Cracking Guardiola's AI play

Hello everyone, i need some expert help in decoding Guardiola's Bayern tactic. I played against them and it was probably the most impressive performance (even though i didn't lose).

Background:

You all probably know their formation, a plain 4141. The thing that struck me as most difficult to understand was how the midfield trio was always a very tight and narrow triangle. I wont give my personal opinion on the instructions i think they have so as to give little influence on other posters' opinions but you will see what i mean with the following images.

Formation and player's PPM

Javi Martinez - DMC - Plays short simple passes; Likes to play out of trouble

Bastian Schweinsteiger - MCL - Dictates tempo; Stops play; Likes to switch ball to the other flank

Toni Kroos - MCR - Curls ball; Dictates tempo; Likes to switch ball to the other flank

Wingers: Either Cut inside or Moves into channels

Mandzukic - Plays with back to goal, places shots.

As i said before, the midfielders are very compact, the wingers cover a lot of ground piercing the gaps and the striker is very mobile and the focus of attack play.

Kroos with +170 passes, didn't often play short, he looked for through balls to the running wingers and his movement was a bit less static than his MCL partner.

How do they play like?

Well, they play very compact with a lot of pressing. They must be the hardest team in FM14 to create chances against. Especially through the middle of the park that is crowded. They probably employ "be more disciplined" in order to be a strong cohesive unit but then again, in the offensive transition, they behave differently.

I tried to replicate their play but i couldn't achieve such solid and narrow positioning of the midfield whilst the wingers stayed so wide.

I also have been noticing that the best teams somehow employ an unusual narrow positioning of the attack, even though it seems impossible to do so with the formation they present. For example City and other top teams 4231, their wingers or IF, if you look the the average positions, they appear in the AMC strata which i really have a difficult time understanding how it is possible with the little customizing options we have. I tried stay narrower and cut inside but it is still no where near as close.

It's obvious that the AI adapts to the ME and i am inclined to say that the narrow play the best teams employ in this game is somehow more effective with the current ME, any thoughts on that?

Anyway, that's it for now, hopefully some tactical guru can help me with this quest. I know the PPMs play a huge role but still, i'd love to replicate this tactic. Hell, Manduzkic has like 22 goals in 24 games and when i had him in a previous save he was average at best.

Thanks in advance.

This should be a very interesting thread.

Check out that positioning. The midfielders are like a tornado that cleans everything and then launch through balls to the attacking trio, when the opportunity arises.

I did a giant thread about adapting the Bayern shape to my own side to fit my players. The thread can be found here;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/377489-Creating-A-Tactic-Design-Create-and-Maintain

It might give you food for thought

Even more impressing is the way centerbacks are positioned on the last pictures. Very narrow. I think I have never seen any human-controlled centerbacks positioned like this. I hope that this thread finally sparks the rational discussion about advantages AI have over humans. I never bought the crap from some persons on this forum who claims that the only advantages AI have over humans is line up on the defensive corners.

Even more impressing is the way centerbacks are positioned on the last pictures. Very narrow. I think I have never seen any human-controlled centerbacks positioned like this. I hope that this thread finally sparks the rational discussion about advantages AI have over humans. I never bought the crap from some persons on this forum who claims that the only advantages AI have over humans is line up on the defensive corners.

I think you are mixing up your own failings as AI advantages. The AI doesn't have any advantage at all and the way it plays is very generic and not as complex to how the user can play.

I think you are mixing up your own failings as AI advantages. The AI doesn't have any advantage at all and the way it plays is very generic and not as complex to how the user can play.

I have heard this before, to many times. Still, even you cant get your centerbacks be so narrow. If you still mean you can manage to get your players to position themselves as close as the picture above, then I encourage you to share it with the rest of us. Until then, your claims are only claims and nothing more.

I have heard this before, many times before. Still, even you cant get your centerbacks be so narrow. If you still mean you can manage to get your players to position themselves as close as the picture above, then I encourage you to share it with the rest of us. Until then, your claims only claims and nothing more.

But your comments are fact?

But your comments are fact?

Where have I said that?? If this is the level of argumentation, then I m out of the debate. The only thing I have said is that the picture should be enough to kick-start the discussion on how AI can achieve positioning that I have not seen human-controlled players can achieved. Cleon, however, has claimed something and the burden of proof is on his side - not on my side.

I actually agree here Jascko.... I feel it would be good to "openly and fairly" debate about this as it has not been just one person wondering "how can the AI do this" - it has been many many people and many of them are experienced players of the franchise.

Now I know through my own struggles with this version I have had to change my way of thinking during the games.

A small shout here, a shout there, and I get my team back in ... but this is a completely new way of thinking for myself and most players.

So in all fairness ... I would love to hear input from the serious tacticians ALA Cleon, LLama, NakS, etc on how they think Bayern set up there because I believe in the end .. it will allow people to help "breakdown" what the AI is trying to do ...

Does that make sense or am I completely unjustified in my comments?

-B

I would have thought we'd need to know what they were playing against before anyone can assess why the players were in such a position. CD's ave positions would surely look different if they played up against a front 2 as opposed to a single striker.

Like wise, the DM's position would depend on whether he was directly up against an AM or free to move forward with no or little defensive responsibility.

Basically, my point is that the heat map would look different v a 433 than it would v a 442 etc...

I actually agree here Jascko.... I feel it would be good to "openly and fairly" debate about this as it has not been just one person wondering "how can the AI do this" - it has been many many people and many of them are experienced players of the franchise.

Now I know through my own struggles with this version I have had to change my way of thinking during the games.

A small shout here, a shout there, and I get my team back in ... but this is a completely new way of thinking for myself and most players.

So in all fairness ... I would love to hear input from the serious tacticians ALA Cleon, LLama, NakS, etc on how they think Bayern set up there because I believe in the end .. it will allow people to help "breakdown" what the AI is trying to do ...

Does that make sense or am I completely unjustified in my comments?

-B

I think it is rational to ask for this type of discussion. When you see how the AI manages some things that we humans can not, or don’t know how, then it is rational that many are thinking in the direction of AI benefits. However, if clear evidence is put on the table which indicates that humans can achieve the same, I'll be the first to be humble enough to admit that my insinuations about AI benefits were not correct.

We already know that it is established fact that the AI can line up on defensive corners on the way we humans can not. Then is totally fine, in my opinion, to question whether AI can do other things that we humans can not.

What I think has been a nuisance for many, many years on this forum is the fact that anyone who has made such critical questions have been virtually declared as a conspiratorial idiots who no one takes seriously. It's unfortunate because I know very well individual frustration when they see certain things AI do that they can not.

We already know that it is established fact that the AI can line up on defensive corners on the way we humans can not. Then is totally fine, in my opinion, to question whether AI can do other things that we humans can not.

What I think has been a nuisance for many, many years on this forum is the fact that anyone who has made such critical questions have been virtually declared as a conspiratorial idiots who no one takes seriously. It's unfortunate because I know very well individual frustration when they see certain things AI do that they can not.

The corner example is unfortunate, but it genuinely is the only example in FM of something the AI can do that we can't.

Hand on heart, that is 100% the case. I don't particularly care whether I'm "believed" or not, but that is the case.

alinp's post is spot on.

I would have thought we'd need to know what they were playing against before anyone can assess why the players were in such a position. CD's ave positions would surely look different if they played up against a front 2 as opposed to a single striker.

Like wise, the DM's position would depend on whether he was directly up against an AM or free to move forward with no or little defensive responsibility.

Basically, my point is that the heat map would look different v a 433 than it would v a 442 etc...

Fair enough. But, I have played many times with this formation against formation with one striker and never managed to get my CDs so narrow. I know there is a lot of people who struggle with CDs being to far apart (even when they play without HB) and have problems with TB between CDs. It would be very helpful for them if somebody could explain how to get their CDs to work more close to each other – especially against alone striker formation.

Well I guess we start with this .... CAN and DOES the AI set individual player instructions?

That is something I have never really know. I always believed they only worked within the TC since it was introduced and do not set PI's... but I may be wrong.

If they DO NOT set PI's ... then check the PM's of the 2 CB;s up there and their positioning attribute perhaps?

The CB's being close together on the analysis screen is nothing more than them switching around their positions during the game. For what reason the AI does this is unclear but that's all there is to it.

I'd wager it's the same in that City example where their IF's end up close to the AMC in analysis. They probably swap positions. You can't always use the analysis tab effectively without putting it in context i.e seeing what's actually going on on the pitch.

The CB's being close together on the analysis screen is nothing more than them switching around their positions during the game. For what reason the AI does this is unclear but that's all there is to it.

I'd wager it's the same in that City example where their IF's end up close to the AMC in analysis. They probably swap positions. You can't always use the analysis tab effectively without putting it in context i.e seeing what's actually going on on the pitch.

I have a screenshot of an analysis screen where the CB's are actually on top of each other, I am sure this is the exact reason why.

The CB's being close together on the analysis screen is nothing more than them switching around their positions during the game. For what reason the AI does this is unclear but that's all there is to it.

I would like to know why AI does that. Maybe switching CDs positions gives some kind of tactical advantage that we are not aware of – not that I can think of any at this time.

This is clear example that if you take approach thinking that this game is real football, you would fail. Is a game, it would always be. AI is not rational and it is long way before it is even near the real thing.

Switching CBs may just be tip of iceberg with regard to constant AI tactic changes. Apparently not using TC to set up tactics is also a major cause for concern. If SI do not believe that there is an advantage then why has the AI been set up in this way. However, the AI defensive corner can be replicated using the TC.

I'm not sure there's any sort of clever tactical ploy behind the CB switch. My guess is it's just the AI switching between pre-set tactics that have the CB's on opposite sides. A small chance it is actually clever enough to react to match-ups but even then it's nothing a human user can't do. I don't think it's worth making a fuss over.

Would playing narrow and instructing your wingers and full backs to stay wide/run wide?

That might get close to your heat map but it would leave a lot of space that the ai will not doubt exploit (though, when I try to do that to the ai, my players run into each other. Sorry, just needed a wee rant)

watch back the highlits thorughout the match. Bayern has a very, very versatile squad and I'm almost certain there will be a fair few position swaps involved throughout the match.

In genral one thing the AI is quite smart at is to adapt tactics to free up their playmaker. So assuming either Kroos or Schweinsteiger are their primary playmakers in these matches, Guardiola is probably shifting them around throughout the match to react to countermeasures by the other AI teams. by doing that, naturally the average positions of the 3 midfielders are very close together. The centre backs he seems to be swapping around quite often, too. No idea why, but might again be a reaction to what's going on in match (i.e. reacting to opp swapping around their wingers and therefore keeping the fast centre back on the saide where the most dangerous winger/inside forward comes through).

If anything this does not point out that the AI has an advantage. all it points out is that the AI will make many,many changes throughout the match to counteract what anothe rAI team / you are doing. If you have a solid system and the right players you'll still win the majority of matches. But sumetimes it feels like you have to micromanage an awful lot to counter-counter since the AI relentlessly punishes your weaknesses otherwise (no matter the player material at their disposal).

I'd be inclined to agree the closeness of the CBs is due to a swap.

I would be interested in seeing some thoughts on how they play though - I got them in a CL draw on one of my saves and they beat me more comprehensively than any other team in any edition of FM has. Obviously they have a ridiculously good squad but it can't just be the players, that's been true on plenty of other occasions.

Think, if this question is answered we might never need to worry about another 'how do I get my team to play like Guardiola's?' thread! Unfortunately I deleted the save I played them on so can't go back and analyse myself.

Looking at the pics you'd think Mandzukic would've been isolated but had a fair number of passes for a striker in one of them.

I'm sure on an old version of the game someone was able to dig out the AI tactics...

One way of working out how an AI manager plays is to look at his tactical attributes in the editor.

So with Guardiola I would guess he uses Standard as a starting strategy with Much Higher Defensive Line, Higher Tempo, Hassle Opponents, Shorter Passing as the base instructions. Fluidity I'm not sure about as I don't really understand how the attributes translate to it, but he has a Depth of 1, Free Roles 18 and Flamboyancy of 10 so he's likely to use a setting that's compact and allows some creative freedom, maybe Balanced. He's also set to rarely use a target man or playmaker so it's unlikely he uses any of these roles. He'll use the offside trap but not Tight Marking. He has a flexibility rating of 18 so is likely to change how he plays constantly, which would explain the regular switching of positions at CB and CM and the tactical tweaks to stay on top. Despite this, he'll only ever play 4-1-4-1 and will always try to fit his players into a preferred tactic.

As for roles, I guess he'll use the Wide Midfielder roles, generic Central Midfielders, Wing Backs and a Defensive Forward with Mandzukic, though I have no idea how the AI decides on roles or even if they can actually issue individual instructions. The most important thing about Pep though beyond the obvious possession/pressing is that he has high Tactical knowledge, Flexibility and Use of Subs attributes and therefore will be even better than most AI managers at making changes during the match

The central defenders could be that close due to the following:

• play narrow instruction
  
• Swapping positions
  
• man-marking a lone forward
  
• man-marking a strike pairing who swap positions

Thanks llama - I just checked and it does not appear humans can set the CB to swap position? At least I cannot find it.

Thanks llama - I just checked and it does not appear humans can set the CB to swap position? At least I cannot find it.

There isn't an option because there is no point in having it. What sort of benefit would you gain from CB's swapping? If there's any tactical reasoning at all behind the AI doing it then it is to match up to opposition strikers. This is something you would have to do manually anyway. Remember that players swapping in FM even for the positions it is available for isn't a fluid mechanic where they react to situations, it's a case of them rigidly switching around at random points in the game.

At the risk of losing my first match of the season (after fighting relegation last season) I am facing a team playing the 4-3-3 (with DM) so I set man marking on the striker for both my CB's and here is the first half result on the analysis tab ... both CBs set to man mark the striker and I use play narrow as a TI

Bayern formation in reality is 433 not 4141....

Bayern formation in reality is 433 not 4141....

In Germany, it's almost universally recognized as a 4-1-4-1. In either case, as you can see from the screenshots in the OP, the 4-1-4-1 defensive shape creates a 4-3-3 shape on average. Formation in FM is more narrowly defined than the vague sense in which the term is used IRL.

Ok so after the CB discussion ... How in the heck does the AI makes its advanced wingers so deadly in the 4231 formation?

I have man marked them, double marked them, pushed up the line to reduce space, closed down on them...but yet the little buggers constantly slip behind my FB/WB/CFB/LFB (yes I tried all) and ...the 3 man defense ... so not only is stopping them tough .. but I cannot replicate that type of movement on my own teams (and yes I have tried it with several to replicate it)...

So ...what does the AI do that makes its advanced wingers so deadly?

In Germany, it's almost universally recognized as a 4-1-4-1. In either case, as you can see from the screenshots in the OP, the 4-1-4-1 defensive shape creates a 4-3-3 shape on average. Formation in FM is more narrowly defined than the vague sense in which the term is used IRL.

Not to argue or anything, especially as I don't watch a lot of German football, but aren't Robben and Ribery what the FM AML/R is pretty much meant to represent? They are the specialist wide forwards that are meant to illustrate the difference between the upper two midfield stratas after all, aren't they? And if they don't, should the AM strata even exist? I mean if Antonio Valencia is a natural AMR in the game (not MR), yet Arjen Robben plays as an MR then what we have is a pretty skewed representation of real life tactics in FM.

Ok so after the CB discussion ... How in the heck does the AI makes its advanced wingers so deadly in the 4231 formation?

I have man marked them, double marked them, pushed up the line to reduce space, closed down on them...but yet the little buggers constantly slip behind my FB/WB/CFB/LFB (yes I tried all) and ...the 3 man defense ... so not only is stopping them tough .. but I cannot replicate that type of movement on my own teams (and yes I have tried it with several to replicate it)...

So ...what does the AI do that makes its advanced wingers so deadly?

I get a huge amount of goals and assists from a winger on attack duty coupled with a striker dropping deep and movement around them. The full backs seem to struggle marking runs outside of them.

Robben and Ribery play very very high and narrower than wingers. Inside Forwards probably with play narrower imho.

That's not true. They play in various ways, they have freedom of movement (roaming) based on how the play is developing, where the space is and where their teammates need them. Their roles are too complicated to be pinned to just one specific way.

Not to argue or anything, especially as I don't watch a lot of German football, but aren't Robben and Ribery what the FM AML/R is pretty much meant to represent? They are the specialist wide forwards that are meant to illustrate the difference between the upper two midfield stratas after all, aren't they? And if they don't, should the AM strata even exist? I mean if Antonio Valencia is a natural AMR in the game (not MR), yet Arjen Robben plays as an MR then what we have is a pretty skewed representation of real life tactics in FM.

It's probably their preferred role, and a lot of real world 4-3-3s would translate (in FM) to an asymmetric 4-4-2 with the wide AMs alternating shifts as the fourth midfielder, but I would not say that's how they were/are played under either Heynckes or Guardiola. Even at Chelsea, Robben was operating in midfield for Mourinho more often than not. Keep in mind, a big factor in how journalists often identify formation is simply how much time the team spends in the attacking phase, so a nominal 4-3-3 might get called "more of a 4-5-1" if the team happens to spend a lot of time pressed into its own half, even though the player's actual instructions on how to change shape going forward or dropping back are exactly the same.

Of course, this is my interpretation of things. You are welcome to disagree and there's obviously no "right" definition of formation IRL, but I find this perspective is a more pragmatic fit for how things work in FM.

That's not true. They play in various ways, they have freedom of movement (roaming) based on how the play is developing, where the space is and where their teammates need them. Their roles are too complicated to be pinned to just one specific way.

Look at their average positions in games - its hardly ML or MR - it is very high.

It's probably their preferred role, and a lot of real world 4-3-3s would translate (in FM) to an asymmetric 4-4-2 with the wide AMs alternating shifts as the fourth midfielder, but I would not say that's how they were/are played under either Heynckes or Guardiola. Even at Chelsea, Robben was operating in midfield for Mourinho more often than not. Keep in mind, a big factor in how journalists often identify formation is simply how much time the team spends in the attacking phase, so a nominal 4-3-3 might get called "more of a 4-5-1" if the team happens to spend a lot of time pressed into its own half, even though the player's actual instructions on how to change shape going forward or dropping back are exactly the same.

Of course, this is my interpretation of things. You are welcome to disagree and there's obviously no "right" definition of formation IRL, but I find this perspective is a more pragmatic fit for how things work in FM.

I don't disagree. Just wondering about the practicality of the AML/R positions in the ME. Especially as such a big number of real life wingers are natural wide forwards in the game. If the modern 4231 is actually a 4411 and 433 a 4141 then how do you shift the FM gameworld into something that accurately models this? We either need an overhaul of research methods or a major ME development towards that shift.

Not to argue or anything, especially as I don't watch a lot of German football, but aren't Robben and Ribery what the FM AML/R is pretty much meant to represent? They are the specialist wide forwards that are meant to illustrate the difference between the upper two midfield stratas after all, aren't they? And if they don't, should the AM strata even exist? I mean if Antonio Valencia is a natural AMR in the game (not MR), yet Arjen Robben plays as an MR then what we have is a pretty skewed representation of real life tactics in FM.

You could argue about Robben, but bear in mind he often comes very deep to get the ball and also aids a lot in build up play. Ribéry even more so, and he tracks back a lot more. AMs, in particular on the wide positions, don't do both it in FM. Problem is that everyone recognizes the players as AML/R, even the database. For me, the ME is wrong with the AM strata working backwards so little. I'd argue the only positions that should not track back is the forward strata, but that's just me. What I always have, and will happily disagree with is that a player that is natural in the AML/R slot can be set as unfamiliar in the related M(L/R) slot. same for AMC. in the modern game the distinction between these is fluid, and you hardly every hear someone refer to the classic "8", pleaple only talk about the "6" (DM) and "10" (AMC), though to mimic many a player's real life behavior you have to put them into the M strata in the game. Maybe it'S time to get rid of the MC strata actually and make support roles in the AM strate behave more like what the M strate (support/attack) does these days while the DM strata should mimic the Support/defend part of the current M strata.

anyway, as far as play in the ME is concerned, Bayern plays a 4-1-4-1 most of the time.

Robben and Ribery play very very high and narrower than wingers. Inside Forwards probably with play narrower imho.

Disagree. In particular Robben has a high tendency to hug the touchline early in the buildup play. As a matter of fact, quite often the wingers and full backs alternate in providing width. Ribéry is more of a winger than an inside forward, and Robben, for a classic inside forward, stays too wide too often.

That's not true. They play in various ways, they have freedom of movement (roaming) based on how the play is developing, where the space is and where their teammates need them. Their roles are too complicated to be pinned to just one specific way.

Agree with that. the roam from position doesn'T do any justice to how Ribéry and Götze in particular play. Robben gets the same freedom on occasions, but Ribéry is far more likely to shift right and create overloads.

Look at their average positions in games - its hardly ML or MR - it is very high.

not surprising when you have 80% possession most of the time (so average position is pretty much only determined by how they line up on attack). YOu can easily recreate the attacking positioning with the 4-1-4-1, but you'll struggle to maintain the possession numbers unless you want to be brutally blunt on offense. FM, from my Pov, is just not rewarding teams that play in their strikers paciently very much since if a defender is within 5 yards that counts as a challenged shot (at least that'S what it seems to me).

I don't disagree. Just wondering about the practicality of the AML/R positions in the ME. Especially as such a big number of real life wingers are natural wide forwards in the game. If the modern 4231 is actually a 4411 and 433 a 4141 then how do you shift the FM gameworld into something that accurately models this? We either need an overhaul of research methods or a major ME development towards that shift.

I know it sounds like I'm bashing AMLR most of the time, but I don't have a problem with the position as it has largely functioned in FM. It's a legitimate tactical option that a lot of managers use, either to prevent an ST from being isolated or to keep an attacker from wearing himself out with a lot of defensive running. When Everton played Arsenal a few weeks back, Lukaku was staying forward on the right flank with Naismith as the centre forward, definitely what would translate as an AMR Inside Forward in Football Manager. The issue is simply the confusion of what different positions and shapes should be doing at specific times, not that the AMLR aren't doing the right thing. I'm actually arguing that AMLR functions as well as any other position, it's just overused compared to real life.

I know it sounds like I'm bashing AMLR most of the time, but I don't have a problem with the position as it has largely functioned in FM. It's a legitimate tactical option that a lot of managers use, either to prevent an ST from being isolated or to keep an attacker from wearing himself out with a lot of defensive running. When Everton played Arsenal a few weeks back, Lukaku was staying forward on the right flank with Naismith as the centre forward, definitely what would translate as an AMR Inside Forward in Football Manager. The issue is simply the confusion of what different positions and shapes should be doing at specific times, not that the AMLR aren't doing the right thing. I'm actually arguing that AMLR functions as well as any other position, it's just overused compared to real life.

though if I'd want the guy to stay high up, why not play him in the wide forward slot instead?

I know it sounds like I'm bashing AMLR most of the time, but I don't have a problem with the position as it has largely functioned in FM. It's a legitimate tactical option that a lot of managers use, either to prevent an ST from being isolated or to keep an attacker from wearing himself out with a lot of defensive running. When Everton played Arsenal a few weeks back, Lukaku was staying forward on the right flank with Naismith as the centre forward, definitely what would translate as an AMR Inside Forward in Football Manager. The issue is simply the confusion of what different positions and shapes should be doing at specific times, not that the AMLR aren't doing the right thing. I'm actually arguing that AMLR functions as well as any other position, it's just overused compared to real life.

I agree and I argued similar in another thread earlier in the year. AMLR as it is is a very specific position that has the uses you mention as well as being means to offer an outlet for a pass which is what I use it for in my asymmetric tactics. But the fact is that the 4231 is probably the most used tactic in the game along with 442 and most top level wingers these days seem to get rated as wide forwards by researchers. The game creates tons of regens who are natural AMLR's yet inefficient in MLR. This is also the only way the AI knows how to use these players - as part of the 4231 or 433. There needs to be a paradigm shift somewhere so the position could be seen in the way you describe in the whole FM universe or it should perish so that a more fluid or intuitive system could take over.

though if I'd want the guy to stay high up, why not play him in the wide forward slot instead?

Yes, that's exactly why there are separate ML/R and AML/R positions.

The main point of confusion is actually over what fluidity does. A lot of people interpret fluidity as controlling positional interchange in the total football sense, but it's really about blurring the lines "vertically," pushing an ML/R up in the attacking phase or having an ST drop deep. A traditional 4-4-2/4-5-1 is achieved by using a setting like Very Rigid where there's minimal deviation from the defensive shape when the team transitions to attack. You get the modern hybrid systems by using settings like Balanced and Fluid. However, it's important to keep in mind that this mainly concerns adjusting attacking positions from the defensive baseline set by formation whereas a lot of people interpret fluidity as mainly controlling defensive phase contribution (and certainly, the tooltips are largely to blame for this misconception).

I know it sounds like I'm bashing AMLR most of the time, but I don't have a problem with the position as it has largely functioned in FM. It's a legitimate tactical option that a lot of managers use, either to prevent an ST from being isolated or to keep an attacker from wearing himself out with a lot of defensive running. When Everton played Arsenal a few weeks back, Lukaku was staying forward on the right flank with Naismith as the centre forward, definitely what would translate as an AMR Inside Forward in Football Manager. The issue is simply the confusion of what different positions and shapes should be doing at specific times, not that the AMLR aren't doing the right thing. I'm actually arguing that AMLR functions as well as any other position, it's just overused compared to real life.

Actually, regarding Lukaku I felt he was a cross between an IF and a Wide Target Man - especially given his aerial game being exploited to get the better of Monreal.

Actually, regarding Lukaku I felt he was a cross between an IF and a Wide Target Man - especially given his aerial game being exploited to get the better of Monreal.

Good point. Flank Target Man with some PIs would probably be the way to go then.

What a great discussion.

Good point. Flank Target Man with some PIs would probably be the way to go then.

In fact - a perfect example of the use of the WTM!

Yes, that's exactly why there are separate ML/R and AML/R positions.

The main point of confusion is actually over what fluidity does. A lot of people interpret fluidity as controlling positional interchange in the total football sense, but it's really about blurring the lines "vertically," pushing an ML/R up in the attacking phase or having an ST drop deep. A traditional 4-4-2/4-5-1 is achieved by using a setting like Very Rigid where there's minimal deviation from the defensive shape when the team transitions to attack. You get the modern hybrid systems by using settings like Balanced and Fluid. However, it's important to keep in mind that this mainly concerns adjusting attacking positions from the defensive baseline set by formation whereas a lot of people interpret fluidity as mainly controlling defensive phase contribution (and certainly, the tooltips are largely to blame for this misconception).

well, the point is, we have both, the AML/R and the Forward R/L slots available. Here'S the problem I have though... most players in the DB, including the ones that have been used as aggressive ML/R in terms of how the match engine translates the "slots" have their natural position set in the AM strata, and quite often are not even remotely accomplished in the ML/R slots. Even though the hit isn't massive, it is a hit on their performance until you either trained them up or edited them (which costs CA points and therefore eats into their technical ability, another thing I can'T really understand, but hey).

Now you have two options: a) use the AML/R slots as forward slots - but then why do you need the FL/R slots? they're surplus. Or use the AML/R slots for midfielders - then they have to track back since that is what is expected from a midfielder. Right now the ME treats AML/R as forwards whilst the AMC is a midfielder. This is not consistent and confusing the hell out of people.

Look at their average positions in games - its hardly ML or MR - it is very high.

Look at the actual games IRL, not some post-match statistics and analysis. These are often wrong.

If actually watch Bayern games you will see Ribery/Robben often play wide, create overloads in the middle, even on the opposite flanks, come deep to get the ball, track back and double up with the fullback behind them, etc. They both do a lot of work for Bayern (both this season and last under Heynckess). In FM terms that is best represented by placing them in the MR/L positions as WM-A and a bunch of PIs.

Agree with that. the roam from position doesn'T do any justice to how Ribéry and Götze in particular play. Robben gets the same freedom on occasions, but Ribéry is far more likely to shift right and create overloads.

Good point about Gotze too. All three of them have a lot of freedom for movement. Actually it only looks like freedom, but in fact it is not. It's more by design based on the requirements of the tiki-taka style Pep likes to use. The movement of the players is based on space, opponents, ball and teammates. Just like it sounds, looks, seems simple but it's actually not.

Yes, that's exactly why there are separate ML/R and AML/R positions.

The main point of confusion is actually over what fluidity does. A lot of people interpret fluidity as controlling positional interchange in the total football sense, but it's really about blurring the lines "vertically," pushing an ML/R up in the attacking phase or having an ST drop deep. A traditional 4-4-2/4-5-1 is achieved by using a setting like Very Rigid where there's minimal deviation from the defensive shape when the team transitions to attack. You get the modern hybrid systems by using settings like Balanced and Fluid. However, it's important to keep in mind that this mainly concerns adjusting attacking positions from the defensive baseline set by formation whereas a lot of people interpret fluidity as mainly controlling defensive phase contribution (and certainly, the tooltips are largely to blame for this misconception).

This is well said. And more FM users need to realize this.