Changing players, not tactics - A guide on how to meet different matches

So, inspired by the late great SFraser, I wanted to make a thread talking about how swapping players in your team can make the same tactic play very differently.

First off, here is my tactic:

A 4-3-3 in very much the Barca style. Control strategy, more pressing and creative freedom. Fluid with short passing, plays more cautious in tackles. I'm using it in my Spezia save. This post has my latest squad in it.

My team are not the best skill wise, much better than a few years ago but still no Xavi or Messi quality players in there. But all my players are good enough of getting into my first team, and I have no set first team. Who I play will depend on fitness, and on who I'm playing and how I want to play. Now I know other people might vary their tactic depending on who they are playing, possibly using Counter against stronger teams etc. I don't, I just swap what players I use in my team.

There are 3 good examples of how swapping just players can make the same position be player in very different ways and enable me to deal with different threats and exploit the opposition: striker, central midfielder right, and defender left.

Striker

My two main strikers are Nicolo Messina and Riccardo Bianchessi. Messina much more of an out and out attacker, and Bianchessi more well rounded. My tactic has a Complete Forward (Attack) up front. But how they both play it couldn't be more different. Here is what the tactic looks like when they play:

Messina sits far higher up the pitch, with Bianchessi dropping much deeper. So when playing a team who are strong in central defence, or who have 3 centre backs I play Bianchessi as he drops deep and draws the defenders up the pitch and more attacks and chances are created by my AMR/L as Inside Forwards cutting inside. Messina is great for games where I want to make chances through the middle and where my midfielders are making space for him by drawing away the opposition midfield. Same position, same instructions, two very different ways it is played.

Central Midfielder Right

This position I have set up as a Advanced Playmaker (Attack). There are a few players I use in this position but for this example I will use Alessandro Troiano and Lodewijk Humblet. Again here is how the formation looks with them both playing:

Troiano being a natural AM pushes up the pitch and gets forward more. Humblet keeps quite deep. Against weaker teams who do not crowd the midfield I will play Troiano as he can get forward and involved in attacks and creating chances. Against teams with strong midfields who have numbers in the centre I will play Humblet as he is better defensively and will hang deeper providing a more solid midfield whilst also looking to create chances. Again it is the same position, same instructions, and two very different ways it is played.

Defender Left

Just set up as a normal Full Back (Auotmatic). For this comparison I will be using Juan Carlos and Owen Bruno. Here is what the formation shape is when they play:

Carlos is a nice all round full back, gets involved in attacks and solid defensively. I willuse him in most matches or his backup Tafuro. But if I'm playing against a team with amazing wingers who I'm worried might be able to get in behind him, I will play Bruno. As a natural DC he will sit deeper and help neutralise the threat of a really great winger, but obviously he won't be pushing up that much.

The awesomeness of squad rotation

The examples above can be extended to other parts of my team. with both the AML/AMR positions I have natural and 'wrong' footed players for those positions. So if I want a player who will cut inside more I play the 'wrong' footed one, if I want a player to push down the wings more, the natural footed one will play. With my DMs I have more defensively minded players to help with tough midfield fights, or more creative players for when they are likely to have more space.

In this age of squad rotation where generally there are at least 2 players for each position in the top leagues, rotating players to change how your team plays and to deal with certain situations is a great way to make use of that squad depth and to allow you to play the same way. I never change my tactic, I will use shouts in matches at times when I want to tweak things, but mostly I change how the team plays by changing my players, not the tactic.

I know some people like to hve home and away tactics, or a tactic for use against weaker teams and one against stronger teams. For me this misses out on the versatility of the ME and tactics creator. Players will play position like humans, no two players are exactly alike. They will play the same position differently, use it your advantage!

I hope this has been a though provoking and useful thread for people

Cracking post cemendur...but is there any particular reason why you don't rotate your squad and make tactical adjustments as well?

Cracking post cemendur...but is there any particular reason why you don't rotate your squad and make tactical adjustments as well?

Mainly because simply rotating players gives me the versatility I need. If I feel my tactic isn't working optimally I will use shouts in the match to change how it plays instead of constantly changing my tactic for different games.

Interesting thanks...I always feel the need to tinker quite a lot during matches depending on the score...mainly shouts but also switching between attack/control/counter etc

Interesting thanks...I always feel the need to tinker quite a lot during matches depending on the score...mainly shouts but also switching between attack/control/counter etc

I personally much prefer to change my starting team to take advantage of the oppositions weaknesses and deal with their strengths. I am very much the kind of player who wants to make other teams react to them, not the other way round.

Interesting thanks...I always feel the need to tinker quite a lot during matches depending on the score...mainly shouts but also switching between attack/control/counter etc

dont you think that the shouts themselves can change mentality.

attack=get ball forward+play wider

control=pass to feet+work ball into box

counter=drop deep+play narrower+exploit the flanks.

and so on..

A good post, and glad to see you givign credit where it's due.

I think one of the strong positives of your thread is that you tell people 'when' and 'why' you are doing what you do.

I have found that many forum users, myself included at times, struggle to comprehend 'when' to use some of the fantastic information that is on hand in these forums.

Regards

LAM

dont you think that the shouts themselves can change mentality.

attack=get ball forward+play wider

control=pass to feet+work ball into box

counter=drop deep+play narrower+exploit the flanks.

and so on..

thanks for pointing that out axehan...I don't have such detailed knowledge yet

Good OP - many people get frustrated because they don't understand the importance of players in the game (and learning how to read a player from their attributes). The most obvious is DM - there are loads of great DMs in FM but they generally fall into 3 categories: playmaker, water-carrier/defensive and covering. Each type will play DM very differently and can give a vastly different flavour to your team.

Also, choosing complimentary groups of players is important i.e. matching the slow with the fast / matching the physical with the technical.

dont you think that the shouts themselves can change mentality.

attack=get ball forward+play wider

control=pass to feet+work ball into box

counter=drop deep+play narrower+exploit the flanks.

and so on..

Do you mean change to attack strategy and choose get ball forward & play wider?

Or do you mean use the shouts to give different flavours to the standard strategy? I think that what you mean and I definitely agree that it's a great, and often overlooked, way to look on your tactical setup. The shouts can give a subtle difference to your team which can often have more-than-subtle results. If you match the shouts to the players you've chosen on any given game-day then you really are on to a winner.

A good post, and glad to see you givign credit where it's due.

I think one of the strong positives of your thread is that you tell people 'when' and 'why' you are doing what you do.

I have found that many forum users, myself included at times, struggle to comprehend 'when' to use some of the fantastic information that is on hand in these forums.

Regards

LAM

Well without SFraser I wouldn't have anywhere near the understanding of the game I do now, I am a casual football fan and his threads taught me a lot and helped me realise I needed to think more about my tactics.

I think that there is sometimes a lack of explaining why players need to do something. I often see people asking for help with tactics and being told what to do to try and improve things, but not why that will help their tactic. It is a game about football, and helping people understand what different changes will do and why will help them with their own tactics.

Good OP - many people get frustrated because they don't understand the importance of players in the game (and learning how to read a player from their attributes). The most obvious is DM - there are loads of great DMs in FM but they generally fall into 3 categories: playmaker, water-carrier/defensive and covering. Each type will play DM very differently and can give a vastly different flavour to your team.

Also, choosing complimentary groups of players is important i.e. matching the slow with the fast / matching the physical with the technical.

I do feel that at times people focus too much on sliders and settings and expect one player to play a position the same as another. They expect far too much of a robotic response and fail to realise how good a job the ME does of simulating people, and the individuality that each player will bring to a position.

And choosing complimentary players is a very good point. For example, against a 3-4-3 thats not too uncommon in Italy, I will play a more defensive DM and well rounded CMs. My fullbacks will be the more creative and attacking ones as they can get forward. I will put a natural footed player on one of AMR/L and a 'wrong' footed one on the other flank so one will go wide and pass/cross to the SC and the other winger who is cutting inside. Just simply changing players allows me to adapt to the challenges different formations present.

Good OP - many people get frustrated because they don't understand the importance of players in the game (and learning how to read a player from their attributes). The most obvious is DM - there are loads of great DMs in FM but they generally fall into 3 categories: playmaker, water-carrier/defensive and covering. Each type will play DM very differently and can give a vastly different flavour to your team.

Also, choosing complimentary groups of players is important i.e. matching the slow with the fast / matching the physical with the technical.

Do you mean change to attack strategy and choose get ball forward & play wider?

Or do you mean use the shouts to give different flavours to the standard strategy? I think that what you mean and I definitely agree that it's a great, and often overlooked, way to look on your tactical setup. The shouts can give a subtle difference to your team which can often have more-than-subtle results. If you match the shouts to the players you've chosen on any given game-day then you really are on to a winner.

yeah i mean use the shouts to effectively change your match strategy.

yeah i mean use the shouts to effectively change your match strategy.

Yeah I thought so, it's a good point well made.

Relating to the OP - I think PPM's are crucial to creating individuality in players, particularly in terms of ball usage. I did some analysis a while back and found that without differing PPM's the actual movement of players doesn't tend to vary too much (I'm hoping that you'll disagree with this and that my analysis was flawed!).

Relating to the OP - I think PPM's are crucial to creating individuality in players, particularly in terms of ball usage. I did some analysis a while back and found that without differing PPM's the actual movement of players doesn't tend to vary too much (I'm hoping that you'll disagree with this and that my analysis was flawed!).

I certainly will disagree with you. Messina has no preferred moves, and Bianchessi only has Places Shots and Tries First Time Shots. Hardly PPMs to affect the average position. Juan Carlos and Bruno also have no PPMs, Humblet has none and Troiano has Moves Into Channels, Tries Killer Balls Often and Likes to Lob Keepers. I believe they play their positions differently because they are different players in terms of stats etc.

I certainly will disagree with you. Messina has no preferred moves, and Bianchessi only has Places Shots and Tries First Time Shots. Hardly PPMs to affect the average position. Juan Carlos and Bruno also have no PPMs, Humblet has none and Troiano has Moves Into Channels, Tries Killer Balls Often and Likes to Lob Keepers. I believe they play their positions differently because they are different players in terms of stats etc.

I'm glad! Only Troiano has a movement modifier PPM so I'm glad that they all move differently. I've certainly always agreed with you that different players play very differently - with lots of creative freedom and decent mental stats players will naturally play to their strengths which is exactly as a player would play in real-life and gives the FM manager a crucial tool for tackling the opposition weaknesses.

i have 2 dlp(defend duty)but my right dlp(sissoko)has gets forward whenever possible as a ppm and it is clearly visible when watching 2d that he is always the furthest forward of the 2 dlp's.

As he should be and I've noticed it too but the analysis screen placed my two players at the same depth over about 20 games which I found a little odd. I didn't give a lot of weight to the analysis but it's odd that they were so close (the more attk minded of the pair was slightly more advanced). I think the problem is that the more defensive of the 2 is actually a pretty good attacker too, certainly as good as the other chap.

going to bump this up to the first page, since its a good article, been doing something similar to this for ages, mostly sticking to a number of plug and play style tactics, but radicaly change how my team play by using different types of players within those systems

I really like this thread, as it is in line with how I like to approach the game.

I.e. choosing players as an added tactical option.

For example, I too have WB's for matches I expect my FB's to have more freedom in the match. As opposed to my CD/FB-type FB's for matches where they have to eliminated a player like Robben (I play Bundesliga atm).

The big deciding factor in my experience in how certain players play seems the different values for the stats Off The Ball versus Positioning.

A player with high P but low OtB will always look to position himself defensively sound, but not contribute much when team in possession.

Whereas a player with high OtB but low P, will offer much more offensively but sometimes might be caught out of position when opponent in possession.

(And of course this is a calculated risk in selecting this player over the other, f.e. when the opponent is no real threat.)

Excellent post sir I use a simlar system but usually only switch my Strikers around, never thought about doing it with the whole team. will be coming back to this thread when I can get on my computer

Great post OP.

The way different players can play the same role is something that I have begun to notice although so far i've not really found ways to harnessed this. Anyway plenty of food for thought here.

This is sort of the thing I was coming up with in this post: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/296778-Let-your-players-choose-your-tactic-a-theoretical-discussion

I think the idea is extremely valid, but I would wonder what the overriding attribute(s) is(are) that is driving the change in styles of play. Decisions would play large role as it will affect the players tendency to do what he is incapable of doing (I'd assume a player with low dribbling and high decisions would run less than the same player with low decisions).

The key difference between what I was proposing and this is that this appears to allow the player to make the decisions within the framework, whereas I was training the players to become different things through the PPM's.

I think flair would be important too. A player with flair will use things he is less capable off. Combined with decesions this would be very effective. He does something he's not good at, but since it is the right thing to do, he would be able to pull it off. Any thoughts on this?

Flair is the natural ability of been creative and unpredicatable. So in hindsight even with a high decision attribute he'd do the things he was poor at a lot less. However a lower decision rating and he could technically use the weaker tools in his locker a lot more due to making poorer decisions. So I guss what I'm saying is yes Steve I agree with you. Beause if he did do the stuff he wasn't capable of while having high flair, technique, decisions and creativity he must surely be of the opinion that's it's the right thing to do at the time.

I've read many different guides over player attributes and what they actually do in the ME, but they all say different things. When it comes to flair the two predominant theories are

1 - flair is the tendency - given all the possibilities the creativity provides - to choose the 'hard' option. So basically, that it gives the more attacking options a higher priority for a player with high flair. A player with low flair would then tend to go with the easy option.

2 - flair is basically an extension of creativity and provide aditional, harder, options for the player.

Which one do you think it is?

Also, why don't SI simply give the players - say in the manual - a list of all the attributes where they are explained in detail. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be provided that information. To me, it doesn't make any sense at all that we should be forced to guess what the provided information actually means. Sorry, just had to say that. :o

The manual does give you an idea of what the attribute actually does. It keeps it simple and sums it up for you. My thread explains what the attributes do and had input in them from SI.

1) Yes basically that is flair. A player with high flair will naturally be more creative and unpredictable at times when he feels it's the right decision.

2) No what you've explained here is 'creativity'. Creativity is a players vision to see all options.

So creativity is the ability to see the options a player has and potential openings. Flair is his ability to try and do something creative and unpredicatble with the options he has.

The manual does give you an idea of what the attribute actually does. It keeps it simple and sums it up for you. My thread explains what the attributes do and had input in them from SI.

1) Yes basically that is flair. A player with high flair will naturally be more creative and unpredictable at times when he feels it's the right decision.

2) No what you've explained here is 'creativity'. Creativity is a players vision to see all options.

So creativity is the ability to see the options a player has and potential openings. Flair is his ability to try and do something creative and unpredicatble with the options he has.

Just a question Cleon relating flair to creative freedom. Would it be a smart move to give a player who had high creativity, high decisions but low flair (someone like Michael Carrick as an example) a lot of creative freedom, knowing that he isn't going to pull off anything too spectacular anyway?

It could be yeah but what would the point be? Surely you give someone high creative freedom because you want something special from them? Isn't that the whole point of CF?

It could be yeah but what would the point be? Surely you give someone high creative freedom because you want something special from them? Isn't that the whole point of CF?

That is true. My point is that if I were to give someone like that creative freedom, they would be smarter in using it than someone who has tons of flair but lacks the brains to use it wisely. So on the rare occasion that the player with low flair sees a viable opportunity to be flashy, he might actually use it. Unless I haven't quite grasped what flair and creative freedom do exactly

Well creative freedom encourages people to do the more difficult and ambitious stuff more often. So on one hand you'd be asking him to be creative yet he doesn't have the flair to pull it off. For what your describing above you'd just want him to only attempt it rarely when that was the best option. So ideally you'd want him to have little CF. Giving him a high CF would just highlight and expose his low flair attribute. It would work to some extent but I honestly don't see the point when he'll be nore successful with a lower CF. After all you want your bad players doing what their bad at less often not more don't you?

Well creative freedom encourages people to do the more difficult and ambitious stuff more often. So on one hand you'd be asking him to be creative yet he doesn't have the flair to pull it off. For what your describing above you'd just want him to only attempt it rarely when that was the best option. So ideally you'd want him to have little CF. Giving him a high CF would just highlight and expose his low flair attribute. It would work to some extent but I honestly don't see the point when he'll be nore successful with a lower CF. After all you want your bad players doing what their bad at less often not more don't you?

Ok that makes things clearer for me. I knew what behaviour I wanted from my players, I was just going the wrong way about it. Thanks anyway

No worries someone might thing of it a different way though and have a different opinion. But that''s how I set about the game as it makes more sense to me

No worries someone might thing of it a different way though and have a different opinion. But that''s how I set about the game as it makes more sense to me

I'm still pretty inexperienced when it comes to FM and real life football tactics. Getting a perspective of someone of your experience will help me more than most

You will become more experienced when you are posting a lot, and trying out what you learn here, so that's actually a good thing. Keep up, and one day, we'll al learn from you.

You will become more experienced when you are posting a lot, and trying out what you learn here, so that's actually a good thing. Keep up, and one day, we'll al learn from you.

Anyway, I fear that I've sidetracked this thread. The OP has given me more of an incentive to rotate my squad more often. I tend to stick to what I feel is best and only adapt when I need to. I prefer to make the opposition bend to me rather than me bending to them, but I'm open to all ideas

I'm a top class lurker to be honest, watching and learning quietly. I'll try and post more and give what opinions and views that I have. However it'll be a long time before people learn from me, I don't have the knowledge to give advice that has not been given before.

Anyway, I fear that I've sidetracked this thread. The OP has given me more of an incentive to rotate my squad more often. I tend to stick to what I feel is best and only adapt when I need to. I prefer to make the opposition bend to me rather than me bending to them, but I'm open to all ideas

The middle ground is probably the most succesfull. If you're managing away it could prove difficult to let the opposition bend to you, for instance. Adapting when you need to is the best way to manage a team. The only question is: When do you need to adapt? If you know the answer to this you're halfway through succesfull management in my opniion.

I play quite similarly to you, but what really impresses me about this thread is that you have basically got one tactic and you've learnt to tweak it for certain games.

I very much believe in having 3 different tactics for different games (this has been my style through every iteration, not just since the familiarity was implemented) - I play 4-2-3-1 in Europe, 4-2-2-2 most domestic games, and 4-3-1-2 in games where I don't expect to have all of the play. But what you've done is find one tactic that can be nudged in different directions for different matches.

Maybe I am just awkward, but I think this is much better - and more tactically adept/realistic - than just having one 'super goalscoring tactic' that coasts through the game, which I find quite unrealistic. Kudos!

I'm definitely finding myself playing this way more often now. I used to build squads to have an 'A' and 'B' team built to fit my current tactic. The 'A' team would generally be the best I could get for their positions and the 'B' team were like younger clones of the 'A' team with more potential.

Now though, I'll build a squad that gives me options. I'll have pacey wingers and more playmaker type wide players. Physical monsters to dominate a midfield and creative playmakers. I'll also try to have a target man, playmaker forward and poacher in the squad. I then won't change the tactic itself too much but will choose my players based on the scout report. I'm finding myself far more engaged with the game as a result and feel like I've got a much better take on how to play the game. Just need to improve my man management now and get the best out of my options...

With regards to the 1st post, how do I make a striker drop deep? Reduce mentality or RFD?