Jump to content

Formations in the Tactics Creator


Recommended Posts

There are a couple of formations I feel should be in the game as default options that aren't.

Firstly, 4-2-3-1. The current options are 4-2-3-1 (deep)- with DMs, 4-2-3-1 (with three AMCs), or a bizarre 4-2-3-1 (asymmetric). I feel there should be a version with the midfield set up with two MCs, AMR/L and and AMC. This is the formation Liverpool usually use (though there's an argument that they use "deep", I suppose, though I don't think the MCs sit that deep despite being defensive minded), and it's the one Reading and Newcastle use (in Newcastle's case, only away from home). Most notably, it's the formation Barcelona have used for much of this season. I imagine other sides use it too. I propose said formation be named "4-2-3-1", and the current "4-2-3-1" renamed to "4-2-3-1 (narrow)".

On 4-2-3-1 (deep)- I feel this is most effectively played with a deep lying playmaker next to a defensive midfielder, but the default roles give two defensive midfielders. I don't know how the AI picks roles, but could the tendency for one to be a DLP be increased?

Secondly, 4-4-2. No real qualms here, but what the TC calls "4-2-4" is really 4-4-2. I think this 4-2-4 should be renamed "4-4-2 attack", and a genuine 4-2-4 entered in the game.

4-3-3. How many sides use three central strikers? Certainly not as many who use two wide strikers, or attacking wingers. Also, this formation tends to include a DM. Could this be split into "4-3-3"- flat midfield three, wide strikers, "4-3-3 (narrow)"- flat midfield three, three central strikers, and "4-3-3 (DM)", with wide strikers and a DM, please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The major problem with the TC is that it cannot cover for all possible variations allowed by the actual tactical mechanics. That's a significant problem overall, and the more time invested in proliferating options through the TC, the less time invested in developing fundamental game mechanics.

The second issue is that undoubtedly the TC Formations are designed based on the flexibility of the roles within the TC, thus the 4-2-3-1 or the 4-4-1-1 can be adapted through roles to perform very close to the desired actual output, albeit again without being able to account for all possible variations.

No doubt much could be done to improve the variations and options available within the TC, the only concern would be how much "investment" is required to produce what already exists at the expense of actual additions to the game.

Since the very first day I heard about the TC I have asked repeatedly for customisable and downloadable options to designed into the system. The community could then define, refine and share to their hearts content while the developers get on with the business of improving gameplay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points SCIAG, there definitely need to be more options. Was the TC purely a wwfan & crew job or were others involved?

SFraser, have SI ever responded to your requests? Customisation and downloadability are crucial to the development of the TC. We have all seen how certain aspects of the game have benefited from community involvement, surely the TC can also?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct input was from a small userbase, others could input concerns (for example, the potential marking schemes were flagged on here as being dodgy, and after a discussion, were changed).

Yes, formations can be made to perform like others, but a) players won't necessarily know how to play in the positions set out for them, b) the AI doesn't know how to do that.

Customisation was asked for on here in the initial threads- in fact, the main concern was that it would remove customisation- and whilst SI acknowledge these requests and accept them as valid, it isn't easy to do, so we may have to wait a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the players not know what to do? All the positions possible are 'usable' on the tactics screen, so surely if they are competent or above and have the right attributes then they should be able to know whats going on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the players not know what to do? All the positions possible are 'usable' on the tactics screen, so surely if they are competent or above and have the right attributes then they should be able to know whats going on?

They'll still take a hit, and of course they may not have the required attributes.

Maybe there should be more on the default screen, but it takes a matter of seconds to move them into a formation you like, so hardly and issue really.

I'm mainly talking about AI managers.

I'll give an example- this applies to both of you. The thread was largely "inspired" by Reading, who, in case you don't know, are my local side, and the team I support. Anyway, since Brian McDermott came in, we've been predominantly playing a classical 4-2-3-1. Neither of our wingers can play as an AMC, neither of our MCs (usually Jay Tabb and Brian Howard) are defensive, though Tabb does much of the donkey work, and neither is even suited to a deep lying playmaker role. Likewise, Barcelona- would you want Xavi playing as a DM, even if he ended up as a DLP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread SCIAG. I have some comments along the same lines, which I have raised to SI during beta testing, and which I understand is something that will be worked on for FM11.

I'll just add some notes below on my thoughts.

4-2-3-1

At the moment, we have a deep version, an Asymmetric version and a narrow version.

I would agree with you that there is a requirement for the 4-2-3-1 with MCs, although my personal feeling is that this formation plays out less like 4-2-3-1 and more like a 4-4-1-1 in the match engine. My opinion is that the 4-2-3-1 deep actually looks more like a real life 4-2-3-1 in the match engine.

This type of formation would match with the diagrams I have found in a few books, such as Lucchesi's books. See diagram below.

4-2-3-1.jpg

I have also noted, like SCIAG, that the settings for the default 4-2-3-1s in terms of player roles seem to be a bit different to what I would expect. This clearly needs working on.

In my opinion, I'd like to see as many different formations available as defaults in the tactics creator. I think there should be a narrow 4-2-3-1, a narrow and deep 4-2-3-1, a deep 4-2-3-1 with wide attacking midfielders, and so on and so forth. Including a couple of asymmetric versions, I'd really like to see six variations on 4-2-3-1 in there as defaults.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4-3-3

Currently, the default option includes a fairly rare variation (as far as I know) of three tight strikers, as SCIAG notes. The other option of what we call a modern 4-3-3 is referred to as 4-5-1 but is actually more like 4-1-4-1 with attacking wingers. I don't object to the naming of this formation though. A 4-3-3 with AMR and AML plays out like a 4-1-4-1 in the match engine. To get the true effect of a 4-3-3, you need to play with FR and FL.

The creator misses one of the most common forms of this system as shown here, in favour of a system with three tight strikers.

Also see the following diagrams:

4-3-3.gif

9_4-3-3.png?1187102784

This formation is discussed in depth in several of the Massimo Lucchesi books and also on a coaching video of the 4-3-3 I found online.

Diagram of the 4-3-3 from Lucchesi text book:

4-3-3.jpg

As for the version with the tight strikers, I've no real qualms about that. Actually, if you try it out, the match engine makes the two outside strikers work the flanks and it doesn't look too unrealistic to me.

Wikipedia says the following about a 4-3-3 with tight strikers:

At the 2006 FIFA World Cup Spain and The Netherlands played both a variation of 4-3-3 without wingers. The three strikers would interchange positions and run the channels like a regular striker would.

Personally, I don't remember either example, unfortunately. It has this diagram for Spain in the group stages, for instance, as follows:

300px-Spain-Ukraine_line-up.svg.png

So that can probably be justified. Again, I'd like to see as many variations as possible though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4-3-2-1

Finally, my big gripe is with the 4-3-2-1 formation in the tactics creator, which brings up this weird formation with only one MC.

4-3-2-1weird.jpg

Whereas, in reality, the 4-3-2-1 is a narrow formation with three central MCs.

4-3-2-1.gif

It should surely look like this as a default formation:

4-3-2-1normal.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

3-5-2

I was surprised to see that the tactics creator seems to recommend that two of the three central midfield players are on 'attack' duties, while the central midfield player is on a 'support' duty. This immediately struck me as being perhaps a strange choice and giving an unbalanced effect in the midfield.

It is my opinion that the tactics creator is currently biased towards back four formations and ultimately that it 'fails' here in applying its logic to a back three.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclusions

To conclude, as I said above, I'm really in favour of more variations, more formations, more everything. I don't even mind seeing more asymmetric formations in there.

One small point is the difficulty that I always have with the rigid 'holes' where you can place players in formations on FM. The major formations where it all falls down are the diamond/4-3-1-2/4-1-3-2, where the outside midfielders might be considered hybrid wide/central midfield players. Equally, in the 4-2-3-1, the central midfield partnerships aren't really strictly DMs or MCs but often expected to cover both positions. Unfortunately, when the game lost the arrows, it made this even more frustrating to cope with.

Finally, I talked before with WWFan and others about having as many real life formations in there as possible, with a menu system with formations organised into historical, modern, current, whatever, with the more modern systems organised into back 3s, back 4s, and back 5s etc. I think that's the direction that the tactics creator should go into now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick aside, the deep 4-2-3-1 has been successful for me, mainly because I have some good old fashioned defensive midfield hackers. But good suggestions here. To be honest I completely ignore the creator usually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...