Questions about how to set up tactics with setup page

[rristola]

This is not about which role goes well with another, but how setup options work, work together, which are more important, if something is a NO-NO, aso.

And if you answer, you don't have to answer to all questions, any helping comment is fine. Thanks in advance!

 

- Are mentality choices MORE than a collection of setup options in those three windows (like 'In possession')? Or, if I do all those same adjusts by hand (without change in mentality), will that have the same effect into my game?

- Do you have three tactics? Are they 'for defending, for a balanced game, for attacking' = three DIFFERENT tactics (with different formations?), or are those tactics close to each another?

- When you have to change tactic, do you use only those three preset tactics, or do you change whatever option there are during the game, like 'Passing Directness'?

- Your players should be familiar with used tactic - how much can you change your tactic during the game so, that it stays familiar? CMF from BWM to CM to AP to be more attacking? Expecting that player in question to be familiar with all those roles.

- Is it better to change tactic somehow or to use shouts, if your team needs to start playing better, if it seems, that opponent is whenever about to score?

- Are shouts important and effective? To all team or to a single player?

- There are a lot of discussion about good duty combinations. Can this duty problem be avoided with using duty 'Automatic'? What kind of a player is suitable for this? If player's 'Automatic' duty has enough stars?

- If I find a problem within my certain player's way how to play, is it enough to try to change only his 'Personalised' orders? (At least some CB's try long balls - sometimes there are none of us even in that area receiving those passes...) Better use traits?

- "Conflicting" orders. If chosen tactic is 'Route one', can I still use 'Be more Expressive'? What would happen? Would it be wise or a no-no?

- Does a 'Personalised' order overrule general orders? What about player's traits versus general and/or 'Personalised' orders? If I cause a conflict with these, is that just stupid?

- Can anyone else be a 'Target' than a TF? Like, having a Winger to cross ball to DLP forward or someone in AMC?

- Players' roles and duties should be chosen so, that distances between players wouldn't be too long. Can 'Personalised' order 'Roam from Position' make this better, worse or... even both at the same time? Which kind of players can be allowed to roam?

- Scouts' opinions like 'strong' or 'creative' are clear, but what means in FM when a player is 'smart'? How to use that when building a tactic, or what freedoms does it give me? Let him roam aso.?

- If I raise 'Tempo', can it become too much for someone - that amount of mistakes goes up a lot? Or, can it mean only slightly more mistakes at most?

- Biggest worries when using 'Offside trap'? What would be the best sign that player is good in controlling offside line? Best to choose 'stopper-cover' pair as CB's?

[HUNT3R]

5 hours ago, rristola said:

Are mentality choices MORE than a collection of setup options in those three windows (like 'In possession')? Or, if I do all those same adjusts by hand (without change in mentality), will that have the same effect into my game?

Each Mentality has its own framework. An Attacking Mentality will press more, have a higher D-line, higher tempo etc compared to Balanced, for example.

Mentality also affects the amount of risk taken. Even with the same roles/duties, players will take more risks in general with a higher Mentality (Attacking vs Balanced, for example).

5 hours ago, rristola said:

Do you have three tactics? Are they 'for defending, for a balanced game, for attacking' = three DIFFERENT tactics (with different formations?), or are those tactics close to each another?

This will differ from person to person.

Normally, I have a standard tactic and one I can change to if I want to see out a match against a dangerous opponent.

Other times, I find my standard tactic is weak against a certain formation, so I'll set up a third tactic that I use against that specific formation.

5 hours ago, rristola said:

Your players should be familiar with used tactic - how much can you change your tactic during the game so, that it stays familiar? CMF from BWM to CM to AP to be more attacking? Expecting that player in question to be familiar with all those roles.

I change what is necessary to change. I don't care about familiarity when I make changes. There are reasons for the changes (to improve my situation in a match) and that outweighs everything else.

If I'm using a 442 and I see the opposition AM getting too much space between the lines - I know there's a clear issue. Not fixing it because I'm worried about familiarity is far worse than doing something about it to prevent my defense from being ripped apart.

5 hours ago, rristola said:

Is it better to change tactic somehow or to use shouts, if your team needs to start playing better, if it seems, that opponent is whenever about to score?

Tactical changes will be far more effective. Shouts affect players' focus/motivation/confidence, which helps, but if an opponent is throwing people forward and your setup cannot cope with it, a shout won't save things.

5 hours ago, rristola said:

Are shouts important and effective? To all team or to a single player?

They can help. It has a minor effect.

5 hours ago, rristola said:

There are a lot of discussion about good duty combinations. Can this duty problem be avoided with using duty 'Automatic'? What kind of a player is suitable for this? If player's 'Automatic' duty has enough stars?

An Automatic Duty just sets the Duty according to the Mentality, so you still need to take into account the role/duty combinations in the team and that it makes sense. It's always important to have a tactic that functions as a whole.

5 hours ago, rristola said:

If I find a problem within my certain player's way how to play, is it enough to try to change only his 'Personalised' orders? (At least some CB's try long balls - sometimes there are none of us even in that area receiving those passes...) Better use traits?

I may be misunderstanding this question. If you are happy with a player's role, but you want to tweak what he does, you can do that via Player Instructions.

5 hours ago, rristola said:

Does a 'Personalised' order overrule general orders? What about player's traits versus general and/or 'Personalised' orders? If I cause a conflict with these, is that just stupid?

It's better to be specific, but in order - Player Traits --> Player Instructions --> Team Instructions. Players will always lean toward their traits more.

5 hours ago, rristola said:

Players' roles and duties should be chosen so, that distances between players wouldn't be too long. Can 'Personalised' order 'Roam from Position' make this better, worse or... even both at the same time? Which kind of players can be allowed to roam?

It can be both. Any instruction can help or make things worse.

Roaming can help, but he could be roaming toward space that is deep, which leaves too much space in front of him. Then you can look at getting someone to exploit that space or come up with another plan instead.

5 hours ago, rristola said:

If I raise 'Tempo', can it become too much for someone - that amount of mistakes goes up a lot? Or, can it mean only slightly more mistakes at most?

Of course it is possible to overdo things. Raising tempo means everything is done quicker. It requires more technical skill and better/quicker decision making. Not everyone is suited for that. Whether you see mistakes increase a lot or a little depends on the team (their attributes), how you're setting up and also how much you're raising tempo by. If you see an adjustment could help, raise it and observe what happens - whether it works out to be better and achieves what you wanted.

[Jack722]

6 hours ago, rristola said:

- Are mentality choices MORE than a collection of setup options in those three windows (like 'In possession')? Or, if I do all those same adjusts by hand (without change in mentality), will that have the same effect into my game?

Good question. I think yes. I see different choices being made in different mentalities, for example in lower mentalities, players are more likely to pass back under no pressure, then clear when put under pressure, even if they have more direct passing, which encourages forward passes in buildup play. I also see players tracking back less on higher mentalities, regardless of role or duty. WIngers in AMR will track their man back to their own touchline on defensive, but will stay further forward ready for the counter attack on attacking.

Although the way I use mentalties means that I don't come across this dilemma. For example, if I choose cautious, I rarely will tell the team to play with a 'much higher tempo' and 'be more expressive'. Because it won't really make sense, because then you're asking the team to be more attacking, and you may as well have chosen a positive mentality. Same goes for role selection, I won't choose two poachers and then park the bus and starve them of service. Normally, I choose mentalitiy, read the mentality description, and then choose my instructions and roles with the menatlity description in mind.

6 hours ago, rristola said:

Do you have three tactics? Are they 'for defending, for a balanced game, for attacking' = three DIFFERENT tactics (with different formations?), or are those tactics close to each another?

I always use three tactics, and reguarly rotate between them, between and even during games. My template is:

• Attacking and High Pressing
  • When we need a goal or are playing as heavy favourites
• Positive and Mid Block (Blank pressing instructions)
  • My standard tactic
• Cautious and Low Block
  • Defending a lead, or playing as heavy underdogs.

What I also do, is sometimes tweak the tactics. For example, If I want to dominate the game more, but still be wary of the counter attack, I'll use my positive tactic, but play with a high press. The tactical familiarity will only hardly change if at all, because we have already worked on the high press in training with our attacking tactic. 

It's important to note that the formation used does not get trained. Formation is indirectly trained in individual training. So you can switch from a 442 to a 541 by subbing out a striker for a centreback and not change the tactical familiarity. If you want to have flexible formations without losing familiarity, you have to train players in different positions and roles in individual training.

 

6 hours ago, rristola said:

Your players should be familiar with used tactic - how much can you change your tactic during the game so, that it stays familiar? CMF from BWM to CM to AP to be more attacking? Expecting that player in question to be familiar with all those roles.

That's up to you. I try to keep the role (Poacher, advanced forward, false 9...) the same as much as possible. Since I reguarly change mentalities, I'm sometimes forced to change roles and duties. For example, if I have two attacking wingbacks in an attacking tactic, and I change to cautious, I will change both my fullbacks to wingbacks on defend. Just changing the duty (A/S/D) has a smaller effect on familiarity than changing the role and duty, Although sometimes you're forced to change more than you'd like. If I feel that I need to play really defensive, I will change my Poacher or Advanced forward to a supporting Deep lying forward, or defensive Pressing forward. This effects my familiarity, but I'd rather have my striker tracking back and help defending, even if he's slightly clueless, instead of staying up waiting for service that will never arrive.

 

Quote

Is it better to change tactic somehow or to use shouts, if your team needs to start playing better, if it seems, that opponent is whenever about to score?

Assuming I've already switched to the most appropriate of my three tactics (cautious, positive or attacking) I think that a mix of opposition instructions, touchline shouts and team talks are far more effective in turing games around. Most poor performances are caused by either low confidence or low motivation, which can be corrected with appropriate team talks and touchline shouts.

Also, sometimes an unexpected poor result is caused by one or two opposition players playing extremely well. In this cases, you just remove most opposition instructions, and focus all your attention (hard tackling, tight marking etc..) on that one player. A change of formation or tactic is rarely necessary.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Jack722

[bosque]

hace 3 horas, Jack722 dijo:

Cautious and Low Block

• Defending a lead, or playing as heavy underdogs

Do you drop the lines on Cautious for a Low Block or are you happy with the Low Block offered by Cautious?

[Jack722]

1 hour ago, bosque said:

Do you drop the lines on Cautious for a Low Block or are you happy with the Low Block offered by Cautious?

Cautious doesn't offer a low block. I drop both the lines and the intensity to lower.

[rristola]

8 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

I change what is necessary to change. I don't care about familiarity when I make changes.

So, game understands that these are pro footballers, and they CAN play also a lot of other positions, roles and duties - only not quite as well. Have you ever had to put CMF to play as CB, or something like that? What happened?

 

9 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

An Automatic Duty just sets the Duty according to the Mentality,

OK. I should have read the manual. Somehow I thought, that those players can adjust their playing duty _automatically_ as needed. To keep distances OK.

9 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

If you are happy with a player's role, but you want to tweak what he does, you can do that via Player Instructions.

This has happened to me some times. I have had better team than opponent. I tried to make a tactic, where players would patiently search an opportunity to score. What I saw was, that my defenders and midfielders had a few passes, and then someone from defence kicked a long ball - not being under pressing.

Those balls usually ended to the opponent - and even without challenging. Tried to find a good way to prevent this kind of playing (trait Simple Passing, 'Personalised' orders for passing).

 

Have you used 'Offside trap'? Any comments?

[rristola]

9 hours ago, Jack722 said:

I choose mentalitiy, read the mentality description, and then choose my instructions and roles with the menatlity description in mind.

So, it's only common sense that is needed. Good. And after this just try to find your tactic's weak spots.

9 hours ago, Jack722 said:

poor result is caused by one or two opposition players playing extremely well. In this cases, you just remove most opposition instructions, and focus all your attention (hard tackling, tight marking etc..) on that one player.

Are players 'smart' enough to avoid second warning? Are there a types of players (like aggressive), that you wouldn't order to 'tackle hard'? Is high aggressiveness good, bad or both?

Have you had situations, where you have ordered a player with warning to 'tackle hard'? Risky?

[Freakiie]

Rashidi has done saves where he uses a different tactic every match and those saves do perfectly fine. Tactical familiarity should not be what makes or breaks a tactic. As for positional familiarity for players, they suffer from a penalty to decision making if they play in a position they're not familiar with. Only the position though, role and duty are irrelevant. A player can still play a role or duty the game does not rate him highly in without any penalties. Of course, the reason he's not rated highly means he doesn't have the attributes to excel in that role, so don't be surprised if the player won't perform.

As for yellow cards, players definitely take less risks if they already have a yellow card. However, positions that will make a lot of tackles or telling someone on a yellow card to tackle hard remains a pretty big risk. Even if they don't pick up a second yellow, there might be moments they don't step in because they're afraid of fouling the opposition, so it's definitely something to keep an eye on.

As for aggressiveness, aggressiveness is how likely a player is to make a challenge. It's largely a positive attribute, as you want your players to be making tackles and winning the ball back. I guess there are some combinations that could be bad, like a fullback (generally the position in FM that makes the most tackles) that has very high aggressiveness and poor tackling that might end up causing lots of fouls. Most of the time though, high aggressiveness is no issue. The players you want to watch out for regarding tackling harder are those with high dirtiness. It's a hidden attribute, so you need to rely on the scout/coach report to see it. If the player has a negative trait along the lines of "has a tendency of bending the rules" it means he has high dirtiness and those players you definitely do not want in areas where they make a lot of tackles, as they tend to be absolute card magnets.

[rristola]

31 minutes ago, Freakiie said:

doesn't have the attributes to excel in that role, so don't be surprised if the player won't perform.

Which one would be bigger negative issue - not having good enough attributes, or player possibly getting moody? Like when moving PF into BWM? Main thing seems to be to check needed attributes first.

42 minutes ago, Freakiie said:

aggressiveness is how likely a player is to make a challenge

OK. My fault. I thought that with eagerness to tackle comes also roughness... So, also possible troubles. I knew that there are hidden attributes, but I haven't heard about dirtiness before. Well, good to know that. Thanks.

[CARRERA]

4 minutes ago, rristola said:

OK. My fault. I thought that with eagerness to tackle comes also roughness

In case you didn't know, you can hover over the attributes ingame to get an exact explanation of what they are doing.

[rristola]

3 minutes ago, CARRERA said:

you can hover over

You're right, and I have done that in some cases to check those out. But obviously not with 'aggressive'. As a word 'aggressive' still sounds to me more like rough than eager... Measuring how able to tackle hard player is. But no. For me it's time to learn.

[Aoyao]