Tactic based on the strengths of your players or how you want them to play?

Just a general question which I think is best suited to this section of the forums (in case you haven't guessed from the fantastic title )

When you take over a club (E.g Real Madrid or a Skrill Conferance North team) do you use a tactic based on the strenghts of the team you have or create a brand new tactic based on how you want them to play?

For example, I'm sure we can all guess what type of tactic a Barcelona or an Arsenal would use and implement but it would be probably be very difficult to implement that in the Skrill Conferance North. Despite this, would you create the tactic and then take a slow approach to selling/buying players to adjust to that tactic, or change with the wind and change tactics throughout the seasons based on what you have in your pool of players?

Just curious to how people manage, especially those that start with a lower league team and/or change clubs often.

Play a tactic that suits the teams strengths then slowly transform the style into my own preferences.

If I favoured a possession based system then took over Colchester and tried to implement that, I doubt I'd get very far. However if the style that suits my team when I originally take over is successful I won't bother changing it to my own preference (I've done this with Liverpool with great success).

I go with my tactic and force the players to adjust. Some are re-trained, others are sold.

Tried to implement my short passing diamond system which is really successful with Liverpool when taking over Zulte Waregem in the Belgian 2nd Div and took a few heavy beatings at first and had the board on my back because they had a philosophy for direct passing. But I stuck with it and the players learnt the system, getting me promoted and a few seasons later I'm challenging at the top of the Pro League and in the ECC group stages for the first time.

Fit to your tactic otherwise you find yourself tinkering constantly which leads to inconsistency of results.

Thanks for the reply guys, I think I'll go with the dictator type, learn it or leave

It depends heavily on what kind of budget you've got. General rule is: Rich club = can afford to fit players into tactic. You can buy when needed, and the squad you've got is probably at a general level where they can adapt to a change of tactics - even a more ambitious one than they're used to - reasonably well. Poor club = fit tactics to present squad. You haven't got much money to buy players that fits how you really want to play, and the squad you've got is probably not suited to pull off just any kind of tactic.

For me it's definitely both. I start out with a model based on the team, try to sign players that can help evolve the tactic towards a certain direction, but if I get the chance to sign a real quality player, I try to adapt the system to suit the new star. It's a constant process.

I look at what I have in terms of personnel; what can work, and can not, who are the key players that can make something happen, what kind of situations I want them to find themselves in during the game.

I look at the relative status of my club: If I'm a minnow then I'll assume that teams try to dominate me and play a little more aggressively. If I'm a strong side, I'll assume that my opponents are going to be more cautious.

Based on this and my own tendencies I formulate an identity for the team. Then I look at how I can make this happen (formation, roles, TI's, PI's). I do little tweaks to try to make the tactic more efficient and to be closer to what I wanted in the first place. I tend to have a few important constants that I maintain whatever happens.

I stick to the team identity for a full season, barring any serious crisis, and by then I'll have a good idea of what worked well and what can be improved. For the new season, I'll go through the process again, so every season my team has a little different identity. For me that's important. It guarantees that my team evolves and adapts. For example, if your status changes from a minnow to a giant, then it's unlikely that the minnow-approach will be perfect for a giant. I usually have a good idea of the way I'm going to play the next season well before the previous season ends. And transfer targets in mind.

I'd say I'm a methodically flexible manager.

I look at what I have in terms of personnel; what can work, and can not, who are the key players that can make something happen, what kind of situations I want them to find themselves in during the game.

I look at the relative status of my club: If I'm a minnow then I'll assume that teams try to dominate me and play a little more aggressively. If I'm a strong side, I'll assume that my opponents are going to be more cautious.

Based on this and my own tendencies I formulate an identity for the team. Then I look at how I can make this happen (formation, roles, TI's, PI's). I do little tweaks to try to make the tactic more efficient and to be closer to what I wanted in the first place. I tend to have a few important constants that I maintain whatever happens.

I stick to the team identity for a full season, barring any serious crisis, and by then I'll have a good idea of what worked well and what can be improved. For the new season, I'll go through the process again, so every season my team has a little different identity. For me that's important. It guarantees that my team evolves and adapts. For example, if your status changes from a minnow to a giant, then it's unlikely that the minnow-approach will be perfect for a giant. I usually have a good idea of the way I'm going to play the next season well before the previous season ends. And transfer targets in mind.

I'd say I'm a methodically flexible manager.

Sounds very similar to what I do. I personally much prefer a pragmatic approach to management over an idealistic one. If you are too locked into a particular way of playing, you could overlook superb players because they "don't fit your current system", or play right into the hands of the opposition by playing a style that suits the league poorly, for example. I always look for ways to get ahead, and to maximize the potential of the players at my disposal.

Sounds very similar to what I do. I personally much prefer a pragmatic approach to management over an idealistic one. If you are too locked into a particular way of playing, you could overlook superb players because they "don't fit your current system", or play right into the hands of the opposition by playing a style that suits the league poorly, for example. I always look for ways to get ahead, and to maximize the potential of the players at my disposal.

You all make sense, I think it's just a fear of change or just being lazy. However, I guess to be successful or even to survive at a lower league club, adaptability will be one of the most crucial charactersistics that will be needed.

I think it depends on the players at your disposal. If you have a world class player that has been scoring for fun before you arrived you might want to adjust your ideal tactic to incorporate this rather than just marginalise him.

I love playing strikerless with 3-5-2 but with the current Man U side I would definitely want to play with a striker to incorporate Falcao

I think it depends on the players at your disposal. If you have a world class player that has been scoring for fun before you arrived you might want to adjust your ideal tactic to incorporate this rather than just marginalise him.

I love playing strikerless with 3-5-2 but with the current Man U side I would definitely want to play with a striker to incorporate Falcao

I'm experimenting with asymmetrical formations just cos of Man Utd. They have far too many DM/AM split.

DM: Carrick, Blind

MC: Fellaini, Herrera

AM: Mata, Januzaj, Rooney, Di Maria, Valencia, Young.

If I go 4-2-3-1 I have to leave out a creative genius in Herrera... If I got 4-3-3 I lose out on the AMC slot...

So I go;

4-1-2-2-1

DM - Blind

MC - Herrera

MR - Valencia

AMC - Mata/Rooney

AML - Di Maria

FC - Van Persie/Falcao

I've always had trouble with the DM/AM split in 14/15 because, I don't want to have too many in the AM strata doing nothing for the defensive shape of the team. I also don't want to not use the DM because, defending seems awkward without a DM blocking off the opposition AM. And I don't want to go 'narrow' or a diamond because I firmly believe in width. The problem I've had adjusting to the new tactical revolution is, shoring up the middle often means less people getting into the box, which means the width is pointless, but we can't bludgeon through what is often a packed opposition midfield either.

Tears my hair out I swear.

Certainly both. I always try to lean more towards the way I want them to play though.

When a club hires me, I suppose it's partly due to the fact that they like my personality and style, so to me it makes no sense to change my footballing philosophies because the players aren't suited to my style. I'd much rather try to slowly implement my tactics and ethos, and have a long-term vision/plan for the club. I've found this requires a lot of discipline in the process of squad building, and also some flair in assigning training schedules. However, just putting up my ideal tactic and asking players to play it right off the bat might not work too well (especially in the first few months/years), so I always compromise a bit and use different styles to suit my players better.

For example, I am playing a low league save at the moment just for fun and am in the second season. In this save my basic philosophy is based around hard work and team work. In the first season, I used a basic 442 standard-balanced.. that I adapted during games to get the best out of the players I had. During that first season, I scouted many different players but signed only those who had great 'Teamwork', 'Work Rate', 'Determination', and a couple of other attributes that I thought would suit well my long-term plan. Same for youth candidates. During the offseason I got rid of the players in my team who didn't fill those requirements and/or were costing too much money. This season I have been able to start implementing my new tactic which is a 352 counter-very fluid.. and relies a lot on teamwork and work rate. You guessed it, it's been working pretty well, but I always keep that old 442 std-blncd up there, mainly because my long-term squad building is far from done yet, and sometimes my new tactic just doesn't work.

And, as others said, I try to evolve towards my preferred style. For example in the aforementioned save, I want to add 'Play Out of Defence' to my tactic but haven't done it yet because I feel like I don't have good enough defenders to do that currently. With that in mind, I try to make sure my youngster defenders are training their ball control and passing attributes (and not only their defending, as they would if my tactics were more rigid and/or if I wanted them to be simply straightforward limited defenders in the future). And when scouting defenders, I try to target mainly those who have good composure and passing skills (plus the required great teamwork, work rate and determination).