Do the old theories of RoO and RoT stand the test of time in FM2012>?

I was trawling the net for a few tips and stumbled across the following article http://www.fm-britain.co.uk/2007/05/31/tactical-bible-for-dummies/ which considering it was advice for FM Dummies seemed totally appropriate for a Classic Manager Dinosaur like me!! The article is on the well known Rule of One and Rule of Two mentality structure but after finding little with a search through this and the tactics forum with reagrd to the subject I wondered if either were still considered a success in the updated FM?

I used to use Global mentalities with a lot of success but since FM has moved on have found a staggered formation not disimilar to the RoT has served me pretty well but I never actually used the theories as laid out in this article.

So I experimented with the RoO which I had never used before. With mentalities staggered from 1-7 and 14-20 like the article said although of course these are the two extremes od defence and attack. In one game particular I noticed some interesting facts. I was away to Man United with my struggling Hammers. I played the attacking format 1st half and went 1-0 up. At half time I used the defensive format and even though I won the game 1-0 it was down to a lot of good fortune and bad finishing from Man Utd. I played 4-4-2 as did the hosts.

What I noted was that I played far better attacking. When I swapped to the defensive I noticed that even though I had lined up my defensive line and width accordingly with the defensive mentality I was being torn apart by through balls between my centre backs who were half way between the goal line and centre line. This baffled me because I was playing so defensive and yet I could almost have played an offside trap because they were so far forward. I just couldn't understand it. Quite possibly the one thing that the article failed to mention is how you set your closing down settings relevant to mentality? This has always confused me. I usually link mine to mentality but what do others do? Set up closing down higher than mentality or lower? I guess it could change from player to player, maybe higher for forwards but lower for centre backs, I really don't know.

Obviously there are different preferances within this framework. With my usual 4-4-2 I would play a flat central midfield two and push wide men on and some may stagger centre backs but on this showing I was abolutely battered and was very lucky to win. Indeed in my next game I got hammered 3-0 at home using the same format.

So that is my question really do RoO and RoT still hold water in FM or are they rendered obsolete by the new ME ? Obviously I know most use the TC now but would appreciate thoughts nevertheless.

Thanks.

I suspect that only wwfan will know the full answer to this

I use nothing but classic tactics, more often than not observe RoT, and have had no problems achieving success in FM2011 with variations on 4-2-3-1, 3-1-3-3 etc.

I'm an incessant tinkerer, and I do find that it's much more effective to try and control or alter player behaviours by use of things other than mentality. I find that mentality is great for setting a starting point as to where you want the player to actually play in relation to his team-mates, but beyond that I find the personal instructions, creative freedom etc to have much more of an impact on what he actually does. I also totally ignore the assistant grumbling about gaps etc, as this is quite obviously a pre-determined stock line, and actually has no bearing on team performances or the viability of your tactic. I'll happily play with an extremely aggressive midfield and forward line, twinned with an extremely deep back line. There might well be a huge gap, but if I'm totally dominating the game, squeezing the play into the opposing final third, and the opposition just punts it at a lone striker when it does gain possession, then the gap is irrelevant. Generally though, I do find RoT still means that my team has a nice, structured, fluidity to it, regardless of whether the general mentality is very attacking, moderate, or extremely defensive.

Can't comment on FM2012 as I will not use any product which mandates installing Steam.

I have played a 4-2-4 tactic that I designed in March 2011 for one and a half year without changing anything. The mentality of that tactic was the same for all players; first notch of attacking. Pushing up first notch and closing down first notch of whole pitch for the defenders, max for the rest. It worked like a charm, until 12.2.2. To begin with I didn't notice anything because my Bradford team had become so good over the seasons, but whenever I started a new game with a friend I struggled to catch up with him and his downloaded tactics. Eventually I came to the conclusion that the AI teams were much better at handling the four guys up front and also breaking through the defense of my tactic than before. So I did some changes to the tactic, mainly dropping one of the strikers into AMC position and adjusting him to that tole. This worked better but I had some awful losses and became more vulnerable to counterattacks, so now I have defensive mentalities on the central defenders and attacking on the rest, and the defending improved immidiately.

There is no -rule-. It is what works and what does not work, which changes from build to build. You just iron out the problems one by one until you have come up with a tactic that makes a difference. I don't see why there should be a real-life logical football principle behind it all as long as this is a game that only marginally manages to simulate real-life football management.

There is no -rule-. It is what works and what does not work, which changes from build to build. You just iron out the problems one by one until you have come up with a tactic that makes a difference. I don't see why there should be a real-life logical football principle behind it all as long as this is a game that only marginally manages to simulate real-life football management.

This.

I routinely play with a two man defence, or no players actually playing a midfield position.

Conventional footballing wisdom is utterly meaningless, seeing as you're not playing football. Do what works, not what you think ought to work.

This.

I routinely play with a two man defence, or no players actually playing a midfield position.

Conventional footballing wisdom is utterly meaningless, seeing as you're not playing football. Do what works, not what you think ought to work.

That's a very fair point as I adore a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3 with wingers pushed forward which I make my Saturday team that I manage play with great success but can't get either to work in FM!! Mainly due to the inept tracking back of certain positions and I hate playing non realistic formations so that's me at the wrong end of the table!!!

Interesting what you said about ignoring the Assistant about gaps though. I had a 4-4-2 counter last year which beat Sunderland away 5-0 the first game I used it and had some great results. The Assistant kept waffling about gaps but as soon as I moved a centre back forward or a central midfielder back the tactic fell apart and it was fine with the gaps!!

Where do you guys stand on creative freedom and what level to give players?

These "rules" are what you choose when you choose a Philosophy. Each Philosophy relates to a different one of the TT&F mentality frameworks.

(They also adjust either creative freedom or roaming).

There is no -rule-. It is what works and what does not work, which changes from build to build. You just iron out the problems one by one until you have come up with a tactic that makes a difference. I don't see why there should be a real-life logical football principle behind it all as long as this is a game that only marginally manages to simulate real-life football management.

The game is called "Football Manager". You are playing the game so you can imagine you are a Football Manager. You are not playing the game in order to "win" as if it were Monopoly or Scrabble.

Do you really play the game just for the sake of playing the game?

These "rules" are what you choose when you choose a Philosophy. Each Philosophy relates to a different one of the TT&F mentality frameworks.

(They also adjust either creative freedom or roaming).

The game is called "Football Manager". You are playing the game so you can imagine you are a Football Manager. You are not playing the game in order to "win" as if it were Monopoly or Scrabble.

Do you really play the game just for the sake of playing the game?

Oh I manage a virtual football team, so I do "imagine" that I am a football manager. I just don't fool myself into believing that the tactic I end up with somehow works well because it adhers to some overaching real-life football principle. It works because some instructions are universally better than others.

For instance, if someone struggles with the opponent finding a lot of space behind his defense, the common football logic would be to drop deeper. I won't tell them that because in FM it won't work to simply drop deeper. If the AI wants space behind your defenders, it will find space behind your defenders regardless of how deep you set your defensive line. Your defenders will simply not follow your instructions and stay high so that there is a one-on-one with your keeper. Alternatively, they will be so slow to turn regardless of Anticipation, Agility and Acceleration that they could as well have stayed up front. I have seen this happen with dozens of different tactics, most not mine.

It might be a better solution to push even higher and close down more and more aggressively, so that the through ball doesn't come in the first place. Besides, the longer the distance the striker has to run the better is the chance of your defenders catching up, and your keeper positioning himself more correctly.

Where do you guys stand on creative freedom and what level to give players?

Hmm... stock FM answer of 'it depends'.

I play with a very specific aim to get the ball as much as possible to a free-roaming AMC who plays behind the attacking line. I seek a player with very specific attributes to play this role, and to perform properly he has to be a physical specimen as well as a very intelligent and creative player. Because he is the source of most of my team's good stuff, he gets a lot of leeway to do what he wants when he wants. He's an intelligent player with good natural decision making, so I don't have any hesitation in giving him total creative freedom.

I give far less to my other players, as their instructions are more specific to what I want them to do with regards to the overall shape and performance of the team. If I give everyone too much CF then the whole thing falls apart, as it's tantamount to having no real team focus or aim, and most of them simply aren't intelligent enough to make the correct decision often enough.

I think it's more important to look at an individual player's footballing intelligence coupled with what it actually is you want him to do, rather than thinking 'wingers need more CF than a DMC', 'FB's probably more than a CB' etc.

If you play with a Pirlo type, then he clearly needs to be a player with the brain to play that way, and he needs the freedom to express himself. If you just want your DMC to cripple opponents and lay the ball off 5 yards sideways, then you need a different type of player, and definitely have to restrict him to doing exactly what you want him to do.

The game is called "Football Manager". You are playing the game so you can imagine you are a Football Manager. You are not playing the game in order to "win" as if it were Monopoly or Scrabble.

Do you really play the game just for the sake of playing the game?

There's no point in trying to stick with principles which work in real life for the sake of immersion when those same principles translate to ridiculously unrealistic behaviours on the pitch.

I find it far more frustrating to watch wide attackers in a 4-2-3-1 resolutely refuse to track back or close down irrespective of which instructions I give them, than I do to watch my team playing attractive and effective football with a two man defence and nobody playing in a recognisably midfield position.

What I watch on screen far more resembles the real game, so for me it's much more immersive and reflective of real life football than watching my player stand on the half way line and steadfastly refuse to close down an opponent 5 yards inside my own half, simply because he's playing in what the game considers to be an 'attacking' position and even on the most defensive settings the ME determines that closing down that player isn't within the scope of his remit.

In real life the player would drop 5 yards into his own half and pick the opponent up. In FM, he just stands there watching and I end up severely undermanned in midfield. I don't have any such problems with my own tactic, even though no EPL side would ever line up the way I set my side out. It replicates reality far more closely than the more true to life 4-2-3-1 though.

Don't "Fluid" tactics in the TC violate the RoO and RoT? If so, that would be an implicit concession that they are outdated, but I could be mistaken.

The TC is built round the structural theories talked about in TT&F09. Thus:

• Rule of One = Very Rigid
  
• Bands of Two = Rigid
  
• Role Theory = Standard
  
• 5 x 5 = Fluid
  
• Global = Very Fluid
  

Rule of Two isn't in the TC as its wider mentality bands prevent the strategy setting. It might still work in a 5-strata system. However, I suspect it will look incoherent and produce ugly football in a 4-strata or less formation.

The various philosophies were matched to philosophies of football that have long been debated in world football. In general terms, the argument ranges around whether players should be specialists or generalists. Managers who believe in specialisation want their players to be rigidly structured, performing specific roles and duties that they do not deviate from. Managers who believe in generalisation expect all their players to perform attacking, defensive and transition duties.

The mentality and creative freedom settings reflect this debate. The Very Rigid philosophy is very structured (5 specific mentalities) with low creative freedom (players do as they are told). In theory, it should be populated by specialised roles (i.e. playmaker, TQ, B2B). The Very Fluid philosophy is totally unstructured (one mentality) with high creative freedom (players are allowed their head). In theory, it should be populated by very generic roles (i.e. advanced forward, central midfielder).

There are some other mentality rules relating to player roles that override that logic and make tactics more structured. For example, if you play a playmaker in a Very Fluid tactic, you will no longer have a single mentality system. But as the playmaker is a specialised role, you are stepping away from the purity of the generalisation school anyway.

As for those arguing that you need to break principles to enjoy the game, I would agree that some of the ME actions are flawed representations of what the theory underlying the TC expects. As the ME continues to be shaped around these theories, I'd expect to see things improve and for its tactical concepts to become more visually obvious.

wwfan.

What would your advice be with regard to closing down and mentality? In past incarnations I was happy with linking the closing down to mentality, that seemed to work very well but not so much in 2012.

In real life I like the idea of centre backs who back off a little (jockey) before closing down when the danger becomes imminent. Or a midfielder who forces play wide without committing. Two banks of four basically but with central midfielders not tracking back (at least for me) in 2012 I am finding it difficult. In my mind I half have an idea to click a defenders closing down a couple of clicks below his mentality to back him off but then he won't engage if danger occurs. I have also tried a higher closing down with mixed forward runs but like a striker on a higher closing down I find that they arrive too late to stop a pass.

I also tell my back 4 IRL on a Saturday to keep 3 back at all times. Like the back 4 being attached by a rope really, so if a right back bombs forward the left back will tuck in to make a 3 and if the left back goes forward the right back tucks in, but again that seems impossible in FM. I would appreciate any ideas?

wwfan.

What would your advice be with regard to closing down and mentality? In past incarnations I was happy with linking the closing down to mentality, that seemed to work very well but not so much in 2012.

In real life I like the idea of centre backs who back off a little (jockey) before closing down when the danger becomes imminent. Or a midfielder who forces play wide without committing. Two banks of four basically but with central midfielders not tracking back (at least for me) in 2012 I am finding it difficult. In my mind I half have an idea to click a defenders closing down a couple of clicks below his mentality to back him off but then he won't engage if danger occurs. I have also tried a higher closing down with mixed forward runs but like a striker on a higher closing down I find that they arrive too late to stop a pass.

I also tell my back 4 IRL on a Saturday to keep 3 back at all times. Like the back 4 being attached by a rope really, so if a right back bombs forward the left back will tuck in to make a 3 and if the left back goes forward the right back tucks in, but again that seems impossible in FM. I would appreciate any ideas?

I link mentality, defensive line and closing down. Except when the mentality is Attacking and the defensive line is Pushing Up. Then a closing down for the midfield and forward stratas at less than maxed out will make your team behave like headless chicken for no reason. If you want to control the match and push them back, max it out! What to do with the defenders I don't know, since I haven't tested a flat 442 in 12.2.2. Defensive mentalities for defenders seems to work better than they did before for some reason - they won't be so passive as they were (which was the reason I set them to Attacking).

I love playing FM it's a grate game, but that is all it is. Life like tactics and player behavior? No way.

This is my favorite FM 2012 ME dense reasoning™: Video

wwfan.

What would your advice be with regard to closing down and mentality? In past incarnations I was happy with linking the closing down to mentality, that seemed to work very well but not so much in 2012.

In real life I like the idea of centre backs who back off a little (jockey) before closing down when the danger becomes imminent. Or a midfielder who forces play wide without committing. Two banks of four basically but with central midfielders not tracking back (at least for me) in 2012 I am finding it difficult. In my mind I half have an idea to click a defenders closing down a couple of clicks below his mentality to back him off but then he won't engage if danger occurs. I have also tried a higher closing down with mixed forward runs but like a striker on a higher closing down I find that they arrive too late to stop a pass.

I also tell my back 4 IRL on a Saturday to keep 3 back at all times. Like the back 4 being attached by a rope really, so if a right back bombs forward the left back will tuck in to make a 3 and if the left back goes forward the right back tucks in, but again that seems impossible in FM. I would appreciate any ideas?

Closing down is more to do with width and depth settings than mentality. Generally, a low line requires low closing down and a high-line high closing down. The width you go forward with also makes a difference, as it influences how quickly players can get back into defensive positions (narrow and behind ball). High closing down and wide width can result in winning ball back quickly, but can also result in quick counters if the early press doesn't work. Low closing down and wide width gives up the ball high but stops the counter being quite as likely. High closing down and narrow width is defensively sound if you have an energetic side, but might compromise your attacking penetration. Low closing down and narrow width is defensively sound if you have a low pace side, but might compromise your attacking penetration.

The alternating covering FB is not really possible in the current ME. However, the FB on the non-attacking side of the pitch will tend to stay deeper naturally.

The alternating covering FB is not really possible in the current ME.

This is exactly the sort of thing which I find the most frustrating with the FM engines (aside from defenders running to a spot on the pitch rather than a loose ball). I'd also like to be able to replicate things like the back line playing as 3CB without the ball, with one of them stepping into midfield when we have possession, and the opposite. Also, curving, infield runs by the fullbacks/wingbacks. You've got the option right now of having wide players hug the line, or 'cut infield' but I find this insufficient to replicate what I want to do. I think the most straightforward instruction which would actually achieve what I intend would be something akin to 'attack directly toward opponent goal' or something.

It's great that if I temporarily go a man down the ME automatically has a player drop into a deeper position to cover, but it's annoying how I have no control over asking a player to perform two differing roles depending on whether we have possession or not.

I must say it is a shame that a lot of real life ideas can't be incorporated in the ME right now but it's a tough thing to implement I suspect. I for one just refuse to use formations that you wouldn't use IRL, not that there is anything wrong with using them but I just feel that it's not the way I want to play it so it's just a pity that non real life formations tend to work better in some cases that real ones. For instance I have just given up with trying to make a 4-4-2. Whilst I can get the right sided striker to score the left sided one just bangs the ball in the side netting and that includes left footed strikers!! Of course the two man central midfield isn't easy to get right either, again just IMO.

I was watching the Great Britain game last night and at times it's interesting seeing the centre backs rush out to close down but then almost tiptoe backwards to their position. It got me thinking how you could play that in the game so I am experimenting with players with a closing down at two click above their mentality right now and it's early days but I have changed from zonal to man and at the moment it seems to be working better.

This is exactly the sort of thing which I find the most frustrating with the FM engines (aside from defenders running to a spot on the pitch rather than a loose ball). I'd also like to be able to replicate things like the back line playing as 3CB without the ball, with one of them stepping into midfield when we have possession, and the opposite. Also, curving, infield runs by the fullbacks/wingbacks. You've got the option right now of having wide players hug the line, or 'cut infield' but I find this insufficient to replicate what I want to do. I think the most straightforward instruction which would actually achieve what I intend would be something akin to 'attack directly toward opponent goal' or something.

It's great that if I temporarily go a man down the ME automatically has a player drop into a deeper position to cover, but it's annoying how I have no control over asking a player to perform two differing roles depending on whether we have possession or not.

There are a number of things that the ME needs to be able to replicate in the long term. However, until they are included in the tactical concepts informing the TC, they can't be. Unfortunately, it is not an easy job to quickly slot in a new conceptual element of play. It needs to be added to the TC, conceptualized in the ME and researched so at least some AI managers have database settings that access the concept. Other elements of the AI also need to draw on these concepts to keep it competitive.

You have to take on board that the TC introduced a completely new set of concepts to FM. Arguably, the ME, and, indeed, much of the rest of the game, is still catching up with concepts introduced by the TC, and it's been three iterations since that happened. For example, although FM12 offers Assistant feedback on best roles for each player, they aren't informative or varied enough. This criticism could be applied to other elements, such as training, transfer policy, or even hints and tips.

If we take the FB tucking in to be a third DC option. Firstly, the TC would need to have some logic added to it to enable the movement. This logic would also have to be included in the classic slider option to keep the old schoolers happy. The ME would then need to be coded to work around these new instructions. Researchers would have to feedback on which real life managers played in such a way. Then everything would need to be tested to make sure it was working properly. That would have to be repeated with every new concept.

This isn't considering the debate about quite how much control a manager has over his player movements. Should it be possible to assign "curving, infield runs" or do full backs merely make runs according to the shape of play? I think you could argue for both, but how to strike the right balance? Too robotic and the regularly repeating, exact runs risk exploiting the ME in the manner arrows could. Too fluid and the instruction becomes useless as the player never does it anyway, meaning the time spent introducing it was wasted.

so at least some AI managers have database settings that access the concept. Other elements of the AI also need to draw on these concepts to keep it competitive.

Is there a reason why the AI hasn't just been moved over to the tactics creator itself? Manager attributes are archaic and have resulted in AI competition that offers very little genuine variety. The AI isn't equipped to reflect any of the tactical trends of the last few years. There isn't even a "use inverted wingers" option for the AI.

I understand the difficulty of making changes to ME reasoning or transfer market logic, but it puzzles me that we can't replace the old tactical attributes/tendencies system by simply having AI managers load .tac files and combine them with shouts. I realize it would take more than a week, but it's been years since the TC was introduced and the old system of AI tactics is really showing its age...

This isn't considering the debate about quite how much control a manager has over his player movements. Should it be possible to assign "curving, infield runs" or do full backs merely make runs according to the shape of play? I think you could argue for both, but how to strike the right balance? Too robotic and the regularly repeating, exact runs risk exploiting the ME in the manner arrows could. Too fluid and the instruction becomes useless as the player never does it anyway, meaning the time spent introducing it was wasted.

At some point, reflecting the full diversity of football tactics will require introducing something like "style modules" that completely reshape some of the fundamental assumptions made by players regarding movement, positioning, etc. Sort of like the difference between zonal and man marking but much more dramatic. While I absolutely agree that overly-specific instructions would make things unrealistically robotic, I also think it's true that a one-size-fits-all approach to ME decision-making can't encompass all footballing philosophies while also leaving room for player freedom. To have coherent football, the ME must show bias towards certain stylistic assumptions, and currently, that seems to be a bias towards a more northern European style. With the current ME, you can't really do much more than a vague imitation of tiki-taka, for example, and the tendency of players to "think in 4-4-2", as it were, prevents accurate representations of 3-man defenses. To really get around that, the ME will eventually need some kind of umbrella "style" setting that's even more fundamental than philosophy or strategy.

Is there a reason why the AI hasn't just been moved over to the tactics creator itself? Manager attributes are archaic and have resulted in AI competition that offers very little genuine variety. The AI isn't equipped to reflect any of the tactical trends of the last few years. There isn't even a "use inverted wingers" option for the AI.

It's a hugely complex task. The conceptual integration of the TC with the different real life schools is, in my opinion, no more than partial. The TC was originally only a tool to help user managers put together tactics quickly and easily using real world footballing language. It removed the need for the abstract sliders.

Its real power wasn't immediately obvious. Indeed, even those behind the TC didn't grasp quite what it was capable of doing in terms of offering different stylistic approaches to support the strategies. Speaking for myself, I'm still working this out / through. It is a Pandora's Box of possibility, more so if new roles and concepts are added. If those who came up with it took circa 18-24 months to appreciate its full flexibility, the AI is going to be appreciably behind.

I understand the difficulty of making changes to ME reasoning or transfer market logic, but it puzzles me that we can't replace the old tactical attributes/tendencies system by simply having AI managers load .tac files and combine them with shouts. I realize it would take more than a week, but it's been years since the TC was introduced and the old system of AI tactics is really showing its age...

I think the main issue, and again this is a personal opinion and not from the horse's mouth, is a switch between the research criteria. It is relatively easy to compare tempo and width of your team versus all the teams you are playing against and put a number to it. It is another thing to work out if the manager is playing a defensive midfielder / DLP combo or an Anchor Man and DLP, plus how often he switches strategy or style (shouts).

At some point, reflecting the full diversity of football tactics will require introducing something like "style modules" that completely reshape some of the fundamental assumptions made by players regarding movement, positioning, etc. Sort of like the difference between zonal and man marking but much more dramatic. While I absolutely agree that overly-specific instructions would make things unrealistically robotic, I also think it's true that a one-size-fits-all approach to ME decision-making can't encompass all footballing philosophies while also leaving room for player freedom. To have coherent football, the ME must show bias towards certain stylistic assumptions, and currently, that seems to be a bias towards a more northern European style. With the current ME, you can't really do much more than a vague imitation of tiki-taka, for example, and the tendency of players to "think in 4-4-2", as it were, prevents accurate representations of 3-man defenses. To really get around that, the ME will eventually need some kind of umbrella "style" setting that's even more fundamental than philosophy or strategy.

It needs to evolve. Not sure if I agree with the 'Northern European' style or 4-4-2 bias though. It is too static, yes, but I think it is statically neutral rather than aligned to a certain cultural style or shape. I don't think it does any extreme well enough.

Arguably, until it does, making the TC more sophisticated would be a bad idea. It would destabilise attempts to get the ME right. It's the age old conundrum between adding new ideas and perfecting what you already have.

on Too robotic and the regularly repeating...

Play is too structured and too disciplined at the moment, especially in the lower and lesser leagues. If you ever had chance to regularly watch Croatian (Prva HNL, Druga HNL and lower) or BiH (Premijer, Prva and lower) football leagues you will know what I am talking about. Most teams lose structure quickly and they don't regain it until significant game changing event (such as goal, red card...) doesn't occur. This happens for all sorts of different reasons such as lack of discipline, motivation, inadequate conditioning and so on. Somewhat puzzling same teams can play extremely organized and disciplined football in Euro competitions especially against stronger and more reputable opposition. Superior motivation seems enough to help players overcame conditioning issues and achieve better team cohesion and tactical discipline for those few games.

I rarely have chance to watch western European lower leagues (Segunda División or Serie B equivalent and lower) so I don't know whether FM ME replicates those well, but I still feel there's distinct lack of "transition moments" in game partly because there's no real transformation. On top of this players personality, mental ability, work habits and experience are not well enough modeled in ME. For example players position on field seems more important then his personality and work habits when determining amount of effort that he will put in game and whether he will stick to the instructions or disobey/ignore them (and to what degree).

on Too robotic and the regularly repeating...

Play is too structured and too disciplined at the moment, especially in the lower and lesser leagues. If you ever had chance to regularly watch Croatian (Prva HNL, Druga HNL and lower) or BiH (Premijer, Prva and lower) football leagues you will know what I am talking about. Most teams lose structure quickly and they don't regain it until significant game changing event (such as goal, red card...) doesn't occur. This happens for all sorts of different reasons such as lack of discipline, motivation, inadequate conditioning and so on. Somewhat puzzling same teams can play extremely organized and disciplined football in Euro competitions especially against stronger and more reputable opposition. Superior motivation seems enough to help players overcame conditioning issues and achieve better team cohesion and tactical discipline for those few games.

I rarely have chance to watch western European lower leagues (Segunda División or Serie B equivalent and lower) so I don't know whether FM ME replicates those well, but I still feel there's distinct lack of transition moments in game partly because there's no real transformation.

Structured and disciplined? This is my favorite FM 2012 ME dense reasoning™: Video

I'd agree that players are overly attracted to their default positions when they should be focusing on where the ball is, both in defence and attack (as your video illustrates). However, there's a difference between overly static positional movement and scoring goals because the AI team cannot track runs which can be made with great accuracy time and time again.

WWFAN,

Firstly can you clarify if the opening Formation screen is where your players are defensively or whilst in the attacking phase? I ask this because someone said the other day it is where your players are in the defensive phase. So if you are trying to make a 4-3-3 with wide men pushed up that is why a flat midfield four works better than the wide players in the AMR and AML slots tracking back wise.

I think this is where a lot of the problem is. I really do think moving forward there should be two or even three formation screens and Team/Player Instruction screens. A Defensive phase, Attacking phase and maybe a Neutral phase. IRL a team may play defensively narrow but as pushing forward play far wider. That's as far as I know impossible to implement with one set of Team Instructions. Same goes with regard to tempo. You may like to pop it about slowly at the back but when in the opponents half go for the jugular at high tempo. Again difficult to implement certainly in Classic Mode and without shouts.

I also think that one of the biggest issues right now is the contradicting opinions you get. We have had creative freedom, closing down, runs from deep etc for years in the game and yet a lot of people are still not sure 100% what they actually do.

For example.

***Runs from deep replaced Forward runs but people are still confused. For instance in the TC I have noted that a Poacher is on RFD often, but logically a poacher just sits up top anyway (Think Gary Lineker), whereas (for those a little older) Martin Peters used to GHOST into the box unnoticed so is that classed as RFD Often?!! Yet two totally different players and roles.

Most probably put their Centre Backs on RFD Rarely. But what about Closing Down, that is essentialy running from deep so if you give a CB only little CF and RFD Rare does that mean he won't engage even though you have his Closing Down on high?!

***You are advised to use CF sparingly but if you wallop a 4-4-2 from the TC in as your tactic you will automatically have Strikers on high CF and wingers on high CF. At the same time though say your strikers are Carlton Cole and Andy Carroll. Would you give them high CF?

I am a great believer that IRL Footballers do everything MIXED, rather than rarely or much. It comes down obviously to the position they play and their abilities but mainly it's down to their decisions. Even John Terry dribbles out of the back at times but would that be incorporated by an instruction of RARE in FM or MIXED but give him HIGH CF so it is he who decides when he does it? Same for your wingers. Even if he is a great dribbler with the ball surely you don't want him to always do it so you would you give him OFTEN with CF on high so he thinks for himself or maybe MIXED with a lower CF?

I think certainly a guide that 100% shows what the various terms mean along with examples would really help.

WWFAN,

Firstly can you clarify if the opening Formation screen is where your players are defensively or whilst in the attacking phase? I ask this because someone said the other day it is where your players are in the defensive phase. So if you are trying to make a 4-3-3 with wide men pushed up that is why a flat midfield four works better than the wide players in the AMR and AML slots tracking back wise.

I think this is where a lot of the problem is. I really do think moving forward there should be two or even three formation screens and Team/Player Instruction screens. A Defensive phase, Attacking phase and maybe a Neutral phase. IRL a team may play defensively narrow but as pushing forward play far wider. That's as far as I know impossible to implement with one set of Team Instructions. Same goes with regard to tempo. You may like to pop it about slowly at the back but when in the opponents half go for the jugular at high tempo. Again difficult to implement certainly in Classic Mode and without shouts.

I also think that one of the biggest issues right now is the contradicting opinions you get. We have had creative freedom, closing down, runs from deep etc for years in the game and yet a lot of people are still not sure 100% what they actually do.

For example.

***Runs from deep replaced Forward runs but people are still confused. For instance in the TC I have noted that a Poacher is on RFD often, but logically a poacher just sits up top anyway (Think Gary Lineker), whereas (for those a little older) Martin Peters used to GHOST into the box unnoticed so is that classed as RFD Often?!! Yet two totally different players and roles.

Most probably put their Centre Backs on RFD Rarely. But what about Closing Down, that is essentialy running from deep so if you give a CB only little CF and RFD Rare does that mean he won't engage even though you have his Closing Down on high?!

***You are advised to use CF sparingly but if you wallop a 4-4-2 from the TC in as your tactic you will automatically have Strikers on high CF and wingers on high CF. At the same time though say your strikers are Carlton Cole and Andy Carroll. Would you give them high CF?

I am a great believer that IRL Footballers do everything MIXED, rather than rarely or much. It comes down obviously to the position they play and their abilities but mainly it's down to their decisions. Even John Terry dribbles out of the back at times but would that be incorporated by an instruction of RARE in FM or MIXED but give him HIGH CF so it is he who decides when he does it? Same for your wingers. Even if he is a great dribbler with the ball surely you don't want him to always do it so you would you give him OFTEN with CF on high so he thinks for himself or maybe MIXED with a lower CF?

I think certainly a guide that 100% shows what the various terms mean along with examples would really help.

Its not really a contradiction, rather, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Runs from deep isnt a great name in my view, i agree there.

In my view you would have Peters starting deep than Lineker (lower mentality), as he is ghosting into position, rather than starting very high and playing off the shoulder onto the through ball.

Again CF: You might not let Cole have all the freedom, but you probably would if was Gonzalo Higuain. The TC is a very good framework, but in my view it is not some totally rigid ruling that you must stick to at all times. One set way, might not be to the best of your player, so you adapt it.

I'd have to disagree that all players do everything mixed, or even that you would want them to. Nani is more intent to run with the ball than Rooney is. That's just one very small example.

Its not really a contradiction, rather, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Runs from deep isnt a great name in my view, i agree there.

In my view you would have Peters starting deep than Lineker (lower mentality), as he is ghosting into position, rather than starting very high and playing off the shoulder onto the through ball.

Again CF: You might not let Cole have all the freedom, but you probably would if was Gonzalo Higuain. The TC is a very good framework, but in my view it is not some totally rigid ruling that you must stick to at all times. One set way, might not be to the best of your player, so you adapt it.

I'd have to disagree that all players do everything mixed, or even that you would want them to. Nani is more intent to run with the ball than Rooney is. That's just one very small example.

Oh totally agreed. What I meant is that in FM surely mixed is in some way safer because surely it gives a player more options and as you say there is more than one way to skin a cat?!

Let's take the example of a Centre Back in the mould of John Terry. Solid and reliable no nonsence defender with limited skill. Now lets give him little creative freedom, short passing so he just passes to his more creative team mates in midfield, low closing down to keep within the shape of the back four and rare forward runs and run with ball beacuse again you want him to keep in position.

Now let's create a situation. Luis Suarez breaks through one on one but loses control slightly. It's him against John Terry. Now with the Instructions I have given him I don't want him sitting on the edge of his area and I don't want if he receives the ball to calmly trap it and pass it short or try and dribble around Suarez because there are no Chelsea midfielders in that range, so I want him to engage Suarez as quick as possible and clear that ball into Row Z thus allowing his team to regroup. But I have given him rare forward runs and little closing down and because I have given him little creative freedom he will by the laws FM adhere to my instructions so therein lies that quandry. What he needs in that situation is high closing down, mixed passing, runs from deep but I haven't given him those instructions.

So that is why I say is he therefore better off on Mixed everything and a higher creative freedom so he makes decisions for himself because his decision stats are quite good and that means he will know when to stay back but also know when to engage rather than do exactly what I tell him? But there again how rare is rare and how high is the highest CF setting of little compared to the lowest CF setting of little? That's what I am saying it's not explained in the manual it is purely down to listening to 100's of conflicting opinions on forums like this and there is still no 100% answer to it.

A lot of us have had the old issue of a defender getting caught in possession for instance, is that down to the little creative freedom we give our defenders or for another reason?

Your example of Rooney and Nani is also a good example of what I am talking about because how many times have you seen Nani run with the ball but lose it or perform a poor ball at the end with Rooney flailing his arms up in disgust. So take that to FM do you really want Nani running with the ball often, crossing often with a high creative freedom or are you better off having him run with the ball a lot but with low CF and crossing on mixed so he doesn't waste as many?

This isn't considering the debate about quite how much control a manager has over his player movements. Should it be possible to assign "curving, infield runs" or do full backs merely make runs according to the shape of play? I think you could argue for both, but how to strike the right balance? Too robotic and the regularly repeating, exact runs risk exploiting the ME in the manner arrows could. Too fluid and the instruction becomes useless as the player never does it anyway, meaning the time spent introducing it was wasted.

I completely agree with you here and accept the points you make about exploitation. I would not want to return to a ME which could be exploited in the manner of the old 'Diablo' tactic from the CM4 era for example.

My frustration stems from being unable to replicate styles and instructions which I see put into practice in real life football. As you can probably tell, I'm a bit of a Bielsa fanboy. It's a huge source of frustration trying to replicate his basic theories and formations in FM. I've tweaked and tinkered incessantly over the last 3 iterations, and while I'm satisfied with the general outcome there are two things which the ME just can not replicate adequately; 1. the shifting of CB's into a more advanced position, and 2. the way Bielsa's WB's operate, specifically how they interact with the other attacking players, the positions they adopt, the spaces they attempt to exploit, and their general behaviours once they arrive in a forward position.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the long term goal to be that these specific and unusual aspects of the game should be able to be accurately recreated within the ME, and the ME still be sufficiently advanced as to be able to adapt and cope with them so as they do not represent an exploit.

I realise this is a very specific scenario, while the ME has to cater for the entire diversity of football the world over, but still, it's frustrating that I know what I want my players to do, but the limitations of the ME mean it's impossible for me to give them adequate instruction to allow them to behave in the manner I'd like.

I'd echo what other posters have said about certain formations, especially 4-4-2. I have never been able to achieve a satisfactory outcome with 4-4-2 because I find that even using classic tactics the players seem far too bound by the restrictions of the formation. It appears that there's an inherent difficulty in replicating and engineering in any sort of fluidity in formations with symmetrical or rigid lines, and I find that it's much easier to produce a more organic and realistic end product with formations with 4 banks of players or lines of 3CB's instead of a flat back four for example. Trying to get 2 CM's to act and behave fundamentally differently in the middle of a flat 4 is next to impossible, and similarly I've never been able to get 2 strikers or CB's to perform sufficiently differently from each other without resorting to lining up one deeper in the base formation or offsetting in a diamond or some such. It appears as if players are far too bound by the ME's perception of their starting position within the formation.

I completely agree with you here and accept the points you make about exploitation. I would not want to return to a ME which could be exploited in the manner of the old 'Diablo' tactic from the CM4 era for example.

My frustration stems from being unable to replicate styles and instructions which I see put into practice in real life football. As you can probably tell, I'm a bit of a Bielsa fanboy. It's a huge source of frustration trying to replicate his basic theories and formations in FM. I've tweaked and tinkered incessantly over the last 3 iterations, and while I'm satisfied with the general outcome there are two things which the ME just can not replicate adequately; 1. the shifting of CB's into a more advanced position, and 2. the way Bielsa's WB's operate, specifically how they interact with the other attacking players, the positions they adopt, the spaces they attempt to exploit, and their general behaviours once they arrive in a forward position.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the long term goal to be that these specific and unusual aspects of the game should be able to be accurately recreated within the ME, and the ME still be sufficiently advanced as to be able to adapt and cope with them so as they do not represent an exploit.

I realise this is a very specific scenario, while the ME has to cater for the entire diversity of football the world over, but still, it's frustrating that I know what I want my players to do, but the limitations of the ME mean it's impossible for me to give them adequate instruction to allow them to behave in the manner I'd like.

I'd echo what other posters have said about certain formations, especially 4-4-2. I have never been able to achieve a satisfactory outcome with 4-4-2 because I find that even using classic tactics the players seem far too bound by the restrictions of the formation. It appears that there's an inherent difficulty in replicating and engineering in any sort of fluidity in formations with symmetrical or rigid lines, and I find that it's much easier to produce a more organic and realistic end product with formations with 4 banks of players or lines of 3CB's instead of a flat back four for example. Trying to get 2 CM's to act and behave fundamentally differently in the middle of a flat 4 is next to impossible, and similarly I've never been able to get 2 strikers or CB's to perform sufficiently differently from each other without resorting to lining up one deeper in the base formation or offsetting in a diamond or some such. It appears as if players are far too bound by the ME's perception of their starting position within the formation.

Yes I think that FM is very focused on formations too. I think it would be in the game's best interest to shift that focus to each player, and rather make an effort to differentiate the players more from each other, perhaps using a much more extensive database of preferred moves. Each player should have from 5-10 preferred attacking moves and 5-10 preferred defensive moves, and the attributes should be less relative so that the player performances become more individualized and not so dependent on this elusive abstract phenomena called "form".

WWFAN,

Firstly can you clarify if the opening Formation screen is where your players are defensively or whilst in the attacking phase? I ask this because someone said the other day it is where your players are in the defensive phase. So if you are trying to make a 4-3-3 with wide men pushed up that is why a flat midfield four works better than the wide players in the AMR and AML slots tracking back wise.

Neither. The formation screen is completely notational.

I think this is where a lot of the problem is. I really do think moving forward there should be two or even three formation screens and Team/Player Instruction screens. A Defensive phase, Attacking phase and maybe a Neutral phase. IRL a team may play defensively narrow but as pushing forward play far wider. That's as far as I know impossible to implement with one set of Team Instructions. Same goes with regard to tempo. You may like to pop it about slowly at the back but when in the opponents half go for the jugular at high tempo. Again difficult to implement certainly in Classic Mode and without shouts.

Width only relates to attack. Your team will narrow without the ball. If you play wide, it will take the longer to get to their defensive positions, which might be costly. I could see the usefulness of variable tempo. Counter Attack already provides that. Might be tricky to conceptualise though.

I also think that one of the biggest issues right now is the contradicting opinions you get. We have had creative freedom, closing down, runs from deep etc for years in the game and yet a lot of people are still not sure 100% what they actually do.

For example.

***Runs from deep replaced Forward runs but people are still confused. For instance in the TC I have noted that a Poacher is on RFD often, but logically a poacher just sits up top anyway (Think Gary Lineker), whereas (for those a little older) Martin Peters used to GHOST into the box unnoticed so is that classed as RFD Often?!! Yet two totally different players and roles.

The sliders are now merely tools. The ME and AI works from the TC. The only thing that matters is that the tools create the concepts for the TC. ALthough I'd agree that a Poacher theoretically shouldn't have Runs from Deep set, the TC requires it for the player to act like a Poacher. Similarly, the RWB Often setting is a hangover from the days when players tended to shoot far, far too early. The Poacher needed to be in the box when shooting and RFD Often achieved that. as the ME gets better, the TC should adjust to reflect its improved performance. Arguably, the RFD slider should have different names when applied to front two strata players (perhaps Stay High / Drop Deep).

Most probably put their Centre Backs on RFD Rarely. But what about Closing Down, that is essentialy running from deep so if you give a CB only little CF and RFD Rare does that mean he won't engage even though you have his Closing Down on high?!

RFD is an off the ball instruction when in possession. CD is an out of possession instruction. Obviously, a high mentality and some RFD tends to result in your player being higher up the pitch when you lose possession, which might result in him closing down earlier (if his CD settings allow that). However, a layer doesn't need RFD to CD heavily.

***You are advised to use CF sparingly but if you wallop a 4-4-2 from the TC in as your tactic you will automatically have Strikers on high CF and wingers on high CF. At the same time though say your strikers are Carlton Cole and Andy Carroll. Would you give them high CF?

That's a hangover from pre-TC days. The TC introduced CF heavy tactics in line with a tactical school of thought that allows players their heads. I'd ignore it and I'd hope it gets removed from the game.

I am a great believer that IRL Footballers do everything MIXED, rather than rarely or much. It comes down obviously to the position they play and their abilities but mainly it's down to their decisions. Even John Terry dribbles out of the back at times but would that be incorporated by an instruction of RARE in FM or MIXED but give him HIGH CF so it is he who decides when he does it? Same for your wingers. Even if he is a great dribbler with the ball surely you don't want him to always do it so you would you give him OFTEN with CF on high so he thinks for himself or maybe MIXED with a lower CF?

I think certainly a guide that 100% shows what the various terms mean along with examples would really help.

Perhaps at the very purest, the generalist school would agree with that. However, that is an extreme interpretation that very few real life managers would follow at professional level. It might work, even be required, for Sunday League teams, but pro-football tends to, at the moment, be heavily influenced by the specialist schools.

My frustration stems from being unable to replicate styles and instructions which I see put into practice in real life football [...] It appears as if players are far too bound by the ME's perception of their starting position within the formation.

I agree. The long-term aim will certainly be to incorporate all real life footballing concepts into the TC and ME. That's a huge undertaking though, especially given the TC is still using imperfect theoretical settings to get the desired results from certain positions. When all the match events fit the TC theory, then the TC and ME will be ready to move to the next stage.

So that is why I say is he therefore better off on Mixed everything and a higher creative freedom so he makes decisions for himself because his decision stats are quite good and that means he will know when to stay back but also know when to engage rather than do exactly what I tell him? But there again how rare is rare and how high is the highest CF setting of little compared to the lowest CF setting of little? That's what I am saying it's not explained in the manual it is purely down to listening to 100's of conflicting opinions on forums like this and there is still no 100% answer to it.

If CF is not set to zero, a short passing length is nearly always the cause. If a defender does not have an easy passing option, he often dawdles and gets caught in possession.

Your example of Rooney and Nani is also a good example of what I am talking about because how many times have you seen Nani run with the ball but lose it or perform a poor ball at the end with Rooney flailing his arms up in disgust. So take that to FM do you really want Nani running with the ball often, crossing often with a high creative freedom or are you better off having him run with the ball a lot but with low CF and crossing on mixed so he doesn't waste as many?

Surely, working that out is the point of the game. I'd prefer to do it with the TC by assigning him a suitable role/duty, but the questions are the same for those using the sliders.

Yes I think that FM is very focused on formations too. I think it would be in the game's best interest to shift that focus to each player, and rather make an effort to differentiate the players more from each other, perhaps using a much more extensive database of preferred moves. Each player should have from 5-10 preferred attacking moves and 5-10 preferred defensive moves, and the attributes should be less relative so that the player performances become more individualized and not so dependent on this elusive abstract phenomena called "form".

I can agree with more individualized player shaping. Getting rid of form would be a terrible thing.

I can agree with more individualized player shaping. Getting rid of form would be a terrible thing.

No no getting RID of form would be a terrible thing. Tweaking it sliiiiiightly towards absolute attributes, however, would be a good thing. You remember all that complaining about endless streaks of good form in 12.1? 12.2 is better but players with no skill are still doing too amazing stuff too often, and TEAM form doesn't exist. Sure, all the players of a team can be in form at the same time (this is rare), but the team as such isn't in good form. That's impossible, since a team can't run or kick a ball or feel anything such as "confidence". It's an abstract concept, you know. The players which constitutes what we call "a team" can and do have confidence, though, and very good managers tend to be able to press the right buttons to maintain it while less good managers make less of a difference.

Still, even if I was in teriffic form and dripping of confidence I wouldn't be able to shoot the ball like a bullet 30 meters straight into a goal guarded by a professional athlete. I just don't have that strong a kick! I could place it, though, but would have to be closer to the goal to score. And yes I am not a professional footballer but you get my point? There are limits to what confidence can do. That limit is almost non-existent in FM, and it is frankly ridiculous to see 11.5 second (100m) sprinters spin like they run on a threadmill just because they have poor morale.