Guv'nor
-
Posts
264 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by Guv'nor
-
-
^Very good point.
0 -
Juve, Inter, Barca’s 3-4-1-2, Real use the 4-3-1-2 a fair bit, to name a few. Wouldn’t consider utilising two strikers an exploit, IRL, it presents a different set of challenges to the back line.
0 -
^Single central centre back...absolutely. They wide-backs guard both the half space and flanks in both phases, though more so on the right. At times it shifts to a four with Alonso triggering the shift, but they're far from a regular back three. Arteta's use of Tierney in both phases during his 3-4-3 experiment another example of a hybridising back three. lopsided in both phases. Whilst the option is there to have lateral movement of outside centre-backs in the attacking phase, there's complete ignorance of real life approaches in the defensive phase. Then there's Pep's 3-3-4 vs Roma with Robben and Bernat if no mistaken far from wing backing, a split back three with movement from midfield complimenting defensive integrity. If not mistaken, there was a back two played by Bayern too and a Dani Alves high on the right all night long in one infamous Barca demolition of an opponent (who escapes memory). One hopes in futures editions greater emphasis is placed on the bidirectional evolution of the game.
0 -
Interesting, are there any additional PIs?
Funnily enough, have been staring at a stripped back uncustom 3-4-3 and wondering how the individual players interpret their roles were one to withhold almost all Team Instructions.
The second approach will be do negate all TIs and modify PIs accordingly to achieve the desired effect from each individual player. Would the absence of an overriding Team Instruction compromise the team's produce, or can 11 individuals, with complementary player instructions, achieve a synergy greater than that allowed by set TIs?
0 -
In addendum, Tommy Tuchel once upon a time claimed the future of football was the 3-1-2-4, the final form of the 3-1-4-2, cited by many as the messianic formation set to take the game into the newest testament. Detailed descriptives read of a back four comprised of a horizontally stretched back three (akin to his Chelsea back line), an anchoring DMC who covers centrally, laterally and drops in alongside the solitary 'central' centre back as required. The wingbacks are wingers and in effect, wide forwards (no surprise in his use of CHO on the right side), the central body is completed by dual pairings in midfield and attack.
Whilst not yet 3-1-2-4, there is considerable lateral spread of his back three, with Rudiger and Azpi playing wide in both phases at times. Theres argument to say Azpi is more fullback playing narrow than centre half moving wide. The width of the back three is influenced by the midfield pairing ahead of it. In many instances, Chelsea, owners of many a clean-sheet and one of the sternest defences across all Europes elite leagues since Tuchel took over, are playing with a single central centre back and cover the half-spaces either side with ball winning midfield movement and inversion of their quasi-fullbacks Rudiger and Azpi. Yet, most would consider a stretched back three featuring DL-DC-DR, unrealistic and illogical by FM standards. And rightly so, not because of a dearth of real life examples of its efficacy, but rather because of the limitations of the match engine. Much how centre back overlaps are inconceivable in the SI matrix, the idea of a fullback doing anything other than flying forward is lost to the game's cognition. Even the most No Nonsense Omeruo brought in for one's Espanyol and assigned pure ball aversion and bone crunching tackles in-field, was found many times trying to bend it like Beckham well outside of his jurisdiction.
It's somewhat illogical that real life, well popularised strategies/tactics remain illogical to FM. Of course there are limitations to what the game can achieve, what the computer can compute and thus one is left to answer questions of realism/logical/illogical in FMglish.
0 -
Agreed to an extent, however some of the greatest breakthroughs in the beautiful game, that have added an extra layer of gorgeous to it, were once considered illogical. A few years back Jack O'Connell sprinted past his wingback in what, at the time, seemed like sheer madness, the moment he'd flapped his arms and gone over the cuckoo's nest. Today, overlapping CBs, still inconceivable in the FM matrix, is a common feature of many a side. Granted there is a lot of illogical, but in years to come, one can't help but feel football, from a tactical perspective, will be very different from what we see today. As teams place more and more emphasis on playing out from the back, coupled with the desire for greater involvement in the build-up from forwards, the emphasis on midfielders will increase and the need for pure defenders decrease as a consequence.
Sampaoli mightn't have been so mad after all.
2 -
PS: Any decent, free (post in forum) image hosting sites recommended?
0 -
And of course there's always bohemianism. Its probable that their (superior opp's) comparative advantage re: squad quality etc, is hardcoded into the system. Perfect example being the myriad Liverpool tests that achieve 100+ goals, 100+ points, 100+ consecutive victories. Assuming the game's default is to exaggerate the strength of Goliath, it's likely all 50 shades of David were equally coded to be destroyed. SI often bring in gamers to gauge the thought processes of players, work a response to their actions and then hardcode that to add Popeye forearms to their monster. Effectively they get an idea of how we think and wire that into be battered too.
Embracing the idea that the almost all algorithms lead to a defeat, the antitheses would be to be unalgorithmed and play for the glitch in the matrix. Rather than compaction, sitting back, dropping mentality and Sam Allardycing, have made it modus operandi to divide each half into equal parts, usually blocks of 15 minutes (sometimes duration is defined by the highlight shown) and vary the emphasis in each, with one constant, come out swinging, akin to the boxer who knows he has no chance over 12 rounds.
The base formation remains the same with roles, individual/team mentality, tempo etc changed immediately after kickoff. Not always, but on enough occasions to challenge the null hypothesis, we have more chances or corners than the opposition. Granted few of these yield highlights but that's not a concern, rather its viewed as 'the game' computing, sifting through its codes to try and restore the balance of superiority.
When the time elapses, the emphasis is changed, we drop from the extreme aggressive Leeds Unitedesque madness to a balanced or cautious mentality, use double-marking, adjust the block, pressing intensity, but retain the tempo. We make use of the "automatic" individual mentality settings too, a very effective tool when used correctly tbh. Its important to watch the game in full when going automatic, certain exploits become obvious. Have a tendency to reactively retain the "automatic" mentality on the side opposite to the exploit, adjust individual mentality on the side of the exploit and alternate the focus of play.
The second-half works similarly, come out swinging then balance up and keep transforming. The Automatic tool is key in the second half, thus there's a lot of watching involved.
On double-marking, watch for changes in the morale of opponents in key positions. Not only can players be taken out of the game and rendered near useless, but it lowers morale often enough to yield an angry...if you get one of those, use it. Focus passing towards the player, tighten the double-mark. Have seen a very decent return on bookings and sending offs playing on morale and man-marking. Get impression the ME reacts to player booking by reducing their commitment to tackles and pressing, unless its wired into a player trait or they're angry. Once the yellows goes up, the flood gates open.
Of course to double mark, asymmetry is imperative or numerical advantage in the zone in which the double mark is applied.
Gave Bournemouth a going over (they were heavy favourites and joint top at the time, forwards banging them in) and a 4th placed Swansea (in very good form) a helluva of a beating. Yellow cards aplenty. Morale down in the dumps for both of them, pathetic team average ratings. Bohemian Rhapsody.
0 -
Surely the clue is in the first 5 words...Spurs. “Can’t hold a lead”, nothing out of the ordinary.
If this is a recurring theme, could be a sign that your system’s been coded. To lose 4 goals in 30 minutes vs West Brom, blue lights and yellow ‘do not cross’ tape, as far as the formation’s concerned.
Need a lot more “little more” info. What’s the base formation, 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1 etc etc?
1 -
It works for a period of time during which R2D2 is merely running through its codes to find the crack. Once found, all the vulnerabilities are exploited. At will.
Agree with the above assertions, Adv Forward, Attacking Winger, Mezzala, all doubled up, effectively there’s no midfield. And no the inverting fullback will not serve as a quasi-anchorman in the defensive phase.
Seldom play with a back four, but have utilised 2 Adv Fwds in an aggressive pressing system, much higher line of engagement and defensive line. Of course, if there’s no pace and positioning in the back line, there’s blood on dance floor when the counter comes.
Mezzalas by default need a DM behind or a CM between to do their defensive work. If not mistaken, the clue is in the role description, where it reads of defensive nonchalance.
If both Fullbacks are inverting the question is, why Fullback at all? More over, in this particular shape, the inversion doesn’t lead to central overloads because the wayward Mezzalas are drifting to the outer limits...despite the flanks being aggressively staffed with AML/R wingers. So what’s the point?
Hazarding a guess, would put a decent wager on this tactic sitting beneath an emboldened title featuring 3 digit goals for, 100+ points, a healthy dollop of exclamation marks and a couple shocked emojis. Test: Liverpool and PSG, no less. Mbappe 89 league goals, 15 in one game vs Amiens.
0 -
Returning to a point above, the difference between lookalike formations is definitely in the distribution of defensive duties ie. 4-1-4-1, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and alike.
Would argue against the 4-4-2 being the basis for universality and feel the future of football will borrow more and more from times past. Somewhere in a distant era, 10 midfielders (some defensive, some transitional and others offensive generalists) and a sweeper keeper will take the field. Nevertheless, look forward to the evolution of this thread.
0 -
And the team's attacking width is set to narrow...?
How wide are you expecting or wanting a Midfield centre to move given the overriding instruction is for the team to stay compact?
0 -
13 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:
I feel like from my own perspective, this is why football manager is at best an average computer game.
It cannot keep up with the complexity of actual football and it forces you to play football through the eyes of the people who developed the game. You have to think how they think and its safe to say they arent as intelligent as a real football manager.
In your Pep Guardiola example, theres simply no way of pigeon holing their players into roles.
No matter what you do, youre forced to either accept hard coded behaviours or that with the PIs possible, you still cant communicate what you want to do.
I mean, the game is as good as its likely to ever be, I totally get that. To program this stuff into the game must be a nightmare.
Agreed, the game is limited, ultimately for all the hardwired algorithms and various permutations, they are algorithms and permutations. Presets designed for certain situations. The game becomes all the more limited when we decide to play within the borders and boundaries. No we cannot create overlapping centre halves in a 3-5-2, but can create quasi and pseudo variants of reality, dare one climb the boundary and enter the field beyond the fence. More than most, Guardiola is a thinker, in FM, the thinking has already been done and thus what remains is to follow a thought process. How much one follows is down to how much one adheres to the defaults.
2 -
Possession doesn't automatically equate to goals. Most, if not all have experienced the FM Phantom Menace wherein they pepper the opposition with attempts on goal, yet lose 3-4 nil. Had a game vs Amazulu with Kaizer Chiefs during which they scored with every attempt, all 4 of them. 21 shots later, the bulk of which were on target, we're heading home with a 4-1 hiding. Dominated possession, dominated SOG, dominated CCC, yet the result reads of a royal beatdown. So...what is the God you seek? More possession or more points regardless of the possession statistics?
0 -
19 minutes ago, Paul Barton said:
Thinking I may try something similar. By WBs on attack with the two CM's on duties to perhaps cover. Maybe a CAR and a DLP Def or CM Def?
The Carrilero shifts wide and leaves the midfield wide open. Two manned midfields are best served protecting the centre, leave the flanks to the wide centre backs and hope your wingbacks can be bothered to help out. If you have a DM behind the two, then Carrilero till your hearts content.
If your WBs are going attacking, then having both MCs on defend is a sensible option. More so when one factors in the Positive overall mentality. Defend individual mentality on a Positive team mentality, does not equate to an overall Defensive mentality in the chosen player. By playing Positively, the balance is tilted towards attack. Assuming Balance equals 0, Cautious -1, Positive +1 one and so on, and from the individual perspective Def is -1, support 0, Attack 1, it becomes obvious that a defensive individual in a positive or attacking team mentality, is less defensively inclined. In fact, at one point, one of the tactical windows confirms the effect of Team Mentality on the Player's, cue the "Very Attacking" description, despite there being no option to play a player very attacking.
With that in mind, the lack of defensive support for the back three becomes all the more obvious. In a custom formation, hardwired and algorithmed to death, this is bread and milk for the match engine.
0 -
Regarding the base formation and strategy, were these selected following the default pathways ie. did you click on Catenaccio, then click on one of the suggested formations etc etc. If so, did the default Catenaccio setting suggest playing with the high defensive line and pressing, as per the opening post? Whilst this seems to have been changed in later tweaks as per your most recent screenshot, the same question applies...were these tweaks made to a tactic that was selected from the custom playing styles/settings or one created from scratch?
I may be mistaken, but one would imagine in selecting a custom playing style, we plug into a particular set of algorithms and no matter how much one varies the PIs and TIs, there is a lasting legacy of that primary choice. By setting up as Catenaccio, everything else becomes a catenaccioed version of...It comes as no surprise then that a catenaccioed high defensive line and press equates to a bunch of bird watchers clad in Lazio blue watching Haaland the hawk ravage their goalkeeper. The two settings cancel one another out leading to zero.
The difficulty now is, major tweaks will compromise tactical familiarity, the default produce of which is a lesser yield. The aim of this programming (tactical familiarity) was to reduce the power of the plug and play formation. Clearly there's plenty wrong with Dear Lazio, but how sweeping can the changes be without losing an established identity, no matter how porous that might be at present.
A few thoughts:
- Positive team mentality, is this permanent or does this vary depending on opposition, or in-game events?
- Why be more expressive? What is the cumulative flair rating of the team ahead of the back three? The maximum flair rating for those 7 players (including the wingbacks) is 140, any less than 80% of maximum (112), take this off. Yes, the idea of players being more expressive is appealing, but in the SI cosmos, this purely a question of intelligence, whilst there are many other attributes that influence expression, Flair rules the roost in FM. A quick glance at how the game defines it is testimony to that.
- How does the Distribute to Fullback setting play out given there are no actual fullbacks in the base formation? Had this issue playing with a wing backed system, watching extended highlights, it became apparent all balls were going to the CBs, once in play, the WBs made their forward runs and were far beyond the passing capacity of Troost-Ekong and Sons. Distribute to the flanks seemed to find the WBs with greater regularity.
- All 3 CBs are CDs set to defend, by default this means they're less likely to add a bit of trajectory to their pass and find the Wingback and in the defensive phase, more likely to hold their line. If the line breaks, who covers? Ahead of the line, do they get any support? Does the DLP have any defensive attributes >/=14 (tackling, marking, positioning, OTB), does Darder?
- Why shorter passing? Are there enough passing options to maximise this approach. Watch extended highlights, pause the game during a transition once the ball has left defence, take a screenshot. Assuming the ball progresses beyond the halfway line, pause again and take a further screenshot. If it progresses to the final third, take another. Now look at the position of your players relative to the position of the ball, how far does the ball have to travel in order to find a player? Is short passing the best option, it may well be, but better to know than assume.
- Why DLF when you already have an AMC in dead centre? Is the DLF asked to play wider so as to avoid piggybacking the AMC? Think of the DLFs in real life, how many play with an AMC directly behind. Don't most 4-2-3-1s ask the CF to make lateral runs, or ask the AMC to play as support striker as the CF drops deep (ala Kane and Lucas Moura). If Caciedo's best position is DLF, then either have him dropping wider or shift the AMC to AMLC, so when he drops, he drops into a different zone.
The formation needs balancing, even more so if the hardwiring is viewing this in terms of Catenaccio.
0 -
Push the wingbacks up to ML, MR.
ML - Wide midfielder, sit narrow, cut inside with ball, with team underlapping on the left.
MR - Defensive Winger with man-marking LB, high pressing (which is the default anyway). Crossing often, whipped and from high up. The Low cross is equivalent to the cutback and was very successful in the Beta and earlier editions, the power has been reduced since. Still works reasonably well, but as an ice-cream man once said to the Marquis du'Sade, nothing beats a good whip.
AML - Timo Werner set to Winger attack.
Move AMR to AMRC - set to Support Striker
CM pairing - Granted there are many fancy roles with even fancier names, but in terms of variability, a simple Centre Midfielder setting, one on Attack or Support, one on Defend, is top trump. PI allow for the creation of a CM with Mezzala-Like movement but minus the mezzala-like default disregard for defending, which the ME exploits.
DLF - The support duty makes little sense here, support who? By default a CF starts closer to the opposition's goal than any of his teammates. Moreover when few of his team-mates in advanced positions have attacking duty (only Pulisic in the above schematic), who is he supporting exactly? A DLF on attack doesn't mean he'll be less deep-lying. Only an Advanced Forward resides in the extremis.
For all the dressage, its still the same hay in the stable. With ball, Without ball, ala the Great CM01/02. All they've done is hidden the screen. The sooner you hybridise your tactical thinking, not just in terms of roles and instructions, but positional deployment, the better. And needless to say, uncustomisation. Whats pattern recognition when the pattern isn't recognised?
1 -
A contrarian would argue what is todays fixation with spaces and half spaces nouveau at all. When the Mighty Magars dropped a forward into midfield was this not in recognition of an unoccupied space which could be commandeered and conquered? When Herbert Chapman switched to a W-M, was it not in reaction to a change in offside rule, flogging by the Toon and recognition of space? Football has been in a constant state of evolution since inception, moreover, it's life cycle is circular, thus much of the new about today is borrowed from the past. Guardiola's use of Busquets was akin to the halfbacks of years past. The inversion of fullbacks creates a 2-3-5 in the attacking phase, was this not the default formation centuries back?
Is the age of the specialist coming to an end or is it the natural progression of the specialist to become the generalist? Harry Kane is dropping deeper, more a consequence of heightened in-game intelligence than anything else. Does the heightened intelligence not dictate to tactic? Personally, I think what has been and gone will return, completing the circle.
5 -
Have you played the same custom formation throughout all those seasons?
0 -
Had both threads opened and posted in the wrong one. Same author if not mistaken.
1 -
...In a nutshell, ditch the 5-2-3, which in no way resembles Tuchel’s approach.
A 3-1-3-2-1 (narrow or wide 2). In effect Werner is wider on the left, with Alonso occasionally underlapping, whilst Mount is almost exclusively inside CHO or James. Jorginho is the 1, dropping deep at the start of possession and Kovacic is best considered Box to Box or BWM.
The custom 5-2-3 is not least a sorry excuse for the Tuchelian 3-4-3, but offers a simplified, easily cracked children’s sudoku in place of a far more thought out strategy. Ditch it!
0 -
The real question is, how intelligent is the artificial intelligence? It mightn’t be Ralf Wiggum, but it’s certainly no Martin Prince. At best, Milhouse, looks like the archetypal straight A student, but wouldn’t win a Scrabble shootout.
The ME can only reflect pre-programmed algorithms. A 5-2-3/3-4-3 custom formation on slow tempo with abc nuances, will have been plugged into the matrix to yield xyz outcomes in efg scenarios. Yes, the collective quality of the team will have a advantageous or deleterious effect on yield, but scores of boffs will have been test driving the prototypes, to give SI an idea of in-game changes made by players, allowing them to populate both algorithm and outcome.
So if the AI doesn’t think independent of its pre-programming, the first rule in the game of FM thrones, be what’s unexpected and thus unalgorithmed, within the realms of sensibleness.
Managed a second-placed finish, first season with Sheffield Wednesday, by being unexpected.
So returning to your question, the question within the question is, where does the ME decide possession, arguably in midfield...thus to dominate possession, dominate the midfield and even more, be unexpected in doing so. Uncustomise the customised formation.0 -
To get chalk on boots, attacking width needs to be maximal with focus down the flanks. Wingers need to hold position, run wise with ball, cross from byline...in effect this creates more a Fergie Kanchelskis than Pep Raheem. The latter‘s preference is for inverted runs deep in the final third with next to no crossing from the wingers/inside forwards.
The inside forward is the closest one can get and falls far from the mark, the wider the attack, the more outside becomes the inside. And what’s an inside when it’s outside...
1 -
Couldn't agree more with the assertion above, why the 4-4-2? Evidently, you don't have the passers in midfield, nor decent wingers on the flanks. The 2 banks of four are being broken into like it were a country western. Too late in the season to rip it all up, but once season's done, ditch the 4-4-2, pack the preseason wit friendlies and fill the training schedule, after a good dose of bootcamp, with plenty of sessions that promote tactical familiarity. Get yourself a couple of wingbacks, a decent targetman with heading, jumping reach, no pace and tendency to throw an elbow. Route 1.5.
0
(FM21) Did the updates nerf certain formations?
in Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion
Posted
Is this an actual 2-3-5 or an exaggerated 4-1-4-1: fullbacks in the wingback position and 4 behind a lone forward?
Any glaring differences in the match highlights, beyond the loss of the Rory Delap on steroids effect? Much needed might on add.