What is your preferred tactical philosophy and why?

I originally asked this question to the tactics & training forum some time ago but thought I would throw it out there now to the people at GD.

I'm interested to hear your preferred philosophy and the reasons for this being your favourite.

I've added a poll for fun but I hope that this will also generate a bit of discussion regarding the different philosophies available in the tactics creator. It seems to me to be the age old question of creativity and beauty versus pragmatism and success, so it's quite an interesting debate to have.

I, myself, am a big fan of the rigid philosophy, mainly due to the fact that I want my team to keep a clear shape and I am quite a pragmatic manager. However, I will often add more creativity and more roaming in order to encourage more 'fluid' movement in the attack.

So, how about you?

If you don't use the tactics creator philosophies then feel free to vote for the option which most closely matches your tactical philosophy.

As a good team - balanced. As anyone else - rigid.

I believe in keeping to a fairly rigid system which makes best use of what basic instructions I give, and feel that lower freedom allows for good players to show their ability and be their most effective, rather than give them the freedom to run around without much control.

I'm a big fan of working the ball into the box and passing and moving, and too much freedom and seems to leave you with a team of directionless individuals taking long shots and trying to play alone, regardless of how good they are.

Hmmm, interesting Hershie. With that one post you've made me rethink my thoughts on giving my sides more creative freedom!

how comes? I've never been a fan of creative freedom. I tried it but never had great results, and remembered back to success using downloaded tactics in old game where there was next-to-no freedom at all.

My current team don't play amazing football but they have lots of the ball and create lots of chances, against any opposition.

how comes? I've never been a fan of creative freedom. I tried it but never had great results, and remembered back to success using downloaded tactics in old game where there was next-to-no freedom at all.

My current team don't play amazing football but they have lots of the ball and create lots of chances, against any opposition.

Well, I normally keep the creative freedom fairly low anyway as I am usually managing a lower league side. Recently, though, I have been experimenting with more creative freedom and I am finding that my side can be more wasteful with the ball, which drives me slightly crazy, and I'm now wondering if the creative freedom is part of the issue. Now I have reflected on it, I think it probably is and I might look to lower it and use it more sparingly. In addition to that, I'm just thinking that I don't really want my team to be breaking from my tactical plans too often and taking risks. I'm just not that kind of manager, so maybe it's time to reel the creative freedom back in.

I blame a lot of mistakes and wastefulness on creativity and players doing things they shouldn't, eg. defenders moving out from where they should be or running with and losing the ball, or players taking long shots when the through ball is on and players refusing to get rid.

Are creative freedom and philosophy tied in-game? I mean, hardcoded tied. Obviously there might be combinations based on good management, but if I change my philosophy, will it automatically change my team's creative freedom sliders too?

I'm a fairly hands on kind of manager Crouchy and prefer my players to stick to what I want them to do so often opt for rigid, not too rigid though so it squeezes the flair and creativity out of the team completely. I still like my more creative players to show some of their creativness (if they're capable). I'm like you though and chose to play lower down in the leagues so there's usually not many Gazza's at that level so maybe that's a reason why I like a rigid system.

I use use a fluid style, it may not get the best results but my teams play nice football. As Hershie said about higher creative freedom leading to more mistakes I find this to be 100% true, the mistakes drive me crazy but the nice football makes up for it.

Are creative freedom and philosophy tied in-game? I mean, hardcoded tied. Obviously there might be combinations based on good management, but if I change my philosophy, will it automatically change my team's creative freedom sliders too?

Yes, creative freedom and philosophy basically go together. Very rigid has less creative freedom while very fluid has maximum creative freedom. The others are somewhere in between.

I'm a fairly hands on kind of manager Crouchy and prefer my players to stick to what I want them to do so often opt for rigid, not too rigid though so it squeezes the flair and creativity out of the team completely. I still like my more creative players to show some of their creativness (if they're capable). I'm like you though and chose to play lower down in the leagues so there's usually not many Gazza's at that level so maybe that's a reason why I like a rigid system.

That's true. Us lower league managers don't have a lot to work with most of the time.

It's almost like I've never played FM10 in my life! I'm so unobservant sometimes, thanks for keeping me in line (again), Crouchy. I tend to prefer lower levels of creative freedom, except for players who really have what it takes to use it effectively. I will often turn those players' CF up, but leave the rest of the squad's levels relatively low. If a player has it in him, he can be amazing when let off the leash. However there's no shame in being "merely" a steady and consistent player in my lineup by following my instructions and taking care of the ball.

Knowing its effect on creative freedom, I will now be more careful to set my philosophy accordingly.

You have to be careful with the tactics creator Dankrzyz. I'm always checking to see what's going on 'under the hood'.

I'm using fluid, but i've tweaked almost everyones creativity freedom slider

I'm fluid but I have changed the sliders a bit for a few positions. But my philosophy as a whole can be summed by the quote: "De l'audace, encors de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace!"

It honestly really depends on the players at my disposal. I'm generally knocking around the lower leagues where great talent is very thin on the ground, so I try and allow a well worked and carefully planned rigid tactic to paper over the cracks. But there''s still no reason why certain individual players cannot have more license to be more creative if it is beneficial to the team. I try to be fluid where I can, but more often than not the quality of the players shapes my tactics rather than a 'one size fits all' tactic which I use for every team, regardless of ability.

same as hershie for philosophy, but my style of play tends to be quite creative. in some games i have a rigid defensive tactic which is a discipline-based type, but its uncommon

If I am managing a lower league club I opt for rigid or if I have a really poor team, very rigid.

However as I start to (hopefully) rise up the leagues I tend to stick with balanced. Never really go with fluid unless my team is underperfoming against a team who is a lot worse than my own and I need to do something drastic to shake it up.

I have used both rigid and fluid before but I find balanced allows me to have both the defensive shape and the attacking freedom to play the football I like.

I'm very much a precise and controlled football kind of manager.

Fluid with Barcelona, works well with Control strategy and 4 playmakers in midfield.

It sounds like a lot of people like to use tactical philosophy to increase or decrease creative freedom. Why that method, over simply choosing "more" or "less" expressive in your team instructions? Does the unique mentality structure enhance the creative freedom settings inherent in each philosophy?

Very Fluid + High Creative Freedom + Overload Mentality = Lots of goals with a decent team. Plus if you have a decent team your defence can block many opposition counter attacks. I wouldn't recommend it in lower leagues though.

Depends on who I'm playing. In the lower leagues I tend to stick with rigid (for reasons mentioned). If I'm away at a team ranked much higher than me I'll try and keep the team as disciplined as possible and go very rigid. What I don't do is go in the opposite direction when the big favourite. I don't trust fluidity I guess.

Always use fluid, I love the Barcelona's way.

Actually, I've used a Barcelona tactic found in "Tactical Theorem 2010" for a long time and don't even tweaked it a bit.

But until last month that I decided to start the last save of FM10, I changed from short pass to more direct, from attacking to counter, that I found it gave me the same effect as my successful tactic back in 2009. Anyway, 'fluid' is still the key to my philosophy, I love my guys to spread the ball around!!

Always use fluid, I love the Barcelona's way.

Actually, I've used a Barcelona tactic found in "Tactical Theorem 2010" for a long time and don't even tweaked it a bit.

But until last month that I decided to start the last save of FM10, I changed from short pass to more direct, from attacking to counter, that I found it gave me the same effect as my successful tactic back in 2009. Anyway, 'fluid' is still the key to my philosophy, I love my guys to spread the ball around!!

Out of interest who do you normally play as? Top level clubs?

Depends on the squad. If they are a team of one-dimensional specialists then I'll use rigid. If they are a team of well-rounded footballers capable of playing multiple roles then I'll pick fluid.

Out of interest who do you normally play as? Top level clubs?

Yep, always start with Spurs, try to win as many competitions as possible, got bored after ten seasons or so, strarts new game with Bayern, got bored quickly because the initial squad was already good, start over again with Parma. Basically I'll ended up with Spurs and Parma saves, and switch between them up to my mood.

Ironically, I never start with Barcelona, ther're already a top club and I find it's boring managing them.

Like Jimbo says it depends on the squad. I have had success using a Rigid philosophy while managing a smaller side while I generally play fluid football with a larger club.

Like Jimbo says it depends on the squad. I have had success using a Rigid philosophy while managing a smaller side while I generally play fluid football with a larger club.

True enough, that's why I don't like managing low level side, just can't let go of the fluid way.

rigid, usually the players im in charge of are better painters than footballers so if i told them roam they would head to the pub!

Seriously though i just got fed up of a striker making a breakand my defender was nowhere to be seen!

It depens on the players as people have said. But I like to play a free flowing type of football/total football - that is fluid and attacking - with hign creative freedom and short pass to feet football - and maintain as much posession as possible and a slow tempo.

I like to watch my matches and think...WOW! And the above I think is the best way to get that from my team - amongst other things.

It depens on the players as people have said. But I like to play a free flowing type of football/total football - that is fluid and attacking - with hign creative freedom and short pass to feet football - and maintain as much posession as possible and a slow tempo.

I like to watch my matches and think...WOW! And the above I think is the best way to get that from my team - amongst other things.

you are right, it totally depends. If i told my guys to attempt total football they would probably fall over. But if your team has high creativity and good passing etc you might get away with it.

I play with a balanced tactical philosophy myself. Seeing as my team are in the BSP at the moment though it might be a good idea to make my philosophy rigid.

nice and fluid

i voted for fluid but when playing at a low level i'll use rigid. I've found that when you have good enough players a fluid system can produce brilliant football.

Using a fluid philosophy i manged to build a liverpool side that played some really entertaining football and it was one of my most enjoyable saves because of it.

I prefer fluid, but if you use fluid, your players had best have the ability to both do multiple positions correctly and be quite fast getting back to home base if things start going awry. I'll often train the players to play covering positions to help this along. So my back line is often filled with a DRC, a DLC a D/M/WB R, etc. Usually, both one of the DCs and the holding midfielder (I play 4-4-2 by preference) can play as a DM, which allows either one to cover the other's a$$ when things hit the air motivator.

Fluid, when playing 4-1-2-1-2. Rigid for lesser teams.

hows does the ME show a fluid philosophy and a less expressive setting? Or rigid and more expressive? Can that happen? Can anyone refer me to a past thread that explains how they go hand in hand?

well they are 2 different things so yes it can happen. Fluid, rigid etc refers to how the stick to their position, being expressive etc is how they play whilst in that position

People get philosophy and roaming confused. Philosophy is about what you expect from the players. Fluid means "get involved at all times" and rigid means "stick to what you're good at." If you read Jonathan Wilson's stuff then it's universality vs specialists. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/jan/22/the-question-jonathan-wilson-goalpoachers

Philosophy = Universality vs specialists

Roaming = Positional freedom

Creative freedom = Freedom to deviate from the sliders

Nice article there Jimbo.

People get philosophy and roaming confused. Philosophy is about what you expect from the players. Fluid means "get involved at all times" and rigid means "stick to what you're good at." If you read Jonathan Wilson's stuff then it's universality vs specialists. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/jan/22/the-question-jonathan-wilson-goalpoachers

Philosophy = Universality vs specialists

Roaming = Positional freedom

Creative freedom = Freedom to deviate from the sliders

Which means I've been doing it wrong.

Bummer.

I always took the Philosophy to mean the general swarm of the players whilst in either attacking of defending phases of the game. Therefore I play Fluid as I want my players to be aware of more than just their own game whilst playing.

Looking at the above post, Jimbo raises a point about what Philosophy really is. I understand that roaming is about the actual player's movement and straying from their position in order to attempt to influence the game. However what is Philosophy then? Brazil play with a fluidity, as do Arsenal.....and their players roam.....are the two mutually separable?

Either way that's what I do.

As QPR moving from Championship to Premier League I used a rigid philosophy. But after taking the job as Sampdoria manager I noticed that a fluid philosophy works better for my purposes. I usually play a 4-1-2-1-2 or variant thereof, so I like my full backs to improvise a little and provide that extra width. The central midfielders then either add to the attack or supplement the defense depending on the situation. As Jimbo's comments said earlier, I like the team to move around and get involved as needed all over the pitch, rather than stick too much to specific roles.

It would be a big step forward imo if players you were interested in signing and prospective employers took into account your playing style before signing for you or hiring you. Perhaps some players/clubs don't want to play rigid direct football, whereas others might be happy to etc

Not sure about how well that would work HarryMills. Plus, plenty of players want to sign for Jose Mourinho and his football tends to be very rigid.

I always took the Philosophy to mean the general swarm of the players whilst in either attacking of defending phases of the game. Therefore I play Fluid as I want my players to be aware of more than just their own game whilst playing.

Looking at the above post, Jimbo raises a point about what Philosophy really is. I understand that roaming is about the actual player's movement and straying from their position in order to attempt to influence the game. However what is Philosophy then? Brazil play with a fluidity, as do Arsenal.....and their players roam.....are the two mutually separable?

Either way that's what I do.

Brazil do plenty of roaming, but it terms of philosophy I wouldn't call them fluid. Robinho and Kaka aren't too interested in tracking back, and Gilberto is purely defensive.

Arrigo Sacchi's Milan had a very fluid philosophy, but AFAIK they didn't roam much. They chased the ball as a 4-4-2 "block", and going forward they kept their shape.

"Fluid" and "rigid" were a poor choice of terms IMO. When people think "fluid", they think roaming.

Balanced all the way.

It depends.

In away matches, I'll typically play with a rigid philosophy, sometimes balanced if I'm playing weaker opposition.

At home, I'll usually go with fluid, but change to balanced if I consider my opponent stronger than me (and maybe to rigid if it's a cup match against a team in a higher division)