Specialists and Philosophy

Hi,

I read the "Pairs & Combinations" guide and the big point that is stressed there is "I have 4 'specialist' roles and if I add one more 'specialist' I will have to change the philosophy", but it's never explained why. Why it is not ok? Also, he doesn't explain what is 'specialist role', though I read about it in some other guide.

In my tactic, I use "Very Fluid" philosophy and I'm pretty sure I have a bunch of 'specialist' roles (like BWM, T and may be others), and I've never seen a problem with it.

It's in the 12 Step Guide sticky at the top of this forum.

Note the word "Guide" - these are not hard and fast rules that you "must" follow, so if you've never seen a problem with using Very Fluid and a bunch of specialists then don't worry about it .

It comes down to how you want to play. For example, I've had great success with Juventus using a tactic based around these guidelines - I've also had similar success (again with Juve) totally ignoring them as I wanted to play with a different style. As an aside, I actually thought my team played better with the tactic created based on the guide but like I said, both tactics were successful.

However, if you are lost when creating tactics then I would wholeheartedly recommend following the Guide.

Twelve step guide quote: "In Very Fluid philosophies, you expect everybody to do a bit of everything, which means specialist roles are redundant."

But redundant doesn't mean bad.

Basically as I understood "Twelve step guide" it's like "if you choose very fluid, you don't have to care about different roles - just go with a bunch of CMs, AFs and WBs." Ok cool, sounds nice, but I like to care so I add BWM, Trequartista, CF, Anchorman and so on to my Very Fluid set up.

But "Pairs & Combinations" guide is like "If you choose BWM and Trequartista then you have to switch to Rigid otherwise bad things happen", but doesn't explain which bad things would happen.

Therefore my question: what are bad things if I don't switch to Very Rigid with my "many specialists" set up?

ps.In total, I have 6 specialists on the field in my Very Fluid, while "Twelve step guide" says "Very Rigid: 4-5 specialist roles" and "Very Fluid: 0-1 specialist roles".

I recommend following that "numbers" guide very loosely. True, with the more rigid setups you need "specialists" for your tactic to function well, but there isn't really any horrible negatives to having a few specialists in a more fluid setup. There certainly is never a good reason - and not a good way to be thinking about creating a tactic - if you count your specialists and then go "oh no, I have X number of specialists, now I have to change the fluidity". It's not a good way to go about it. If you want to play fluid, you play fluid. Don't change just because you have a few more specialist in it than is "recommended".

Exactly. As you read, it is a guide, a way of seeing it. And as you experienced, it doesn't make or break your tactic to have more or less specialists/universalists.

As the guide explains, the philosophy of having a more rigid tactic is about getting more specific actions (e.g. winning the ball, creating plays, scoring, etc.) performed by different players, hence the idea of having more specialists one your team, which would 'theoretically' integrate better in your system.

Likewise, more fluid tactics are more about general team play, where everyone can win the ball, create plays and score goals, hence (you guessed it) the idea of having more universalists and less specialists.

Fluidities also affect creative freedom in a similar fashion, with more rigid setups giving less creative freedom to the players so they are more focused on their particular role in the team.

That said, the guide only carries out general guidelines, and I don't believe I've read anywhere that bad things will happen if you don't follow them. If you're having success with more specialists in your very fluid tactic, then why bother?

I don't think it's necessarily that bad things will happen, just that your anchor man will deviate from the anchor man instructions and play like a more general defensive midfielder because the fluidity gives him the freedom to do so. So it may be that you want the player to play like an anchor man, but he won't.

Your philosophy controls your players' mentality and creative freedom. In a very fluid philosophy, all your players will play with the same mentality setting and high creative freedom. Specialists may use that creative freedom to deviate from their assigned role, possibly in a way that could compromise what you want them to do.

I like to think of instructions in a very rigid philosophy as coming from a drill sergeant...

"ANCHORMAN! Your job is to protect the back line AT ALL COSTS. If an enemy combatant moves into the hole, you WILL stop him. THAT is your job. You will NOT leave your assigned position to close down higher up the pitch. You will NOT look for the killer pass. You will NOT join the attack. Do you understand, Anchorman? The success of our entire operation depends on YOU performing this task. The safety of our goal is at stake!"

Whereas in a very fluid philosophy, it's more like a hippy art teacher...

"Hey Anchorman, how's it going, man? My vision for you is that you're going to sit deep and protect the back line while other players go forward. But I don't want you to feel like, boxed in, you know? You have to read the match and make your own decisions, man. If you see other opportunities to help the team, you take em, because football is art, man, and you've gotta let your spirit soar."

I don't think it's necessarily that bad things will happen, just that your anchor man will deviate from the anchor man instructions and play like a more general defensive midfielder because the fluidity gives him the freedom to do so. So it may be that you want the player to play like an anchor man, but he won't.

Well, but exchanging the anchor man for a more generic role won't make him play more like a anchor man either. Presumably even less so. So no harm done in leaving him as is then.

Your philosophy controls your players' mentality and creative freedom. In a very fluid philosophy, all your players will play with the same mentality setting and high creative freedom. Specialists may use that creative freedom to deviate from their assigned role, possibly in a way that could compromise what you want them to do.

I like to think of instructions in a very rigid philosophy as coming from a drill sergeant...

"ANCHORMAN! Your job is to protect the back line AT ALL COSTS. If an enemy combatant moves into the hole, you WILL stop him. THAT is your job. You will NOT leave your assigned position to close down higher up the pitch. You will NOT look for the killer pass. You will NOT join the attack. Do you understand, Anchorman? The success of our entire operation depends on YOU performing this task. The safety of our goal is at stake!"

Whereas in a very fluid philosophy, it's more like a hippy art teacher...

"Hey Anchorman, how's it going, man? My vision for you is that you're going to sit deep and protect the back line while other players go forward. But I don't want you to feel like, boxed in, you know? You have to read the match and make your own decisions, man. If you see other opportunities to help the team, you take em, because football is art, man, and you've gotta let your spirit soar."

That is the point. More fluid, more crestive freedom means that your specialist will behave less like that specialist and more "generic", if you will. So no harm in keeping him then, if you still want him to play mostly as his role description says, is it? He certainly will not behave more like that specialist if you change his role to a more generic one. And anyway, that's exactly what we want to acheive with giving players more freedom, we actually want them to think more "outside the box". However you see it, no harm done in leaving the specialist role as is. And no benefits to giving him a more generic role, if a role that plays mostly as an anchor man is what you want.

Truth be told; an anchor man plays like an anchor man even on Very Fluid with added "more expressive". So does a Half Back. A trequartista still plays like a trequartista, but he may perhaps start to run with the ball a little more often (his role description tells him not to), or may take a run into the box ahead of the ball a little more. The specialist roles don't "change" that much even on Very Fluid. And that's good.

I play Very Fluid with 4 or 5 "specialists", depending on how you count. There's no way I'm changing roles, or changing fluidity. Things work fine.

Hi,

I read the "Pairs & Combinations" guide and the big point that is stressed there is "I have 4 'specialist' roles and if I add one more 'specialist' I will have to change the philosophy", but it's never explained why. Why it is not ok?

Because the general idea is that rigid systems put players into more strict roles that usually require discipline rather than freedom. Fluid and very fluid systems basically allow and encourage players to share duties. The best way I've seen it put was in one of the guides the experts here have written. I'll paraphrase, but it's something along the lines of:

Very Fluid: Whole team attack and defend as one unit, sharing duties and usually shifting shape and positions at will.

Fluid: Team plays as if split into two halves, each tending towards attack and defence.

Balanced: Same as above but with more structure and shape as if split into thirds, with attack, defence and transitional players who support both.

Rigid: Stricter focus on shape and structure using roughly four sections: defence, transition from defence (e.g. Carrick when played behind Scholes and Hargreaves in 2008), transition into attack (e.g. a winger focussed on adding width and deliveries to aid team mates rather than attack goal himself) and attack.

Rigid: Players strictly play as if split into five sections: defence, transition from defence, mid-transition, transition into attack, attack. Players know their place, play to the plan and stick to their duties, and their duties alone.

So there's nothing wrong with playing specialists (players with specific names rather than general labels such as "central midfielder" etc), you just have to be aware of how fluidity will take away from and complicate their job within your system.

Also, he doesn't explain what is 'specialist role', though I read about it in some other guide.

In my tactic, I use "Very Fluid" philosophy and I'm pretty sure I have a bunch of 'specialist' roles (like BWM, T and may be others), and I've never seen a problem with it.

Specialist roles set players to focus their abilities on specific jobs: so winning the ball, playing the killer pass, being much more conservative at the back due to their lack of skill etc.

Your tactic with United looks very similar to one I've done in the past with lots of specialist roles in a very fluid system. Worth knowing though that when trying a similar set up with lesser players at a smaller club, the amount of redundancy over certain jobs within the system started to show up due to the lack of talent and ability to make up for it. So I had too many players looking to be the creative focus and what not. For a big club with loads of great players though, it can be really fun to play.

EDIT: The breakdown of the sub-teams within your team based on different mentalities (e.g. 5 for V Fluid, 1 for V Rigid) is part of jpcote09's guide on the tactics wizard and wwfan's 12 Step Guide.

Thanks everyone, I'll go on having many specialists in my Very Fluid.. though I might change it to Fluid, and just add "Be more expressive" to some players

Well, but exchanging the anchor man for a more generic role won't make him play more like a anchor man either. Presumably even less so. So no harm done in leaving him as is then.

No, you're quite right. If you really wanted him to play like an anchor man, then I think the 12 Step Guide is suggesting that you would need a more rigid philosophy. I'm guessing you might be able to get him to play more like an anchor man in a very fluid team by reducing his personal creative freedom, and maybe adding a couple of other PIs.

My general point (and I think WWFan's too if I've understood correctly) is that if you want specific behaviour from a player but put them in a very fluid system, you might find that they have a very loose interpretation of your instructions and don't do exactly what you want, so you might as well give them generic roles and then let the team instructions influence how they play rather than their personal role.

Just try it. Put a anchor man or a half back into a Very Fluid setup. They'll still play very much like a anchor man/half back, hardly any difference at all. The Very Fluid setup just means that they have a bit more freedom to do things outside of their role instructions. In a Fluid setup, there's very little (if any) extra freedom given to defensive or holding roles - the freedom to be more expressive is biased towards the more attacking/creator roles. Very Fluid/Fluid does not mean that players forget what their main job is; it just means that they can do a bit more, or try something else; they are allowed to use their own brains a bit more, so to speak ... and that their team mates are more willing to temporarily fill their vacant spaces if needs be.

I read somewhere that if you use very fluid then your players will play closer to each other when defending. By that, I mean the team will be more compact, due to the forwards will stay closer to the midfield and the midfield will stay closer to the defence. If that is true then it is important because we all strive for that when out of possession.

Anyone who can enlighten me on this.

Everything else being the same; having every player on the same mentality will make a team's shape more compact. And Very Fluid has every player on the same mentality. So yes.

Another good way to look at it is Individualism vs. Collectivism (minor political overtones aside). In a Very Rigid system, the players will play more like individuals and stick to the responsibilities that their role entails. In a Very Fluid system, the players will play more as a collective and inherit responsibilities that would normally be those of solely attacking/supporting/defending players.

Both styles have equal merit. The key point for each from my perspective is that you need to be more careful with how your roles blend together in a more rigid framework, whilst worrying more about how your duties blend together in a more fluid framework. Balanced is the exception and is somewhere in between; role and duty matter equally.