Tactical Creator

We've seen a lot of threads complaining about how FM is hard, and also many people saying you can achieve success by using only the TC and shouts. Let's leave every other part of management aside and focus on tactics.

Mind you, this is about how to handle the game tactically without touching a single slider. I feel some things may be vague when it comes to certain TC aspects and would like to know exactly how to approach it.

Also, I know there's a Tactical Guide and all that, but I felt it mostly helped me with shouts; they are pretty straight-forward and logical once you know exactly what each of them does.

What I'd like to know is your experience with certain TC aspects.

Please don't move this thread from this sub-forum or it won't get as much attention.

I'll throw in a bunch of questions and assumptions hoping for your help.

Philosophy

The general idea is if you trust your players to do the right thing, then it should be more fluid. If you don't, it should be rigid. The question is, how do I know whether I trust them or not? What do I look for when trying to assess that? Whether my players creativity and flair are high? Or if they are good decision makers?

If so, let's say most of your team are in 10-12 range when it comes to creativity, flair and decisions. Does that warrant a Balanced philosophy?

Am I assuming things right or am completely wrong?

Strategy

The general idea is you should have 3 tactics in match prep, ready for different scenarios.

My assumption is they should be Counter, Balanced and Control. I've come to that conclusion because Defensive (and Contain) soak up too much pressure and you really need good defenders to stay calm and firm throughout. Otherwise, you break sooner or later. Also, Attacking and Overload are good if you have clearly better and more motivated side to keep the pressure on the opposition throughout, otherwise you'll leak.

How does that sound?

Passing Style

Naturally, it comes down to the style you want to play, but there are certain situations you should change up. For example, if the pitch is awful, play more direct. If it's windy (but dry), play short passes. That's all common sense, as well as the fact you don't necessarily need to play direct if you're defending and vice versa. Are there any other scenarios a certain passing style is favoured?

The question is, how will my change of passing style affect my players? If I switch from passing to direct it every now and again, will my players be confused and struggle to play at their best?

Creative Freedom and Roaming

Am I right assuming these two are closely connected? It should be pretty simple; if you have creative players with the ability to make good decisions and anticipate the play, you should let them express themselves and roam where they please.

Then we come to the question; how do you determine if your player is good enough for that? Is it 10, 15 or 20 for a certain attribute?

Closing Down

A matter of personal preference and desired style of play, again.

There are, of course, many different situations in football, but I'll throw in a couple of assumptions I'd like confirmed or ridiculed.

Press more - when you are favourites and want to press them hard and win the ball back fast all the time, when you're the underdog but want to reduce the space and time the opposition have to make their move so you combine pressing and low defensive line to invite them in and then break them for fast counters

Stand-off more - when the opposition offensive players are much more skilled than your defensive players and you're afraid they'll get skinned easily and all the time

Tackling

Hard - when you want to play dirty, usually combined with pressing against better teams to kill football

Easy - not sure how is that useful except for avoiding cards

How's that?

Marking

A matter of preference, too. I've seen many divided opinions so it's better to leave it on default. If your defenders are not good, man marking is a suicide because they'll lose their man, but if you use zonal marking, you give the opposition a lot of time and space near your goal.

Crossing

I've never been sure what to do there and left it at Default most of the time. When should other two options be used?

Roles and Duties

The logical thing is to ask your players to do what they're capable of, not more. In other words, look at their attributes and give them roles accordingly.

Duties, however, are somewhat confusing to me. How many defensive, support and attacking players should I have? I know it depends on formation, but there's got to be a general notion of a rule, if not a rule itself.

For example, playing 4 at the back, two DMCs, AML and AMR, 2 FCs. Is it enough to make one of the DMCs support and one of the FCs a DLF with support role to connect the play well enough?

Another example, 4231 deep. A DMC with support role is given, but what about that AMC? Should he be on support as well? Will the team connect well if AML-AMC-AMR as well as FC are all on attack, with only a DMC on support?

I'd like your thoughts on this, especially tactical experts like wwfan and such.

Philosophy

The general idea is if you trust your players to do the right thing, then it should be more fluid. If you don't, it should be rigid. The question is, how do I know whether I trust them or not? What do I look for when trying to assess that? Whether my players creativity and flair are high? Or if they are good decision makers?

If so, let's say most of your team are in 10-12 range when it comes to creativity, flair and decisions. Does that warrant a Balanced philosophy?

Am I assuming things right or am completely wrong?

If I understood it correctly, a "fluid" system refers to a system much akin to Total Football, where all players have to be proficient in all positions, and a "rigid" system has clearly-defined roles for all your players - target man holds the ball up, playmaker creates the chances, winger puts in a cross.

So I'd say that if your players seem better balanced than most (say a winger can also tackle and take shots reasonably well), you can trust them in a fluid philosophy. If you have very specialized players (slow and lumbering CBs, fast wingers good at putting in crosses), don't. Mental attributes probably matter the most here.

Philosophy

The general idea is if you trust your players to do the right thing, then it should be more fluid. If you don't, it should be rigid. The question is, how do I know whether I trust them or not? What do I look for when trying to assess that? Whether my players creativity and flair are high? Or if they are good decision makers?

If so, let's say most of your team are in 10-12 range when it comes to creativity, flair and decisions. Does that warrant a Balanced philosophy?

Am I assuming things right or am completely wrong?

This should depend on how well rounded your players are. If you've got players who have great stats for their position only (e.g. defenders with great tackling but pretty rubbish passing) you won't want to use fluid as they just don't have the skills to make the most of it. If your players are all well rounded then fluid will be better.

Strategy

The general idea is you should have 3 tactics in match prep, ready for different scenarios.

My assumption is they should be Counter, Balanced and Control. I've come to that conclusion because Defensive (and Contain) soak up too much pressure and you really need good defenders to stay calm and firm throughout. Otherwise, you break sooner or later. Also, Attacking and Overload are good if you have clearly better and more motivated side to keep the pressure on the opposition throughout, otherwise you'll leak.

How does that sound?

Overload is something really designed to be used within a match when you really need a goal not for a whole game. It just focuses on creating chances and doesn't care about the quality of them. Defensive is very much for when you are completely outclassed and just want to try and draw.

Passing Style

Naturally, it comes down to the style you want to play, but there are certain situations you should change up. For example, if the pitch is awful, play more direct. If it's windy (but dry), play short passes. That's all common sense, as well as the fact you don't necessarily need to play direct if you're defending and vice versa. Are there any other scenarios a certain passing style is favoured?

The question is, how will my change of passing style affect my players? If I switch from passing to direct it every now and again, will my players be confused and struggle to play at their best?

Passing style should be influenced by the type of game you are playing. If you are sitting deep and trying to hit the opposition on the break Direct is best, but if you are going for a Barca style fluid movement with lots of roaming then shorter is best. Choosing passing style should not be done in isolation, it should complement your tactical style.

Creative Freedom and Roaming

Am I right assuming these two are closely connected? It should be pretty simple; if you have creative players with the ability to make good decisions and anticipate the play, you should let them express themselves and roam where they please.

Then we come to the question; how do you determine if your player is good enough for that? Is it 10, 15 or 20 for a certain attribute?

Off the ball is definitely a key attribute for roaming, players will need to have a good rating for that to make the most of being able to roam to find space. I would not necessairly say that creativity and roaming are linked as they rely on different stats, but they can be very complimentary.

Closing Down

A matter of personal preference and desired style of play, again.

There are, of course, many different situations in football, but I'll throw in a couple of assumptions I'd like confirmed or ridiculed.

Press more - when you are favourites and want to press them hard and win the ball back fast all the time, when you're the underdog but want to reduce the space and time the opposition have to make their move so you combine pressing and low defensive line to invite them in and then break them for fast counters

Stand-off more - when the opposition offensive players are much more skilled than your defensive players and you're afraid they'll get skinned easily and all the time

That is how they work, standing off makes sure you are not pulled out of shape, pressing more is ideal for a high possession based tactic.

Tackling

Hard - when you want to play dirty, usually combined with pressing against better teams to kill football

Easy - not sure how is that useful except for avoiding cards

How's that?

To a degree, it should also be considered in relation to pressing, if you are pressing lots you probably want to go easy as your players will be aggressively going for the ball. If you are standing off you probably want to make your tackles count and should use hard.

Marking

A matter of preference, too. I've seen many divided opinions so it's better to leave it on default. If your defenders are not good, man marking is a suicide because they'll lose their man, but if you use zonal marking, you give the opposition a lot of time and space near your goal.

Personally I would say at the top levels Zonal is a must, it prevents players from being pulled away by roaming opposition players they might be man marking and helps ensure there is cover as players will shift across to compensate for one of your players closing down.

Crossing

I've never been sure what to do there and left it at Default most of the time. When should other two options be used?

Drill is for flat crosses, float for high crosses in the air. First is useful if your players are mostly going to be crossing on the break and want to get it to feet, float if your are dominant in the air.

Roles and Duties

The logical thing is to ask your players to do what they're capable of, not more. In other words, look at their attributes and give them roles accordingly.

Duties, however, are somewhat confusing to me. How many defensive, support and attacking players should I have? I know it depends on formation, but there's got to be a general notion of a rule, if not a rule itself.

For example, playing 4 at the back, two DMCs, AML and AMR, 2 FCs. Is it enough to make one of the DMCs support and one of the FCs a DLF with support role to connect the play well enough?

Another example, 4231 deep. A DMC with support role is given, but what about that AMC? Should he be on support as well? Will the team connect well if AML-AMC-AMR as well as FC are all on attack, with only a DMC on support?

Well the key is achieving a balance, and some of it can only be worked out once you've seen how your team plays with a tactic. The average position data in the analysis screen for a match can also help you judge how the duties are affecting the shape of your team. Personally I would say the Dms on support as they are already quite deep, definitely one striker on DLF support as well.

Philosophy

The general idea is if you trust your players to do the right thing, then it should be more fluid. If you don't, it should be rigid. The question is, how do I know whether I trust them or not? What do I look for when trying to assess that? Whether my players creativity and flair are high? Or if they are good decision makers?

If so, let's say most of your team are in 10-12 range when it comes to creativity, flair and decisions. Does that warrant a Balanced philosophy?

Am I assuming things right or am completely wrong?

It's your philosophy. How do you want your team to play? Do you believe the manager should control all aspects of tactical play, trust the players, or strike a balance in between? It's 100% down to how you feel a manager should instruct his team, not something that 'matches' attribute averages.

Strategy

The general idea is you should have 3 tactics in match prep, ready for different scenarios.

My assumption is they should be Counter, Balanced and Control. I've come to that conclusion because Defensive (and Contain) soak up too much pressure and you really need good defenders to stay calm and firm throughout. Otherwise, you break sooner or later. Also, Attacking and Overload are good if you have clearly better and more motivated side to keep the pressure on the opposition throughout, otherwise you'll leak.

How does that sound?

I tend to produce 3 two levels apart. Contain, Counter, Control for a weak side / Defend, Standard, Attack for an average side / Counter, Control, Overload for a strong side (relative to level of course).

Passing Style

Naturally, it comes down to the style you want to play, but there are certain situations you should change up. For example, if the pitch is awful, play more direct. If it's windy (but dry), play short passes. That's all common sense, as well as the fact you don't necessarily need to play direct if you're defending and vice versa. Are there any other scenarios a certain passing style is favoured?

The question is, how will my change of passing style affect my players? If I switch from passing to direct it every now and again, will my players be confused and struggle to play at their best?

Again, choose a preferred style that you think football should be played. Use the shouts to adapt to conditions.

Creative Freedom and Roaming

Am I right assuming these two are closely connected? It should be pretty simple; if you have creative players with the ability to make good decisions and anticipate the play, you should let them express themselves and roam where they please.

Then we come to the question; how do you determine if your player is good enough for that? Is it 10, 15 or 20 for a certain attribute?

Down to you again. Don't fall into the trap that there are 'best' settings.

Closing Down

A matter of personal preference and desired style of play, again.

There are, of course, many different situations in football, but I'll throw in a couple of assumptions I'd like confirmed or ridiculed.

Press more - when you are favourites and want to press them hard and win the ball back fast all the time, when you're the underdog but want to reduce the space and time the opposition have to make their move so you combine pressing and low defensive line to invite them in and then break them for fast counters

Stand-off more - when the opposition offensive players are much more skilled than your defensive players and you're afraid they'll get skinned easily and all the time

Generally, I'd press more with a superior, very fit team and stand off with a weaker, less fit team. If you press heavily, players will get dragged out of position, meaning you will rely on players winning the ball to stop chances. If you stand off, players will stay behind the ball, meaning shots will be blocked or crowded out.

Tackling

Hard - when you want to play dirty, usually combined with pressing against better teams to kill football

Easy - not sure how is that useful except for avoiding cards

How's that?

Easy is great when you trust your defence and want to initiate counter attacks, as they will generally win the ball on their feet and be able to pass immediately. Hard is more about intimidating the opposition. It will lead to more missed tackles, so you will need to have a good defence.

Marking

A matter of preference, too. I've seen many divided opinions so it's better to leave it on default. If your defenders are not good, man marking is a suicide because they'll lose their man, but if you use zonal marking, you give the opposition a lot of time and space near your goal.

I use zonal as I feel it is the go-to system of almost every team in real life. Works fine.

Crossing

I've never been sure what to do there and left it at Default most of the time. When should other two options be used?

Drill is useful when you have fast forwards, float when you have tall ones.

Roles and Duties

The logical thing is to ask your players to do what they're capable of, not more. In other words, look at their attributes and give them roles accordingly.

Duties, however, are somewhat confusing to me. How many defensive, support and attacking players should I have? I know it depends on formation, but there's got to be a general notion of a rule, if not a rule itself.

For example, playing 4 at the back, two DMCs, AML and AMR, 2 FCs. Is it enough to make one of the DMCs support and one of the FCs a DLF with support role to connect the play well enough?

Another example, 4231 deep. A DMC with support role is given, but what about that AMC? Should he be on support as well? Will the team connect well if AML-AMC-AMR as well as FC are all on attack, with only a DMC on support?

I'd like your thoughts on this, especially tactical experts like wwfan and such.

My Rule of Thumb:

One forward on Support (or as a TQ)

One midfielder on Defend, one on Attack, one on Support

One FB on Attack

If you do that, you'll get the required movement between the lines. You can use automatic or logical duties for the rest of the players.

My use on duties works thus:

in my 4 man defence the centre backs are either defend-defend or stopper-cover, and full backs on automatic. My midfield (assuming i have a 3-man central midfield of whatever notation (i.e. in a 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1 etc) ) always has a defend role, a support role and an attack role, and my attack consists of the 2 wide attackers/wingers on attack, and the central striker on a support role (with the exception of the trequartista). If you want a general rule of thumb, try 3 defend roles, 4 support roles, and 3 attack roles, but stick to the rule that not all of these roles can be in the same line of play (i.e. not 3 defenders on defend, 4 midfielders on support and 3 strikers on attack) because it causes large gaps between defence, midfield and attack, and no movement between the lines.

http://www.fm-britain.co.uk/2009/10/27/tactics-creator-introduction/

This should help