(FM21) Did the updates nerf certain formations?

[MagicHat]

From my experience at least since the updates my 4-1-2-2-1, thats 2 CM 2 wingers/inside forwards is doing badly... like you know when you feel confident about your formation, the match stats you are getting, your defensive solidity? I dont feel confident at all now and find myself generally not dominating games anymore.. 

So yeah just a curious thread really... whats everyones thoughts and also ill add a Poll

[crusadertsar]

I don't think this is the right question to ask. Also, this has been said many times on here before but I will mention it again. What you are asking is a wrong way of approaching this. Generally updates don't "nerf" logical balanced formations that make sense from the tactical perspective. They can however break "gamey" exploit plug-and-play tactics. But those never really "worked" in a traditional logical sense but rather broke the game's rules by exploiting a hole in the engine. And everytime an update is put out, it's done to fix such exploits and make the game more realistic and satisfying in its tactical representation. Its to make it so you can actually feel some sense of satisfying progression when you put in the hard work and put a formation together with roles and instructions that make sense. Rather than degeneration into trial and error approach of trying to guess what breaks the game better, three poachers upfront or 10 roles with attack duty?

However if you would like some advise on how to make your tactic better then you can post it on here and we can give it a lookover. This is a very complex game and sometimes its more than just a question of tactics. Maybe the AI teams started treating you differently and line up more defensively now? Especially if you had so much success with this tactic before. Just something for you to think about rather than just assuming that there is something wrong with the ME.

Cheers!

Edited March 16, 2021 by crusadertsar

[MagicHat]

I never said theres anything wrong with the ME, im asking if anyone has experienced the same as me... this forum has always been like this, you can't discuss anything that *could* be negative about the game or update etc. or alternatively any kind of questioning is responded by some tactical mastermind who is apparently going to tweak my formation to perfection. 

i started working on alternative formations as soon as i noticed the results werent as consistent, including a 3-3-1-2-1 which seems to dominate games, but generally on this game ive noticed 2 striker formations are the biggest exploit considering none of the top teams use 2 striker formations in the premier league, maybe even Europe.

been playing management since football director by the way.... thanks

[Experienced Defender]

Formation and tactic are 2 different things. Both good and bad tactics can be created within any formation. So the key question is not whether this or that formation is "overpowered" or "underpowered", but whether your approach to tactics and tactical creation is sensible/logical or not.

The biggest truth about FM - at least when it comes to tactics - is what Herne79 once said: "The game rewards logical thinking". My experience with FM has absolutely confirmed that notion.

[Guv'nor]

Agreed to an extent, however some of the greatest breakthroughs in the beautiful game, that have added an extra layer of gorgeous to it, were once considered illogical. A few years back Jack O'Connell sprinted past his wingback in what, at the time, seemed like sheer madness, the moment he'd flapped his arms and gone over the cuckoo's nest. Today, overlapping CBs, still inconceivable in the FM matrix, is a common feature of many a side. Granted there is a lot of illogical, but in years to come, one can't help but feel football, from a tactical perspective, will be very different from what we see today. As teams place more and more emphasis on playing out from the back, coupled with the desire for greater involvement in the build-up from forwards, the emphasis on midfielders will increase and the need for pure defenders decrease as a consequence.

Sampaoli mightn't have been so mad after all. 

[Guv'nor]

In addendum, Tommy Tuchel once upon a time claimed the future of football was the 3-1-2-4, the final form of the 3-1-4-2, cited by many as the messianic formation set to take the game into the newest testament. Detailed descriptives read of a back four comprised of a horizontally stretched back three (akin to his Chelsea back line), an anchoring DMC who covers centrally, laterally and drops in alongside the solitary 'central' centre back as required. The wingbacks are wingers and in effect, wide forwards (no surprise in his use of CHO on the right side), the central body is completed by dual pairings in midfield and attack. 

Whilst not yet 3-1-2-4, there is considerable lateral spread of his back three, with Rudiger and Azpi playing wide in both phases at times. Theres argument to say Azpi is more fullback playing narrow than centre half moving wide. The width of the back three is influenced by the midfield pairing ahead of it. In many instances, Chelsea, owners of many a clean-sheet and one of the sternest defences across all Europes elite leagues since Tuchel took over, are playing with a single central centre back and cover the half-spaces either side with ball winning midfield movement and inversion of their quasi-fullbacks Rudiger and Azpi. Yet, most would consider a stretched back three featuring DL-DC-DR, unrealistic and illogical by FM standards. And rightly so, not because of a dearth of real life examples of its efficacy, but rather because of the limitations of the match engine. Much how centre back overlaps are inconceivable in the SI matrix, the idea of a fullback doing anything other than flying forward is lost to the game's cognition. Even the most No Nonsense Omeruo brought in for one's Espanyol and assigned pure ball aversion and bone crunching tackles in-field, was found many times trying to bend it like Beckham well outside of his jurisdiction. 

It's somewhat illogical that real life, well popularised strategies/tactics remain illogical to FM. Of course there are limitations to what the game can achieve, what the computer can compute and thus one is left to answer questions of realism/logical/illogical in FMglish. 

[sporadicsmiles]

2 hours ago, MagicHat said:

I never said theres anything wrong with the ME, im asking if anyone has experienced the same as me... this forum has always been like this, you can't discuss anything that *could* be negative about the game or update etc. or alternatively any kind of questioning is responded by some tactical mastermind who is apparently going to tweak my formation to perfection. 

 

Well, you get the same response because it is the correct response. When the ME gets a patch, it will strongly affect tactics that were (knowingly or otherwise) exploiting something that was poorly implemented. It is not an accusation or talking down to people, it is just what it is. I mean I have been using the basis of my tactical style for around 5 years now, and I have never had to update it simply because of a patch. Besides, as far as the patch notes say, there were minimal changes to the ME in 21.3 and 21.4, unless you think they are just not telling anyone what changes have been made. This is also a help forum, if you post that you are struggling with something, people will offer to help. 

33 minutes ago, Guv'nor said:

Yet, most would consider a stretched back three featuring DL-DC-DR, unrealistic and illogical by FM standards.

Or it is a 3 CB defensive line with greater attacking width set to spread the defenders wider when you have possession. Chelsea absolutely do not defend with a single CB. And by defend I mean the phase of play where they do not have the ball. They defend with 3 CBs. The formation you see in FM can be more or less thought of as the formation you will defend in (it is not quite that simple, but it more or less correct). So if you were setting up an FM replication of the tactic you describe, you would have 3 CBs. There is nothing illogical here, you are just missing that attacking and defensive positionings are rarely the same for any team, be it real life or in FM. 

Your point on limitations of the ME are well made in general though, because some things genuinely are very difficult to replicate with FM. Any kind of tiki taka style a la Guardiola has always been a pain to set up properly. There is always scope for improvements in how the ME is coded. In FM21 they ironed out a lot of the outstanding issues from FM20, so I am hopeful that they can continue to make steps forward. I would love there to be the flexibility to either adopt more odd tactical styles (such as the overlapping CBs), or to even truly innovate within FM. 

[Guv'nor]

^Single central centre back...absolutely. They wide-backs guard both the half space and flanks in both phases, though more so on the right. At times it shifts to a four with Alonso triggering the shift, but they're far from a regular back three. Arteta's use of Tierney in both phases during his 3-4-3 experiment another example of a hybridising back three. lopsided in both phases. Whilst the option is there to have lateral movement of outside centre-backs in the attacking phase, there's complete ignorance of real life approaches in the defensive phase. Then there's Pep's 3-3-4 vs Roma with Robben and Bernat if no mistaken far from wing backing, a split back three with movement from midfield complimenting defensive integrity. If not mistaken, there was a back two played by Bayern too and a Dani Alves high on the right all night long in one infamous Barca demolition of an opponent (who escapes memory). One hopes in futures editions greater emphasis is placed on the bidirectional evolution of the game. 

[zyfon5]

8 hours ago, MagicHat said:

i started working on alternative formations as soon as i noticed the results werent as consistent, including a 3-3-1-2-1 which seems to dominate games, but generally on this game ive noticed 2 striker formations are the biggest exploit considering none of the top teams use 2 striker formations in the premier league, maybe even Europe.

This is simply not true. Atletico, Leipzig are teams that have been using 2 striker formations for a very long time. City defends in a 442 formation most of the time so they are technically a 442 from a FM perspective. Real Madrid when Ronaldo was still there also lined up in a 442 occasionally. Atalanta, Chelsea, Barcelona are all good teams that have used 2 striker formations in recent years.

[Guv'nor]

Juve, Inter, Barca’s 3-4-1-2,  Real use the 4-3-1-2 a fair bit, to name a few. Wouldn’t consider utilising two strikers an exploit, IRL, it presents a different set of challenges to the back line. 

[Britrock]

The only change to the ME in this update was to throw in distances

https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/538556-football-manager-2021-official-feedback-thread/?do=findComment&comment=13007198

[Guest]

The new match engine has absolutely killed my long throws but other than that the only thing I can notice is conceding more (went from 0-1.5 XG to 1-3 XG every game) XG with my 2-3-5 formation.

[Guv'nor]

Is this an actual 2-3-5 or an exaggerated 4-1-4-1: fullbacks in the wingback position and 4 behind a lone forward? 
 

Any glaring differences in the match highlights, beyond the loss of the Rory Delap on steroids effect? Much needed might on add. 
 

[StayFrosty]

long throws are most affected for me. I used to create many chances from them yet they dont make the box now.

[StayFrosty]

On 17/03/2021 at 14:31, Fudal said:

The new match engine has absolutely killed my long throws but other than that the only thing I can notice is conceding more (went from 0-1.5 XG to 1-3 XG every game) XG with my 2-3-5 formation.

Absolutely killed them I agree.

[StayFrosty]

Also goalkeepers find themselves lost all the time

 

[Guv'nor]

2 hours ago, StayFrosty said:

long throws are most affected for me. I used to create many chances from them yet they dont make the box now.

Good riddance tbh. 

 

[denen123]

On 17/03/2021 at 04:12, zyfon5 said:

This is simply not true. Atletico, Leipzig are teams that have been using 2 striker formations for a very long time. City defends in a 442 formation most of the time so they are technically a 442 from a FM perspective. Real Madrid when Ronaldo was still there also lined up in a 442 occasionally. Atalanta, Chelsea, Barcelona are all good teams that have used 2 striker formations in recent years.

Not really. In FM, especially when you use a mezzala in a 4-3-3 or an attack duty AM in a traditional 4231, you'll find that your team presses in a 442. 

[zyfon5]

3 hours ago, denen123 said:

Not really. In FM, especially when you use a mezzala in a 4-3-3 or an attack duty AM in a traditional 4231, you'll find that your team presses in a 442. 

I was writing in reply that no top teams in real life use 2 striker formations. Not sure what you have written here has any correlation. But for the sake of replying, modern football has become less reliant on formations and more on controlling a certain space of the pitch and putting players that can perform a certain role on that area of the pitch. Hence, you will see traditional midfielders being deployed on the wings, full backs cutting inside midfield, wingers playing like a second striker, or fullbacks acting as playmakers from the wings. In this modern era, whether you play in a 433 or a 442 does not really matter.

[denen123]

7 hours ago, zyfon5 said:

I was writing in reply that no top teams in real life use 2 striker formations. Not sure what you have written here has any correlation. But for the sake of replying, modern football has become less reliant on formations and more on controlling a certain space of the pitch and putting players that can perform a certain role on that area of the pitch. Hence, you will see traditional midfielders being deployed on the wings, full backs cutting inside midfield, wingers playing like a second striker, or fullbacks acting as playmakers from the wings. In this modern era, whether you play in a 433 or a 442 does not really matter.

Not an attack on you(if you perceived it as so, I apologize). I'm simply addressing your statement that the game will interprete some real life teams tactic based on their defensive shapes(in this case 442). I'm just saying that 4-3-3 's and 4231's defend as 442's, too. 

[zyfon5]

37 minutes ago, denen123 said:

Not an attack on you(if you perceived it as so, I apologize). I'm simply addressing your statement that the game will interprete some real life teams tactic based on their defensive shapes(in this case 442). I'm just saying that 4-3-3 's and 4231's defend as 442's, too. 

Depending on how you look at the formation in FM,  if a CM moved up to press, then a 433 and 4231 can look like a 442 but once you have progressed from the pressing phase, the CM in a 433 or 4231 will always moved back to its original position quickly to maintain the 433 and 4231 shape. This does not happen if he plays in the ST position. Once you dropped the LOE low enough, then a 433 or a 4231 in game rarely deviates into a 442 since the CM no longer moves up to press. And this is what I meant by the defending formation because it is pointless to point out the formation during the pressing phase since the team will always move together to press. It can be a 244,253 or 424 during pressing.

In real life like in the Man City example, in a 442 their whole team will also move up to press so you can also say that they are defending in a 244 or 424. But once they are past the pressing phase, the two strikers will split wide to take advantage of spaces at the wide areas during transitions and the defending formation resembles a 442. 

[thedeadone]

Long throws have been killed yes.

it is worth noting in the lower leagues(real life) more goals are created from the use of long thows so maybe this should be addressed in next year's version.

Edited March 20, 2021 by thedeadone

[Guv'nor]

14 hours ago, thedeadone said:

Long throws have been killed yes.

it is worth noting in the lower leagues(real life) more goals are created from the use of long thows so maybe this should be addressed in next year's version.

But not nearly to FM21 extent. Even King Rory after a boot camp with Lance Armstrong, wouldn't be able to match the averages tactics were churning out. It was ridiculous. But that doesn't render throw-ins useless, still a very, very good route to goal.

Edited March 21, 2021 by Guv'nor