Philosophy?

what is this exactly and does anyone change it? can I use it to benefit my changes of winning a game or not, and if so how?

thanks

any help please?

Very rigid - rigid - balanced - fluid - very fluid

For real life examples of these, Roy Hodgson would probably be very rigid, while Barcelona and Ajax(totalvotball) would be veryfluid.

Basically, with very rigid, your players hold their position. Your central defender takes care of defence, your strikers stays forward and attacks, etc. Themore you move towards very fluid, the more your players will start doing things "not in their job description". For example, your central defender could join an attack and you might see your striker helping out the defence.

That's the basic idea of it, anyway. I usually play Fluid.

This means that the philosophy requires more mental ability the more fluid it is set. Players need to make the right decisions and the physical skills to cope with an increased room of movement.

The more fluid you set a system the more variation your team offers in its offensive play, however at the expense of defensive stability.

Thus a very rigid system will likely be reliable in defense but less inventive in breaking down a good opposition defense. A very fluid system may well be successful in attack, but leaking way too many goals unless you have the right players and further tactical instructions which create some sort of balance, like when choosing formation, roles or duties.

When playing a control mentality I usually use a rigid philosophy, while when I set a counter attack tactic I set philosophy to fluid. Combining attacking mentalities and fluid philosophies is a recipe for disaster in my experience.

hth

From my experience the more fluid your tactic the better it will do against formations that differ from your own. For e.g. if you play a 4-4-2 against a 4-1-2-1-2 (not recommended! as the opposition will tend to find space in the center of the park) you will do better playing more fluid, as opposed to rigid. The players will cope with the movement required to mark the opposition better. But mind you I am managing top teams so I have not seen much downside to using a more fluid philosophy, but have heard (as mentioned by other posters) that it doesn't work well if your players aren't of a high mental attribute level.

It depends on your players and tactics. I prefer Balanced as it allows me to make more precise changes during the match without changing my overall match strategy and also allows me to set up asymmetric duties to target weak spots in my opponent's defense.

In general, philosophy determines how many players contribute to each phase of play. There are three phases of play: Defense (out of possession), Transition (regained possession in your own half) and Attack (when you have possession in your opponent's half). Individually, the number of phases a player will contribute to is determined by their Mentality and is relative to their position, so for example, a striker with a very attacking mentality will contribute solely to the Attacking phase and won't participate in defense or setting up plays outside of your opponent's penalty area (in fact, if he gets the ball, he will almost always look to take a shot right away). A centreback with very defensive mentality, on the other hand, will hang around his own penalty area and will mainly look to clear the ball rather than helping to maintain possession. Meanwhile, a mid-fielder with normal mentality will generally contribute to every phase as needed with a focus on maintaining possession in the middle of the park rather being too defensive in low-risk situations or too aggressive in high-risk situations (as CM on "Normal" is the most "average" mentality). Alternately, a defensive-mentality striker will drop deep and help defend to an extent whereas an attacking-mentality centreback will look to hold onto the ball and will contribute to building attacks.

An important exception to mentality settings comes in the form of the counterattack mechanism. Basically, if you ever gain possession of the ball and there are only X-number of players between the player with the ball and the opposing goal, a counterattack will be initiated... which will max out mentality settings for your players as well as increasing team tempo and individual forward runs. If you are playing with the "counterattack" option selected in tactics, your team will initiate counterattacks when there are more defenders between your players and the opposing goal.

So... with that said, what philosophy means:

VERY RIGID: Each player focuses on just one phase of play (though not entirely to the exclusion of others) with different players having clearly defined responsibilities, so centrebacks will look solely to defend while strikers will look solely to poach goals while mid-fielders on support-duty will mainly look to maintain possession and create chances for the strikers, with their general willingness to take risks determined by the overall match strategy. It is important to note, however, that you will radically change a player's behavior by adjusting their role, so a mid-fielder set on attack-duty will be quite aggressive compared to a support-duty midfielder and especially a defense-duty midfielder. This philosophy is useful if you want to constantly maintain a fixed shape and/or you have very limited/specialized players that you want to follow very specific instructions. Very rigid can be incredibly difficult to break down, but it is highly predictable during the attacking phase.

RIGID: Basically, a slightly less extreme version of "Very Rigid." Every player will mainly focus on one phase of play, but they will contribute to others in more risk-free situations. In other words, each player has a strictly defined role determined by position and duty, but they are still given some freedom to express themselves. Again, this philosophy is useful if you want to maintain a fixed shape. Roy Hodgson would be a good example.

BALANCED: Now, every player is expected to contribute to multiple phases of play, though their specifically defined duty will still determine how frequently they take risks and contribute to other phases of play. So while strikers on balanced will be more likely to drop deep and help the mid-fielders than strikers on rigid, a support-duty striker on balanced will do this much, much more frequently than an attack-duty striker on balanced. This philosophy is good if you want to have a specific shape to target weaknesses in opposing teams but don't want to overly restrict your players' decision-making. It's a good philosophy for people who like to make minor tactical adjustments for specific situations rather than people who like to commit to one tactical "idea" and let their players figure out how to make it work. While some FM players who use Fluid and Very Fluid associate Balanced with disciplinarian managers, it is really more like the philosophy of someone like Jurgen Klopp, a manager who doesn't discourage player expression but does expect them to be able to follow and implement detailed instructions for each match.

FLUID: Rather than assigning a specific duty/role to each player, Fluid assigns a general duty to each half of the team and expects players to largely figure out how to carry out your selected strategy (Contain, Standard, Control, etc.) on their own. Basically, the attacking half attacks and the defending half defends with both playing some part in building up attacks (so basically, with a standard strategy, CMs and ACMs will stay back to receive the ball after regaining possession while centrebacks will usually look to pass the ball out of their own half rather than just hoofing it). Individual instructions mean less as all players of a given position will be just as willing to take risks. One important thing to note is the behavior of fullbacks. Since, they are part of the defensive half, fullbacks in a fluid tactic will usually be more defensive than fullbacks in a balanced tactic (assuming the same strategy is used, of course). Fluid tactics are useful if you have versatile players and you want to be less predictable in attack as, relative to more rigid philosophies, your strikers will be more likely to drop back to help set up plays and your midfielders will be more likely to move forward into goalscoring positions. Harry Redknapp is a solid example of a "fluid" manager. He doesn't give his players much in the way of specific instructions, preferring his 4/5 attackers to just get forward and work some magic, but at the same time, his defenders are solidly organized and don't move all over the pitch.

VERY FLUID: This is the universal mentality setting. In other words, each player will be on the same mentality determined by your match strategy. Basically, this means your team will operate as a single unit with a single function (defending, keeping possession, attacking). With defensive strategies, mid-fielders and strikers will look to help defend and will generally be very cautious, and with offensive strategies, centrebacks and defensive midfielders will be very aggressive and contribute to attacking play. In general, compared to fluid tactics, your defensive players will usually be more aggressive while your offensive players may be slightly less aggressive. Usually, very fluid is associated with ultra-attacking tactics where the whole team is expected to get forward and contribute to the attack. A good contemporary example of this would be Andre Villas-Boas. However, a very fluid philosophy mixed with a defensive strategy is also useful for "parking the bus" as it will make the entire team focus primarily on defending.

Beyond the settings in the tactics creator, you can manually make more rigid or fluid tactics, though there is considerable debate as to whether going beyond the default settings can produce a coherent tactic. For an even more rigid tactic, you simply set defensive players on a more defensive mentality while setting offensive players on a more attacking mentality. For an ultra-fluid tactic, you will want to reverse the mentality settings of fluid... in other words, give your defensive players a slightly more attacking mentality than your strategy and give your offensive players a slightly less attacking mentality than your strategy... this will, theoretically, further blur the lines between each player's "true" position/duty by further narrowing the relative mentality of each position.

It depends on your players and tactics. I prefer Balanced as it allows me to make more precise changes during the match without changing my overall match strategy and also allows me to set up asymmetric duties to target weak spots in my opponent's defense.

In general, philosophy determines how many players contribute to each phase of play. There are three phases of play: Defense (out of possession), Transition (regained possession in your own half) and Attack (when you have possession in your opponent's half). Individually, the number of phases a player will contribute to is determined by their Mentality and is relative to their position, so for example, a striker with a very attacking mentality will contribute solely to the Attacking phase and won't participate in defense or setting up plays outside of your opponent's penalty area (in fact, if he gets the ball, he will almost always look to take a shot right away). A centreback with very defensive mentality, on the other hand, will hang around his own penalty area and will mainly look to clear the ball rather than helping to maintain possession. Meanwhile, a mid-fielder with normal mentality will generally contribute to every phase as needed with a focus on maintaining possession in the middle of the park rather being too defensive in low-risk situations or too aggressive in high-risk situations (as CM on "Normal" is the most "average" mentality). Alternately, a defensive-mentality striker will drop deep and help defend to an extent whereas an attacking-mentality centreback will look to hold onto the ball and will contribute to building attacks.

An important exception to mentality settings comes in the form of the counterattack mechanism. Basically, if you ever gain possession of the ball and there are only X-number of players between the player with the ball and the opposing goal, a counterattack will be initiated... which will max out mentality settings for your players as well as increasing team tempo and individual forward runs. If you are playing with the "counterattack" option selected in tactics, your team will initiate counterattacks when there are more defenders between your players and the opposing goal.

So... with that said, what philosophy means:

VERY RIGID: Each player focuses on just one phase of play (though not entirely to the exclusion of others) with different players having clearly defined responsibilities, so centrebacks will look solely to defend while strikers will look solely to poach goals while mid-fielders on support-duty will mainly look to maintain possession and create chances for the strikers, with their general willingness to take risks determined by the overall match strategy. It is important to note, however, that you will radically change a player's behavior by adjusting their role, so a mid-fielder set on attack-duty will be quite aggressive compared to a support-duty midfielder and especially a defense-duty midfielder. This philosophy is useful if you want to constantly maintain a fixed shape and/or you have very limited/specialized players that you want to follow very specific instructions. Very rigid can be incredibly difficult to break down, but it is highly predictable during the attacking phase.

RIGID: Basically, a slightly less extreme version of "Very Rigid." Every player will mainly focus on one phase of play, but they will contribute to others in more risk-free situations. In other words, each player has a strictly defined role determined by position and duty, but they are still given some freedom to express themselves. Again, this philosophy is useful if you want to maintain a fixed shape. Roy Hodgson would be a good example.

BALANCED: Now, every player is expected to contribute to multiple phases of play, though their specifically defined duty will still determine how frequently they take risks and contribute to other phases of play. So while strikers on balanced will be more likely to drop deep and help the mid-fielders than strikers on rigid, a support-duty striker on balanced will do this much, much more frequently than an attack-duty striker on balanced. This philosophy is good if you want to have a specific shape to target weaknesses in opposing teams but don't want to overly restrict your players' decision-making. It's a good philosophy for people who like to make minor tactical adjustments for specific situations rather than people who like to commit to one tactical "idea" and let their players figure out how to make it work. While some FM players who use Fluid and Very Fluid associate Balanced with disciplinarian managers, it is really more like the philosophy of someone like Jurgen Klopp, a manager who doesn't discourage player expression but does expect them to be able to follow and implement detailed instructions for each match.

FLUID: Rather than assigning a specific duty/role to each player, Fluid assigns a general duty to each half of the team and expects players to largely figure out how to carry out your selected strategy (Contain, Standard, Control, etc.) on their own. Basically, the attacking half attacks and the defending half defends with both playing some part in building up attacks (so basically, with a standard strategy, CMs and ACMs will stay back to receive the ball after regaining possession while centrebacks will usually look to pass the ball out of their own half rather than just hoofing it). Individual instructions mean less as all players of a given position will be just as willing to take risks. One important thing to note is the behavior of fullbacks. Since, they are part of the defensive half, fullbacks in a fluid tactic will usually be more defensive than fullbacks in a balanced tactic (assuming the same strategy is used, of course). Fluid tactics are useful if you have versatile players and you want to be less predictable in attack as, relative to more rigid philosophies, your strikers will be more likely to drop back to help set up plays and your midfielders will be more likely to move forward into goalscoring positions. Harry Redknapp is a solid example of a "fluid" manager. He doesn't give his players much in the way of specific instructions, preferring his 4/5 attackers to just get forward and work some magic, but at the same time, his defenders are solidly organized and don't move all over the pitch.

VERY FLUID: This is the universal mentality setting. In other words, each player will be on the same mentality determined by your match strategy. Basically, this means your team will operate as a single unit with a single function (defending, keeping possession, attacking). With defensive strategies, mid-fielders and strikers will look to help defend and will generally be very cautious, and with offensive strategies, centrebacks and defensive midfielders will be very aggressive and contribute to attacking play. In general, compared to fluid tactics, your defensive players will usually be more aggressive while your offensive players may be slightly less aggressive. Usually, very fluid is associated with ultra-attacking tactics where the whole team is expected to get forward and contribute to the attack. A good contemporary example of this would be Andre Villas-Boas. However, a very fluid philosophy mixed with a defensive strategy is also useful for "parking the bus" as it will make the entire team focus primarily on defending.

Beyond the settings in the tactics creator, you can manually make more rigid or fluid tactics, though there is considerable debate as to whether going beyond the default settings can produce a coherent tactic. For an even more rigid tactic, you simply set defensive players on a more defensive mentality while setting offensive players on a more attacking mentality. For an ultra-fluid tactic, you will want to reverse the mentality settings of fluid... in other words, give your defensive players a slightly more attacking mentality than your strategy and give your offensive players a slightly less attacking mentality than your strategy... this will, theoretically, further blur the lines between each player's "true" position/duty by further narrowing the relative mentality of each position.

This has to be one of the most informative and eye opening posts I have ever seen on these forums.

This has to be one of the most informative and eye opening posts I have ever seen on these forums.

Well it was delivered by the hand of god.