[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Try AML as IF on support and MCL as MEZ on attack. In that case your LB should not be on Attack duty lest he and MEZ get too close to each other. You can additionally tell the AML-IFs to sit narrower.

Thanks, I have already tried this set-up but find the Mezzala drifts wide into the half space; rarely, if ever, does he move out on to the wing...

   

Inside Forward (left) and Mezzala (right, from same game).

I'm playing a simple 4-3-3 (or 4-1-2-2-1 if you prefer); the Mezzala is set to "roam from position" by default and I believe this is why he spends a lot of time in the vacant AMC area.  With the AML set as an advanced playmaker he comes centrally more often than an IF but this doesn't alter the behaviour of the MC (also, I don't really want a playmaker in the AML position).

Try as I might I cannot get the rotation I am looking for (nb: this is different to having the MC run wide with the ball); has anyone else succeeded in getting the MC to play from inside to out effectively?  If so, can you offer some advice - applied as opposed to theoretical ideally. 

 

 

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

Is it possible to get an MC to move out onto the wing both with and without the ball?

Ideally I want to create an 'overlapping' movement with the wide AM, however, I am struggling to find the right combination of roles/instructions to create a repetitive pattern.

[Individual Player Mentality]

Unaccustomed as I am to starting to threads, I thought I’d post a little bit about individual player mentality; specifically about how I think the game assigns this value.  I’m not sure I’m saying anything here that hasn’t been covered already - and probably better! - but if understanding how I look at player mentality when setting up tactics helps even one person then that’s pretty cool.  I am in no way an expert so please feel free to add comment/correct me where I am wrong.

Firstly, where does one find a players individual mentality?  Well, it's a crime but SI have hidden player mentality away on the player instructions pop-up; if I had my way it would be an option available in custom views.

 

I believe that paying attention to individual player mentality greatly improves your understanding of a system and the chance it will work as you intended.  Are you wondering why your full-back over commits?  Why your winger never tracks back?  Okay, so individual player mentality isn't the whole story but it is a fairly significant chapter.

As far as I can tell there are four key factors which together determine a player's individual mentality: player position, player duty, team mentality and team shape.

The notable absence from that list is the player’s role which, so far as I can tell, influences how a player acts but does not affect his individual mentality.

FM2018 gathers player mentalities into six groups.   Players in each group share mentalities based on their individual duties, team mentality and shape.  Here's a visual representation of those six groups…

Because FM groups individual player mentality in this way an AMR with an attack duty will be assigned the same mentality as an AMC on an attack duty (in the same team); similarly a DR on a support duty will have the same individual mentality as a DMC with a support duty.

Team shape then determines how significant the difference is in mentality between a ‘support’ player in one group and a ‘support’ player in a different group.  If a team is assigned a highly structured team shape then these differences will be significant, on a very fluid team shape the differences are almost non-existent.

The diagram below helps illustrates how team shape influences the variance between ‘support’ players in four of the six groupings…

...see how the variance between groups is greater in the highly structured set-up.

 

A player's position determines which group they will draw their individual mentality from and, last but no least, duty assigns the player a mentality from one of typically three sub-groups (e.g. defend, support or attack).

 

Knowing how the game assigns individual player mentalities helps me find balance when I am creating a tactic.  I will generally have an idea how I want the team to play and which team mentality I am likely to use, next comes team shape.  If I have chosen one of the more 'extreme’ team mentalities (contain, defensive, attacking or overload) then I will more than likely avoid fluid and very fluid shapes.  For me, these team shapes tend to exaggerate team mentality at either end of the pitch - an attacking mentality combined with a very fluid shape has the defenders and defensive midfielders be too aggressive for my liking, leaving the team exposed to quick counter-attacks; whereas a defensive mentality coupled with a very fluid shape leads to the attacking midfielders and forwards becoming overly cautious and a bit toothless.

My choice of team mentality also influences which duties I select.  By selecting a defensive team mentality I am setting the base value for individual player mentality quite low.  I might want to consider balancing that by assigning certain key players an attack duty - not too many, but where I want penetration - I will also need to limit the number of players on a defence duty otherwise the team will be too risk averse.  Conversely, an attacking team mentality sets the base value for player mentality quite high so I might want to reduce the number of players with attack duties and increase those on ‘support’ - especially if I want a more considered build up to my attacks.

 

In my current save I am aiming for an attacking, possession-based style; I want my team to see plenty of the ball but I also want us to create good, high percentage chances.  This was inspired by @herne79's thread entitled "Attacking and Possession"

This is my 4-4-1-1 tactic...

 

I have employed an attacking team mentality but only have two players assigned to an attack duty… why?  My choice of team mentality sets the base value for individual player mentality high, this means I get enough attacking impetus from players on a support (or even a defend) duty.  To illustrate this point take a look at my left back, he is an IWB (defend) yet his individual player mentality is still higher than an IWB (support) playing in a team with a counter mentality.  With this in mind, he provides all the support and drive I need from him without compromising the team's defensive stability.

 IWB (defend) with an attacking team mentality

IWB (support) with a counter team mentality

I have been mostly using a structured team shape (flexible on occasion) but, as mentioned above, I will be avoiding those more fluid shapes as I fear they will draw the individual mentalities closer together and over commit my defence.

Well, it's late and I am just about out of steam, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this subject... do you consider the impact of individual player mentalities when setting up tactics?  If so how do you go about this?  Or do you completely ignore them, think they are irrelevant?

 

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

1 hour ago, Colorado said:

My question and for an experienced FM player does sound quite stupid, but how/why/where deploy opportunities instructions?

Showing onto weaker foot is an obvious one which needs no explanation but, don't central defenders automatically man mark?

I'd also like someone to give their views on when they would or wouldn't use tight marking. My thinking is that you wouldn't use this on a fast player.

Also how do you choose between deploying close down or man mark? Both are essentially restricting their space, what really is the difference and when would one be more suitable over the other.

These sound very basic questions, I know, but the more I've considered it, the more I have started to question my own interpretation.

 

 

31 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I'll give you an alternative point of view - I never use OIs.  My personal opinion is that if I spend time setting up a nicely balanced tactical system it'll do everything I want it to do without the need for OIs.  My players will mark the opposition; my pressing will be set up; and showing onto weaker foot doesn't (imo) do much anyway.  Chucking in a load of OIs over the top of that system could unbalance all of that with my players getting pulled out of position.

I largely agree with @herne79, however, I do sometimes use OI's to achieve a pattern of pressing... for example I will, from time to time and depending on the situation, set the team up a with a heavy central presence and set OIs to always closing down and tackling hard on the opposition wide players (full backs and wingers) - in an effort to force play wide into a pressing trap (using the touchline as an extra defender)