Beerwulf
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by Beerwulf
-
-
12 minutes ago, Belmont said:
I just have a quick question about the wide roles. Do IWs really hold the width as described in the analysis? I find them moving narrowly when the team is in the final third
I've just realised that my post pinged everyone waiting for the OP's recreation. Sorry all!
We want the wide player to appear at the back post, so a little narrowing is necessary.
I know that an IW does a lot better at holding width than an IF. I'm currently using wingers, but that's to try and prevent a "left winger dribbles into the right half-space" type of behaviour. This can be very effective, but not what we want here. I've not really used WTMs so I can't compare them to W and IWs. If we had the old "target man supply -> To feet" option, it could work. WTMs don't have "dribble more" hardcoded, either.
Time for more experiments.
0 -
Great read!
After all the analysis, I'm extremely interested in what your recreation will look like.
I'm going to have a guess, based on what you've written, as a bit of fun & as a test to help me understand the ME, and also to get the ideas out of my head.
Roles and duties:
AMR & AML will be IW/S or W/S, stay wider PI. Need to keep the width. AM slot so the start higher, Support role to drop deep and play in the CMs.
MLC and MRC will be MEZ/A or CM/A. Lots of penetrating runs - from both of them. CM slot so they start deeper and run forwards.
DM will be DM/D or DM/S. Keep it simple. Possibly a DLP/D or DLP/S if you want more lateral drift from him. A DLP/D may also occasionally drop in between the DCs.
"The Striker" could be anything from DLF/A (unlikely, but pushes the opposition defense backwards & makes space for midfielders), DLF/S, PF/S (if you want a support role striker that doesn't do anything exciting), F9 (because Pep), to AM/SS or AM/AM/A.
One of the full backs is IWB/D (possibly IWB/S, but he always ends up playing CM/S for me, whereas here we want someone inline with the DM).
For the back 3, I'm really not sure:
You could go DM/HB with two IWB/D to get your 3-2 shape at the back, but that's not really the shape you've described above, where the DM is primarily in the 2, not the 3.
FB/D, WB/D or FB/S will give the "stay wide and help buildup" role well, with the FB/S offering some late overlaps (Kyle Walker), but how to get the DC on the IWB side to go wide? Is a stay wider PI enough? A stopper role doesn't have the "hold position" PI hard coded, will this help him get wider?
Possession Team instructions:
Mentality: Anything from Cautious to Attacking. I don't understand mentality.
Width: Wide or Very wide. This should cause the wingers to stay wide to receive the switch of play. Also opens up the middle of the park.
Tempo: I really don't understand tempo. It could be lower, to help play patient football, or it could be higher, to move the ball around & stop a player sitting on it for minutes at a time. If tempo is how fast the team as a whole moves a ball from back to front, it needs to be low, perhaps very low. If tempo is how fast a player spends on the ball before moving it along, it needs to be medium or perhaps higher. If tempo is both of these things, then who knows.
Passing: Standard. Need to switch play & high width needs longer passing range.
Look for underlaps: For the wide players to pass to the CMs.
Play out of defense: As standard.
Low crosses: Cutbacks, not hanging balls.
WBIB: Patient in attack.
I'm going to stop here, as this exercise has highlighted how much I don't understand about mentality & tempo, and how they interact. Time to go play and experiment.
1 -
23 hours ago, TheWill3737 said:
Does the game allow for a Libero to be played without a centerback to the left and to the right?
You can definitely have a libero with a DCR but not a DCL, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Going back to the initial 3 across the back idea with DL---DC---DR. I had some decent play setting the DL and DR to FB/D, FB/S and FB/S (hold position PI). All had the Sit narrower PI. Since I don't have the time to play seasons, I play one game on Full highlights when I look at tactics so I haven't results to show, but they were better defensively and taking up better positions than IWB/D.
If @crusadertsar and others are still looking at this, then they might want to give it a try if they're not happy with IWB/D.
I'm still not liking the concept defensively because the DC has to be too perfect as any mistake will be punished with a high quality shot on goal.
0 -
1 hour ago, TheWill3737 said:
If you have any ideas as to what could work let me know!
Random thought while trying to get to sleep...
Has anyone considered an asymmetric back line with a libero?
DL/IWB-D -------- DC/L-A --- DRC/BPD --- DR/WB-D
This might get the 1-3 shape in attack, but the roles of the fullbacks might need tweaking.
0 -
3 hours ago, TheWill3737 said:
Why don't you guys try making the formation assymetric? So something like this:
CFL(A)
IWL(S) SSR(A)
CML (S) WMR(S)
HBR(D)
IWBL(S) DCL(C) IWBR (S)
SK(S)
Nice idea, but you're missing a player
Edit: and having an offset DM breaks the IWBs
0 -
8 minutes ago, 04texag said:
Our three midfielders comprising the AoC, which includes the ball carrier, are all remaining tight, as they currently have number superiority and are holding the opposing midfield together. Every other player in our team is in the AoMH, but some of these players are behaving differently than others.
I believe you have AoC and AoMH the wrong way around here.
These posts are a wonderful description of positional play. It's the first time I've really seen the distinction made between static players to hold width and depth (AoC) and mobile players to create local superiority (AoMH), and how these two combine. I may actually understand JdP now.
In the past I've made tactics with no overloads and lots to width (and players in the half spaces), and I've made tactics with lots of overloads and no width, such as a flank with IWB and IF. After reading your post, I can understand how to think about tactics much better.
Thank you.
0 -
This is probably one for the training/SI gurus such as @Seb Wassell.
I'm trying to understand priority and coaches attention in the training section. I've read the manual and the two pinned threads (well, the first few posts, not all them). It's been hard work.
My team has 100% priority in a team session, but my primary unit only receives 60% in a unit session. Does this mean a player in the primary unit during unit training receives less training that anyone in a team session?
The question about team vs unit training generally, but I'll illustrate with an example. I'm going to use some percentages in the example, but they are there to illuminate my argument. I don't want or need to know what the actual numbers are.
Let's compare the General->Tactical training schedule with the Tactical->Attacking Shadow Play schedule.
General->Tactical has one training group - "All Players", which has 100% priority.
Tactical->ASP has three training units - "Attacking", with 60% priority, "Defending" with 20% priority, and "Goalkeeping" with 20% priority.For the purposes of my question let's assume that both schedules train the same attributes, tactical familiarity and other parameters.
Let's say I've a 25 players in the first team. 3 GKs, 11 in the defending unit and 11 in the attacking unit.Let's look at the effect on a player in the attacking unit. There's two different ways I can look at this which give significantly different outcomes.
The first way is that, under General->Tactical, a player will receive 100% of the coaches' attention whereas under Tactical->ASP, the player will receive 60% of the coaches' attention. Therefore he will receive 66% (100/60) more attention from General->Tactical than Tactical->ASP. This strikes me as wrong.
The second way is that the coaches' attention is equally divided amongst the players in the training unit. Under General->Tactical, he receives 100% attention / 25 players = 4% of the coaches' attention. Under Tactical->ASP, he receives 60% attention / 11 players = 5.45% of the coaches' attention. Therefore he will receive 36% (5.45/4) more training from Tactical->ASP than General->Tactical.
The second way seems correct, almost obviously so, until you consider the GK training group. Under General->Tactical, he receives 100% attention / 25 players = 4% of the coaches' attention. Under Tactical->ASP, he receives (20% attention / 3 players)= 6.66% of the coaches' attention, significantly more than a player in the primary attacking focus group.To reiterate, this isn't just a question about General->Tactical and Tactical->ASP, they're just examples. It is a question about team vs unit training generally.
Further thoughts - a possible third way. It could well be that the first way is generally correct, but the player only receives 33% of the coaches attention during team training. In other words, team training is actually unit training where each unit is treated equally, and each unit receives a third of the coaches' attention. In Tactical->ASP training, the primary unit gets approximately 82% more coaching compared to a team training session (60/33), where the others get about 40% (20/33) less coaching than they receive in a General->Tactical training session. This would work out in line with everything we've been told about team vs unit training. However, this requires me to arbitrarily change 100% in the training screen to 33%.
The more I think about it, the more I think the third way is correct. However, I've had to expend a significant amount of effort to get to this conclusion, and I still don't know if I'm right.
I don't need to know the precise precise percentages, I just want to know how I should be interpreting the information that I'm being presented with.
So, how does coaching priority and unit training work?
0 -
3 hours ago, Djuicer said:
For those interested my 12 listed posts in the OP is 116 pages in size 14. WITHOUT pictures or gifs
And every word is worthwhile.
In one of your earlier tactics you were using a Trequartista in the CF slot. I think you had IW on either side and a lack of cutting edge up front, so you replaced him with a pressing forward.
Did you consider using the Treqartista instead of the False 9? Now he'll have a strike partner in the DLF and also penetrating runs from the Mezalla.
0
[Discussion] Are Striker Roles Described Incorrectly?
in Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion
Posted
Don't forget about Poacher.
He'll stay central, lay the ball off, and look to run in behind.
But the great thing about Poacher are all the things he doesn't do. He won't run the channels, he won't drop deep and won't roam to the flanks.
If he's roaming around or dropping deep, he's moving away from goal.