Composition of roles within a mentality

Hi all,

Hope this isn't a stupid question but I've tried searching for this and I can't seem to find anything recent on it...

Essentially I remember reading (around the time of FM09/10) the theoretical role compositions for each type of mentality approach. So, for instance, if you wanted to attack you would generally have 5 players in an attacking role, 2 supporting and 3 defending. For anything that required a balance the breakdown would be 3-4-3, with a defensive approach being almost reversed with 5 on defend etc.

Is there an updated view on this or this still seen as the general principle?

Hi all,

Hope this isn't a stupid question but I've tried searching for this and I can't seem to find anything recent on it...

Essentially I remember reading (around the time of FM09/10) the theoretical role compositions for each type of mentality approach. So, for instance, if you wanted to attack you would generally have 5 players in an attacking role, 2 supporting and 3 defending. For anything that required a balance the breakdown would be 3-4-3, with a defensive approach being almost reversed with 5 on defend etc.

Is there an updated view on this or this still seen as the general principle?

I used to use the same 3-4-3 thing. Probably read the same thing around the time of 09/10.

I think that shouldn't restrict your options. I might not want a default formation with the standard mentality. Mine is usually counter, but I've been using control lately.

It depends on wether you're using wings backs, full backs, DMs, SWs, even the Treq or the EG shouldn't count the same way as the AF does.

Anyways, this might be a guide for you, but not a rule.

I used to use the same 3-4-3 thing. Probably read the same thing around the time of 09/10.

I think that shouldn't restrict your options. I might not want a default formation with the standard mentality. Mine is usually counter, but I've been using control lately.

It depends on wether you're using wings backs, full backs, DMs, SWs, even the Treq or the EG shouldn't count the same way as the AF does.

Anyways, this might be a guide for you, but not a rule.

Thanks for the reply thizaum.

I was thinking along the same lines that those role distributions were suggested but not a fixed thing. I would be curious to see just how much of a varied distribution others use. I tend to use a lot of support roles as it helps dominate possession and keeps players behind the ball but then this does effect goalscoring for my team.

The thing is there are support roles that aim scoring (complete forward, i.e.), attack roles that do not aim scoring (full back, libero, i.e.).

I saw somewhere in here a formation that had nobody on the AM strata and 2 strikers on support roles.

You even have the defensive forward, which I've never used.

Anyways, I'm sure it's possible to have a balanced formation out of the 3-4-3 guide, especially when using a mentality other than standard.

I think it is probably an outdated principle and the best way to go about it is the holistic approach of mentality and roles fitting together. No arbitrary or 'guideline' numbers for any type of role mentality, but the actual purpose of the role itself in the jigsaw of the formation/tactic.

I think it is probably an outdated principle and the best way to go about it is the holistic approach of mentality and roles fitting together. No arbitrary or 'guideline' numbers for any type of role mentality, but the actual purpose of the role itself in the jigsaw of the formation/tactic.

This is what I would like to think. When I set up formations like 4-3-3, I look at which players will score goals for me and an obvious one would be my striker. However, because of everything I've read I would normally set him up on a support role so he will drop back and take part in play. However, surely having a goalscorer on an attack role makes more sense?

This is what I would like to think. When I set up formations like 4-3-3, I look at which players will score goals for me and an obvious one would be my striker. However, because of everything I've read I would normally set him up on a support role so he will drop back and take part in play. However, surely having a goalscorer on an attack role makes more sense?

Why does attack make more sense? Surely it all depends on the kind of supply he is having and what the players around him are doing? If you use inside forwards then it's more common to have the striker drop deeper to link up with them as this creates space when he drops deep for the inside forward to run into. If you use wingers then that's a role that relies on crossing which means the striker would need to be in the box to get on the end of them. So attack would be better here.

Another way to approach it can be, against sides who sit deep then playing a striker on attack can see him have no space but using a striker who drops deep will give him space. Why? Because sides who sit deep the space is in front of the defence not behind so deeper players will utilise the space better. Against sides who use a high line then the opposite is true and the space to exploit is in behind them so then an attack duty will be better served compared to a support one.

The important thing is not asking which is better, you should be asking which suits your system with the roles you use around him. You should concentrate on the support the striker is getting and ensuring he isn't isolated and is involved for the full 90 minutes and not just the odd few seconds here and there.

The role doesn't make a goal scorer it's the player around him who make him that. Have a read of this;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/423246-What-Makes-A-Goalscorer-!

Why does attack make more sense? Surely it all depends on the kind of supply he is having and what the players around him are doing? If you use inside forwards then it's more common to have the striker drop deeper to link up with them as this creates space when he drops deep for the inside forward to run into. If you use wingers then that's a role that relies on crossing which means the striker would need to be in the box to get on the end of them. So attack would be better here.

Another way to approach it can be, against sides who sit deep then playing a striker on attack can see him have no space but using a striker who drops deep will give him space. Why? Because sides who sit deep the space is in front of the defence not behind so deeper players will utilise the space better. Against sides who use a high line then the opposite is true and the space to exploit is in behind them so then an attack duty will be better served compared to a support one.

The important thing is not asking which is better, you should be asking which suits your system with the roles you use around him. You should concentrate on the support the striker is getting and ensuring he isn't isolated and is involved for the full 90 minutes and not just the odd few seconds here and there.

The role doesn't make a goal scorer it's the player around him who make him that. Have a read of this;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/423246-What-Makes-A-Goalscorer-!

Fantastic response Cleon - thank you.

I definitely agree RE: adapting the strikers role to the oppositions block. I'll have a read of the link now.

It's the same with having a regista but u 're also using 2 WB(A) and 2 CM(A). The playmaker won't do well except if your opposition is far far weaker than u.

A DLP(s) at MC position might not get enough ball if there are too many teammates running forward.

Same case with a striker. Even Messi will find it difficult to score by getting past 3-5 men alone via ambitious dribbling. Teamwork n tactical understanding is what differs a professional footballer n a soccer freestyler. A soccer freestyler might have stunning ball control, first touch, and dribble but without teamwork n tactical understanding he/she won't fit to play in a real match

Just FYI on terminology Defend, Support, and Attack are the "Duty" not the "Role" (Advanced Playmaker etc).

I'd say the general rules of thumb are good starting points but the only way to make a successful tactic is to watch the game and recognize its tactic issues and how to solve them.

For example I am working on a 442 Narrow Diamond, Fluid, Control with 3 Defend, 3 Support, 4 Attack. The issue I have identified is the lack of support in the middle linking up play. This was due to the player roles and playing fluid which creates depth but can lack support since you have 2 groups of mentalities. I am currently deciding what to change from the following options:

1. Change one or both FB-A to FB-S or WB-S to help the build up play but still provide some width.

2. Change roles of the midfield so the AM helps build up play more (Change AM-A to AP-A or AP-S)

3. Change team shape from Fluid to Very Fluid, Balanced or Rigid. Very Fluid will reduce depth but increase support and creativity. Balanced I don't think will work with this formation. Rigid should give a good mix of depth and support.

Just FYI on terminology Defend, Support, and Attack are the "Duty" not the "Role" (Advanced Playmaker etc).

I'd say the general rules of thumb are good starting points but the only way to make a successful tactic is to watch the game and recognize its tactic issues and how to solve them.

For example I am working on a 442 Narrow Diamond, Fluid, Control with 3 Defend, 3 Support, 4 Attack. The issue I have identified is the lack of support in the middle linking up play. This was due to the player roles and playing fluid which creates depth but can lack support since you have 2 groups of mentalities. I am currently deciding what to change from the following options:

1. Change one or both FB-A to FB-S or WB-S to help the build up play but still provide some width.

2. Change roles of the midfield so the AM helps build up play more (Change AM-A to AP-A or AP-S)

3. Change team shape from Fluid to Very Fluid, Balanced or Rigid. Very Fluid will reduce depth but increase support and creativity. Balanced I don't think will work with this formation. Rigid should give a good mix of depth and support.

I would personally go with option 1, drop the FB's to WB-S as they will still make penetrative forward runs but won't totally leave their wing vacated. They will also be in a good supportive position to offer passing angles. I would also drop one of your 4 attack duties into a support role to sit on your opponents deepest midfielder or at least consider an attack role that aggressively wins possession back.

Why does attack make more sense? Surely it all depends on the kind of supply he is having and what the players around him are doing? If you use inside forwards then it's more common to have the striker drop deeper to link up with them as this creates space when he drops deep for the inside forward to run into. If you use wingers then that's a role that relies on crossing which means the striker would need to be in the box to get on the end of them. So attack would be better here.

Another way to approach it can be, against sides who sit deep then playing a striker on attack can see him have no space but using a striker who drops deep will give him space. Why? Because sides who sit deep the space is in front of the defence not behind so deeper players will utilise the space better. Against sides who use a high line then the opposite is true and the space to exploit is in behind them so then an attack duty will be better served compared to a support one.

The important thing is not asking which is better, you should be asking which suits your system with the roles you use around him. You should concentrate on the support the striker is getting and ensuring he isn't isolated and is involved for the full 90 minutes and not just the odd few seconds here and there.

The role doesn't make a goal scorer it's the player around him who make him that. Have a read of this;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/423246-What-Makes-A-Goalscorer-!

I read through this article and i've reworked my take on Klopps Gegenpressing to create my tactical set - I must say it's working amazingly. I'm managing Liverpool, we're currently top, 4 points clear of Manchester City with a record of 14 wins 1 draw and 2 defeats.

Just FYI on terminology Defend, Support, and Attack are the "Duty" not the "Role" (Advanced Playmaker etc).

I'd say the general rules of thumb are good starting points but the only way to make a successful tactic is to watch the game and recognize its tactic issues and how to solve them.

For example I am working on a 442 Narrow Diamond, Fluid, Control with 3 Defend, 3 Support, 4 Attack. The issue I have identified is the lack of support in the middle linking up play. This was due to the player roles and playing fluid which creates depth but can lack support since you have 2 groups of mentalities. I am currently deciding what to change from the following options:

1. Change one or both FB-A to FB-S or WB-S to help the build up play but still provide some width.

2. Change roles of the midfield so the AM helps build up play more (Change AM-A to AP-A or AP-S)

3. Change team shape from Fluid to Very Fluid, Balanced or Rigid. Very Fluid will reduce depth but increase support and creativity. Balanced I don't think will work with this formation. Rigid should give a good mix of depth and support.

This is an excellent post and identifies the issues I think anyone should be thinking about when choosing roles and duties.

1. mentality matters a lot especially with regard to depth. For instance as the post mentions very fluid reduces depth while increasing support and creativity. This means that you need to choose your roles/duties to create depth. In the narrow diamond that means one of the strikers should be an AF for sure. Similarly a DLF/S might be overkill on very fluid but work well on fluid. The roles behave differently depending on mentality. The first question you ask yourself is what mentality you are playing and it should be answered in conjunction with the formation. If you are playing a compressed formation you probably need a mentality that will create depth, conversely if the formation is spread out, you need a mentality that will encourage support and cooperation. For instance you can set up the diamond lots of different ways (4-1-3-2, 4-3-1-2, and 4-1-2-1-2 are all the same formation) but they'll probably need different mentalities and roles/duties.

2. Roles have a large effect on movement of the individual player. AM-A pushes forward and is basically a striker, AM-S drops deep and supports the ball. AP-A does both. If you want that kind of dynamic movement you have to choose AP-A (and have a player capable of it) This is one of the magical things about very fluid. The high level of creativity allows for three playmakers to combine without getting in each other's way. You get the movement without the ball being forced to the player because of the high level of creativity. For this reason you should never choose the team instruction be more disciplined with very fluid. You need your CD to launch an attack over the top once in a while otherwise when the other team presses your space you won't have any options (since the strikers are inclined to come back anyway).

3. If you are having trouble getting out of your half changing a WB-A or FB-A/S to WB-S is very effective. Indeed, if you can't get the ball out of your half you don't have enough support duties, especially with fluid. You need someone else to help get the ball out. Double WB/A is especially prone to this problem. However, if you are playing WB-S passing becomes an important attribute.