Joke result - SI please sort this out

[SimonHoddle]

Previous to this match as Spurs manager in first season I had won 17 games and drawn 3 in all competitions. Conceded 2 goals in the league. Next match Playing Liverpool away  so I change from neutral 4231 to slightly defensive 433. Guess what happens. This isn’t a question for the tactics forum and I will post there but it’s more a comment on the absolute failure of this version to set up correctly defensively. My team clearly has a strong defensive unit hence why only 2 conceded in 13 games before this match. SI either fix it or give us better instructions.

[RealSmokePL]

Did you only change the formation or other things too?

[du Garbandier]

You're complaining about Tottenham losing at Anfield?  "Here come the Drury Lane Tap Dancers", I think is how Bill Shankly looked forward to Tottenham's visits.

Mind you, I feel your pain. I had two matches there in two weeks, cup and league, with Newcastle (at the time 3rd in the league behind Liverpool & Chelsea), and lost both times.

Edited April 15, 2022 by du Garbandier

[DarJ]

38 minutes ago, SimonHoddle said:

the absolute failure of this version to set up correctly defensively

It's very possible to defend against bigger teams.

So this is the game I just played against Juventus and although we had no shot on target and we lost the game, I was still very pleased with how we played because we defended how I wanted and the goal we conceded was unlucky if you watch it in 3D. I had a cup match before that and had the backup goalkeeper and forgot to change him for the game.

 

So this is the match stat (they also had a penalty they missed)

This is the goal we conceded and it could have been prevented if I had set up my set piece but I'm not bothered about it right now  because I'm just testing the tactic.

This was how I setup for the match. I was setup like this in the other leg of tie and we still lost 4-2 but their 4 goals came from setpieces again and we scored from open play so I was still happy and this is just the first iteration of the tactic so I can still improve it

[gunner86]

If you had a defensive unit that was effective, why did you change it? You also went more defensive against a team that already plays high tempo attacking football, so handed them the initiative. 

It’s Liverpool away in the first season, and by the looks of it, you’ve made a tough game tougher.

[themadsheep2001]

15 minutes ago, gunner86 said:

If you had a defensive unit that was effective, why did you change it? You also went more defensive against a team that already plays high tempo attacking football, so handed them the initiative. 

It’s Liverpool away in the first season, and by the looks of it, you’ve made a tough game tougher.

Need a lot more detail from OP, but initially it sounds like he mismanaged his tactical choices. 92% passing completion, and unless they're from set pieces, the Liverpool assists all came from midfield. Looks on the surface he surrendered the initiative and midfield to a team that loves to simply run at you. Interested to know why he changed from a set up that wasn't conceding badly to this one and why tbh

[Dagenham_Dave]

1 hour ago, SimonHoddle said:

My team clearly has a strong defensive unit hence why only 2 conceded in 13 games before this match. SI either fix it or give us better instructions.

Or maybe take some responsibility yourself? You change your entire formation to play away at one of the top 2 teams in the league, and are surprised you lost? Yeah, losing 7-0 is sore, but their morale would have been sky high scoring three in the first half hour, and it appears your team just collapsed. It happens in the game, it happens in real life. Take it on the chin, learn from it, move on. 

[SimonHoddle]

Appreciate all the replies. I don’t have any gripes losing to Liverpool and almost want to from a believability perspective. 
To answer some points, all valid btw.

1) yes I shouldn’t be surprised to lose. But 6-0 down at half time??? It is utterly ridiculous. Would not happen. Yes there have been big scores but 6-0 at ht. plain silly

2) I changed my formation as I didn’t want to leave gaps against one of the best attacking teams in history. I played the same formation against city away and we drew 0-0. Going attacking would surely be madness with my team. They’d pick us off which is what they did anyway haha.  and against a well structured successful defence they shouldn’t be able to find gaps so easily

3) surrendering the initiative. If that is such a rubbish idea then SI have to improve their defensive mechanics. Otherwise if you don’t play defensively against the best teams then who?? Should I just pick the same attacking formation forever and click through seasons waiting for a transfer window to actually make a genuine decision.

4) those who have designed successful defensive formations I salute you and I’m trying to learn them. But way too often in this version going defensive is a license for the opposition to run riot and find gaps or punt long balls straight through on goal, which simply shouldn’t happen.

6-0 at half time against a deep set narrow highly successful defence is nonsense. It highlights one of the games fundamental flaws and encourages only one style of play

[Carmi88]

I hope this forum never runs out of these types of posts

[SimonHoddle]

22 minutes ago, Carmi88 said:

I hope this forum never runs out of these types of posts

Haha. What does that mean?

[OxfordUnitedFC]

No one thought Villa could put 7 past Liverpool a year or two back either. You can have the best tactical game plan going tbf but if your players all have an off day you can take a hammering.

[Spurs08]

1 hour ago, SimonHoddle said:

Appreciate all the replies. I don’t have any gripes losing to Liverpool and almost want to from a believability perspective. 
To answer some points, all valid btw.

1) yes I shouldn’t be surprised to lose. But 6-0 down at half time??? It is utterly ridiculous. Would not happen. Yes there have been big scores but 6-0 at ht. plain silly

2) I changed my formation as I didn’t want to leave gaps against one of the best attacking teams in history. I played the same formation against city away and we drew 0-0. Going attacking would surely be madness with my team. They’d pick us off which is what they did anyway haha.  and against a well structured successful defence they shouldn’t be able to find gaps so easily

3) surrendering the initiative. If that is such a rubbish idea then SI have to improve their defensive mechanics. Otherwise if you don’t play defensively against the best teams then who?? Should I just pick the same attacking formation forever and click through seasons waiting for a transfer window to actually make a genuine decision.

4) those who have designed successful defensive formations I salute you and I’m trying to learn them. But way too often in this version going defensive is a license for the opposition to run riot and find gaps or punt long balls straight through on goal, which simply shouldn’t happen.

6-0 at half time against a deep set narrow highly successful defence is nonsense. It highlights one of the games fundamental flaws and encourages only one style of play

You tried something that seemed logical, but it didn't work. That happens. It doesn't mean the game's broken.

 

I would probably suggest that making a wholesale change in formation for a big game isn't normally the way to go. The team aren't familiar in it, you don't know how they'll play in it, and it's a very big change for a one-off match. I'd be more tempted in future to make subtle changes to instructions. Your idea can work, but it is pretty risky and didn't come off here.

That said, I would generally agree that FM is too biased to attacking football. Defensive or counter-based tactics can work, but it takes a lot of effort and tweaking to get there, whereas a 4-2-3-1 gegenpress is pretty simple to just use successfully from the off. Maybe that's realistic - a clever defensive tactic may be much harder to set up than an attacking one, where more of the success comes from the coaching side. But even if so, that isn't great from a gameplay perspective.

[SimonHoddle]

1 hour ago, OxfordUnitedFC said:

No one thought Villa could put 7 past Liverpool a year or two back either. You can have the best tactical game plan going tbf but if your players all have an off day you can take a hammering.

Fair point. And spurs 6 past Man U at old Trafford. 
It’s just that this happens too often when playing defensive football. FM is failing the casual player by either offering v poor preset tactics or the code is not set correctly. Too many times anomalous results happen when playing defensively. Too many times when playing deep the opposition gets in behind. Too many times a world class CB set to cover doesn’t actually cover.

[SimonHoddle]

1 hour ago, Spurs08 said:

You tried something that seemed logical, but it didn't work. That happens. It doesn't mean the game's broken.

 

I would probably suggest that making a wholesale change in formation for a big game isn't normally the way to go. The team aren't familiar in it, you don't know how they'll play in it, and it's a very big change for a one-off match. I'd be more tempted in future to make subtle changes to instructions. Your idea can work, but it is pretty risky and didn't come off here.

That said, I would generally agree that FM is too biased to attacking football. Defensive or counter-based tactics can work, but it takes a lot of effort and tweaking to get there, whereas a 4-2-3-1 gegenpress is pretty simple to just use successfully from the off. Maybe that's realistic - a clever defensive tactic may be much harder to set up than an attacking one, where more of the success comes from the coaching side. But even if so, that isn't great from a gameplay perspective.

Again I get your comment. Only problem is I play FMT or whatever it’s called these days on Xbox. Tactical familiarity is not a factor. So….it’s a pure test of tactics and, most times, defensive tactics fail miserably. It’s incorrect.

I’m not sure if IRL it’s easier or harder to work on defensive or attacking tactics. Ask Klopp or Pep v Jose or Simeone 

[OxfordUnitedFC]

5 minutes ago, SimonHoddle said:

Fair point. And spurs 6 past Man U at old Trafford. 
It’s just that this happens too often when playing defensive football. FM is failing the casual player by either offering v poor preset tactics or the code is not set correctly. Too many times anomalous results happen when playing defensively. Too many times when playing deep the opposition gets in behind. Too many times a world class CB set to cover doesn’t actually cover.

Yes I do get that a lot of people are saying defensive tactics do not work well as you are just inviting pressure. Kind of found that myself and I never go below balanced mentality although as others have mentioned they have managed to get them to work fine. I personally find that attack is the best form of defence and you need to give the opposition something to worry about so they can’t stream forward themselves.

[SimonHoddle]

21 minutes ago, OxfordUnitedFC said:

Yes I do get that a lot of people are saying defensive tactics do not work well as you are just inviting pressure. Kind of found that myself and I never go below balanced mentality although as others have mentioned they have managed to get them to work fine. I personally find that attack is the best form of defence and you need to give the opposition something to worry about so they can’t stream forward themselves.

Fair point but it takes away a lot of the variety of thought if you’re basically doing the same tactic all the time. 
I think the fault lies with SI. if defending is complicated and defensive tactics require alot of thought then give us a manual to explain them. Then we can make considered choices. 
I still don’t get the concept of eg always press. It’s absurd. Why always press a marauding WB? Why press them in their own half and force your team out of shape. But would that be countered by LOE instruction.

SI fail to explain this every year. And people who don’t have the time to constantly experiment get caught out every year.

I think it’s probably one of the worst games for developer advice right now. Give us a manual. Explain what the idiosyncratic concepts that are in the game actually mean.

but they won’t.

FM is a brilliant game. The developers are consistently producing a strong body of work. But there are serious gaps which are never addressed and frankly ignored.

[du Garbandier]

Picking up a couple of these points: my main home & away tactics are positive/balanced. My third is cautious, but that's as low as I'll go. As others say, you're  just laying out the welcome mat if you specify defensive. Sometimes, when there's nothing to lose (highly likely to get beat anyway, I mean, not end-of-season mid-table kickabout), I'll go into an away match with the positive tactic, just to keep things interesting. Still, there are rare times in a game when switching to defensive can be the way to go.

AI is doing its best, but the more information you give it, the more it will try to interpret. I play control possession, but I get rid of 'work the ball into the box' because they just dither and faff about when they get there, instead of shooting. I think IRL too, too many instructions leads to confusion.

[steviewoodman]

Having watched Atletico Madrid in a few games, would you consider them defensive? When I've seen them, they've given up most of the possession, camp in their own half and then counter attack occasionally. 

I've always wanted to create a tactic that focuses on 0-0s but then tries to steal the game. 

I'm sure some SI wizard will say Atletico are actually super attacking and I've misunderstood what they do, but they look defensive to me and it seems to work. 

[SimonHoddle]

10 hours ago, du Garbandier said:

Picking up a couple of these points: my main home & away tactics are positive/balanced. My third is cautious, but that's as low as I'll go. As others say, you're  just laying out the welcome mat if you specify defensive. Sometimes, when there's nothing to lose (highly likely to get beat anyway, I mean, not end-of-season mid-table kickabout), I'll go into an away match with the positive tactic, just to keep things interesting. Still, there are rare times in a game when switching to defensive can be the way to go.

AI is doing its best, but the more information you give it, the more it will try to interpret. I play control possession, but I get rid of 'work the ball into the box' because they just dither and faff about when they get there, instead of shooting. I think IRL too, too many instructions leads to confusion.

Interesting. Adds to my belief that FM is becoming quite a dry game with v little room for tactical experimentation:-(

[SimonHoddle]

1 hour ago, steviewoodman said:

Having watched Atletico Madrid in a few games, would you consider them defensive? When I've seen them, they've given up most of the possession, camp in their own half and then counter attack occasionally. 

I've always wanted to create a tactic that focuses on 0-0s but then tries to steal the game. 

I'm sure some SI wizard will say Atletico are actually super attacking and I've misunderstood what they do, but they look defensive to me and it seems to work. 

Exactly!

[themadsheep2001]

I think part of the problem isn't that the tactical focus is too narrow in FM, it's that it's actually very wide but often people don't appreciate how wide. For example with a defensive tactic, there's so many starting positions with it. The first question I always ask myself is how much risk do I want to take - that sets my mentality. Then I ask, where do I want to win the ball - that sets my LOE, then I ask myself, how much space do I want to leave, and that sets my defensive line. Then I look at how i want to win the ball back - setting my pressing traps and Opposition Instructions. Only then do I start looking at roles, transitions and attacking. 

[Junkhead]

My understanding (which may well be wrong) is that the overall mentality defines how much risk is taken. For example, defensive takes less risk, and attacking takes more risk on things like passing and movement.

In isolation that would mean nothing, but if you had a control possession style with a highish line (so that the majority of your play took place in the opposition half) then defensive mentality would see you keeping the ball much more than attacking mentality as your players would take less risk. The knock on of this is that you would likely create less chances against a well organized side.

If I am building counter attacking tactics, it would mean that I am likely using a low defensive line and line of engagement, and therefore playing with a defensive mentality would mean that when I got the ball, I wouldn't break fast enough.

As I have said, I stand to be corrected, but this is generally how I consider the mentality setting.

[Platinum]

11 minutes ago, Junkhead said:

My understanding (which may well be wrong) is that the overall mentality defines how much risk is taken. For example, defensive takes less risk, and attacking takes more risk on things like passing and movement.

In isolation that would mean nothing, but if you had a control possession style with a highish line (so that the majority of your play took place in the opposition half) then defensive mentality would see you keeping the ball much more than attacking mentality as your players would take less risk. The knock on of this is that you would likely create less chances against a well organized side.

If I am building counter attacking tactics, it would mean that I am likely using a low defensive line and line of engagement, and therefore playing with a defensive mentality would mean that when I got the ball, I wouldn't break fast enough.

As I have said, I stand to be corrected, but this is generally how I consider the mentality setting.

Yeah mentality is the amount of risk you want to take when you have the ball. So when you want to play defensive football really it depends what you mean, most people probably mean counter attacking in which case they dont want to be defensive when they have the ball (you want quick transitions) and when they dont have the ball they want to be organised and compact (low line of engagement and hardly any open spaces). I normally only go on defensive when I dont want us to attack the opposition. Also when playing counterattacking football you want to make sure you have some players on support or attacking duty who can be outlets for the counterattack.

To the OPs initial post though a collapse can happen. I recently beat the team that was first in my league 6 nil. Freak results can and should happen rarely. You experimented with your tactic and unfortunately it failed. 

I do agree that SI could have more guidance on what it means to set up a defensive tactic though.

[DarJ]

1 hour ago, Platinum said:

I do agree that SI could have more guidance on what it means to set up a defensive tactic though.

I disagree with this. A clear instruction of what each instruction does will be fine and welcome but if they started giving guidance on how to do this and that the game will loose it's appeal for me.

Yesterday I was at work bored so I decided to load up and old save where I've gotten to the point after 7 seasons where I dominate my league now but I'm still finding it difficult in Europe even if the level of my team would be a good championship side. So I just sat there picked the roles of the players based on what I wanted to achieve then started picking the instructions asking myself questions in the process and it took me less then 10 min to set it up then I went into a champions league game and I lost but the tactic was working how I thought it out so even if I lost, I knew on another day I could have won that match and then my computer crashed so I played the games again and this time I drew the home game like I did the first time and I was losing the away game just like before but I was still happy with the way the tactic was playing so I didn't change anything and in the dying moments of the game we scored 2 goals and won that game and the other two games to top the group and I was so happy. 

I wouldn't have been that happy If someone told me exactly what to do 

[Dagenham_Dave]

3 hours ago, Platinum said:

I do agree that SI could have more guidance on what it means to set up a defensive tactic though.

SI is 'From Software' and you want them to be 'Ubisoft', that's what it boils down to. 

If you know, you know...

[Platinum]

1 hour ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

SI is 'From Software' and you want them to be 'Ubisoft', that's what it boils down to. 

If you know, you know...

I'm not really sure what you mean here and I work in software. Anyway making defensive tactics mysterious (which it is for most peole) should not be a prerequisite to making it  a challenge to set up effective (defensive) tactics.

3 hours ago, DarJ said:

4 hours ago, Platinum said:

I do agree that SI could have more guidance on what it means to set up a defensive tactic though.

I disagree with this. A clear instruction of what each instruction does will be fine

This is what I mean. Its not clear what mentality means, that's why you see lots of people think putting it to defensive will make you more solid defensively. This is completely separate from making it challenging to make effective tactics.

[SimonHoddle]

The comments continue to be balanced and offer different perspectives which is great.

just played on this save away to Man U. Went defensive again, because I persevere. Regroup, counter, cautious 433 with anchorman. Deep DL and low LOE. they had 25 shots, 17 on target and we had 2 both off target. They won 4-0, fair enough. Most of their goal came from playing balls in behind my back line. Truly WTF is the point of a deep DL if the attack can play in behind it with such ease. 
 

yes we do need advice from SI. the assman told me to MM the entire Man U front 3. None of my defenders did that effectively. Why?? I need to understand why. Then I can make reasoned decisions. 

SI rely on the goodwill of all the people on this forum. FM isn’t real life. Pep would never say MM or press someone always and everywhere. We need to be furnished with the understanding of its reasoning. Otherwise it’s just guesswork. No I don’t want to be told how to win. I just want to know what each metric means.
 

but they’ll never tell us. And some of us get mad every year. Hey ho

Edited April 16, 2022 by SimonHoddle

[steviewoodman]

Most goals I concede are from balls in behind my defence. Quite often from their fullbacks on a diagonal. 

I got so annoyed by seeing it that I chose the most extreme deep defensive line, and played a sweeper as well behind a back 4. 

I purposely sacrificed the rest of my tactic, I had one objective, to stop balls in behind, by going extreme defensive, players all back, a defensive line that stayed as far back as possible etc. 

I lost a bunch of games 3 or 4 nil, most goals by balls in behind. 

I concluded it was impossible to do the logical thing to stop it. 

The only way to stop it was to do the illogical thing, which was to play attacking, and dominate possession, which meant I conceded less (but still a few) goals from balls in behind simply because I had the ball more. 

[obasa_G]

@steviewoodman @SimonHoddlethis thread I linked focuses on creating tactics to counter the opposition. The thread was created for FM19 but I am really sure you could get some really great tips and help from it and adapt them your tactics.

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by obasa_G

[du Garbandier]

Assistant's advice to man-mark someone I always ignore -- to me it seems that by man-marking, you let the opponent drag your defender out of position leaving space for other opponents to exploit.

[SimonHoddle]

2 hours ago, steviewoodman said:

Most goals I concede are from balls in behind my defence. Quite often from their fullbacks on a diagonal. 

I got so annoyed by seeing it that I chose the most extreme deep defensive line, and played a sweeper as well behind a back 4. 

I purposely sacrificed the rest of my tactic, I had one objective, to stop balls in behind, by going extreme defensive, players all back, a defensive line that stayed as far back as possible etc. 

I lost a bunch of games 3 or 4 nil, most goals by balls in behind. 

I concluded it was impossible to do the logical thing to stop it. 

The only way to stop it was to do the illogical thing, which was to play attacking, and dominate possession, which meant I conceded less (but still a few) goals from balls in behind simply because I had the ball more. 

Fascinating and damming at the same time. SI please consider this. Effectively, what a lot  of people are saying, is there is now only one successful way to play as defending is getting absurd.

if you play deep you invite pressure agreed. But goals should come from crosses or balls into a target man who can lay it into a oncoming attacker. Not constant, usually univentive, through balls. 
feel your pain @steviewoodman

[SimonHoddle]

2 hours ago, obasa_G said:

@steviewoodman @SimonHoddlethis thread I linked focuses on creating tactics to counter the opposition. The thread was created for FM19 but I am really sure you could get some really great tips and help from it and adapt them your tactics.

 

Thank you for link

[SimonHoddle]

2 hours ago, du Garbandier said:

Assistant's advice to man-mark someone I always ignore -- to me it seems that by man-marking, you let the opponent drag your defender out of position leaving space for other opponents to exploit.

Which unfortunately again damns the developers a little. Assman Advice is rubbish. Preset defensive formations are rubbish.

thr whole MM instruction is so vague anyway. Again SI choose not to explain its merits, faults and reasoning

I play FMT. Tactics and transfers they called it. Basically the defensive tactics are so redundant that it’s now just transfers.

If FM has become deep dive analytics tell us. But don’t give a product such as FMT with the lie it’s light touch without providing light touch rules

Edited April 16, 2022 by SimonHoddle

[XaW]

12 hours ago, steviewoodman said:

Most goals I concede are from balls in behind my defence. Quite often from their fullbacks on a diagonal. 

I got so annoyed by seeing it that I chose the most extreme deep defensive line, and played a sweeper as well behind a back 4. 

I purposely sacrificed the rest of my tactic, I had one objective, to stop balls in behind, by going extreme defensive, players all back, a defensive line that stayed as far back as possible etc. 

I lost a bunch of games 3 or 4 nil, most goals by balls in behind. 

I concluded it was impossible to do the logical thing to stop it. 

The only way to stop it was to do the illogical thing, which was to play attacking, and dominate possession, which meant I conceded less (but still a few) goals from balls in behind simply because I had the ball more. 

What you are doing here is giving away the initiative. The opponents will have a field day picking out passes if there are no pressure on the creative players, and by getting constantly pounded like that, your defenders are more prone to lapses in concentration and not following runs. So you are setting yourself up for failure by doing that. In my last 45 matches, I've conceded 10 goals in total from over the top balls as evident here:

I've had a few more through balls from the centre of the park, but not to a worrying degree seeing as I am an underdog in my current league, and I'm scrapping to survive every match. My biggest issues is my central defenders are poor in the air, so I concede a lot from crosses and set pieces.

So while it might sound counter intuitive, putting pressure on the passers is often a better remedy than a very low DL. If the passes are done under pressure, they will be less accurate and less likely to lead to a chance. It will also let your defenders rest a bit between the runs.

If you are wondering what I do, then this is my base tactic, but I will tweak it a bit to fit the team and players I use:

I prefer it to be symmetric in defense, but the roles are set to become asymmetric going forward. This also allow for some good counter attacking options if/when we get the ball. I will note, this is NOT a plug and play tactic, and I can't guarantee anyone having success with it, but I've used to at many different levels (with a few tweaks to fit the team) successfully. So the team transitions like this:

I've written about this before in here, I think I made this tactic for FM17, and I have stuck with various versions of it since then, and I've never had much issue with any match engine version. Sure, some times I need to change set pieces or tweak a role or two, but in general this is the basis for all my 1000s of hours of FM since then. There are many people in here much better at tactics than me, and they could probably point out 100s of flaws in my setup, but I've found I generally slightly overachieve with it, and that's enough for me. I'm much better at (and enjoy!) youth development than tactical finery anyway!

[richard.cheeseman]

On 15/04/2022 at 19:42, Spurs08 said:

You tried something that seemed logical, but it didn't work. That happens. It doesn't mean the game's broken.

 

I would probably suggest that making a wholesale change in formation for a big game isn't normally the way to go. The team aren't familiar in it, you don't know how they'll play in it, and it's a very big change for a one-off match. I'd be more tempted in future to make subtle changes to instructions. Your idea can work, but it is pretty risky and didn't come off here.

That said, I would generally agree that FM is too biased to attacking football. Defensive or counter-based tactics can work, but it takes a lot of effort and tweaking to get there, whereas a 4-2-3-1 gegenpress is pretty simple to just use successfully from the off. Maybe that's realistic - a clever defensive tactic may be much harder to set up than an attacking one, where more of the success comes from the coaching side. But even if so, that isn't great from a gameplay perspective.

I would suggest your plan failed not the game broken, that’s football both in fm and real life.. except it and move on… it’s only a game 😜😜😜😜

[du Garbandier]

2 hours ago, XaW said:

this is my base tactic

Just wondering why you have LB set as wing-back, and RB set as full-back? Is that owing to available personnel, or for tactical reasons?

[XaW]

4 minutes ago, du Garbandier said:

Just wondering why you have LB set as wing-back, and RB set as full-back? Is that owing to available personnel, or for tactical reasons?

It's tactical. I want the left winger to push in and create overlaps there. On the right side the winger keeps width, so the RB is more defensively minded. It also works to put him as a WB, but it leaves a bit of a gap there I don't like. I've been toying with making him an IWB so he tucks inside even further and would work as another pivot next to the DM, but I think that might make the tactic vulnerable to counters down our right side seeing as the right CM has loads of freedom to go forward as well.

The idea is to make a 4-5-1/4-3-3 into an attacking 2-3-5. So with width on both sides and 3 in the middle with a few pivots to recycle possession and to stop counters. The BWM is amazing in that role as he always steps forward when we lose the ball to either win it back, or at least give the others time to find their positions.

[du Garbandier]

5 minutes ago, XaW said:

It's tactical

Uhuh. That's interesting; I've been worrying over that overlap issue on the right, and thought of the IWB option, but there are precious few players who can play the role, so far as my scouts can see. I suppose one option is to set the forward position to IW or IF. I'll look into that some more, because my backs have all been recruited as wing-backs.

[Freakiie]

4 minutes ago, du Garbandier said:

Uhuh. That's interesting; I've been worrying over that overlap issue on the right, and thought of the IWB option, but there are precious few players who can play the role, so far as my scouts can see. I suppose one option is to set the forward position to IW or IF. I'll look into that some more, because my backs have all been recruited as wing-backs.

Only reason there's so few IWBs is that the game rates footedness for them very high and there's very few naturally wrong footed FBs. However, you can easily take a natural LB and retrain him as RB and vice versa or just ignore the footedness completely. The IWB can function perfectly fine without being wrong footed, even if the game gives them a much lower star rating in those cases.

[XaW]

9 minutes ago, du Garbandier said:

Uhuh. That's interesting; I've been worrying over that overlap issue on the right, and thought of the IWB option, but there are precious few players who can play the role, so far as my scouts can see. I suppose one option is to set the forward position to IW or IF. I'll look into that some more, because my backs have all been recruited as wing-backs.

Well, the player I'd like in that role is a player who is mostly defensive, but can also cross if needed. So sort of a player that could play wide centre back or similar. Think the mould of Azpilucueta for example.

[kentonizking]

Shoddy management changing a successful tactic. 

Tinkerman

[Freakiie]

I do find the expectations from players a bit amusing.

AI parks the bus against you? My superior attacking tactic should smash through their defences! (And oh boy if that doesn't happen, we've all seen those threads )

You park the bus? My superior defensive tactics should instantly result in the most impervious defence ever witnessed by mankind! What do you mean the AI actually managed to score against me?!

However, you can FM the AI just like the AI FMs you:

I pretty much completely restricted Inter to crappy chances and only 5 shots on goal. If it hadn't been for a completely unnecessary penalty given away by my inexperienced defender Inter wouldn't have created a single CCC and only one half chance. Without the penalty Inter would've had about the same xG as my team, while having more than double the shots, just showing how poor their overall chances were. Of course, in proper FMing fashion my goalie stepped up and saved the penalty, whereas I managed to get a couple chances on the counter and  took the match 0-1. Do I think this result would be in the cards every single time I play this match? Hell no! Inter would most likely win more often than not, but as an underdog in my CL group I gave both Inter and PSG very hard times creating proper chances against me and just like the AI sometimes manages to park the bus against you, I managed to park the bus against Inter this time around.

[SimonHoddle]

16 hours ago, Freakiie said:

I do find the expectations from players a bit amusing.

AI parks the bus against you? My superior attacking tactic should smash through their defences! (And oh boy if that doesn't happen, we've all seen those threads )

You park the bus? My superior defensive tactics should instantly result in the most impervious defence ever witnessed by mankind! What do you mean the AI actually managed to score against me?!

However, you can FM the AI just like the AI FMs you:

I pretty much completely restricted Inter to crappy chances and only 5 shots on goal. If it hadn't been for a completely unnecessary penalty given away by my inexperienced defender Inter wouldn't have created a single CCC and only one half chance. Without the penalty Inter would've had about the same xG as my team, while having more than double the shots, just showing how poor their overall chances were. Of course, in proper FMing fashion my goalie stepped up and saved the penalty, whereas I managed to get a couple chances on the counter and  took the match 0-1. Do I think this result would be in the cards every single time I play this match? Hell no! Inter would most likely win more often than not, but as an underdog in my CL group I gave both Inter and PSG very hard times creating proper chances against me and just like the AI sometimes manages to park the bus against you, I managed to park the bus against Inter this time around.

Haha. I’m neither complaining about defeats or even number of goals conceded. As a post mentioned above you can play very deep,  very narrow,with a sweeper and the opposition will still pass in behind you with comfort. It’s like the defence ignores your instructions. I play in the PL with v high quality defenders. Something is pulling them apart, is it MM or pressing? if SI illuminated us as to the consequences of each instruction it would help. That’s all I’m saying. Every time I use their preset counter attacks I get thrashed. Every time I use control possession or high press I usually win. Unbalanced game and uninformed players - esp those who don’t have much time to dive deep.

I keep getting told the presets are a waste of time so why have them. I keep getting told don’t get too defensive as it cedes control and that’s why I get thrashed. So what’s the point of changing to defence. I’m even nervous of switching to a defensive tactic 2-0 up with 20 mins on the clock cos all that happens is shots rain down on my goal. 

[du Garbandier]

I wouldn't go to defensive unless I'd had a defender/DM sent off and I couldn't sub anyone. Cautious should be enough for general purposes.

Here's a general question: my AM is always telling me 'more duties' or 'fewer duties', and I'm not quite sure what he/the AI means, since I thought it referred to the options you set in the three phases of your tactic. Maybe he/it is talking about individual player instructions?