TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos
-
Posts
37 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos
-
-
What happened Mick Beale?!
Not often you do a manager tactical recreation, and said manager gets sacked twice in the same season.
Turns out talking a good game doesn't always translate!
0 -
20 minutes ago, jens_dewit said:
Great thread. Love how you managed to translate those principles into the game - to the point where you're outperforming the actual principles
Thanks man, appreciate it.
Tactical recreations are my personal favourite to read in this forum. It's nice to see what you interpret on the pitch replicated in game. The difference being the recreations are usually from a successful tactic... unlike this one!
Don't think I've seen a tactical recreation on here one day, only for the recreated manager to be sacked the following day.
0 -
2 hours ago, Lordluap said:
Good timing...
Haha, I couldn't have timed this thread any better!
If my team played as well IRL as they do in game, this situation wouldn't be happening.
1 -
17 hours ago, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:
This is my interpretation of Beale Ball. How I think, Beale thinks, he is trying to play.
Thankfully I stated this, after yesterday's shambles
How Beale thinks he sets up, and how it actually materialises, are two completely different things!
0 -
Watching Rangers play so far this season, they have been mediocre at best. After Michael Beale stated that he would be 'taking the handbrake off' Rangers this season, it has yet to materialise.
So with the latest transfer update, I thought I'd give it a go. This is my interpretation of Beale Ball. How I think, Beale thinks, he is trying to play.
I think the back 5 is fairly standard. Both centre halves are asked to play and step out, with the occasional long pass forward, BPD(d) for both suits. The fullback's provide most of the width for Beale's tactic, with the right distinctly more attacking than the left. So WB(s) and WB(a) respectively.
He has consistently spoken about having an 8 and a 6 in the middle. I think a box-to-box suits his 8 perfectly, although IRL this role hasn't contributed greatly to attacking play, and has been more subdued than the dynamic BBM role in FM. The 6 was probably the most questionable role in this interpretation. Again, IRL, Nico Raskin plays this role as a pivot/playmaker. In the initial interpretation, I had this role as DM(s), but I felt he wasn't involved enough. I debated over DLP(s) and RGA(s), as I wasn't sure if DLP(s) in front of 2 BPD would be overkill, and too condensed in that area. But settled on DLP(s), as RGA(s) is more aggressive and has too much freedom for my liking, with roam from position hard coded.
The 3 behind the striker could have been 3 AMC, as Beale seems to want a very central attacking unit, with the only width coming from the wingback's. But recently he has been utilising Matondo on the left, cutting in using his pace, so I've taken that into account. The IW(s) was preferred to the IF(s) as he still puts the odd cross in (as IRL) when a run isn't an option, and the IF(s) has cross less often hard coded.
A bog standard AM(s) was selected as we don't want any more width on that side with the marauding wing back using that space. The remaining role options are playmaker ones, which I don't want in this strata as it may slow down play in the final third. The other role chosen being the SS(a), again not wanting a playmaker role. Beale has been trying to fit 2 (sometimes 3!) strikers in his system, so this SS(a) gives us an extra striker without an out and out striker.
I don't 100% know what Beale expects from his main striker, he seems to want a bit of everything from him, which would indicate a complete forward. But this is my interpretation, and I love the advanced forward, so AF(a) it is! The 3 players rotating the SS/AF positions have 30 goals between them at this stage already, so it seems to work for now.
TI are indicative of a high pressing, quick on the transition style; direct, higher tempo, playing higher up the pitch. Which in, albeit very limited spells, has been attempted IRL by Beale.
First round of league fixtures done, sitting top, plus a decent Champions League run so far. Conceding some sloppy goals early on, but as tactical familiarity increased, sloppy goals became fewer.
The highlight of the run beating Napoli at home 3-1 with a front line ravaged by injury
Recreating Beale Ball has reignited the fun in FM for me. Keeping the hand brake off from here on in!
2 -
*update on Leicester 433 end of season*
From bottom at the start of November, to a last day European place chance. Having secured at least 8th place with a game to go, I needed a win and results to go my way for a European spot. All was looking well until Brentford drew with City in the last minute of extra time! Should have been a simpler finish to the season, but we hit a slight dip in form with a few draws and a loss in the last 6 games
Really enjoyed my foray back into the 433 formation, with some beautiful football played at times! Especially Maddison and Daka, who both shone in this system. My tactic remained fairly consistent throughout
No PI at all, and with only a few TI changes on a game by game basis, as mentioned in a previous post
On 03/06/2023 at 09:48, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:The only changes I make is dropping the LOE and DL down a notch, coupled with counter-press off, and counter on against bigger teams. As good as my lads are at grafting and pressing high, the better teams always find a way around the press and leave you exposed.
Anyway, onto next season. Some deadwood to shift, and one or two first team upgrades to come in. Lets go!
0 -
On 05/06/2023 at 20:56, HanziZoloman said:
Why did you go with a WBd?
Honestly just on the fact that Leicester were bottom of the table when I took over, and I didn't want to be too adventurous on both flanks! With the left side on attack duty, I was hoping for some stabilty from the other side.
1 -
So after a long time away from my old trusted 433, this thread has brought me back in! Really enjoyed reading your breakdown and reasoning of 433 variations @Johnny Ace, it reignited a spark and led me to start afresh and abandon the 4231 I'd been messing about with for a while.
Fancying a bit of a new challenge, I holidayed until the first Premier League manager was sacked and took that job. This being Leicester, at the end of October, rock bottom of the table. After analyzing the squad and checking in with the team comparison, I find we are above average in work rate, teamwork and passing, so this will give me the base for TI. That comparison, along with what I had at my disposal, as well as what I'd read in this thread, eventually lead me to this base
The initial version of this tactic had the DM as a BWM, which I felt was leaving too many gaps and not offering enough stability, so after reading through the thread I took on board advice from @Cloud9 which has helped hugely
On 26/05/2023 at 18:01, Cloud9 said:BWM as a solo DM can be tricky, and requires a really high quality player to pull it off. Otherwise you might go with a simple DM(d) for more positional structure.
The CM(a) was previously AP(a), but even though the middle two looked fairly reliable, I felt there wasn't enough threat coming from there. I now have goals coming from there (Tielemans finally finding some form in that position!) and not having to rely solely on the front three.
The only changes I make is dropping the LOE and DL down a notch, coupled with counter-press off, and counter on against bigger teams. As good as my lads are at grafting and pressing high, the better teams always find a way around the press and leave you exposed.
Anyway, results have been good, well on the way to Premier League mid table safety.
Thanks to all that made this thread great, and reignited my love of a good old 433
3 -
I know these are for older versions of the game, but I reckon most of @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! principles would still apply to the quest of total football in FM 20. The very fluid concept played great football that was a joy to watch. In other words, total football.
As @crusadertsar said earlier, combining these two theories into one perfect system is the total football dream.
Whether or not ideas from both can be merged into one super total football system is the ultimate challenge.
0 -
On 01/04/2020 at 18:03, Jambo98 said:
Formation
Evening @Jambo98, loving your input in this thread. Slightly off the possession with intent topic, but was intrigued to try and implement your CWB(a)/WM(d) overlap left combo into my game.
Currently playing as Everton in 21/22 and I see Digne and Iwobi on my left flank as great attacking threats, so trying to get them more involved. I have seen Digne's overall threat increase, but wasn't expecting to see such an improvement in Iwobi, as I expected the WM(d) to be fairly reserved. Turns out though, with the right PPMs, this can be pretty devastating. Iwobi currently has great traits in runs with ball often, gets forward whenever possible and cuts in from both wings. So even with the 'defensive' role, this is seen on the regular. Doesn't always result in a goal like this, but good to see the deep starting position, with the following attacking threat and supporting options in the box.
Thanks again for the inspiration, and hopefully this combo keeps on delivering!
0 -
19 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:
I notice space, so I set up to exploit it.
This is a tactic I try to employ regularly. If it's not obvious through watching highlights, then checking analysis frequently during the game to see if there are any glaring gaps.
Quick question, if you notice there is space to exploit on one particular side (a marauding wing back and work-shy-not-keen-on-tracking-back type winger) would you add the TI to exploit that wing? It seems obvious to do so, but occasionally I have tried that with little success, yet have had some success doing the opposite and focussing the play down the other wing.
Eg space down their left flank, I will focus play down our left side. This seems to provide more opportunities for the right FB/WB and right W/IW/IF, with crosses/cross field balls from the left side I'm exploiting. Hopefully that makes sense!
0 -
Great idea for a thread @sporadicsmiles, it's proven to be a thinker!
1. I feel like going against the grain here by saying you've gone from balanced to cautious. Main reason being, this is something I do and have had loads of success with. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but it always seems effective.
22 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:My striker is pressing them a little, but we do not get a lot of pressure on them.
2. I think due to this statement, plus the fact your striker has bagged a couple, the DLFs became a PFa.
3. If it was me I'd add pass into space and lower LOE due to this
23 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:Juventus are playing a very high defensive line. Their CBs are usually almost at half way
This implies to me there's space in behind to attack, so pass into space plus lower LOE, and the newly appointed PFa would take advantage of this. I also think you changed distribute to full backs (and kept only distribute to CBs. As you have a BPD, he would also take advantage of pass into space, and hit long balls over the top of their defence to the on rushing PFa). I was struggling with the change, but a total guess would be slightly more direct passing? Kinda ties in with the rest of the changes.
I'm probably miles away, but these make sense to me and are changes I make regularly to exploit a high opposition defence. The problem of Alex and Ronaldo was also a conundrum, but I think changing mentality to cautious would help this slightly.
Fingers crossed I've not made an arse of myself!
1 -
21 hours ago, Guerin said:
Next time you face it I would try making the DM a half-back and the RW an advanced playmaker support- possibly even toggle the DLFA to a Poacher but use the same TIs maybe with added retain possession. Just having someone drift into the centre of the pitch from wide could be difficult for the opponent to pick up.
I hadn't thought of the half back role, what's the thinking behind that? My W(s) actually has roam from position, and his position on the heat map was very narrow considering his winger role. Maybe from starting narrow tho, instead of the desired starting wide then coming inside. I'll have a tinker with that.
21 hours ago, Guerin said:If the opponent is going man to man marking, maybe some roles that explore the pitch a bit more could really help drag them about-- like trequartistas, roaming playmakers, Mezellas, False Nines and so on- you could try adding a role like that to your attack during these games to see if you get more joy
The opponents seemed to be a lot more stand-off-ish than I had expected, hence the changing of BBM to CM(A). Possibly too late in the game tho, as the effect was minimal.
I will tinker with more adventurous roles the next time, I've always adopted a more simplistic role set up, letting the players attributes and PPM determine how they take on that role. E.g. I have Sandro Tonali and Romeu as rotating DM, who both play the role different. One more playmaker, the other more no nonsense. Same with the RW position, I go between a runner/crosser and a drifter/inside forward type. I like the fact i can change the play very easily without having to change too many TI/PI.
0 -
10 hours ago, Guerin said:
Did you see this happening in the game? Because that's half the battle. The other half is then finding a way to exploit the space that you've made. I wonder as well, did you make any situations where their defenders got all jumbled up-- like a CB in the DM position, FB in the CB position etc--- or just generally scrambling around.
Honestly not as much as I'd hoped for. Even tho they pressed a bit, I was hoping for more of a chasing shadows approach from them but no such luck. They were quite happy to let me pass around. As I said, I felt as tho it was possession for possessions sake at times.
As for your other question, there were times their CB was drawn out with the full back to my winger, but my BBM wasn't far enough forward to take advantage. I changed that (probably too late) in the game to my original CM(A) but I didn't see much if a difference. Apart from that, I didn't notice and real scrambles or confusion.
10 hours ago, Guerin said:DId you use the work ball in the box TI?
1-nil is still a result but the lack of CCC's is disappointing, but you didn't give them any chances either.
I had it in the previous tactic, but took it out specifically for this game. I was hoping for a more varied attack if they were going to sit very deep. I didn't envisage much space in the box to exploit. Although looking at the shot map, I had a good 3 or 4 chances In and around the 6 yard box, yet still none classed as CCC!
0 -
On 06/10/2019 at 23:06, Experienced Defender said:
This tactic looks a bit too conservative for a match in which you are the clear favorite (which I suppose you were against Forest). Both in terms of instructions (including the mentality) and roles/duties.
Yeah that was actually the intention in all honesty. The previous defeat to Forest was my usual more adventurous tactic, and it didn't work at all. Actually produced very little, and this more conservative approach created more. I tried to implement the patient, deeper approach, dragging their players towards mine (well that was the plan anyway).
A couple of games previous we actually beat Roma 3-1 away from home I'm the Europa. I'm much more comfortable playing against the bigger teams who leave more space to exploit. These flat back 5 formations can do one!
0 -
So I got a chance to right some wrongs as I drew Forest at home in the cup. Again they set up with a flat back 5 (albeit a different gaffer this time). Made a couple of tweaks as advised, and the set up looked like this
The general shape didn't differ too much, but with some minor TI and role changes the idea was to drop a bit deeper, lower the tempo and try the patient approach. This aspect was a success, with far more possession than last time. Although it felt like possession for possessions sake at times, and a bit stale. There was a lack in penetration which resulted in a lot of long shots and no CCCs (although watching the majority of the game we squandered a lot of chances). I really felt I missed the presence of the CM(A) running from midfield. BBM was fine, but just lacked the final third danger.
Anyway, stats and shots to clarify my thoughts
The main aim was to win, which we did, winning 1 nil after a Hojbjerg worldie. But the reality was I came away pretty disappointed with the stale play. Maybe Forest (or any flat back 5 team) are my bogey team (formation) and I should accept that scraping a 1 nil will suffice.
0 -
8 hours ago, Guerin said:
Dropping deep, dropping the tempo and playing out from the back will get you playing patiently in your own half and get the opposition midfield to leave their defensive positions and close you down leaving space behind them
This was one of the ideas floating around in my.head, but yet to test. Seems a logical solution and one I'll definitely try the next time the problem comes up.
8 hours ago, Guerin said:Another way to do it (which I haven't tested myself) would be to play super wide, forcing their players to leave their positions to close off the wide areas creating space in the middle.
This was also another idea I had, one I actually tried to implement against Forest. Changed a couple of TIs to play wider and more direct, but as the score suggested without much luck! To be fair I created a few more chances, barely half chances tho never mind CCC!
The rest of your advice regarding drawing opposition players onto my own is solid, and will definitely test it out next time.
7 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:It is tricky to break down teams like this. I regularly play a team who plays with a back 3 and 4 players in the DMC/WM strata. packs their defense so tight that I simply have to change up my regular approach
I feel I'll almost need a complete new tactic at times with the number of changes to specifically deal with these teams. Needs must tho, my approach clearly isn't effective against these sides. Definitely need to tinker a bit.
7 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:while keeping the fullback more conservative (either as FB on support, WB on defend or even - my preferred option - IWB on defend)
Have actually tried this approach with both FB(S) and WB(D) but I've never fully understood the IWB to implement it properly. I may experiment on a new save with a completely new tactic and implement some of the ideas on this thread. I'm sure bigger teams than Southampton will have to deal with these flat defensive sides on a more regular basis.
0 -
13 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:
My first suggestion is to swap around Hojbjerg and Ward-Prowse in terms of their roles (although I would prefer Lemina as a CM on attack anyway).
Thanks for the reply man, much appreciated. I did tinker with these two for a while, and decided Hojbjerg would be more suited to DLP(S) as although he has 'tries killer balls' and 'shoots from distance' he also has 'comes deep to get ball' as a PPM which doesn't suit my CM(A) role. I prefer to see him bombing forward to grab goals, not coming deep to receive. Ward-Prowse, who doesn't have any PPMs, actually scored a hat trick from that role in a previous game, so I ended up rotating him and Lemina in the CM(A) role (occasionally Armstrong depending on the circumstances)
13 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:You have both the right CM and FB on attack duties
This is my base tactic for similar level/lesser teams (didn't think I'd need to worry against Forest...). If I'm playing a top 6 side say, I will change the FB(A) to (S) which seems to be defensively more sound. I'll generally tinker between Balanced and Cautious mentality as well against bigger sides, so that also helps tighten things up if need be without changing the overall tactic too much.
13 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:This is okay if you deliberately want to rely on crosses, but I doubt that's what you want. Or perhaps I am wrong?
You're actually correct in this, I didn't want to rely on crosses in the creation of this. But I noticed occasionally from watching games, the IF(A) on the opposite flank found himself in a lot of space so I stuck an FB(A) and W(S) to take advantage of this. It doesn't happen too often, but I'm now very happy to see a goal scored from a cross from either full back or winger to the IF(A).
13 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:Work ball into box can overcomplicate things in attack, especially when playing against a packed and disciplined defense (and btw also requires players that are very good both technically and mentally).
Having thought about it properly, this will be the first TI to go when I next face a flat back 5. It makes perfect sense, thanks.
7 hours ago, reg22 said:I've found 'work ball into the box' to be quite difficult when opposition play either a DM or an extra DC
Cheers for the input man, appreciated. Yes, this will definitely go against a similar set up next time, hopefully prove more fruitful!
1 hour ago, Guerin said:It is just much harder to create chances against teams that do nothing but defend. Same in real life.
Very true mate, I see this far too often watching teams come to play Rangers and 'park the bus'. Very frustrating
I had a vision of stretching the pitch and having a bigger distance between LOE and defensive line, allowing more space to play in, but they would just become more compact and drop deeper and we'd be back to square one. Maybe the opposite would be true and playing them at their own game would benefit more, dropping a bit deeper and enticing them onto me to create a bit more space?
1 hour ago, Guerin said:If you want to disrupt their setup there's a few ways of going about it without changing your shape, let me know if you want me to go into specifics of exactly what roles and duties I'd adapt in your setup.
Yes man, any help would be appreciated
0 -
Coming up against a (usually newly promoted) flat, defensive 451, 541 formation has proven to be the bane of my FM life.
This last game I played typified this. Playing as Southampton, coming into this in fairly decent form, decent morale, playing a newly promoted Nottingham Forest at home, I was expecting a comfortable victory. As soon as I seen the flat 541 alarm bells started ringing! Long story short, they scored in the 92nd minute with their second shot to win 1 nil. After completely dominating for 90 minutes, yet having no CCCs, which is a rarity for me (but somewhat clarifying my struggle against these flat defensive sides)
My tactic is one I've used and tinkered with over the duration of FM19, and one I've had relative success with, with a number of different teams. Designed to be balanced and allow a variety of goals, with the IF(A) and CM(A) the 2 main goal scorers, but with goals usually coming throughout the team. It wasn't my strongest 11 due to a Thursday night Europa League game previous and a couple of injuries, but the team I had out should have been more than capable.
When playing against a bigger team that play more attacking and open, I usually make some changes to take advantage of the space being left in behind. Namely DLF(S) to DLF(A), take away counter press and play out of defence, and employ pass into space. It's a formula that seems to work.
When it comes to facing a 'shut up shop' team my mind goes blank, as theoretically (in my eyes anyway) there is no obvious space to exploit.
So I'm basically asking for advice on how to deal with these 'bastard' formations, as I've affectionately come to know them!
Thanks in advance
0 -
1 hour ago, sporadicsmiles said:
Rules are more like guidelines anyway! I break my rules all the time in various minor ways.
Same! I'm forever breaking my own rules. I had a Rangers save where I promised myself I wouldn't go over 30k a week wages... until my star man was wanted by half the european big dogs. Once I caved with him, they all wanted more! It's a slippery slope.
On a serious note though, do you ever struggle against certain formations? The counter attacking, direct, long ball, Claudio Ranieri flat 442 has proven to be a nightmare for me. Any suggestions welcome
0 -
53 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:
I would not have bought Bazoer though, he does not fit my criteria for determination
Ah the exact same dilemma I had when buying him! But due to his ability to play any of the midfield roles, a host of other very desirable attributes, and the fact he was less than 5 million was enough to see past the lack of determination. Like you I also aim to see a player leave the club a better player than when he came. And despite the determination factor, I reckon this guy will be a far more complete player in a couple of years time.
1 hour ago, sporadicsmiles said:The DLP is more like the glue to keep it all together, and keep parts of my teams talking.
I like this way of looking at that role. I think I was expecting too much from this guy, hence trying out a more roaming sort of role. But the reality is there is plenty of movement ahead, and even more coming from the back in the shape of the full back. Sometimes less really is more in this game!
0 -
Just came across this and read from start to finish, thanks for an enjoyable read @sporadicsmiles. It was almost as though I was reading a write up of my own FM style! These, along with real life tactical replications, are among my favourite topics on here.
On 20/04/2019 at 12:13, sporadicsmiles said:I want the DLP and DM to basically be interchangeable. This is again critical to making my midfield work.
This again is very much my style. In most cases I play the same shape to you and see the midfield trio as key to how the tactic works. In my recent save (taking over a bottom of the table Wolves in December) I have created a very reliable and interchangeable midfield as shown (with the exception of Coady who is one of my two first choice CBs)
Van de Beek and Bazoer brought in for 20 million, and 4.8 million respectively. The rest already at the club. Like you I'm never keen on big transfers and big wages, but van de Beek is pretty much my vision of a perfect midfielder so was worth the 20 million fee.
One question I have though. Whilst my CMa is also my favourite role and set in stone, (young Gibbs-White is a demon here!) I sometimes struggle with the guy beside him. Like you I primarily play with a DLPs, but sometimes feel the (lack of) movement of the role stifles play a bit. Have you tried any other role in that position with any success? I tried both CMs and BBM but wasn't convinced either offered more than the DLPs. Similar with the DM strata, have you tried any other roles? Occasionally, with relative success, I have tried a HB in there when coming up against two strikers to offer my two CBs an extra man.
Again, thanks for an enjoyable read and look forward to any more updates
0 -
@beverage1982 great OP, love all the thought processes that get you to your final tactical system. Very similar to the way I approach the game. The update as well is a good read. I always relate more to the mistakes, and learning from them, than the immediate success stories.
Anyway, regarding your dilemma. I don't know if you are an advocate of a one tactic fits all, or multiple versions of the same, or completely different tactics for different situations? I generally have a base tactic with one or two variations of that depending on opposition; their weaknesses vs my strengths, favourites or underdog, injuries etc.
My latest save was a holiday til December and save the bottom club from a relegation dog fight type challenge. The club (surprisingly) bottom of the Prem was Wolves.
I got to work and realised that there was an abundance of wide players all with different traits and preferred roles.
My default
My secondary
The secondary is a very slight variation on the primary tactic, very few TI/PI differences, but using a different base shape and different types of wide players makes it perform very differently. Both variations effective in their own right. I personally think using non specific roles helps this as well. Rotating between Ruben Neves and young Gibbs-White in the CM(a) varies the attacking play due to differences in traits. Same applies to bog standard wingers and IFs.
Similarly to you, I noticed that moving up the mentality spectrum when chasing a goal made for more varied (and better to watch) attacks. But this was the last 5/10 minute desperation attempts, I'm also far too reserved to play whole games above balanced/positive!
But back to your original question, I do a bit of 1, 2, 3 and 4! In short, for me personally (depending on both pre-game, and in-game circumstances); shape changes to suit, roles change only occasionally, TIs change to suit, PIs generally remain the same, and mentality very rarely strays from balanced for me (purely because I don't fully understand all the implications of doing so
).
But having such a basic set up allows me a bit of tinkering depending on circumstances. Generally having few TI/PI means it's easier for me to see what needs to be changed during a game.
Really enjoyed the read and hopefully you enjoy some prolonged success in the Prem, good luck going forward!
2 -
On 12/03/2019 at 18:31, Y2Jones said:
I made the decision to stick to only making my own tactics and if they fail, they fail.
Farewell Plug and Play!
@Y2Jones this is such an admirable approach, one I've tried to apply myself recently. Applying aspects of others approaches is also something I've done for years, there's nothing wrong with taking ideas from those much more tactically aware than ourselves.
As Bruce Lee said, 'adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own'
Once again, great post, enjoyable read, and looking forward to future updates
0
).
Beale Ball... taking off the handbrake!
in Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion
Posted
Haha, definitely not that!