Adopting a new approach: A different tactic for every game

After putting in a fair number of hours on FM14 now, I've decided that the hierarchy of importance when facing any given opponent goes as follows (at least in my opinion)

1. Morale

2. Formation

3. Player Roles

3. Team Instructions

4. Player Instructions

At least, those are the things that you can directly control.

Not knowing enough about how to control morale, I've decided to focus on number two. I'm currently adopting an experiment to essentially change my formation in every single game to nullify and expose the opposition. I'm not talking about switching from counter to control, for example. I mean wholesale changes, and often outlandish formations. To hell with tactical familiarity.

There are two things which I've left more or less constant however.

1. I'm working on the general principle of 5 attackers and 5 defenders within my formation, where possible.

2. I'm playing direct football.

Here is the first case in point:

Sheff Wed turned up using a deep 4-4-2 formation. My response: Back four with wing backs to nullify, with Frimpong as a HB to provide some added insurance. FBs as WBs as they are the only players occupying the wide areas, so they offer an out ball. That is the defensive side finished with, and the rest is about exposing their defence. They've left a huge pocket of space in the middle of the pitch, so I play two CMs in there providing support. Next, they are playing a back four. How can I create a problem here? By playing three central forwards, thus asking some very awkward questions of their back four and the two DMCs.

Unorthodox by all means, but look at the match stats. This was total domination, and could have been 5 or 6 easily.

Here are a couple of other examples of how I've set up in recent matches.

Look at how Palace in particular got pulled out of shape in the middle of the pitch.

Anyway, this might not cure the world's ills but it's an interesting experiment and it's only three games so it could well be luck! I'll keep this updated. Spurs at home next in the FA Cup. Hmmmm.

This is a pretty damn interesting idea. In theory you'd get penalized big time by the lack of familiarity, but I suppose you're keeping some sort of similarities through mentality, strategy, instructions, roles?

There's a few managers around who are well known for switching formations on a game-per-game basis but just not as eccentrically as you're attempting here! Can definitely see where you were going for in each case so far.

I had a similar (albeit less extreme) approach on FM13, which is documented in a blog somewhere.

I'll see if I can convert the article and post it here tomorrow, as it shares some common thinking.

FMC really supports this sort of proactive tactical innovation, as it isn't burdened by the tactic familiarity concept that exists in simulation mode.

This is a pretty damn interesting idea. In theory you'd get penalized big time by the lack of familiarity, but I suppose you're keeping some sort of similarities through mentality, strategy, instructions, roles?

There's a few managers around who are well known for switching formations on a game-per-game basis but just not as eccentrically as you're attempting here! Can definitely see where you were going for in each case so far.

I play Carroll as a TM and I play direct, but apart from that, things are up for grabs really. I'll play control if I think it warrants it. In the Bolton game I pushed up and played attacking to reduce the space their midfield had to play in, but against Sheff Wed, I dropped deeper and played control in an attempt to draw them out. Not sure that bit worked though.

This is a pretty damn interesting idea. In theory you'd get penalized big time by the lack of familiarity,

I guess the question is just how much do you get penalised? I think switching formations is a solid ploy for a team that has a squad of players who can do that. In the same way, I don't think morale necessarily is as punishing as some seem to think. I wonder if we worry about these things to much to be honest.

I guess the question is just how much do you get penalised?

Well depends on what basic formations , the team has learn. For example if youve covered, 3 at the back , back four etc..

Assuming mentality and philosophy stays the same i doubt you will see a drop of say 20% (assuming its fully trained)

I have never gone to these extremes but more often then not games are won and lost in midfield so mine has to mirror the opposition somewhat. I call it my tactical magpie approach

Here's what I had posted elsewhere, and it's along a very similar train of thought as the opening poster.

This was in the Simulation mode of FM13, so using this three system setup had no tactical familiarity issues once they were fuly Fluid post pre-season.

Overview

Until recently I used one tactic per season. Not being an expert on the tactical side of the game, this caused issues when facing formations with multiple DM’s or central AMCs, such as the Deep 4-4-2 or Narrow 4-2-3-1. You can mitigate these positional challenges within the constraints of a single formation, but it isn’t always obvious how to.

However, there is an alternative method which I adopted to test the hypothesis that “games are won and lost in midfield”. I created subtly different formations based on the same tactical concept and selected formations based on how the opposition deployed players in central midfield.

This article aims to articulate the logic behind my selections, and the way in which they either nullified the oppositions’ threats, maximised my own, or achieved a bit of both.

What is midfield?

This is my definition of “midfield”; the three horizontal slots available in each of the DM, MC and AMC lines:

I focus on this central area because I know that as my formations utilise Defensive Wingers, I can use marking and / or Opposition Instructions to cut offensive AI wide players out of the game.

By packing central midfield, I can control the flow of the game and cut off the supply line to danger men by identifying the opposition Playmaker(s) and taking appropriate action. Even when the opposition do break through, which they occasionally and inevitably will, I have the insurance policy of a back three.

What better way to get more players in central midfield, than to play without Strikers, and to only play with three at the back?

Selections

As stated above, it is just a case of checking out the opponents’ central midfield numbers and positions to choose an appropriate shape. Examples of the selection process are listed below:

Against a 4-1-2-2-1

This is from an FA Cup 5th Round Replay at White Hart Lane against Chelsea, managed by Mario Bielsa in 2014 on my save, which we won 3-0.

I selected a 3-4-3-0 because Chelsea’s 4-1-2-2-1 sees the DM Mikel almost certainly line up with a Defend Duty. As a result, he doesn’t offer much threat beyond my MC line, so I was happy to match them man for man at MC.

An option was to play three MCs but I felt that with Mikel being on Defend, it meant that only one out of Badelj and Hamsik was likely to have an Attacking Duty. As such, my zonal marking MCs should have been able to contain any Attacking thrust Chelsea offered centrally, which also meant that I could push an extra man into the AMC line.

Here is how we were set up:

My MCs were disciplined and nullified Chelsea’s MCs whilst my AMCs swamped their lone DM. Specific marking and encouraging Mata and Hazard to play onto their weaker foot rendered them ineffective out wide.

The blue boxes represent the MC duos. My pairing sits ahead of my DCs, covering their MCs. My AMC line (red line) and DWs (yellow circles) are past their MC line which is exactly what I wanted. Mikel, their DM player, is closing down Kovacic in this image, but my player’s greater agility and pace enabled him to skip the challenge and I’m left 5 vs. 4 in the final third, a recurrent theme in this game.

Against a 4-4-2

In the next round of the Cup, we travelled North East to face a Sunderland side using the 4-4-2 they’d used in 75% of their games so far that season.

As with the Chelsea game I selected the 3-4-3-0, but this time it was because I felt that with no DM Role, Sunderland would play with a conservative Defend / Support pairing in the MC line which would be neutralised by my own setup there, and I expected my higher overall quality to settle this midfield battle in my favour.

With Sunderland not using a DM, I also expected my AMC trio to run riot and, to be honest, I expected an easy game.

After 15 minutes at 0-0, a quick glance at Average Positions on the Analysis Tab confirmed that Sunderland were playing with a Counter or Defensive Strategy. Their central MC duo were deep to deny my AMC trio space and we offered little Attacking potency. The Shout “Push Higher Up” created space and the pattern of play reverted to that of the Chelsea game as we secured a comfortable 2-0 win:

This is a clear demonstration of the better positioning of my players as a result of the “Push Higher Up” Shout. My MC duo are screening the defence, and critically have the whole Sunderland MC line quartet in front of them.

Sunderland, on the other hand, have my circled DWs on or behind their fullbacks and two of my AMCs sitting on the shoulder of their defence, creating a 4 vs. 4 at the back where their left back is doubled up.

Against a 4-2-3-1

My approach when facing this shape is based on my assessment of a few key elements:

AML/R players - I analyse their season stats to see their effectiveness. I’ll almost always use OIs to Show Onto Weaker Foot. If they are particularly potent players, I’ll specific man mark them with my DWs

No DM Role - I’m confident that their MC line will be a Defend / Support pairing, which won’t offer much forward threat. A glance at the season stats will confirm which of their MC duo or AMC is the Primary Playmaker, and will enable me to choose whether or not to give him special attention. No DM Role also means space for my AMC line

Lone striker - whilst likely to be supported by movement from an IF out wide and / or movement from the AM, this means that my back three will not be constantly occupied and can help to snuff out any players breaking beyond my MC line

In view of these observations, I usually set up with a 3-5-2-0:

The key difference to the 3-4-3-0 is the additional CM slot. If I use a 3-4-3-0 against this shape and man mark their AMC, my remaining MC is regularly going to be outnumbered which would not be a good idea. Dropping an AMC back to the MC line averts that problem, and the presence of our two AMs will still cause plenty of problems in the absence of opposing DMs.

I’ll often specific man mark the AM with my BWM, and then leave the zonal marking of my DLP and CM to proactively close down any threat from the MC players.

As mentioned above, even if an MC or the AMC break through this MC line, I am more than likely to have a spare man or two at the back to engage with any runners, and the use of Stoppers makes this engagement happen further up the pitch.

The example in this case is against Spurs’ good friends and local rivals Arsenal, with Arteta and Ramsay at MC, Griezmann and the Ox out wide, and Cazorla behind Giroud.

In this game, I both marked and OI’d their wide men (Show Onto Weaker Foot), and marked Cazorla with my BWM.

In this Attacking transition, we can see the more Defensive of my players in the blue box (Livermore DLP (D), Sandro BWM (S)). Ahead of them, the circled Wingbacks stretch the Gunners defence wide, and my AMC line plus the Attacking CM are past the Arsenal midfield, running at an exposed defence.

Against a Narrow 4-2-3-1

This is such a rare formation to face that I don’t have any examples of relative in game positions to post. Hopefully the image of the shape and the description can give an idea of the concept.

The threat of the AML/R players is different to the wide 4-2-3-1. By being more central, there are 5 players in my defined “midfield” danger zone. Their MC duo will be a holding pair, again likely to be a Defend / Support combination offering limited forward movement.

However, their AMC trio is going to be a combination of Support Duties sitting between my MC and DC lines, and Attacking Duties pushing up to support the lone striker. This is dangerous and is exactly the sort of threat I try to impose on the opposition with my 3-4-3-0.

My approach to facing the threats of this shape was to create a 3-1-4-2-0:

I expect the oppositions Narrow “3” to contain two Attacking Duties at most. Therefore I selected one DM to partially offset that threat; selecting two DMs would mean either playing a 3-2-3-2-0 (which would be too open on the flanks with a narrow “3”, or too weak centrally if the outer slots were out wide) or a 3-2-4-1-0 (which would compromise our attacking effectiveness).

The plan is that with one dedicated deep Role to occupy one Attacking AMC, my Zonal marking MC pair would contest space with their MC counterparts. In order to further control the opposition AMC line, I would almost certainly employ specific man marking on the outside AMCs, with my Defensive Wingers tasked with that job.

In Defensive phases, this would leave us vulnerable down the flanks, but it is an acceptable risk to take with their central midfield occupied and my back three therefore “only” responsible for containing two fullbacks and a lone striker.

Against this formation I’d “Play Narrower” and “Exploit The Flanks”, expecting to capitalise on their lack of wide midfield Roles. Note also that with the added security of a DM, I’d be more inclined to use an Attacking Role in the central MC line, which would add an extra running threat to the spaces created when we have the ball.

Summary

Hopefully this article gives some food for thought for FM players who stick to the one tactic formula. Having played in both ways (using one tactic or using multiple tactics), I have to conclude that I prefer the flexibility of having two or three different shapes available to line up against the opposition.

The simple yet effective ploy of assessing the opposition’s midfield setup does appear to have its merits and from my point of view, it is an approach I’ll continue to use.

It's quite an interesting approach, and logical in its own way. Myself I play at night after the kids are off my computer and I've finished work, and play around 4-5 games each night. I swear, every night I'll try a different tactic from the bones of whatever I've been thinking about during the day. I feel that after you have a settled squad they don't mind, but obviously after the fourth or fifth game they are really linking up well, until the next night that is...

Really do like this idea, might give it a go with my Blackburn save later on. If you get the formation nailed on perfect to nullify the opposition I cant see any massive downsides providing the Strategy/Shouts are kept pretty similar.

Having carried this on last night, I won a couple more league games but was dominated by Spurs at home in the cup. They played the 4-1-2-2-1 formation, and I actually found it hard to come up with something to counteract it.

The rationale behind all this is that it's actually just giving a helping hand to player roles. Rather than playing a traditional formation with player instructions and roles, I'm using the formation to actually move people into the spaces that I would hope they would move into anyway.

An example might be the Inside Forward. When you look at his average position over the game, he pretty much plays as a winger with bells on. But what do you actually want him to do? You want him to cut inside and ideally utilise the space between the full back and the centre back. Why not just play him as a centre forward as part of a central three? He's actually attacking the space you want him to much more regularly than he would if deployed as an IF. You lose the defensive aspect of course, but I like to think of it as asking questions of the opposition full back rather than the other way around. I've also found that if I play a front three of, say, Joe Cole (Treq/A), Carroll (TM/S) and Eduardo (AF/A), then one of Carroll and Cole will drop into midfield when I'm defending.

I even played Jarvis in the Attack Left position in one game, with an IF role, which was interesting. I found that when I broke out at speed, he was often in a great area behind their full back but wide of the centre half, and ultimately provided the assist for the winner.

This hasn't been perfect by any means, but so far, so good.

Thanks for your input as well RT - that was a good read.

Really liking this thread. As I'm yet to really settle on a formation I like I think I'll carry this philosophy out for the rest of this season (only 8 games into the Championship so a long way to get yet). I'm playing as a recently relegated Villa side so my team is reasonably strong in comparison to the rest of the side, so hopefully we can get some good results (and learn a thing or two in the process)!

Having followed a similar approach from FM13 into FM14 but slightly more structure and removes the familiarity problem. Came across this strategy when trying to reduce space and produce free men on the pitch in 3 defender tactics.

1) Create the 1st tactic that includes at least one AMC in the formation and assign all 11 players to the formation (usually the Control strategy) - Called TACTIC AMC

2) Copy the 1st tactic to create the 2nd but this time move the assigned players to different position so that this tactic includes a DMC (usually the Standard strategy) - Called TACTIC DMC

3) Copy the 1st tactic again to create the 3rd and again move the assigned players to different positions but this time not to include any DMC's or AMC's (usually either Attack or Counter strategy, depending where the players are overloaded) - Called TACTIC FLAT

Obviously, assigned the appropriate roles and duty for each tactic and player, this is the hard bit. However, most roles are similar to at least another role in different strata’s. Advanced Playermaker are found in M or AM and centre or wing so moving a AP is not too difficult. The basics of a lot of roles are replicated but have different names so an example would be CMd is similar to a DM. Some positional retraining can be require, especially for second string players.

My 3 tactics are:

TACTIC AM: 3-4-1-2 Control (GKd/CDs,CDc,CDs/DWs,CMd,DLFs,DWs/APa/DLFa,AFa)

TACTIC DM: 3-1-4-2 Standard (GKd/CDs,CDc,CDs/DMd/DWs,DLFs,APa,DWs/DLFs,AFa)

TACTIC FLAT: 3-4-3 Attack (GKd/CDs,CDc,CDs/CWBa,CWBa/DLFs,CMd/IFa,APa/F9s)

Before the match I check the scout report ask myself 3 statements about the oppositions formation in the following order:

If they are they playing an AMC then play TACTIC DM

Else if they are they playing a DMC then play TACTIC FLAT

Otherwise play TACTIC AM

The order of the question can vary, the order I have them is reactive to the opposing team.

So a few examples:

Opponent plays a 4-4-2:

No AMC, No DMC so play TACTIC AM (3-4-1-2) - My spare men are AMC and central DC and his are the FB's (this is a perfect example).

Opponent plays a 4-2-3-1:

1 AMC so play TACTIC DM (3-1-4-2) - Spare men are my outer DC's and his FB's (not ideal but not too vulnerable, at least there is cover in the centre). A proactive statement order would have played TACTIC AM (3-4-1-2) and additional both spare men would be the AMC's. Good when your team is much better quality.

Opponent plays a 4-1DM-2-3:

No AMC, 1 DMC so play TACTIC FLAT (3-4-3) - Spare men would be my central DC and his DMC. Although, this does not look good to have the extra man in DMC, they are usually an anchorman or defensive midfielder and not an attacking threat plus it this an Attacking or Counter strategy the midfield is usully bypassed with my attacking threat in the wings. (Note: if the DMC is a DLP like Pirlo then a little thought is require and would be wise to go for TACTIC AM (3-4-1-2)).

Always done this to an extent. My three tactics are all designed with flexibility in mind - IE, three basic "notions" of how to play, and three broadly different formations, to ensure maximum tactical understanding when I change things. Frequently I can make pretty big changes to how we play with only a small drop in familiarity, and then just increase tactical training ahead of a big match, with all the focus on learning tactics, and end up with fully fluid familiarity in spite of a lot of tweaking.

I notice both RTH & PeeKay's examples use a back 3. Anyone tried with a 4?

I'm currently experimenting with various tactics in my LFC save and fund this concept fascinating.

Any updates to this? It seems like an interesting concept.

I'm currently adopting an experiment to essentially change my formation in every single game to nullify and expose the opposition. I'm not talking about switching from counter to control, for example. I mean wholesale changes, and often outlandish formations. To hell with tactical familiarity.

I do similar customisation of tactics for each opponent, but to mitigate the tactical familiarity problem, I prepare tactics three games ahead. So, my first tactic is for the next match, second the one after, and the final tactic is set up for the third match. It works for me, but there are two significant downsides to my approach: 1) it takes a lot more preparation for each match (need to examine opponents in depth, take into account expected fitness issues if games are too frequent etc) and 2) to keep tactic familiarity acceptable, I set match preparation pretty high (tactics only) which cuts into the time the players are doing general training. Plus, you can't really set up a plan A and a plan B for the next match, so plan A had better work. That said, I think I'm getting better results than recycling the same three tactics and hoping one fits the opponent.

I notice both RTH & PeeKay's examples use a back 3. Anyone tried with a 4?

I'm currently experimenting with various tactics in my LFC save and fund this concept fascinating.

It's just simple numbers, 3 at the back means 7 outfield players that can be moved around; back 4 means only 6 that can be moved around. A back 3 could be said to provide a more "flexible" response. Although, I don't see any reason why it should not be effective with a back 4.

I do similar customisation of tactics for each opponent, but to mitigate the tactical familiarity problem, I prepare tactics three games ahead. So, my first tactic is for the next match, second the one after, and the final tactic is set up for the third match. It works for me, but there are two significant downsides to my approach: 1) it takes a lot more preparation for each match (need to examine opponents in depth, take into account expected fitness issues if games are too frequent etc) and 2) to keep tactic familiarity acceptable, I set match preparation pretty high (tactics only) which cuts into the time the players are doing general training. Plus, you can't really set up a plan A and a plan B for the next match, so plan A had better work. That said, I think I'm getting better results than recycling the same three tactics and hoping one fits the opponent.

A wounderful idea and your downsides are not really a problem. However, I can think that having a low general training would be a real issue for players in your first team that have not reach 24 years of age. Their individual training is areas defined would be less. (Note: I'm now thinking about this an I'm not definite, I'm pretty sure that Individual training comes from the time assigned to General training. Someone please correct me if I am wrong?)

Also, are you not using the same tactic's for most matches? I would say that that about 85-95% matches are mostly against 4-4-2's or 4-2-3-1's with an occasional 4-3-3. I'm think a great variation would be to having at least one reactive tactic that is against teams that play the "different" tactic.

Also, are you not using the same tactic's for most matches? I would say that that about 85-95% matches are mostly against 4-4-2's or 4-2-3-1's with an occasional 4-3-3. I'm think a great variation would be to having at least one reactive tactic that is against teams that play the "different" tactic.

No, I'm not using the same tactics for most matches. Let's say, for example, that my next two matches are against teams I expect to be using 4-4-2s: I may (and probably will) use two different tactics against them. I may anticipate that one team will press and the other won't. One team may have a weaklink in their defence that I think I can exploit, while the other doesn't, and so on. It does take time to look in depth at each opponent, which is why I considered this research and preparation step to be a downside. For what it's worth, I started this with FM13 and making sure my big, slow striker and my wee, nippy one were lined up against the DCs they had the best chance against. Next step was moving my playmaker from AMC to MC if they used a DM, and it snowballed from there.

No, I'm not using the same tactics for most matches. Let's say, for example, that my next two matches are against teams I expect to be using 4-4-2s: I may (and probably will) use two different tactics against them. I may anticipate that one team will press and the other won't. One team may have a weaklink in their defence that I think I can exploit, while the other doesn't, and so on. It does take time to look in depth at each opponent, which is why I considered this research and preparation step to be a downside. For what it's worth, I started this with FM13 and making sure my big, slow striker and my wee, nippy one were lined up against the DCs they had the best chance against. Next step was moving my playmaker from AMC to MC if they used a DM, and it snowballed from there.

That is a very reactive approach to each match. What team are you using?

That is a very reactive approach to each match. What team as you using?

Now? Rangers, so massively stronger than most of my opponents. Currently in September in the second season, and on a 45 game unbeaten streak, including winning the Scottish cup. Celtic did knock me out of the league cup as my last defeat though. Lost 2 games in total, that one, and first league game of the first season. Previously tried a save with AFC Wimbledon, but got frustrated at the lack of backroom staff available: both in terms of numbers and the quality I could attract so gave up on it. Back in FM13, it was Charlton/West Ham/Scotland, and an FMC game with Rangers.

Do you have to be as reactive with a massively stronger team like Rangers?

I can't remember the coach that said something along the lines that the stronger teams can be less reactive, teams like Barcelona rarely have to change the way they play but when anyone else plays them they have to react (was in the Pep years).

Do you have to be as reactive with a massively stronger team like Rangers?

I can't remember the coach that said something along the lines that the stronger teams can be less reactive, teams like Barcelona rarely have to change the way they play but when anyone else plays them they have to react (was in the Pep years).

I probably don't need to be, no. But, there's three reasons I carry on doing it. Firstly, it's a habit I picked up in FM13 that seems to work for me, and I quite enjoy researching the opponents (makes them seem more like opponents, less like numbers in a spreadsheet). Secondly, it's good practice so that when facing more challenging opponents, I hopefully know what I'm doing. Finally, it's a good way to utilise the large squad, making sure each player is getting sufficient playing time to be happy. The Rangers squad is well suited to this since you have quite a few players like Templeton that are very good at a particular task (inside forward from AML), but aren't really that flexible so a change of tactics pretty much mandates a change in personnel. A tactic that gets the best out of Templeton probably doesn't get the best out of Daly since he's a good target man; I don't try to shoe-horn both of them together, just use whichever I think is best for a particular match. Of the outfield players, probably the only constant is Wallace as complete wing back.