Tactical Theorems and Frameworks '07

Tactical Theorems and Frameworks '07

Introduction

In writing TT&F ’07 I have tried to combine the best of the old threads with some new theories and ideas from late testing on ’06 and the input of forum testers on the Demo. I have also added a few ‘new and untested’ bits and bobs for perusal and possible application. Despite its length, it hasn’t been too hard to compile as most of the information was already available in the old threads. I have just linked them all together, proof read and added a few new sections for possible discussion.

I have tried to restructure the format of the opening post so devotees don’t get bored reading the same old sh*te over and over again. Therefore, I have opened the thread with a run down of my assumptions and thought processes (such as they are), rather than my standard mentality guide. For newcomers this may be a bit daunting and may well frighten you away before you get to the really useful stuff, so, if you wish to get going quickly, read the disclaimer and then skip everything before Mentality Frameworks and start from there. That section explains most of the tactical settings and will get even the most lost FMer back on track.

The closing section of the thread details tactical switches required for different divisional levels alongside the bogeymen of the Second Season Slump and the 3-3-2-1-1. They are covered to some extent in the earlier sections, but I thought it worthwhile to have an instant reference guide for them as they cause so much stress. I finish off with a quick guide to Team Talks (half-time & full-time only). I have also tried to add some cross-referencing hints to make the post more reader-friendly.

Disclaimer

It needs to be taken into consideration that this opening post is based on the assumption that ’07 is an evolution of the ’06 game engine. I have had no prior access to the ’07 engine, but have had support from some that have suggesting that my theories still hold water. One obvious difference in the engine is that slider differences are more acute and thus some of these theories may need no little adaptation. Therefore, please don’t take these theories and assumptions as gospel and feel free to rewrite them if you find better alternatives.

Due to the excellent contribution of many fabulous tacticians over the last year, TT&F has developed into a tactics guide par excellence, but, it does have its limitations and pitfalls. It is extremely useful as an expansion to the tactics guide in the game manual and offers additional information and ideas for perusal. I do not think that this level of detail contained in the thread should be provided in the game manual as many will not want to follow the ‘do it by numbers’ approach to playing and would prefer to work things out on their own. If you prefer to take such an approach to playing FM, this thread may not be for you. For those that are tactically frustrated or wish to have a more detailed explanation, please read on.

Framework Assumptions

The AI

The first assumption we must make is on how the AI plays. My overriding feeling is that AI mentality is Global in its purest form i.e. there are no mentality variants and all players are on the same settings. The empirical evidence for this is observational only, but without access to source code that is all it can be. Let's look at the way the AI operates.

AI General Starting Formation

Nearly all teams have a preferred starting system. In England most play a 4-4-2, in Spain the 4-2-3-1 is popular, and in France they play a weird 4-3-2-1. We have to assume against a mid-ranked opponent the mentality of these teams will be set to low attacking at home, low defensive away. Higher ranked sides will play wider and looser at home, lower ranked will play tighter. Media games may force an opposition manager to abandon a tactical policy (I used to rule van der Gaal as he always criticised me. I responded by telling him my team was better and he sent out hyper-attacking tactics which resulted in my team flattening his.) but in general we can predict mentality and formation. We can therefore design some standard starting tactics (see Mentality Frameworks). However, we need to be aware of AI tactic switching and be ready to counter it. We also need to understand the effect of re-ranking and how that can lead to a previously formidable tactic suddenly coming unstuck.

AI Attacking Strategies

When losing, the AI often reverts to an attacking strategy between the 60 and 70 minute marks. They will begin to play wide and fast with a high mentality, with full-backs pouring forward, long-farrowed wingers (or a 4-2-4) and forwards staying up the pitch all the time. This system will offer huge amounts of space down the flanks or around their back two as they only keep the DCs back. Two ways to counter this are to focus passing down flanks to sarrowed FCs which exploits the channels or focus passing down centre with the wide men forward sarrowed to the AMR/L positions so you create a 4 on 2 situation when attacking the central defenders. Personally, I employ the sarrowed FCs solution. Defensively, forward runs should be set to rarely for FBs and a MCd/DMC (see Forward Runs & Farrows/Sarrows/Barrows/Defend Lead).

AI Defensive Strategies

The AI can revert to this much earlier in the game than it does attacking strategies. There seems to be little pattern to this with the AI going ultra-defensive anywhere after the 5th minute. It can happen after a goal but it can equally easily happen after a throw-in! The classic AI defensive strategy is the 3-3-2-1-1 but other variants are possible. This system is narrow and compact, with all 11 players looking to get behind the ball and defend their penalty area. Most of the defensive players (DCs, WBs, DMCs) will never get forward and attacks only occur via the remaining four players. This system should be countered with a wide formation that has a high percentage of forward runs. I think it should be pressing defensively to win the ball high up the pitch. The idea is to overload the box and force opposition mistakes (see Breaking Down the 3-3-2-1-1).

Re-Ranking

This is where the real fun of FM lies. There seems to be a slight re-ranking of your team after 50% of a season, with a serious re-ranking at the end of a season. This results in the AI launching different strategies against user teams and is the reason for second season slump syndrome. The mid-season re-ranking results in slightly more defensive AI set-ups which can lead to a serious drop in team performance if the system you are employing is too conservative. If you then drop some places you will be re-ranked again in the next season based on your finishing position, which allows the tactic to succeed again and the circle restarts. However, if your tactical acumen is sufficient to counter the mid-season re-rank and you finish significantly higher in the table than expected, you will face a much more defensive AI next season and must adjust your tactics accordingly. Failure to do this will result in a seriously diminished performance.

Example

I took over Juventus after a season in which they had seriously underperformed (finished 4th after being 10th and struggling when I took over). I bought one or two new players to fit my preferred formation type, but in large had the same squad. I implemented my tactical system(s) and played out the season. Results: Won Seria A (34-3-1), Coppa Italia (won every game) and the CL. My goal scoring was untrue, with two players scoring 20+ (reserve striker and AMC), one netting 30+ and the regular FC 60+. The defence was less impressive (0.6 a game). The following season I still won the Seria A (33-2-3) and the CL but scored considerably less. I also conceded a lot less (0.4 a game).

The conclusion to this is as follows:

1: In Season One the AI still tried to beat me and played semi-attacking systems. My tactics countered this in terms of goal scoring (high mentality FCs and AMC) and was solid enough defensively to win all but one game all season.

2: In Season Two I was re-ranked as the best team in Italy. The AI then focussed on stopping me from scoring. My defence had less to do but my attack had to work harder. I came up against the 3-3-2-1-1 almost every game (with the exception on the Milans and Roma). I was nearly always forced to play my most attacking tactic rather than swapping between them as I had done the previous season.

3: Winning the title or over performing based on current ranking results in a massive shift in AI strategy against you. It will be more defensive and you must be more attack minded to counter it (see The Second Season Slump).

Mentality

How does this all influence mentality thinking. I think it does in terms of how successful a tactic is long-term, which is something users have to take into consideration. It is all well and good getting a one-season wonder tactic but it has to be a consistent performer in a career game. The following deconstructs two extreme settings for mentality, the Rule of Two & Global Mentality (see Frameworks for an explanation of the Rule of Two).

Rule of Two Mentality

Strengths

RoT has three main advantages.

Firstly, it always keeps players high up the pitch in order to launch counters or run after clearances. The high attacking mentality of the FCs and AMC guarantees that once they get the ball they will look for attacking options. This means that it is exceptionally effective against attacking AIs as RoT tactics frequently get 3 on 2 situations near the end of the game as the AI pours forward, leaving two at the back. Any forward ball that the FCs latch on to is likely to create a good chance which, if taken, will kill off the game.

Secondly, it always has five players working together as a defensive unit. With high-pressing this counters the more defensive formations as it wins the ball quickly and high up the pitch before the opposition has a chance to reorganise itself for an attack. A quick ball back into the box often creates a good opportunity. Those that play a RoT system will be aware of how it looks in 2d, with the back 5 playing possession football between them until one of the front 5 makes a move into space. Thus, the defensive unit stays secure (mentality + pressing + d-line) and keeps the ball rather than playing risky forward passes (mentality). It is not particularly beautiful to watch but is highly effective.

The third advantage is that (I think) it is re-ranking proof. Because the mentalities are spilt so defensive players focus on defending and attackers on attacking it shouldn't fall down heavily against re-ranking as it counters (to an extent) both attacking and defensive AI strategies.

Weaknesses

I only see one main weakness which for me is an aesthetic one. It is next to impossible to play a convincing short-passing game as the players are too stretched out. I believe the front three should be set to short passing as they are always close together, but the rest of the team should be set to mixed/direct. I employ a staggered system of passing, following RoT, with the keeper at direct, DCs at two notches shorter, FBs to more and so on. A lot of goals are scored via direct balls form the back, rather than via intricate passing moves, but outside of aesthetics I don't see it as a major problem.

Global Mentality

Strengths

It is much easier to build than a RoT system and offers a more viable team-ethic as everybody is on the same mentality. Short passing will be easier to implement and the team is likely to play beautiful football. The team works as one unit, defending and attacking en-masse. Aesthetically it is likely to be much more pleasing than a RoT system.

Weaknesses

It is the same type of system as the AI plays therefore users aren't gaining any major advantage by playing it and player quality becomes more important. I don't think the user is getting the full benefit of in-game advantages that the RoT gives.

I think it holds water as a one season method, but may begin to fail after that. If my re-ranking theory is correct then a one-mentality tactic is likely to struggle after a major re-ranking as it is coming up against teams playing entirely different strategies which easily counter the one-mentality method. If the GM is 12 season one (leading to a 3rd place finish) it may well need to be 15 season two as the user is now coming up against more defensive AI systems.

I also think it will struggle against in-game tactical changes. I don't think it is as counter-attacking friendly as RoT when playing against a 4-2-4 for example. Let's look at mentality rules to see why.

Example

Global Mentality: DCs mentality is 10. He is much more likely to play a forward ball than his RoT counterpart (mentality 6). However, he is playing it to an FC with mentality of 10. The RoT DC plays the ball to an FC of 18 or 14 or an AMC of 16. The GM FC is likely to slow the game down and look for a safe pass rather than a quick break, whereas the RoT FCs go for goal.

For me, Global Mentality falls down here. The system tells the DCs to look for forward balls to a greater extent than the RoT, but when they do they are not used as efficiently as in RoT. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can accept that GM works with superior sides (which we all try to build) but not as a safe, season-on-season system that needs to be able to counter-attack as often as dominate.

Further Mentality Assumptions

1: Mentality as a positioning tool. It is primarily concerned with how much a player helps out with attacking or defensive duties. Thus, a DC with mentality of 6 will concentrate on defensive duties 70% of the time and look to join in/start off attacking moves 30% of the time. An FC with mentality of 18 will look to attack 90% of the time. Each player’s position reflects this, with FCs of 18 staying higher up the pitch than those of 12 and DCs of 4 staying deeper than those of 10. However, position type partially overrides mentality positioning as DCs are unlikely to leave their main positional duties and become auxiliary FCs mid-move.

2: Mentality as a risk/reward agent. It is primarily concerned with how likely a player is to make an attacking move. Thus, a DC with mentality of 6 will only make an attacking move if he judges the move as being >70% likely to succeed. An FC with a mentality of 18 will have a go even if he thinks the move has >10% chance of succeeding.

3: Mentality as a pass type indicator. It is primarily concerned with the type of pass a player will make. A DC with mentality of 6 will only play a forward ball 30% of the time. An FC with mentality of 18 will shoot/play a forward pass 90% of the time.

Although I originally planned formation frameworks with Assumption 1 in mind, I now believe Assumption 2 to be most likely. I'll try to explain why.

Mentality as a risk/reward agent has its roots in positional thinking. A player with a high attacking mentality undeniably positions himself higher up the pitch than a player in the same position with a defensive mentality. However, we have other tools to determine positioning (position types, sarrows, farrows, barrows). So, why do we need a third tool to define it? We probably don't. Yet, there is on-screen evidence that a player with a high mentality gets further up the pitch than one with low (and a high mentality FC refuses to defend, whereas a low mentality FC gets back). What is the reason for this?

I believe it is related to how mentality influences other offensive or defensive options. An FC with a mentality of 18 looks to make attacking moves 90% of the time. When he is not in possession of the ball these options will be reduced to off-the-ball moves (forward runs). It is his constant repositioning while looking for chances to make a forward run (which he does 90% of the time) that makes it look like he is further up the pitch than his lower mentality strike partner. Once he is in possession he will have the option of through balls, run with ball, long shot, or basic shot if he is close to goal. His individual instructions inform him of how often he is allowed to try each one. If long shots is rarely but through ball and run with ball high he will attempt to pull off one of those two moves assuming he thinks it has >10% chance of succeeding. If one is often and the other mixed he is 50% more likely to try the often option.

Other attributes are likely to determine his success rate. Decision making plays a major part, but teamwork, dribbling, passing, flair, creativity and finishing all have their roles. Likewise, the qualities of the player he is facing will stop many of his moves. Yet, as he has such a high mentality he will keep on trying them.

Players with low mentalities obviously look at the risk/reward situation in a different way and thus don't play attacking balls unless the reward factor heavily outweighs the risk.

So, how to use this?

It is obviously a bad idea to play DCs with too high a mentality (give away the ball too easily with stupid forward passes) or too low (will dawdle on the ball and refuse to play forward balls until put under pressure from pressing attackers). A striker with low mentality will never take on half-chances. Hence, RoT seems the way to go. it balances the system with DCs only playing forward balls when reward outweighs risk, FCs looking to create/shoot most of the time with the midfield being somewhere in the middle.

In terms of how to combine attacking tools (long shots, through balls, crosses, forward runs, run with ball) with the mentality option logic has to rule. DCs shouldn't cross the ball, make forward runs, run with ball or take many long shots as their primary job is to defend. The position tool overrides other instructions so they will stay back unless forward runs is ticked. If it is they will join attacking moves as long as they believe they have a >70% chance of coming off. That percentage is too dangerous for me (as 3 out of 10 times I will be a man short at the back when counter-attacked) so I restrict their attacking options to through balls. If they have good decision making and passing skills then through balls are a must (combined with mixed/direct passing) as they will hit them only when they believe they have a >70% chance of succeeding. Such a ball can tear a defence apart.

The further up the pitch the player plays (or the wider his role) the more likely he will be able to make attacking chances (less risk of interception, blocks etc). Each level of mentality in a RoT system should be given more attacking tools depending on their attributes. Therefore all players should have some through balls, crossing, run with ball, long shots optioned. DMCs should mainly concentrate on long shots and through balls. Wide players can cross, run with ball, play through balls but not make many long shots as angles will be against them. AMCs should look for through balls primarily but also have long shots and run with ball available. FCs can do everything.

In short, mentality is the tool that informs players of risk/reward and combines with decision making to construct attacking moves. Additional tools to be taken into consideration are player attributes and player instructions. A logical combination of all three will determine how successful a tactic will become.

Frameworks

Having taken all that on board, let us have a look at some mentality frameworks in a more systematic manner. Personally, I use the Rule of Two, as detailed above, but I have also had success employing the 5x5 Defensive Line. The third mentality system, the Split Global, is theoretical only and has not been tested, but I see no reason why it shouldn’t work. Finally, there is the option of using a Pure Global mentality, but I feel it limits user advantages, as detailed above.

The Rule of Two

The Rule of Two is based upon the assumption that players must have a variety of acceptable passing options available to them. If players are too close together they are too easy to contain, and passing breaks down. If players are too far apart, too many ambitious balls are hit, and passing breaks down. Therefore, each player must be able to pick out someone to pass too who has a mentality within two positions of his own.

Thus, in a 4-4-2 normal tactic, the system would run as follows:

DCs: Mentality = 6

FBs: Mentality = 10

MCd: Mentality = 8

MR/L: Mentality = 12

MCa: Mentality = 16

FC: Mentality = 14

ST: Mentality = 18

Overall Mentality: 112

This is an attacking system with the aggregate mentality being +12 above neutral. It is therefore likely to concede slightly higher than average, but score more as well. Its main strength lies in having high mentality forwards who are always open for clearance passes.

Style: The system follows a Chelsea-esque mode of play. Passing is relatively direct (see Mirroring) so intricate pass and move plays are rare. It does allow a fair degree of creative freedom up front though, so spectacular goals from range or quality strikes after scintillating dribbles happen with reasonable regularity. If set up correctly the user will see plenty of possession across the defence when playing at home, with plenty of movement around the box as the front five look for space, resulting in probing raids as and when opportunities present themselves. In away games there is a lot emphasis on counter-attacking moves that exploit the channels. At home the defensive line is deep but presses heavily. Away the defensive line is high but presses much less.

Mentality Experiments: I would argue against experimenting too much, but the system could be made highly attacking by upping mentality by 2 across the board. Likewise, dropping by 2 would make it defensive and by 4 ultra-defensive. I haven’t tried either so take no responsibility if they don’t work. If you wish to play around with any of the experimental approaches please post your results.

5x5 Defensive Line

5x5 Defensive Line Theory assumes that teams have a basic philosophy of five attack and five defend. Originally, the thinking here was that 5 players should have an equal defensive mentality, and five should have can equal attacking mentality. There were problems employing this type of system as there were big gaps between the attacking players and defensive players. The solution was to ensure the defensive line setting was equal to the mentality of the attacking players. Thus, attacking mentality is 15, defensive line is 15.

DCs: Mentality = 5

FBs: Mentality = 5

MCd: Mentality = 5

MR/L: Mentality = 15

MCa: Mentality = 15

FC: Mentality = 15

ST: Mentality = 15

Overall Mentality: 100

This is a neutral system that balances attack and defence perfectly. It has similar strengths to the Rule of Two framework in that it offers high mentality forwards who are looking to break quickly.

Style: The system follows an Arsenal-esque style of play. As five players are on high mentality and thus play close together the team is likely to try intricate pass and move plays. Equally, like the Arsenal, they have a solid defensive base protected by a defensive minded midfielder. If set up correctly the user should see a tight unit that attacks and defends en masse whilst drawing pretty footballing patterns. It should also be effective on the counter. However, it requires a high defensive line at all times and therefore may struggle against ultra-defensive systems.

Mentality Experiments: There are two ways to experiment. One is to higher or lower mentality across the board. The other is to keep to the combined mentality of 20 split and increase or narrow the gap between the mentalities (5-15 becomes 3-17 or 7-13). Please post results of any experiments.

N.B. Early testing on ’07 suggests that d-lines of above 14 are risky.

Split Global

This was an experimental philosophy that Sir Bobby and I were discussing towards the end of my 06 playing days. It is really Sir Bobby’s baby, and I am not sure how far he got in his testing, but I thought it worthy of inclusion, as it offers a logical alternate system to the above. I’m sure he would like to hear about any successful trials with it.

DCs: Mentality = 6

FBs: Mentality = 10

MCd: Mentality = 10

MR/L: Mentality = 10

MCa: Mentality = 10

FC: Mentality = 14

ST: Mentality = 14

Overall Mentality: 100

This is a neutral system that balances attack and defence perfectly. It has been conceived as a more cautious alternative to the 5x5 Defensive Line theory and is mainly a slow build, risk free system.

Style: This system follows a Bolton-esque style of play. Most of the team employ a mentality midway between attack and defence and players contribute equally to both. Only four outfield players do specific jobs (DCs and FCs) but the mid-level mentality of the rest of the tem means they will be supported in their tasks.

Mentality Experiments: Raise by 2, 4 or 6 throughout for attacking to ultra-attacking systems, or drop by 2, 4 or 6 to become defensive or ultra-defensive.

Pure Global

This system can be attacking, neutral or defensive, depending on the mentality settings. Personally, I wouldn’t advocate going higher than 15 or lower than 5. Pure Global is difficult to get working well but if you apply the following theorems you should be able to design a decent Pure Global tactic.

Theorems

Having looked at three tactic building frameworks, it is now time to delve deeper into some of the other theories behind successful tactical set ups. The following section looks at Mirroring, Defensive Line, Farrows/Sarrows/Barrows, Mentality, Through-Balls, Forward Runs, Run With Ball, Crosses, Hold Up Ball, and Marking. All have been tested successfully with the RoT framework, but not with the 5x5 or Split Global.

Slider Pairings/Mirroring

Mirroring basically means ensuring two opposing elements of the game have a slider total of 20. I experimented with mirroring heavily during my last three months on FM06 but didn’t ever get around to writing it up. There are many ways in which to mirror, and the following offers some suggestions.

Width versus Time Wasting

The assumption for this mirror is that a home tactic should be wide with low time wasting whereas an away tactic should be narrow with high time wasting. Thus, the mirroring split is:

Home: Width 15 vs. Time Wasting 5

Away: Width 5 vs. Time Wasting 15

I always use the 5/15 split as a starting point as they correspond with the ‘first notch’ of the sliders. Thus 5 is ‘first notch’ rarely and 15 is ‘first notch’ often. From this position attacking can be emphasised via lowering time wasting and raising width by the same factor. Likewise, defence can be emphasised by moving the sliders in the other direction.

NB: I rarely had to alter sliders from the ‘first notch’ position. Occasionally, I went to a 17-3 split if I was chasing a late goal, but I have never tested emphasising defence.

Creative Freedom versus Closing Down

I was having so much success with the Width/Time Wasting split that I decided to try it on a player by player basis. I built a tactic on a CF/CD split in individual instructions. The system looked like so:

DCs: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 3/17

FBs: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 5/15

MCd: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 5/15

ML/R: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 10/10

MCa: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 15/5

FCs: Creative Freedom/Closing Down = 15/5

NB: I only tried this system at home. For away games I went for CD of 5 across the board (CF as above system) with the exception of the MCd who remained at 15. However, there is no reason it shouldn’t work (see Level Assumptions before deciding to employ such a system in LLM).

Mentality versus Passing

The Width/Time Wasting and the Creative Freedom/Closing Down mirrors worked so well that I decided to experiment with Passing/Mentality. My assumption was that DCs would benefit from direct passing, whereas a high mentality attacker only needs to play quick flicks. Following the RoT framework I devised the following.

DCs: Mentality/Passing = 6/14

FBs: Mentality/Passing = 10/10

MCd: Mentality/Passing = 8/12

MR/L: Mentality/Passing = 12/8

MCa: Mentality/Passing = 16/4

FC: Mentality/Passing = 14/6

ST: Mentality = 18/2

The results were very impressive. There is an argument for transposing the passing of the MCa and the FCd if you wish.

NB: This passing system was designed for High Quality sides. For Championship – high L2 I would suggest raising passing by 2 across the board so the mentality/passing total equals 22. For LLM raise by 4 so the total = 24 (see Level Assumptions). The GK should always pass to 2 higher than the DCs, no matter what mentality setting you use.

Tempo and Front Three Creative Freedom

There is evidence emerging in the Demo that tempo and front three (FCs & AMC/MCa) creative freedom should be matched. Therefore, if tempo is at 5 then CF for the front three should also be 5. If tempo is 15 then CF should be 15. The following reason seems to apply.

5/15 and 15/5 tempo/CF systems don't work as well, or look as good, because the two variables don't compliment each other. If tempo is high then players will look to move the ball around quickly and get it further upfield sooner. This is hindered by the 3 forward players not being allowed to stray from position, which is required in order for them to create spaces into which to pass the ball.

A slow tempo means players won't rush with passing and hold the ball up a lot. When making a pass players will try to keep it simple. This is complimented by players staying in their own positions. Therefore, the 5/5 and 15/15 systems work more effectively.

There are two things to take into consideration here. Firstly, there is the degree of tiredness players will suffer if they are playing high tempo football all match. Tempo/CF at 15/15 with all attacking players on high forward runs often will lead to fatigue. Therefore, high CF/high temp systems need to be employed realistically (circa Arsenal in their fast-fast-slow style). Secondly, it obviously influences the mirroring of CF/CD when applied to attacking players. Further testing is needed (see Future Testing/Closing Down).

N.B. It may be that a 5/15 tempo/CF split works well in a counter attacking system although a lot more testing is required.

Defensive Line

The assumption for the defensive line is that a high defensive line keeps your team close together and is thus ideal for away games. A high defensive line should be equal to the mentality of your most attacking midfielder. However, if you are using a DMC then it should drop by at least 2 notches from that setting or the DMC will get dragged too close to the d-line and fail to perform adequate covering duties.

A low defensive line is important when you are playing ultra-defensive systems such as the dreaded 3-3-2-1-1. In such systems the opposition FC plays very deep and a deep defensive line will ensure that the FC is covered by the DMC/MCd. The DCs will stop him if he gets past the DMC, but in general the DMC will win the ball or force a hurried clearance which is mopped up by the DCs. They are in a lot of space so have plenty of passing options available to recycle the ball back into the attacking third of the pitch. If the d-line is too high they won’t have easy options as they are covering the FC and too much time will be wasted in trying to win the ball back for them to be able to play easy passes into space (see Breaking Down the 3-3-2-1-1).

Farrows/Sarrows/Barrows

My preferred system is a 4-4-2 Diamond so I’ll use that as a guide. These rules should be pretty much transferable to any formation with a little thought.

Ultra-Attack: Long farrowed ML/R, Short farrowed FBs. This farrowing combination allows the wide players to double up on the defending side. If it is working you will see a lot of crosses nodded in at the far post by the corresponding winger.

Attack: Long farrowed ML/R. This allows for constant pressure on the opposition whilst maintaining a tighter defensive base.

Possession: Short farrowed ML/R, short barrowed AMC. This ensures a box-like structure around the opposition penalty area but remains more focussed on possession than on creating chances.

Defend Lead: Sarrowed FCs: Combined with a tight defensive system sarrowed FCs offer plenty of opportunities to exploit the channels. If the AI is pushing its FBs forward expect a host of counter-attacking chances.

NB: I also play an alternate 4-2-3-1 system that has long farrowed ML/R. On paper it looks more defensive than the Defend Lead system, but it actually focuses on getting four players forward (FC, AMC, ML/R) whereas the Defend Lead only attacks with three (FCs, AMC). I regarded this as a counter-attacking system, with settings combining Attack and Defend Lead.

Forward Runs, Through-Balls, Run With Ball and Crosses

The following provides an indicator of how I set up Forward Runs, Through Balls, Crossing & Passing Focus.

Forward Runs

Attack: Often FCs, AMC, ML/R. Mixed FBs, DMC. Rarely DCs

Possession: Often FCs, AMC. Mixed ML/R, FBs. Rarely DMC, DCs

Defend Lead: Often FCs, AMC. Mixed ML/R. Rarely FBs, DMC, DCs.

Try Through Balls

Often: FCd, AMC, DMC. Mixed: FCa, ML/R, FBs, DCs, GK

Crossing

Often: ML/R, FBs. Mixed: FCs. Rarely: AMC (unless free role), DMC, DCs

Focus Passing

Home: Mixed. This provides greater scope and opportunity for attacking moves.

Away: Down Both Flanks: Exploits the channels and keeps the ball away from positions from which interceptions will be costly.

Hold Up Ball

At least two players should hold up the ball. I usually use my DMC and FCd in these roles, as the DMC holding the ball allows the defence to regroup and the FCd allows for the chance of wingers overlapping him which opens up more attacking angles.

Marking

In my opinion man-marking was horribly flawed in FM06. It worked perfectly until the AI switched tactics. Once that happened user defenders remained assigned to their original markee no matter where he was repositioned. Therefore, your DC may well end up man-marking the opposition’s ML. I believe this may have been fixed in ’07, although don’t quote me. Anyway, to combat this perceived problem I advise the following.

Tight-Zonal: DCs, FBs, DMC

Loose-Zonal: ML/R, AMC, FCs

This system fits nicely with the CD/CF set up in that it ensure space for front players whilst keeps the defenders tight on their men. For a more defensive system the ML/Rs could also be pushed into tight-zonal.

Goalkeeper

I have always employed Cleon's classic sweeper-keeper with a mentality of 14 with low CF/CD, although there is no reason you shouldn’t follow general RoT settings and have the keeper’s mentality set to 4.

Level Assumptions

Having looked at frameworks and theories, let us turn towards the type of tactics required for different divisional levels.

The previous section of this post provides a set of simple rules for player positioning and instructions. However, in order to continue it is important to work from a set of pre-defined assumptions before designing and testing tactics at all levels. Although some may disagree with my assumptions as to what should work at certain levels, I believe them to be logical and concurrent with the generalities of how real life football works.

LLM Assumptions

This definition is for poorer quality teams in L2, plus all the Conference National and the Regional Conferences. For this level I believe tactics should be long/very direct in terms of passing style. Such a style will minimise the chance of losing the ball in build up play and will allow the team to constantly pepper the opposition area, hopefully forcing the defence into making mistakes. A quick/tall striker partnership would be ideal, as one player will win balls in the air while the other runs onto missed interceptions/headers from the defenders.

In terms of defence, keeping the defenders between the ball and the goal is more important than committing them to tackles. Thus, closing down is generally low (with the possible exception of the MCd/DMC, as detailed above) as it forces the attacking team to try and either score from distance or get past the last line of defence via quality through balls or breaking tackles. The emphasis is on the skill of the attackers to create chances rather than the ability of the defenders to efficiently read the game.

Mid-Quality Team Assumptions

This definition is for higher quality teams in L2 through to the poorer Premiership teams. At this level passing should be direct. In recommending this I am assuming the long ball game to be easily dealt with by higher quality defenders as their better positioning attributes will allow them to comfortably mop up aimless punts into the box. The direct balls will ensure the team will not over complicate passing moves and lose possession before the killer ball is played. Direct passing gets the ball quickly forward to the strikers who can then use the midfield for support. Strength and speed up front will be important to get the best from this tactic type as the forwards will be able to hold up the ball and let the team catch up with play or run at a retreating defence.

Defence is more down to the individual user at this level. Both closing down and sitting back defence options could work. My ideal would be to close down to mixed at home, which forces the attacking team to make quick passing decisions when trying to break down the defence as they are soon put under pressure if they hold on to the ball. The higher positioning and decision making stats at this level (speed, acceleration and bravery also being important) make this possible and it allows for your team to regain possession quickly and higher up the pitch than the LLM system. This works in conjunction with passing type, with the long ball being less useful in a tactic that is trying to win the ball high up the pitch. When playing away it would be better to close down slightly less as you will force the attack to break you down to make chances. Keeping men behind the ball will be useful as the home team is likely to have a fair amount of possession so massing the defence is a better option than trying to win the ball early.

High-Quality Team Assumptions

The definition for high quality teams is those that should be challenging for the European qualification slots in the Premiership. My own preference for passing is to use the Mirroring system, but short passing is a viable option. This type of system is possession-centric (can be close to 70% against poor teams) but still offers players opportunities to pick longer balls when they are on. Obviously, passing, creativity and decision making are the most important attributes here as they will enable the player to hit the right ball at the right time more often then not. If a through ball is not on, the player will lay off an easy pass to keep possession and allow others to look for the killer ball. My preference for success with this tactic is having attacking players with pace, acceleration and good off the ball skills. One tall centre forward is also preferable, but not a must.

At home the defence should close down heavily. The most frustrating issue for FM addicts seems to be the second season slump. This happens when a team has enjoyed considerable success in its first season, often overachieving, and as a result gains a higher reputation. The easiest way to gauge your reputation level is the pre-match odds screen. If you are nearly always the bookies’ favourite, and have ridiculously short odds against poorer sides, then you have a good reputation. The direct result of this is you will begin coming up against the dreaded 3-3-2-1-1 defensive system that nearly all high-level managers seem to employ against better sides. Note, teams may not start with that formation but will often switch when a goal is scored or due to other in-game factors. This system has been the bane of many a tactician’s life and is the key reason for the second season slump. So, how does high closing down counter it?

The key element in the thinking behind a high closing down defensive system countering the 3-3-2-1-1 was making a logical assumption about how often the system allowed for forward runs. I assumed that such a defensive system would tune forward runs down to a minimum and thus the single forward would have to hold up the ball for a considerable length of time before support arrived. My original thinking of low closing down for defenders fell down against this because the defenders would back off as soon as I lost possession which would allow the forward to easily hold on to the ball before laying it off to the midfield. As the 3-3-2-1-1 system has so many deep lying players, once I had lost the ball I struggled to win it back because the opposition played possession football between its two defensive lines of three without ever trying to get the ball forward. By upping the closing down for my defenders I began to pressurise the single forward as soon a she got the ball which invariably won me possession back immediately, either high up the pitch due to winning the tackle or via a throw in as the forward booted the ball out of play to relieve the pressure. As a rule of thumb I mirror the closing down with creative freedom, so the total of the two equals 20. Thus, if a player has creative freedom of 3 (standard for my DCs) then his closing down should be 17 (see Mirroring).

Although I believe away tactics, even at this level, should follow the basic premise of keeping men between the ball and goal, as your team’s reputation grows you should find yourself employing a high closing down system away against more and more sides, as they will invariably start with conservative formations. It must also be remembered that high closing down is likely to come unstuck against quality sides playing attacking football. This is because they will quickly get men forward to support the forwards which will allow them to exploit the gap behind the defensive line as it closes down space. Good sides will also have forwards of sufficient quality and technique to hold on to the ball, spin and lay off dangerous through balls.

N.B. Having said all this, I have played a test game at LLM with Closing Down set to the heavy High Quality settings for home games and it was very effective.

FM Bogeymen

Now let us look at the bogeymen of FM, the Second Season Slump and Breaking Down the 3-3-2-1-1.

The Second Season Slump

This is why it happens.

Season One

You are Aston Villa with a post-O’Leary game rating. Thus, if 100 is Chelsea and 0 is Watford, your team has an in-game rating of circa 25. Any team with a higher rating will play attacking football against you (75% of the division). You buy a few bargains, construct a quality counter-attacking tactic and over perform a la O’Neill. You finish 4th. All well and good.

Season Two

Your in-game team rating is now up to 60 (Premiership only, your European rating is still low as you have no pedigree in the competition). Therefore, most Premiership teams, expecting to lose, play a solid defensive tactic against you. Your tactic falls down as it is solid and defensive itself and offers too few attacking options. You get frustrated; give a bad team talk or two, morale drops and results go bad. You may do well against teams that expect to beat you (as your tactic is designed to deal with that) but results against poor teams are consistently bad. Europe-wise everything is rosy as the foreign sides think they have a chance against you due to your lack of European pedigree and your tactic is therefore still suitable. At some point you a) get sacked due to poor performance b) throw the PC out the window c) start a new game or d) enter the tactical forum to find an answer.

The slump will be exacerbated if you have made a lot of new signings as they will take time to gel and spend a few months performing below expectations.

Breaking Down the 3-3-2-1-1

My usual approach is to deepen the defensive line and widen the formation. I also advocate heavy closing down for the back 5 and low closing down/high creative freedom from the front five. I'll explain why.

The super-goalie effect is related to the AI playing ultra-conservative formations. Standards to watch out for are the dreaded 3-3-2-1-1, the 4-1-4-1, the 4-4-2 no farrows and, occasionally, the 4-4-1-1. These formations usually play tight (i.e. narrow and mentality matched defensive line) and flood the middle of the park with players. It makes it very difficult to pass the ball successfully and gain any space. The super-goalie happens because such ultra defensive set-ups force your players into a lot of rushed chances which also leads to players snatching at the occasional easier chance when it occurs (human vulnerabilities as coded into the AI such as frustration and panic). The goalie gets high ratings because the match ratings don't account for the easy save/hard save scenario and just award points for a save. Thus, the keeper may have been given a 10, but 95% of his saves been easy to deal with. So, how to beat it.......

A wide formation obviously gets your players space on the outside and stretches the opposition. This means you can play around them and look for a multitude of crosses into the area. Ideally, the wingers and full-backs should be pushing forward as much as possible. I long-farrow my wingers and short-farrow my full-backs to get them both in attacking positions as soon as I get the ball. This also means that for every cross into the box you will have four players (2 FCs, AMC/MCa and a winger) attacking the ball with the full-backs and MCd/DMC picking up any half-clearance to the edge of the area. Because you know you will get a lot of balls out wide you need to ensure your front players (FCs, AMC/MCa and wingers) are constantly looking for space so CF is very important. I use CF of 10 for the wide players so they are less likely to stray inside, but 15+ for the front three so they break with instructions and look for space/the unexpected. I also close down to <5 for the front three as closing down limits space.

I advocate the deep defensive line because the AI FC plays very deep. A deep d-line places the DMC/MCd into the first line of defence in that he is nearly always closest to the FC when the opposition clears the ball. His challenge invariably wins the ball and either propels it directly back into the area or recycles it to the deep lying DCs who, under no pressure, can initiate a new attack. If the DMC/MCd is bypassed and the FC gets a little space it is vital that the DCs are closing down quickly. This will instantly reduce the FCs time and space on the ball and, because support arrives slowly in ultra-defensive formations, enable the user team to regain quick possession as the FC has no one to lay the ball off to. The DC who wins the ball usually has three or four easy passing options and possession is easily retained.

I also advocate mixed focus passing and no target men because other settings reduce attacking options and allow the defence to close off chances. Likewise a playmaker can be a risk as he can be marked out of the game.

Team Talks

Finally, here is a short guide to team talks (half-time and full-time only)

Home Team Talks

I would suggest pleased when winning by 2-3 clear goals at home and encourage at 1-0 or 0-0 but in control. Disappointing for a 0-0 when you are performing below expectations and angry when losing unless commentary says 'Your team is unlucky to be behind' when you should employ the 'we can win this option'. Thrilled when 4-0 up.

At full-time 'good result' for any home win of less than 4 clear goals. 4-0 or above 'fantastic'. 0-0 disappointed and for a loss 'angry' or 'disappointed' depending on performance. Sympathise if you were outclassed.

N.B. Occasionally, your team will not play to expectations at home and your attacking tactic will get picked apart. You should be able to see this happening very early on in the game via the match stats screen or highlights. Revert to your most defensive system to minimise first half damage. B*ll*ck the team at half-time! Start the second half with your attacking formation and you should see a massively improved level of performance.

Away Team Talks

Pleased when winning 1 or 2-0. Delighted at 3-0. Encourage/we can win this at 0-0 or 0-1 if you are playing well. Disappointing for the same score lines if playing badly. Angry at 2-0 down.

At full-time pleased for a 1-0, 2-0 win or a draw against a quality side. Disappointed for a loss and average performance. Angry for a loss and dreadful performance. Fantastic for a 3-0 win and above.

NB: These options should be reassessed when used against high-performing and low-performing opposition. Obviously a 0-0 draw away to a top 3 team is a good result, whereas away to a bottom three team should be regarded as a disappointment. Tweak the options slightly depending on opposition and quality of your team.

Future Testing

Man-Marking: I would love to know if man-marking works properly now. I really want to employ it and think that it could seriously add to tactical quality, but in 06 I didn’t trust it. Any posts on the viability of man-marking would be vastly appreciated.

Tackling: I leave everybody on normal. I am sure a specialised tackling system would make a more complete defensive system. Any ideas on tackling would be very well received.

Closing Down: I am aware of different closing down systems to my own, especially systems in which the defence stands off whilst the midfield presses and reduces space. If anyone has a system like that working with any of my frameworks I would be interested in hearing about it. Likewise, if anyone is using a system in which the FCs press opposing DCs into making mistakes.

Mirroring/Slider Pairings: If anyone has any further ideas about how to mirror or combine sliders please post them.

Team Talks: Any analysis on Pre-Game Team Talks appreciated.

Opposition Instructions: Any information on the effectiveness of utilising this option also appreciated.

Five-Ten-Fifteen: I design tactics (mainly) based on a 5-10-15 slider relationship. As early reports suggest slider effects are more obvious in 07, this ratio may need adjusting. Any comments welcome.

AI Mentality: Sir Bobby did a huge amount of testing on the AI mentality in ‘06 and concluded that it was Pure Global. This may have changed in ’07. Any ideas on this more than welcome.

A Big Shout to the Following

Sir Bobby Moore: King of the Tactic Pimps and a high class theoretical contributor.

Asmo: Tactical genius and caustic wit!

ntfc & CB&C: Constant support and kind words. Truly appreciated.

RedefiningForm & Tays: For the Rule of Two and Radius Theory.

Neonlights: For his alternative approach that keeps FM06 fresh for many

Bflaff, smacksim, sjm, Elrawkum: Intelligent comments and quality posts.

The Old Skool: kennedy, Justified, Buxton, rashidi, Noel: Without you these forums would have died long ago.

The Translators: Those that have translated my words into Danish, Polish, Spanish, Dutch & Turkish. For the time, effort and dedication I salute you.

Cleon: The Legend returns

FrazT: For the dubious pleasure of trying to direct GQ users to my theories

Crazy gra, Saarbrücken, Ikthop: For testing TT&F theories in the ’07 Demo

Synax2: For keeping up the good work

Alternate Guides

The following guides are well worth reading and provide further documentation of how FM works. As with my guide, they were written for FM06 and should be used to inform ’07 rather than taken as gospel.

Alternate Guide One

Alternate Guide Two

Holy Raptorjesus.

Brilliant guide, cheers

Thats the best read since The DaVinci Code

Absolutely priceless,a must for all fm fans.

Can I translate your work in Thai? wwfan

Originally posted by kittipol:

Can I translate your work in Thai? wwfan

Absolutely. I lived in Bangkok for two years and have a lasting affection for Thailand. I would be honoured.

*Note to SI, let wwfan write the instruction manual for FM2008*

What a fantastic read!

I have to say wwfan, although you dont know me, you saved my sanity and relationship,that with FM, with your TT&F II for 06. I was literally losing patience with the game until I read your post. And although I use different formations to yours, and slightly different instructions it certainly put me in the right direction, so many thanks

I printed off a copy of this one, to take to work and read, and read through it 3 times to take it all in, man its long!

Couple of points to ask you/ponder on.

It seems to me that barrows work better in this version than farrows, not sure if you have experienced that. But it just appears to me that, for instance take a M L/R in a diamond formation, if you move him to a AM L/R with a barrow, he is in a better position when I have the ball, and helps out more defensivley when I dont have it.

And in your post you say about the Slider Pairings/Mirroring, and talk about mentality versus passing, and while I understand the concept of them totaling 20, ie DC's Mentality/Passing = 6/14, you go on later in your post to say about Level assumptions and that High quality teams should use short or mixed. So with a high quality team would you give even your DC's a shorter passing, so the sliders would read say 8/12 for Mentality/Passing, or am I misunderstanding you?

I have tried the 0 closing down for defenders and high closing down for midfielders for one season on 07, and it did ok, won the league with Chelsea so its a little hard to say just how good it is. But i did seem to conceede quite a few goals through my own midfielder being out of postition (running round like a headless chicken!) and an oposition midfielder strolling into the box unmarked.

Havent tried the Man marking yet as, like you, didnt find that it worked in 06, but am gonna give it a go later this week and find out if things have improved.

Well kutgw, and hope that other people find this as useful as I did.

Cheers

Originally posted by davehanson:

*Note to SI, let wwfan write the instruction manual for FM2008*

What a fantastic read!

I have to say wwfan, although you dont know me, you saved my sanity and relationship,that with FM, with your TT&F II for 06. I was literally losing patience with the game until I read your post. And although I use different formations to yours, and slightly different instructions it certainly put me in the right direction, so many thanks

I printed off a copy of this one, to take to work and read, and read through it 3 times to take it all in, man its long!

Couple of points to ask you/ponder on.

It seems to me that barrows work better in this version than farrows, not sure if you have experienced that. But it just appears to me that, for instance take a M L/R in a diamond formation, if you move him to a AM L/R with a barrow, he is in a better position when I have the ball, and helps out more defensivley when I dont have it.

And in your post you say about the Slider Pairings/Mirroring, and talk about mentality versus passing, and while I understand the concept of them totaling 20, ie DC's Mentality/Passing = 6/14, you go on later in your post to say about Level assumptions and that High quality teams should use short or mixed. So with a high quality team would you give even your DC's a shorter passing, so the sliders would read say 8/12 for Mentality/Passing, or am I misunderstanding you?

I have tried the 0 closing down for defenders and high closing down for midfielders for one season on 07, and it did ok, won the league with Chelsea so its a little hard to say just how good it is. But i did seem to conceede quite a few goals through my own midfielder being out of postition (running round like a headless chicken!) and an oposition midfielder strolling into the box unmarked.

Havent tried the Man marking yet as, like you, didnt find that it worked in 06, but am gonna give it a go later this week and find out if things have improved.

Well kutgw, and hope that other people find this as useful as I did.

Cheers

I'll do my best to answer.

First, I can't play '07 right now as my PC has been busted in transit for the UK and FM07 hasn't been released in Australia yet, so, as of now it's all theory. Therefore, I can't comment on barrows. It may well be the case that some of my theories have to be rewritten for 07 and the advantages of barrows vs farrows are well worth testing.

As for Slider Pairings/Mirroring, I edited the section on mentality and passing as I realised I hadn't corrected it from an earlier 06 post. It now is less contradictory. I guess you printed it before I completed the edit. I would advise reading that particular section again.

As for 0 closing down, I wouldn't ever advise that. Rashidi1 has a useful variant on defensive/attacking closing down in the 07 T&T discussion (p8+9) which seems to be bearing dividends. I would be interested if anyone can replicate such a system with my frameworks.

Hope that clears things up.

Thanks for the positive replies.

Lovely post WWFAN... looking forward to

get home in front of the computer and try

this out.

wwfan- another fabulous offering- our thanks as always

I am no tactical genius but an avid reader of the tactics forum and as you kindly acknowledged above will continue to point all tactics virgins to your brilliant contributions as they are accepted as the FM bible.

I did suggest in another thread that we all club together and but you a new computer but got no response

Could someone translate this exelent post in poland languae? Please!!! Regards

wwfan

sorry for double post. I have one question, what is your closing down for players in away matches? cd and fb 5? dmc 15? mr/l 10? amc and fc 15? And becouse my english is poor, i don`t understand teory about d-line? If i have dmc with mentality 8, my d-line should be 2 notces higher that his mentality? (10?) Tahnx for answer

That's a great read!!

I don't like nit-picking, but can I just say, there's no such thing as closing down of 0. The scale is between 1 & 20.

Anyway, back to the main thing. I agree about the global mentality part about the advantages and disadvantages. The trouble with it is, if you have a team mentality of say, 10, The players will defend and attack depending on the situation, but because they're not set to an extreme value for defending or attacking, then they don't perform these roles as well as someone with 4 for mentality, or 16 for mentality. So having a mentality of 10 is a kind of half-hearted effort at trying to perform both.

I'm more of a fan of the each block of players having their own mentality so that they each act as a unit. Ie, defenders having a joint mentality, midfielders having a joint mentality, and any attackers having a joint mentality. Obviously, It all depends on how you want your team to play at the end of the day.

The rule of two seems to be the more logical way to have your mentalities I must admit.

Great post

I think rule of two could really excel in this version. Hell, I might even get round to setting it up myself.

Great post as always.

Just printed it to peruse at leisure and my printer ran out of ink so be warned.

Brilliant... I've done no work this morning thanks to your fantastic post. It's good to see confirmation that I'm doing some things right, and even better to have so many fresh ideas to try when I get home this evening.

I have never advocated closing down with the defence, as it always seemed the equivalent of having them lunge into tackles, but given my appaling start to fm07 (with Stockport County) I may start to tinker. I love your ideas on mirroring as well. I had a thoroughly successful 442diamond and 4132 in fm06 that worked well in the lower leagues, but I've tried bringing it over to 07 and I've been mauled by the might of Lincoln and Wrexham, among others. Only won 2 in 13 so far. Hopefully your tactical nous can point me back on track!

Fantastic stuff. We would have heard the groan thousands of miles away if the forum had eaten that post...

Really great post, thanks.

Was wondering though about the RoT and the use of forwards. I like to use one good header as a target man and set everyone to cross ball to his head. In this guide FC has a mentality of 14 and ST 18 so the difference is quite large. Which one of these should be my target man if I want the player to drop balls to a faster forward? I presume ST with a mentality of 18 is the better choice? If I set FC as my target man, I don't think I should put him to hold up the ball, like suggested later in the guide.

good stuff.

I think that testings made at 3-10-17 will show effects better than 5-10-15. 5-10-15 would be good in a 0-5-10-15-20 scale but this would generate far more tests.

I don't like direct passing, not even for defenders. I concluded that direct passing leads to quick loose of possesion; You cannot controle the game so well. But I am aware that a lot of other people use them currently (at least for the defenders).

My logic says that for players with low decision not only fix a low CF but also try to avoid "mixed" instructions. For low decision players, instructions should be clear and try to minimize the number of situation where he must decide. On opposition, players with high decision must have a lot of "mixed" instructions because they will decide well in most ocasions.

Fantastic stuff, wwfan. Really well researched and brilliantly written!

With regards the slider pairings, I've had a bit of success on the demo version of 07 by pairing tempo/passing style. It seems fairly intuitive: if you want to keep posession and take a patient approach, then short passing is the way to go; whereas if you want to keep the ball moving quickly, direct passing is much more suitable.

Sorry to put a downer on everything, but this is a new game. Isn't it all a bit naive to claim that the FM06 frameworks are going to succeed here? My suggestion is that you have to start afresh. Since wwfan, you have not even played the game, I am not sure you can judge as yet. For example, you claim time wasting should be on 15 for a defensive away formation, but one of the in-game hints of 07 claims that high time wasting is extremely dangerous until the end of the match.

Please do NOT see this as me putting you down in the slightest. Your previous theories are magnificent for the lesser tacticians out there, and a lot of it makes sense. I am a skeptic though and I don't want the 06 engine to be the same as 07 since it did have its flaws. I really look forward to your new input into 07 but I really hope you observe this as a new game and your observations are not clouded by by 06.

These are all based on assumptions from the last game remember.

However, I think you're right. My early impressions of the game are that the sliders effects are more obvious in the match engine than before. Time wasting, as you've pointed out, is the classic example. Whereas in '06 it could be used in such a way from the start, the opposite appears true in FM2007 (although there has been no testing as yet...).

I think that the somewhat ambiguous areas of '06 such as creative freedom and time wasting will be clarified a lot more in this version, because it seems the sliders' effects are visually implemented more effectively. This could lead to a rethink of several areas of theory from the game's predecessor, which is I'm sure what wwfan wanted to discuss within this thread:

It needs to be taken into consideration that this opening post is based on the assumption that ’07 is an evolution of the ’06 game engine. I have had no prior access to the ’07 engine, but have had support from some that have suggesting that my theories still hold water. One obvious difference in the engine is that slider differences are more acute and thus some of these theories may need no little adaptation. Therefore, please don’t take these theories and assumptions as gospel and feel free to rewrite them if you find better alternatives.

And I would love to be involved with the new theories and assumptions that you and many others have contributed to SO immensely. I just feel we would be doing ourselves and the game a disservice if we assume all theories remain constant from 06. Obviously, some things will remain the same since football is football and tactics are tactics. I truly hope that the more ambiguous elements are cleared up somewhat and that this is clearly observable in the new match engine. Can't wait to see what it's all about. One small thing I noticed from the demo already is that you can play a flat midfield 4 and still have a CM sit and anchor. Believe it or not, this is a huge thing for me. Anyway, ciao for now.

This is such a cracking read that I believe that it should be required reading before newbies enter the forum to ask the enevitable (why can't I win?) questions.

It has been such a joy reading your posts. You have contributed so much that you deserve a life-time holiday!

Seriously, the forums would be very dull without your posts, and I believe that I have learned so much about the game through your hard work.

I've never really used your theories before though. There always seemed to be certain contradictions in it to me. It seemed to relay on lots of changing tactics, whereas I generally tend to follow the 'slider apathy' template, where you can make quick and easy changes to your team.

Now though, I might just try the ROT and see how it goes.

Thanks alot wwfan

Interesting article wwfam. just wondered how do you mkae so that u can use figures 1-20 instead of a slider when using player instructions.

Just count- left-most notch on the slider being 1, the right-most being 20.

Very useful reading. Thanks very much!

Right, I'm going to buy FM07 tomorrow, and I almost always play with Manchester United and England. I just need a few pointers as a start to implement my first TT&F tactic.

First, I take it you play with two tactics, a home and an away version?

First, I'll go through what I have picked up should be the settings for the home tactic.

Tempo: 15 (fast)

TimeWasting: 5 (rarely)

Width: 15 (Wide)

Defensive Line: 5 (deep)?

GK: Mentality 14

CF/CD: 5

CDs: Mentality 6

Closing Down 17

Creative Freedom 3

Passing 14

Everything set to rarely, except through balls which is mixed

DMC: Menality 8

Closing Down 15

Creative Freedom 5

Passing 12

Forward Runs Mixed

Through Balls Often

Long Shots Often

Both Cross + Run with ball rarely

Hold up ball

DL/DR: Mentality 10

Passing 10

Creative Freedom 5

Closing Down 15

Everything mixed, except cross ball which is often

ML/MR

Mentality 12

Passing 8

Closing Down 10

Creative Freedom 10

Forward Runs, Cross Ball and Run with ball often, everything else mixed

FC1 : Mentality 14

Passing 6

Creative Freedom 15

Closing Down 5

Forward Runs, Through Balls often, everything else mixed (I plan to make this player Wayne Rooney, and give him a Free Role). Hold up ball as well

AMC: Mentality 16

Passing 4

Creative Freedom 15

Closing Down 5

Forwards Runs, Through balls, long shots often cross ball rarely, run with ball mixed

FC2: Mentality 18

Passing 2

Closing Down 5

Creative Freedom 15

Forward Runs often, everything else mixed

Please tell me if T've got anything wrong for the home tactics.

I've read how to counter the 3-3-2-1-1, so I should be okay when I encounter that.

Also, what changes do I need to make throughout the season? What should the away tactics be?

Sorry if the answers to these questions are further up in the thread wwfan. If I can understand everything about the TT&F tactics, I may have the most fun I've had in a long time with FM. I barely complete more than a couple of season's these days because I struggle so much with tacics.

So please help me to fully understand the TT&F tactics. I'm enthusiastic about the TT&F all of a sudden, and I'm very willing to put the time in to get my tactics working like they should.

Thanks in advance for the help wwfan, and I hope you enjoy 07 as much as you enjoyed 06.

great to see you've started a new thread for FM07 wwfan. thanks for mentioning me and i was glad to help out in doing some of the testing. please let me know if you want any other testing done as i'll be glad to help out.

most importantly of all, keep an eye on wycombe! (try developing the paul lambert 3-5-2 when you get FM07 )

wow nice thread good job so far guys

Originally posted by Noel Gallagher:

That's a great read!!

I don't like nit-picking, but can I just say, there's no such thing as closing down of 0. The scale is between 1 & 20.

Sorry, I was tired. It was late when I wrote that and I hadn’t had enough caffeine during the day to support me. Glad you enjoyed the post.

Originally posted by Asmodeus:

I think rule of two could really excel in this version. Hell, I might even get round to setting it up myself.

Great post as always.

From the response of two FMers who hadn’t used it in ‘06 and then turned to it in the ‘07 Demo, you could well be right.

Originally posted by Miksu:

Really great post, thanks.

Was wondering though about the RoT and the use of forwards. I like to use one good header as a target man and set everyone to cross ball to his head. In this guide FC has a mentality of 14 and ST 18 so the difference is quite large. Which one of these should be my target man if I want the player to drop balls to a faster forward? I presume ST with a mentality of 18 is the better choice? If I set FC as my target man, I don't think I should put him to hold up the ball, like suggested later in the guide.

I don’t use a target man as I feel it limits attacking options. However, I think you could choose either alternative. The deeper FC may be able to flick on headers or hold up the ball if played to feet. Neil Purvis used to get really frustrated that this wouldn’t work in ’06, so it would be interesting to see if it does in ’07.

A quick ST could also reap dividends with balls played for him to run on to. It’s a matter of trial and error. It would be great if you could post any findings on target man.

Originally posted by Tottenham Ecomax:

I think that testings made at 3-10-17 will show effects better than 5-10-15. 5-10-15 would be good in a 0-5-10-15-20 scale but this would generate far more tests.

I don't like direct passing, not even for defenders. I concluded that direct passing leads to quick loose of possession; You cannot control the game so well. But I am aware that a lot of other people use them currently (at least for the defenders).

My logic says that for players with low decision not only fix a low CF but also try to avoid "mixed" instructions. For low decision players, instructions should be clear and try to minimize the number of situation where he must decide. On opposition, players with high decision must have a lot of "mixed" instructions because they will decide well in most occasions.

I don’t like extreme slider settings, but feel free to test and post findings on the increased scale. They would be very interesting.

Direct passing is very possession friendly in a RoT system. The defenders and the MCd/DMC play a lot of keep ball between them while the attack looks for space.

I agree with this, and decision making must be taken into consideration when tweaking tactics for specific sets of players.

Originally posted by bean feast:

Sorry to put a downer on everything, but this is a new game. Isn't it all a bit naive to claim that the FM06 frameworks are going to succeed here? My suggestion is that you have to start afresh. Since wwfan, you have not even played the game, I am not sure you can judge as yet. For example, you claim time wasting should be on 15 for a defensive away formation, but one of the in-game hints of 07 claims that high time wasting is extremely dangerous until the end of the match.

Please do NOT see this as me putting you down in the slightest. Your previous theories are magnificent for the lesser tacticians out there, and a lot of it makes sense. I am a skeptic though and I don't want the 06 engine to be the same as 07 since it did have its flaws. I really look forward to your new input into 07 but I really hope you observe this as a new game and your observations are not clouded by 06.

You are right. I envisioned this thread as a start-up for ’07 that would minimise the frustrations that many had when they began playing ’06. I don’t regard it as ’07 gospel and tried to make that point clear in the disclaimer. Like Asmo said, ‘this could lead to a rethink of several areas of theory from the game's predecessor, which is, I'm sure, what wwfan wanted to discuss within this thread.’

It’s interesting you mention time wasting as I remember having a discussion with PaulC about its over-effectiveness in ’06 while I was beta testing the 6.0.2 patch. He said there was nothing they could do about it in ’06 but he would look at it for ’07. I guess they have and my advice on time wasting needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt in case I’m VERY wrong.

Originally posted by mr.rooney:

This is such a cracking read that I believe that it should be required reading before newbies enter the forum to ask the inevitable (why can't I win?) questions.

It has been such a joy reading your posts. You have contributed so much that you deserve a life-time holiday!

Seriously, the forums would be very dull without your posts, and I believe that I have learned so much about the game through your hard work.

I've never really used your theories before though. There always seemed to be certain contradictions in it to me. It seemed to relay on lots of changing tactics, whereas I generally tend to follow the 'slider apathy' template, where you can make quick and easy changes to your team.

Now though, I might just try the ROT and see how it goes.

Thanks a lot wwfan

This is really answering your next post, but it was too long to quote. I think you have the basics pretty much sorted. There are elements you may wish to tweak for certain players. For example, if you have an FB with great passing but low crossing it would probably be best to give him higher Through Balls and lower Crossing. I’m sure you can make the right tweaks to the right players.

For away tactics I tend to employ a low CD (5) system to hold shape, with counter attack ticked. The mentality system is the same as previously. The idea is to soak up pressure and launch lightning raids. I used two systems, a 4-2-3-1 a la Benitez (long farrowed wingers) and a 4-4-2 Diamond with sarrowed FCs and no farrows at all. You will need to read over FRs too, as limiting them for defensive players is very important. Try playing about with those and see what happens. I’d be interested in hearing about any success/failure you have.

I hope you have as much fun as you are anticipating.

For everyone else that posted, thanks for the kind words.

Originally posted by wwfan:

This is really answering your next post, but it was too long to quote. I think you have the basics pretty much sorted. There are elements you may wish to tweak for certain players. For example, if you have an FB with great passing but low crossing it would probably be best to give him higher Through Balls and lower Crossing. I’m sure you can make the right tweaks to the right players.

For away tactics I tend to employ a low CD (5) system to hold shape, with counter attack ticked. The mentality system is the same as previously. The idea is to soak up pressure and launch lightning raids. I used two systems, a 4-2-3-1 a la Benitez (long farrowed wingers) and a 4-4-2 Diamond with sarrowed FCs and no farrows at all. You will need to read over FRs too, as limiting them for defensive players is very important. Try playing about with those and see what happens. I’d be interested in hearing about any success/failure you have.

I hope you have as much fun as you are anticipating.

For everyone else that posted, thanks for the kind words.

So that's closing down at 5 for everyone, including the defensive players? I'm assuming that even when you're away, you would switch to heavy closing down if you came across the 3-3-2-1-1? Also, didn't you mention earlier that for away you focus the passing down both flanks?

The only other thing I need to look out for is limiting the forwards runs for defensive players, right? I also keep the mirroring the same, and the deep defensive line for the away tactics aswell. Is that right?

Thanks for the help.

PS. You say you don't have your PC at the moment. How do you manage to log onto the forums and answer if you don't have your PC, out of interest?

Originally posted by mr.rooney:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

This is really answering your next post, but it was too long to quote. I think you have the basics pretty much sorted. There are elements you may wish to tweak for certain players. For example, if you have an FB with great passing but low crossing it would probably be best to give him higher Through Balls and lower Crossing. I’m sure you can make the right tweaks to the right players.

For away tactics I tend to employ a low CD (5) system to hold shape, with counter attack ticked. The mentality system is the same as previously. The idea is to soak up pressure and launch lightning raids. I used two systems, a 4-2-3-1 a la Benitez (long farrowed wingers) and a 4-4-2 Diamond with sarrowed FCs and no farrows at all. You will need to read over FRs too, as limiting them for defensive players is very important. Try playing about with those and see what happens. I’d be interested in hearing about any success/failure you have.

I hope you have as much fun as you are anticipating.

For everyone else that posted, thanks for the kind words.

So that's closing down at 5 for everyone, including the defensive players? I'm assuming that even when you're away, you would switch to heavy closing down if you came across the 3-3-2-1-1? Also, didn't you mention earlier that for away you focus the passing down both flanks?

The only other thing I need to look out for is limiting the forwards runs for defensive players, right?

Thanks for the help.

PS. You say you don't have your PC at the moment. How do you manage to log onto the forums and answer if you don't have your PC, out of interest? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Closing down to 5 for all. I usually keep the DMC on 15, but he may be more useful on 5 as well as he is likely to hold position in front of the back line then. Experiment with both and see what suits. I do pass down the flanks to a) exploit the channels as the AI FBs push forward, and b) keep the ball away from danger areas when I'm in possession near my own box. And yes, limiting forward runs for defensive players is KEY! Play a higher defensive line as it limits space and keeps your team in a compact formation. The d-line of 5 that you suggested using is lower than I use at home (I tend to employ 10) but it would be interesting to know how successful it is. In theory, it shopuld work very well.

If you come across any defensive system (3-3-2-1-1, 4-1-4-1, 4-4-2 no farrows) then employ the home system. The likelihood is that you will face it more and more as your reputation gets better and better. Look for the AI reverting to 4-4-2 long farrows or the 4-2-4 as indicators to employing a more defenisive system.

I have a work PC which I can't install FM on but I can still use it to access the forums.

Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.rooney:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

This is really answering your next post, but it was too long to quote. I think you have the basics pretty much sorted. There are elements you may wish to tweak for certain players. For example, if you have an FB with great passing but low crossing it would probably be best to give him higher Through Balls and lower Crossing. I’m sure you can make the right tweaks to the right players.

For away tactics I tend to employ a low CD (5) system to hold shape, with counter attack ticked. The mentality system is the same as previously. The idea is to soak up pressure and launch lightning raids. I used two systems, a 4-2-3-1 a la Benitez (long farrowed wingers) and a 4-4-2 Diamond with sarrowed FCs and no farrows at all. You will need to read over FRs too, as limiting them for defensive players is very important. Try playing about with those and see what happens. I’d be interested in hearing about any success/failure you have.

I hope you have as much fun as you are anticipating.

For everyone else that posted, thanks for the kind words.

So that's closing down at 5 for everyone, including the defensive players? I'm assuming that even when you're away, you would switch to heavy closing down if you came across the 3-3-2-1-1? Also, didn't you mention earlier that for away you focus the passing down both flanks?

The only other thing I need to look out for is limiting the forwards runs for defensive players, right?

Thanks for the help.

PS. You say you don't have your PC at the moment. How do you manage to log onto the forums and answer if you don't have your PC, out of interest? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Closing down to 5 for all. I usually keep the DMC on 15, but he may be more useful on 5 as well as he is likely to hold position in front of the back line then. Experiment with both and see what suits. I do pass down the flanks to a) exploit the channels as the AI FBs push forward, and b) keep the ball away from danger areas when I'm in possession near my own box. And yes, limiting forward runs for defensive players is KEY! Play a higher defensive line as it limits space and keeps your team in a compact formation. The d-line of 5 that you suggested using is lower than I use at home (I tend to employ 10) but it would be interesting to know how successful it is. In theory, it shopuld work very well.

If you come across any defensive system (3-3-2-1-1, 4-1-4-1, 4-4-2 no farrows) then employ the home system. The likelihood is that you will face it more and more as your reputation gets better and better. Look for the AI reverting to 4-4-2 long farrows or the 4-2-4 as indicators to employing a more defenisive system.

I have a work PC which I can't install FM on but I can still use it to access the forums. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mentioned a d-line of 5 because that's what you mentioned to use if you came across a 3-3-2-1-1. I'll use a d-line of 10 for home and away and see how that goes.

Finally (It must so annoying having me question everything), you keep the same mentality/passing style/creative freedom for both home and away, correct?

And now, I'd better go to bed. I'm going into town to get FM tomorrow, but at this rate I won't even get up until midday.

Thanks for the help.

I mentioned a d-line of 5 because that's what you mentioned to use if you came across a 3-3-2-1-1. I'll use a d-line of 10 for home and away and see how that goes.

Finally (It must so annoying having me question everything), you keep the same mentality/passing style/creative freedom for both home and away, correct?

And now, I'd better go to bed. I'm going into town to get FM tomorrow, but at this rate I won't even get up until midday.

Thanks for the help.

I tended to use a d-line of 10 at home, even against the 3-3-2-1-1, and 14 away, so it wasn't so different. I would love to hear how 5 works though.

Mentality/passing/creative freedom is the same home and away.

Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I mentioned a d-line of 5 because that's what you mentioned to use if you came across a 3-3-2-1-1. I'll use a d-line of 10 for home and away and see how that goes.

Finally (It must so annoying having me question everything), you keep the same mentality/passing style/creative freedom for both home and away, correct?

And now, I'd better go to bed. I'm going into town to get FM tomorrow, but at this rate I won't even get up until midday.

Thanks for the help.

I tended to use a d-line of 10 at home, even against the 3-3-2-1-1, and 14 away, so it wasn't so different. I would love to hear how 5 works though.

Mentality/passing/creative freedom is the same home and away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I promise you this is the very last question. Earlier in the thread you said that for away games you change the width to 5 and timewasting to 15. Is this what you do, or have I read wrong?

Originally posted by mr.rooney:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I mentioned a d-line of 5 because that's what you mentioned to use if you came across a 3-3-2-1-1. I'll use a d-line of 10 for home and away and see how that goes.

Finally (It must so annoying having me question everything), you keep the same mentality/passing style/creative freedom for both home and away, correct?

And now, I'd better go to bed. I'm going into town to get FM tomorrow, but at this rate I won't even get up until midday.

Thanks for the help.

I tended to use a d-line of 10 at home, even against the 3-3-2-1-1, and 14 away, so it wasn't so different. I would love to hear how 5 works though.

Mentality/passing/creative freedom is the same home and away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I promise you this is the very last question. Earlier in the thread you said that for away games you change the width to 5 and timewasting to 15. Is this what you do, or have I read wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on, although read the warning on time wasting in my first reply.

Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mr.rooney:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I mentioned a d-line of 5 because that's what you mentioned to use if you came across a 3-3-2-1-1. I'll use a d-line of 10 for home and away and see how that goes.

Finally (It must so annoying having me question everything), you keep the same mentality/passing style/creative freedom for both home and away, correct?

And now, I'd better go to bed. I'm going into town to get FM tomorrow, but at this rate I won't even get up until midday.

Thanks for the help.

I tended to use a d-line of 10 at home, even against the 3-3-2-1-1, and 14 away, so it wasn't so different. I would love to hear how 5 works though.

Mentality/passing/creative freedom is the same home and away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I promise you this is the very last question. Earlier in the thread you said that for away games you change the width to 5 and timewasting to 15. Is this what you do, or have I read wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on, although read the warning on time wasting in my first reply. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read that you shouldn't timewaste as much in this game, so I'll change to 5 for home and just leave it at 10 for away, and see how that goes. I'm really now going to bed, and I'll read over this before I go out and buy the game tomorrow.

Thanks.

interesting point about the time wasting not being as effective in 07. i'll keep an eye on that. i've not seen the hint on it yet, although some of them i don't get time to read as they go too fast!

you mentioned the 'dreaded' 3-3-2-1-1 in your first post, wwfan. has someone told you that the opposition still use this tactic in 07, or did you just keep it in incase it does crop up? if you didn't know, then it is still rife amongst AI kill-gamers. i remember you saying that you came up against it in nearly every match on 06, and when i was near the end of playing 06 i found the same occurence. you may also like to know, in case you don't already, that the AI still uses the 4-2-4 when pressing for a goal near the end of the game. i noticed in 06 that teams always did this when i was only a goal up but then changed if i scored another. so far in 07 i've seen the AI play the 4-2-4 when i've been 2 goals up instead of just 1.

Originally posted by crazy gra:

interesting point about the time wasting not being as effective in 07. i'll keep an eye on that. i've not seen the hint on it yet, although some of them i don't get time to read as they go too fast!

you mentioned the 'dreaded' 3-3-2-1-1 in your first post, wwfan. has someone told you that the opposition still use this tactic in 07, or did you just keep it in incase it does crop up? if you didn't know, then it is still rife amongst AI kill-gamers. i remember you saying that you came up against it in nearly every match on 06, and when i was near the end of playing 06 i found the same occurence. you may also like to know, in case you don't already, that the AI still uses the 4-2-4 when pressing for a goal near the end of the game. i noticed in 06 that teams always did this when i was only a goal up but then changed if i scored another. so far in 07 i've seen the AI play the 4-2-4 when i've been 2 goals up instead of just 1.

Somebody posted that Reading used the 3-3-2-1-1 in the Demo so it was a safe assumption. I could therefore assume that the switch to the 4-2-4 was also likely as I couldn't see SI keeping a defensive formation switch and throwing away an attacking one. I think you'll find the switches will get less common when you have built up your reputation and lower ranked teams will stick to the 3-3-2-1-1 more than they do now.

wwfan please analyst these screenshots. Are they cheated?

No idea.

oh....sorry to say it's in FM2006. the owner of these pics claim that he's not cheat.

Originally posted by kittipol:

oh....sorry to say it's in FM2006. the owner of these pics claim that he's not cheat.

The owner is lying!

What about tight marking? Do you try to incorporate tight marking into your tactic?

Marking

In my opinion man-marking was horribly flawed in FM06. It worked perfectly until the AI switched tactics. Once that happened user defenders remained assigned to their original markee no matter where he was repositioned. Therefore, your DC may well end up man-marking the opposition’s ML. I believe this may have been fixed in ’07, although don’t quote me. Anyway, to combat this perceived problem I advise the following.

Tight-Zonal: DCs, FBs, DMC

Loose-Zonal: ML/R, AMC, FCs

This system fits nicely with the CD/CF set up in that it ensure space for front players whilst keeps the defenders tight on their men. For a more defensive system the ML/Rs could also be pushed into tight-zonal.

Yup