[Return of The Tactics Bible......Maybe.....]

20 minutes ago, DarJ said:

What has helped me get muvh better is that when I watch the match I try to anticipate every pass before it happens. I've found that doing that helps you think and when the pass doesn't come off you might already have an idea on why. Another thing is thaat I've started to watch games in 3D. While you can see the shape of your tactic on 2D, 3D gives you additional information like where the players is facing, what foot he's using etc

yeah thats a good shout. ive pretty much stuck to 2D, but im sure im missing a good amount of nuances like that. 

[Return of The Tactics Bible......Maybe.....]

7 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I know I say this an awful lot but it really depends. On the Blades save I always try and replicate real life. On Other saves I might just make something to suit the squad. On other saves I might just have an idea and want to try it out etc. I don't have a 'style' that I play all the time.

yeah for sure, thats about as subjective as it gets. ive generally used templates/plug in tactics (with some minor tweaks for the squad) bc i didnt have a lot of free time to tinker with my own. now ive a bit more time i can devote to this, so im watching more games to try and make my own from scratch. thats the most fun aspect of the game for me.

oh fwiw, the wayback machine has some of your old blog saved with the images intact. so ive been reading a few of those too https://web.archive.org/web/20190511142558/https://teaandbusquets.com/blog/creating-a-tactic-the-paysandu-way-6

[Return of The Tactics Bible......Maybe.....]

2 hours ago, Cleon said:

1 - No I only watch games if I need to. I.e if I'm creating a tactic or having issues, then obviously you have to watch or how else would you know what is happening? For most parts though I only ever watch the first 15 minutes. It's an approach I've always used and I've written about it in the past too. In fact an awful lot of people on here actually adopted this approach too. Here is a link for more reading for those interested in how I do this;

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WVq_0sXHcX5RKEF4Y31mxV2NTcG_B7TulcGl1Lvs6LY/edit?usp=sharing

2 - It's all about the context like I stated in the Plan article you read earlier. After a while all of this tweaking/changing stuff becomes second nature and you just follow your instincts and know what you need to do. The scenario determines what I do so its hard to give an exact answer.

3 - I always play cautious. Well, its rare I ever go above balanced mentality in general.

thanks for the link. good read as always. when you first start a save, do you build your tactic around the squad or do you have a specific tactic in mind and put together a team that will work with the roles needed for the tactic? the latter would be if you have a general tactical philosophy that you follow. say you generally play counter-attacking intense pressing type of football and you have a team that has low fitness and stamina. are you going to try and remodel the squad to suit your needs?  

[Return of The Tactics Bible......Maybe.....]

8 hours ago, Cleon said:

Context is everything. I wrote this in the past.

A few months back I was reading an article titled ‘No Plan B’ and it was a great read, written by Peter Prickett who I interviewed on this blog recently. In the No Plan B article, Peter raises some good questions and gives examples of managers who are deemed to be classed as having no plan b and shows how they actually do have them. It’s just that we don’t always notice the changes as sometimes they are subtle little changes and other times, it might be a total change of shape which then is more noticeable. To give you a better idea of what I’m talking about, here is a link to his article that I’m talking about;

http://www.pger.net/football/2017/06/03/no-plan-b/

 

Then a couple of weeks after reading the above article, I was reading something else, an interview with Jürgen Klopp (it can be found here http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/premier-league/2017-2018/jurgen-klopp-the-talk-of-a-plan-b-shows-a-lack-of-understanding_sto6267115/story.shtml ) and he was talking about plan b too. This is had to say on the matter;

Both of the things above are tied into something i’ve wanted to do for quite some time now. I’ve wanted to explain my approach to tactics on the Football Manager Series and focus on my Plan A and Plan B and explain how they can be the same thing but I just never had the time until now.

Now if you’re active on the SI forums or on the FM social media side of things you’ll often see people sharing their own plan b’s and the things they tend to do to nullify the opponent's specific threats or to change the course of a game. The majority that I see that do this always tend to have a different shape as a plan b option and tend to change the shape based on expectations for the upcoming match, regardless of whether it's the correct decision or not. It involves a lot of guesswork. I’m not saying these people aren’t right in playing this way I’m purely talking about my own preferences and play style here. That’s why for me, this blind faith approach doesn’t work.

I like to make any changes based on what I see happening in the game and react accordingly. Now if I made any decisions based on pre match odds, expectations or current form then how would I know if it's the correct decision for what is happening in the game and how it's unfolding. I possibly can’t, that’s why I do changes as I watch the game unfold. On top of this I like to create a specific brand of football and while this could work within many different tactical shapes, I don’t see the point of making the game even more complicated than it really has to be. That’s why I always play the same shape, I don’t have a need to have different formations.

This doesn’t mean I don’t adapt on a game by game basis because often I do, other times not so much because I feel it doesn’t need it. However some of the changes I make, many of you wouldn’t class them as being a plan b because the changes are minimalistic and very subtle at times. This actually brings it back to real life football for a second, just because you don’t notice something drastic doesn’t mean that the manager isn’t adapting constantly. It might just be a case of not seeing what he actually did. 

Personally speaking, what I do I wouldn’t class as a plan b even though it is. Instead I call it a match plan or game plan. It equates to the same thing though. So what is a game/match plan?!

Game Strategies

Before I start with my own plan b’s let's have a look at some of the game plans that other people might or could use.

Before a game

A second formation is something people often use when they feel a team will play a certain way based on the pre-match odds, scouts reports and the analyst's reports. Others might just take a stab in the dark and decide they need to change shape based on how they believe the team will play irrespective of what the reports or odds are.

The use of team instructions is also another popular one, people might add more of them or remove some if they already use various ones. One of the reasons for adding or removing them is to either counter or nullify a possible threat.

The use of player instructions also ties in with the above and people might want specific players to do something slightly different from normal for the reasons highlighted above.

Changing player roles seems to be one that I see people talk about frequently. They’ll change the role to get the player to change the way the team usually plays. Again it comes back to trying to take advantage of a possible opposition weakness or to cover the weakness of the users tactics.

Match plans are not something I see people talk about but they can be used to create a specific set of rules for certain points or circumstances in a game. You can use them for certain scenarios you anticipate might happen.

Using different players is one I see from the odd time. Someone might use a slightly more defensive/attacking player for a particular game because of a certain type of danger or to take advantage of a weakness in the opposition's line up. Player selection can also be used to target certain individuals in the opposing team.

Those are some of the ways people do and can utilise certain tools available, as well as showing a variety of ways to play before a game has even started. Some users even do more than one of the above before games.

During a game

Some of the changes you can make during a game follow a similar pattern to the above.

Changing the shape during a game I class is a drastic change. Nonetheless a lot of users still seem to do this. They change shape to either protect a lead and see out the game or because they are chasing a result. A change of shape can see them be more aggressive or passive.

You can use team instructions to change the style of play and to either try and win the game, protect a lead or even to take advantage of a weakness in the opposition. They can also be used to cover up your own weaknesses.

If you want something just as effective but less drastic than affecting all your players like team instructions though, you could attempt to use player instructions instead. These allow you to tailor players and select different instructions which are available depending on which role and duty someone has to give you something different that you might currently lack.

Swapping player roles is also another good one to use as it allows you to make players more or less aggressive depending which you need. If you want to hang on to that 2-0 lead but your midfield is very aggressive and leaving lots of space to be exploited, then a quick role or even duty change can make all the difference.

One of the other things people do is make tactical substitutions and swap out those players who might be underperforming, tired or just because you feel someone else might do a better job.

There are other ways to change games too but these seem to be the most common ways that get discussed. None of them are better than the other and they all can be viable options to utilise at some stage. Which, though, tends to be based on the user's playstyle and which fits best with that. Some of the above are what I class as really extreme though, especially changing shape during a game. I understand why people do it but it’s not something I’d ever contemplate doing but that doesn’t mean those who do, are wrong. It just doesn’t suit my own playstyle.

My Own Playstyle and Strategies

So how do I play the game? I don’t micromanage half as much as people believe I do. I’m more of a subtle change kind of game. In reality, my plan A is my plan B, C and everything after. Obviously if I’m creating a tactic then I take a slightly more hands on approach until I believe it’s balanced enough and offers me the style of play I was aiming for. After that point it’s all about keeping it as simple as possible in order to fly through the seasons in the quickest possible time.

What this means for me is that, if I make changes it’s purely based on what my own players are or aren’t doing. I totally ignore the opposition and just focus on my own side, some might think this is strange because the AI is a big part of the game and they’d be correct. However you don’t always have to set out to play the perfect game and adapt constantly for the AI. You can make subtle changes to achieve this and you don’t always need to be drastic. Also by focusing on your own side, you can stick to the style or brand of football you are creating without constantly trying to adapt and match the opposition.

This allows me to stick to my own game plan. Giving up space to the opposition is fine, in fact, giving up space in general doesn’t have to be a bad thing as long as your side is doing everything you want them to do. This is what I focus on. If my sides do what I want and expect of them, then in 90% of situations I will get a result. Let’s break it down and give a few examples of how I adapt in game for certain situations.

Before I game I never change anything. I stick with whatever my base formation is and choose the best starting eleven I can field. This means I don’t look at the match odds, I don’t pay much attention to the scouts or analyst reports and. There is no adding or removing of team instructions, player instructions and I don’t even change player roles.

In game changes

During a game I don’t tend to tweak much truth. I try my best to stick to the things my team does well, even if I go behind in a game. If I go behind in a game then the context and the manner in which I am currently playing is the most important thing. Even if I go 2-0 down, the context of why is everything. You can be playing extremely well and go behind due to bad luck, or just for the fact the opposition did a great move. It happens and at times no matter how well you are playing, you have to accept you’ll concede goals against the run of play. The key here is to not panic. I wrote about this before, the article can be found here;
 

If a game isn’t going well though or I am chasing a result then I do have an hierarchy of sorts that I try to follow;

 

• Substitutions.
• Player instructions.
• Role change
• Mentality change
• Team Instructions.

That’s the order I tend to follow. If I get to 3, 4 or 5 on the list then **** has really hit the fan. I’ve not used any of those in any of my saves so far on FM18 though and I’ve played about 16 seasons so far in total across different saves. I tend to stick to the first two mainly as it’s simpler for the style and the way I play the game.

Substitutions

90% of the changes I do in games are based around substitutions. For me this is my playstyle and allows me to influence or change games by doing substitutions. The way I squad build and develop players allows me to use this as a tool because I don’t buy/develop players who play the same position and are similar to what I already have. What I like to do is either find or develop players who will play the role differently to what the others who I have in the squad play. I recently wrote something that fall into this category which can be found here to give you an example of what I am talking about;
 

Rather than getting hung up about someone not having role suitability or that the attributes determine a player can’t play a role, I focus on the opposite. Football Manager isn’t restricted just because someone can’t play a role based on the suitability on their profile screen. Any player can play anywhere, you’ll just find his decision making may take a hit and it’s not upto the standard of someone more familiar in the role. However that doesn’t mean he can’t play it and cannot be successful or good at it. If someone has the attributes to play a role he doesn’t have listed in his profile, still play him there. It’s the attributes that make up the skillset of a player so he will be fine.

If we take the striker example above, David Brooks is a creative advanced forward. On this save I also have two other types of players who can play as my advanced forward too and each one of them brings a different skill set. The other two players I utilise in that role, one of them offers me a more physical presence and is more akin to a target man above all else. He’s like a battering ram. The other one is your more stereotypical advanced forward.

Now if I was chasing a result and needed to change things around and I knew the advanced forward position wasn’t doing what I wanted, I’d make a change. The player I brought on though would depend on what I felt was the right move. If David Brooks was being bullied then obviously I’d bring on the target man type of player so he didn’t get bullied as much and could hold his own. But if I felt I just needed a simpler method and nothing too fancy and flash, in other words nothing too specific then I’d revert to the good old fashioned type of advanced forward instead.

That’s just one example and I don’t restrict myself, it could be any player I changed really. It all depends on the context of the game and which players I felt were struggling to do what I expect. This is why I build to bring in and develop different kinds of players, so I can have a lot of variety in the side with players I can bring on in any position and they’ll offer me a different take on that role.

Another example might be that of my defensive midfielders. I have the usual type of player for the role but I also have a very creative player who lacks the usual defensive skills for the role. But more than makes up for it with his creativity. I tend to bring him on if I feel my defensive midfield is doing okay but getting caught in possession time and time again and slowing our play down. I might also use him if I feel that the defensive midfielder is struggling for time on the ball. I’d sacrifice the defensive side of things for someone who can distribute the ball better and might be a calmer head under pressure while having the ball at his feet.

Now I could simply do a role change but that would usually impact how my tactic functions and would have massive knock on effects elsewhere. So changes like that are usually a last resort and why do I change the player instead. It’s all about finding what works and fits in for the way you play the game to simplify things for yourself.

If you were watching me play the game and I made a substitution you’d likely just think I was changing a player and don’t realise it would be a tactical tool that I was using. And switching things up to get a different outlook. It would be very subtle but in most cases, would make a huge change to how the role was functioning before.

That’s my number one method. For my second way we look at;

Player instructions

There is nothing fancy or complicated here but rather than impact the entire team and use team instructions, I might focus on an individual from time to time if I see them doing things I don’t like. An example would be if my midfielder was getting pressed heavily and didn’t really have time on the ball but he had short passing. I might decide that going more direct might help him better and release him from the pressure he is currently under. So depending on the situation or scenario, this would impact what I change. 

This isn’t something I do frequently though and in my current save is something I’ve only done four times in six seasons.None the less it’s still an option.

Role/Duty changes

Now we are treading squeaky bum territory and things are starting to go very wrong. Things aren’t that bad yet but they’re well on the way to being disastrous at this point. So if my usual methods highlighted above had not worked then I’d look at changing player roles to give me whatever I was currently lacking but this has drawbacks too. In most cases my tactics are set up to play a specific way and what might seem like a simple role change would mean somewhere else, another role was likely to be changed.

An example would be if my roaming playmaker was having a rough time and he usually is the one supplying the ball from midfield to the front players. Not necessarily being a creator as such but more that he was the link and the one bridging the gap from midfield to attack. If I changed his role to lets say, a central midfielder on a support duty then the whole dynamic of what the player offers the team changes. It’s clear that what usually works wasn’t either and a change has to be made so now he’s a CM support.

What I then have to look at is how does this impact the forward players? If they struggled to get a ball from the roaming playmaker but were seeing it the odd time, how are they now going to get the ball from the CM support? He’ll not link in the same way, which was one of the reasons I initially changed him from a RPM. But exactly how does the CM fit into the current play and now where does the supply come from, to the front players.I need to identify this and see if it’s going to be a major issue and then begin addressing it.

My options would be seeing if any of the other midfielders could possibly supply them the ball and if they can, how does this impact on how we usually play and how do we make it work. Another option may be asking a striker to come deeper for the ball but then again I have to ask who is then scoring the goals? Sure, a deep striker can score goals but now the way we attack has totally changed which will impact how we score.

While you can make this work, for me, this is one of the most complicated changes I’d make. It’s probably one of the most drastic things to do that is on my list. But it’s not at the bottom of the list for one very simple reason, sometimes, just a simple duty change can be enough. You can make the player more/less aggressive with a quick duty change.

To give you a quick example, if we go back to the striker coming deep. Let’s say we started out that way and I felt the defensive unit of the oppositions were having an easy time because my striker was dropping off, so they didn’t really have any defensive duties to do. I’d maybe give the striker an attack duty if possible and instantly he would be higher up the pitch and suddenly the opposition's defenders would now be occupied.

A duty change is a lot more subtle than a full role change and in most cases has less drastic consequences elsewhere because the role is still essentially the same, it’ll just be starting higher up the pitch or lower down depending on the duty.

Mentality

Changing mentality is relatively simple and you can change the way you are playing in an instant. However you need to remember that it changes it for everyone in the side and will impact your defensive line and tempo as well. The higher the mentality the more risks you’ll take and the lower the mentality the less risks you’ll take. But this is far down my list due to me normally creating a specific style of play and changing mentality would change everything in the side yet again and mean I’ve possibly strayed away from my style. Now I know what you’re thinking, stop being a stubborn ***** and change if it's needed and you’d be correct. However I am trying to keep things simple and change as little as possible. So this doesn’t really fit that due to how it changes every player's behavior.

Team instructions

Team instructions are a great tool to use but again this falls in line with the above, I’m not keen on using things that change the entire team's behavior unless I really have to. This for me is the last option I’d use and is my ‘out of ideas’ approach. Now I understand how the team instructions work and I understand what they actually change under the hood but for me, it’s still a farce using them. I’ve normally got team instructions selected more than likely anyway based on the style I was creating. Adding more or removing them would take me away from that style or add another layer of complexity to things which I can do without.

So this is how I approach games and think and view the game. It’s probably a lot less micromanaging during games than you were expecting though right? I guess that stems from the guides I normally do but you have to remember, those are normally targeting those who struggle with certain aspects, want to learn more about how the game works or discuss certain footballing philosophies and concepts. So they go into more details than your usual stuff.

 

What’s your plans for changing games around and getting results?

 

how much of the match do you watch? it seems like since your changes are relatively minimal during the game you'd have to at least watch the comprehensive highlights, if not the full game. it seems like it would be hard to make a seemingly minor adjustment when youre not seeing good chunks of the game. take your david brooks striker example. if you see that he's getting bullied and is largely ineffective, you go and make the sub. is this kind of observation made directly from watching the game play? or are you using any of the in-game data to help you make the decision, especially since you have access to individual player numbers?

[player unhappy with individual or team training?]

7 minutes ago, properdisco said:

training happiness is broken/not functioning as it should lol. Hasn't for some time. everyone I know just ignores it with little/no significant consequences

ok cool. i hadnt played in a while and wasnt sure if i missed something new or this was the same thing that plagued me from previous versions.

[player unhappy with individual or team training?]

i'm about a month into a new save and got this message from one of my coaches. player is unhappy about the lack of strength training, even though i assigned him an individual strength focus when this was still a pre-concern. is the unhappiness referring to a lack of strength training in the overall team training schedule? ive had a lot of tactical focus in my training during pre-season friendlies. can i remedy this by including some specific training ? i have a general physical slot in the weekly sched, should i add more of those , or add resistance training as well?