and pasaing back which meant I had the full team in position already by the time the new attacker coming up did something with the ball. Despite that possesion been consistent, what happens around it varies a lot though. Against the weaker teams I totally dominate. Doesn't need to mean that the tactic is doing well as it may be a matter of just player quality, but its a relief to see that the defensive/bottom heavy tactic doesnt make me struggle in easy matches. They held their possesion mostly in the middle third creating no danger. One of the matches specifically was pretty extreme, when with me having just 40% in the first half they had shot once, while I did it 14 times, mostly on target, very high xg and 4 goals. Second half was calmer, my possesion went up and only scored once. They still got a few more shots but most off and very low xg. The other match was similar just eithout such an extreme first half. Ended 4-0 Against the middle teams it was a less dominating variation of this scenario. Still a lot of their possesion was far from my box. They created some chances, but nothing worrying and I had mostly the upper hand when it came to number and quality of chances despite my lower possesion. Just not as heavily. In one I even didnt manage to score as I missed my 2 main chancea and the rest while relativelly plentiful were not that good. The two hardest matches (against Milan and Juventus) were quite different though. Both compared to the rest and between themselves. I lost both, but the impression I got fron them was radically different. They both played a 4-2-3-1. In both cases the main difference was that they were able to hold the possesion much closer to my box. It is easily noticeable In the case of Milan though, they looked frustrated. They got a good amount of shots but they were mostly from outside the box. Their two best chances of the game were XG 0,13 and 0,10 respectively. XG aside the one that felt more dangerous was a header were the striker was able to hit wothout direct conest as the CD didnt react/position himself well to go for. The header whiffed conpletely. Despite this feel it had very bad xg so I guess it may have been a very hard one to hit properly, maybe due to him having to run and jump opposite of the goal to get to the ball. The goal they scored was a 0,03 xg long ahot, after out of options one of the players that had just received with his back to the goal decided to turn and shoot. I reviewed it and didnt see any obvious mistake from the defence in the movement leading to it, and he was just about to be pressed. Maybe they were not fast enough (one of the midfielders that was on his other side of him kind of ignored him as he received the ball while someone from the box came to press) but it really felt like the kind of thing that happens when you face quality players (he had very good long shots). On my side, while I got less total shoots out, it was still a decent number and much better quality. With 3 0,25 XG chances and total notably higher XG than them. So while I was a bit disappointed by the loss, I felt like I would have nornally won that match. Juventus was another story though. They literally camped on my half, specially early on. The position map at the end really shows as Im so deep in that one. My team was able to hold them off, but they still were getting shots, and unlike Milans this were mostly from inside the box and a larger % on target. Not great chances, but still notably better on average than those of Milan. The pressure was clear and they scored their first goal relatively early. More worrying, I didnt got my first own chance until after the first quarter had passed. It was a decent one though and we scored putting us back into the match. From there on things seemed to shift a bit on my favour, but just a bit. I got a few more chances but overall pretty meh, and always far behind of what Juventus got as they were been much more agressive. In the last quarter of the game we crumbled and ended losing 1-4. The most worrying thing though, was except the last goal (that was a penalty), the rest were quite similar, which made me think of a potential weakness on our side. In the three cases it was a situation were everyone except my strikers was behind the ball my d line was just outside the box. In the first one they had gotten the ball on their half a bit ago they are passing it around near the halfline and suddenly a over the top pass from deep comes, their striker gets the back of my CDs, receiving towards the side of the pitch the pass came from, and shoots from the small box at an angle. In the second one the main difference was that they got the ball after a corner were one of my cds headed it clear and the player that grabbed again from the middle third made a deep pass, this time to the far side and ronaldo ( playing as IF) just runned straight between both CDs and kicked it in. The third one was scored by their striker again. Much like the first one they had just recovered in their half, this time this player just runss a upfield and does a over the top pass to the near post, the striker just runs forward much like ronaldo in last goal. My GK goes for it but reacts a bit slowly and covers the near post badly as they score again. Offside wise, in the first goal the most central defender was did kept the striker on been behind the rest of the line. In the other two they were well lined up and the striker came from deeper. I wasn't using offside trap TI in any case. Im wondering, after seeing and reviewing these goals and overall realizing how, by virtue of my formation, Im always outnumbering the oppostion in the center, if I should maybe try implementing tighter marking to overall make more difficult to pass around the closer they get to my box, specially given Im using skilled players that should be able to pull it off, and then balance this extra agressiveness by putting one of my CDs on cover duty instead, to sweep or intercept this kind of deep through balls, given I have always more men available than opposition attackers that need to be marked. I noticed people seem to like stopper and cover on 3 man defences. However I dont feel like stopper would be so good in my case as my midfielders are already doing the pressing in front of my CDs, in a compact shape. So I dont feel like it would mix up well Any thoughts on this? Also, if I were to do this, who is best to pick as cover? I assume the most central one its the obvious option but I also mean attributes wise. I have never used cover or stopper so I lack that experience. Only matter its that I kind of tend to have each specific post fixed as most of my CDs have a side preference. So I would rather not move them around. Hope you can find my experiences insightful and useful fof your games. Feel free to share any thoughts on this and give me feedback. Specially on the last bits. Thanks a lot to everyone that participates! Im off to start the season proper. First match its a derby away against Milan and with one of my main CDs starting on the bench due to a recent injury. Wish me luck! Edited January 22, 2021 by Jervaj 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jervaj Posted January 25, 2021 Author Share Posted January 25, 2021 (edited) So, Im already well into December, and boy! I was not used to a top team schedule. Things are indeed tight ocne the continental competition starts and it did so early on! Im glad this tactic is not as exigent as others, though some positions suffer a bit more (looking at you midfield). The season so far is been a rollercoaster though. We started off by defeating AC Milan away by a remarkable 0-3 yet next week got served 0-3 at home vs la Fiorentina. I have got to admit that Milan didn't deserve such a heavy defeat even if we played better, but the defeat agaisnt Fiorentina hurt specially given they had very few chances and only one could be considered good. While we had both more and of better quality. Still that defeat would prove to not be the worst pill to swallow, as after that we had a quite rocky start. The style of play was clearly defined, thats for sure, but the performances were very irregular. I have been watching matches in comprehensive mode and the feel was that even when I was having the upper hand I wasn't creating enough danger, lots of my transitions amounted to nothing and tahts was against weaker opposition in an easy Europe Leaue group. Even worse in the league I had matches where I really felt I wasn't in control even against smaller teams. Verona and Cagliari both soundly defeated me and they deserved their victory. Even if I was managing to overall don't concede much, never been caught on the break, and my preseason tweaks seemed to be doing their job in adressing the situations that I had mentioned, those teams were still able to put pressure on and on until they finally found the gaps in my defence while I was unable to pose a threat. Overall, I felt like I was on the path but something was not clicking. I needed some tweaks to give me that extra control while having more bite and consistency in attack. I had been testing things since the start and I continued to test tweaks (always bit by bit). Even tried raising both LoE and LoD by one notch each, which seemed to help a bit but it wasn't right and it affected the style and had other drawbakcs. I tried to give it a good thought, focusing on what my problems exactly were on both attack and defence and I finally found it: Positive mentality + pass into space did a lot for my attacking powress. I had noticed that often that, even if the midfielders behaviour was overall good, they were too slow/late to support the attacking transitions often times. I just wanted them to be a bit more agressive while maintaining the relative work and the extra notch on mentality felt the way to achieve it as it would push each of their individual mentalities by one notch. Then, I realized I wasn't exploiting the space my style naturaly opens as much as I should, specially given my pacy players. So Pass into space came in. And it worked! Not only my xg per match has improved, the quick and lethal style had never been truer. Every match I have several ocassions were either striker is alone in front of the GK after quick transitions, and even in not so direct ones midfielders put up a lot more pressure more quickly. I also settled for one notch into narrow. With positive mentality it is already fairly narrow and Im finding it a good balance between streching the defence and maximizing my strengths. On the defensive side, we were restricting space but the enemy was still allowed to play too freely. More urgent pressing did the trick, though the mentality may have played some part too as it shift a bit the lines forward and make press abit more by default. It means we still wait for the opposite team to come into our half, but when they do they can't play so freely. The midfielders mainly (sometimes a defender that doesn't have anyone to mark) are more eager to move forward and make life hard for the ball carrier. The times of some players moving around calmly in my half looking for a pass are over now, or at least don't happen often. And Im still never caught on the break. It only happened once so far when a lone striker was able to get hismelf in from of my GK (even then pressured though), and it was when I was trying the higher lines. I also started using OI's more freely as I used to following the general criteria I had, which seems to ahve helped somewhat too. I also did another minor tweak that its not seen. Removed short passing PI from CD's and added take less risks instead. It seems to allow better them taking low risks as was intended initially but without needesly turning the ball over as I felt they did too much before. I guess short was restricting their options too much in my formation which ended in them hoofing more despite the PI. Overall it feels really good now. I really watch the matches and enjoy them feeling my team much more in control. All without having renounced to the style. I do have some higher possesion sometimes against very defensive opposition, but Im overall still around 40% in most matches, which doesn't stop me of having more and better chances than my opponent. The feel of having much lower possesion yet controlling the match is so satisfying. My form has recovered with 7 matches undefeated now 8actually 10 but 3 are ties from before the changes and my increase in performance), only 1 tie against Inter away. And even in that one they were lucky as I dominated and none of their goals were from open play (we ended 2-2). Something I noticed too and didn't expected. its that Im barelly getting carded. Im the least carded team of the league with half the yellows than the following team and in the EL I barelly got any too. Not something Im used to, and didn't expected it given the "Stuck in" instructions. The only downside of all this is that the intensity has gone up, specially for my midfielders. This has made me create a secondary tactic given the harsh schedules. A small variation mostly meant to use when Im ahead (preferably by 2 goals) and I want to reduce risks and slow down/stall the game while making the tactic less exigent for my players. I dont feel it is as effective, but it still keeps to the style while its aim its not been the best performance wise anyway, so maybe its not a problem. Its still a work in progress as Im fine tuning it, but seems to work for its purpose so far. Mostly wondering if I should keep Pass into space on it too like the main one. Also, (I assume mentoring even if the game doesnt explicitily state it) several of my CDs seem to be picking up dives into tackles. I guess from Ibañez given he starts with it. Do you think it would work well in this tactic and assumign the CD quality is going to be good? What other PPMs would you think work well with this syetm in certain positions and which ones should I avoid or try to remove? Im still quite unexperienced when it comes to those, even if I have been toying with some of them a bit already. Edited January 25, 2021 by Jervaj 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beverage1982 Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Just wanted to put a quick note in to say: 1 - I'm enjoying this thread. 2 - It's great to see Cleon back on here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jervaj Posted January 28, 2021 Author Share Posted January 28, 2021 Just a very quick mid season update, having just played the 20th match of the league I thoguht I would share some statistics, because I dont know where I will get yet, but I seem to have clearly defined a style. Because, after all, who needs possesion? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now