I Don't Know How To Play Defensive Football

So I figured it was time to ask for help because, I am really struggling to figure out how to play defensive football in FM..

I am indeed aware of Cleon's thread about defensive football. However, I'm still struggling to work this concept out, for whatever reason.

When I say defensive football I don't mean necessarily to just park the bus, but rather to:

- keep shape

- defend solidly

- deny clear chances

- keep opposition players out of my box

- counter / hit the opposition on the break

- take few risks

But, to achieve the above via defending non-aggressively. Cautious defending as you'd expect to see in a match between two teams of pretty unequal firepower. For example, since FM13 I don't think I've ever used "close down less" for more than 5 minutes in my entire time playing the game. And I've played a few thousand hours!

Ultimately I want to win. I think I've got a handle on creating a "style" of play and scoring goals and all that jazz. I really think scoring goals is easy enough in FM. But defending, for me, for whatever reason is something I cannot seem to figure out so let me just explain how I'd usually think this through....

Step 1 So my first step with a "defensive" tactic would be to start from the back, as I would in any tactic really. Generally this all depends on the players available, of course, but for the purpose of this thread I'll say this: I would usually stick by a simple back 4. Maybe something like FB-S CD-D CD-D FB-A Very simple, and well balanced!

Step 2 The midfield. I really like the 4-4-1-1 shape so let's assume we're building that.. I would probably go for something like WM-A DLP-S CM-D WP-S Again, well balanced and following the tactical guides. I think we may lack a bit of penetration but that's where the AM comes into play in step 3

Step 3 Attackers.. AM-A AF-A.

So the idea with this formation would be to:

- defend in 2 solid banks of 4

- provide a penetration through the middle with the AM-A coupled with the playmaking of the DLP-S. The flanks are varied and should create problems if teams over-commit wide men forward. I would expect the striker to help push back the other team's D-Line and provide a good outlet for direct balls, when needed.

So it all SOUNDS good in theory, but that's just theory and it all doesn't matter if I get smashed.

The other instructions would go like this:

Counter + Structured. NO team instructions for this. I want to keep it as simple as possible. KISS

So, what holes can you find in a system like this, and my thought process? Is there an issue with how I would allocate roles/duties in a "defensive" minded system?

Of course I don't expect one tactic to handle every threat, that would be silly. But there should be at least some sense that such a tactic can stand up to a variety of threats, with tweaks and etc. Or maybe not.

Thanks guys.

Four attacking roles in a defensive system that you want to create counter attacks with is probably a bit much. Especially with the changes to counter attacking this year. You want players behind the ball, so to counter attack properly and efficiently you'd want 2 attack duties at most.

Again though like everything else you have to watch the match, on paper most things always look okay but then when you add players attributes to things and the way the opposition plays, what's on paper doesn't mean anything.

So the idea with this formation would be to:

- defend in 2 solid banks of 4

How would you have to solid banks of 4 when one fullback would be in the wingback position or higher due to his attacking duty. Plus in midfield both your central pairings would drop deep while the outer two push up. How is that a solid bank of 4?

- provide a penetration through the middle with the AM-A coupled with the playmaking of the DLP-S

How is a player who is high up the pitch going to provide the penetration? The striker you use won't be making space for him to run into. He will have no real support from any of the central players you have, I see him being quite isolated and he'll struggle against sides who use a DMC. The DLP will try and find him with passes but he's hardly offering him support. You midfield is a lot deeper than the attackers. I fail to see this penetration you mention.

The flanks are varied and should create problems if teams over-commit wide men forward.

I don't understand this statement? How did you jump to this conclusion?

What passing are you using? What I have generally discovered here is that direct passing is no longer effective. Direct to the players now means get ball and lump it up field thus creating no possession play at all.

I tend to play a defensive formation with attacking settings when away. Not too bad so far.

Oh and I only set closing down to sometimes.

I like the simplicity of your shape, but I would prefer an even simpler set-up to start with. I usually go with Fluid.

GK(D)

FB(S) - CD(D) - CD(D) - FB(S)

W(S) - CM(D) - CM(S) - W(S)

DLF(S) - AF(A)

The advantage of such a over-simplified shape is that you do not have to be an expert player to spot flaws and to implement solutions. This is a distinct weakness of many expert-formations in here. Everyone knows how a vanilla 4-4-2 should work - so work from there!

Furthermore, players will "interpret" these roles to their specific style and strengths - assuming they have decent mental attributes and reasonable PPM's. For instance, if you employ a playmaker-type in the CM(S), he will very much act as a DLP or AP - unless he has stupid PPM's or is an unintelligent player.

But that's besides the point - the 4-4-2 is in my opinion the best defensive shape. You have the advantage of two strikers, which will make it much easier to set-up effective counter-attacks. You have the width advantage of the 4-4-1-1/4-1-4-1. You don't have the advantage of a DM-strata player - but if you are playing Counter or Defensive, you often don't need one. Your lines of 4 should be very close together, and there should essentially be no gap for the DM to control. The other disadvantage is the potential 3vs2 in the center of the park. But again - if you do not plan to control the possession, do you really need to control the midfield? You will expect to soak up pressure and then use your two strikers and two wings to threaten the opposition.

Finally, it requires a certain type of player to play a defensive style. Generally, you are looking for some strong, good-tackling defenders and some hard-working midfielders. You will also need some guys with high leadership and determination since your players will often be put under tough pressure and be forced to keep up the morale on-pitch.

I would have thought that for a defensive system, you'd want to stay as compact vertically as possible, hence "structured" doesn't make sense in FM16 (based on what I understand from THOG thread on the changes). For greater compactness, surely you'd go Fluid (as above) or even Very Fluid?

Just gave this ago and it was excellent!

Roma vs Fiorentina (me)

Last few times I play these I always lose, but on this save I tried playing defensive and won 1 nil restricting Roma to long shots and there long striker totally isolated.

Defensive - Fluid

TI: Slightly Deeper + mixed passing

CFs

TARQa

WMs CMd CMs WMa

FBs CDd CDd FBs

As the game went on I change the left WM to sit inside and cut inside with ball, changed the TARq to AMs and the left FB to attack. Alonso and Pasqual worked well together down the left and the TARQ did nothing. I might try 442 next time instead of the off centre AM.

The best football was played with

AFa

AMs

WMa CMd DLPs Ws

FBa CDd CDd FBd

the ball was played nice, watching the game it looked like I was playing a shot control style of football probing around. When I lost the ball there was on average 6 players back, forcing Roma wide.

Its worth watching the games on comp highlights, more the game went on I could see certain things did not work. And defensive worked better then counter.

Four attacking roles in a defensive system that you want to create counter attacks with is probably a bit much. Especially with the changes to counter attacking this year. You want players behind the ball, so to counter attack properly and efficiently you'd want 2 attack duties at most.

Again though like everything else you have to watch the match, on paper most things always look okay but then when you add players attributes to things and the way the opposition plays, what's on paper doesn't mean anything.

How would you have to solid banks of 4 when one fullback would be in the wingback position or higher due to his attacking duty. Plus in midfield both your central pairings would drop deep while the outer two push up. How is that a solid bank of 4?

How is a player who is high up the pitch going to provide the penetration? The striker you use won't be making space for him to run into. He will have no real support from any of the central players you have, I see him being quite isolated and he'll struggle against sides who use a DMC. The DLP will try and find him with passes but he's hardly offering him support. You midfield is a lot deeper than the attackers. I fail to see this penetration you mention.

I don't understand this statement? How did you jump to this conclusion?

Cheers Cleon those are some good questions.

1. The way I was thinking was: the attack duty player would still drop into shape because of our overall team mentality, when we do not have possession. My expectation was that, if we do get the ball, then they'll adopt those more attacking positions you mentioned. But I can see what you're saying here.

2. I was referencing the AMC who is acting as a #9 of sorts. Expecting that he would make runs into the box behind the STC.

3. The idea here was that I wanted to create an overlap and an underlap. So the WP stays deeper and the FB-A overlaps. The WM-A gets forward with the FB-S supporting him. This way both flanks are doing something slightly different, and I'm maintaining a threat out wide, rather than keep all 4 of those wide players back on support or defend.

What I figured was, if I used support players out wide, they wouldn't be able to properly exploit a team that over-commits on the flanks.

But. I can see why I'd be wrong now because you need to keep guys behind the ball before springing into a counter attack. It's just sort of counter-intuitive when you're visualizing this on the tactics screen, I think.

At first look at your tactic Bababooey , I would have assumed it makes perfect sense, seems quite reasonably balanced.. well apart from the front 2. I also would have assumed that even having attacking roles in a defensive mentality would make them cautious enough for them not to be dragged out of position that often.

At first look at your tactic Bababooey , I would have assumed it makes perfect sense, seems quite reasonably balanced.. well apart from the front 2. I also would have assumed that even having attacking roles in a defensive mentality would make them cautious enough for them not to be dragged out of position that often.

But they're still going to be higher than the other players especially when they're on a support or defensive duty the gap between players will still be large and he specifically stated he wanted two solid banks of 4. To achieve that you need them all on the same page, that means not one of them more advanced than the other. It's logical and common sense really. Just because you use a defensive mentality doesn't mean you can use attacking roles and they won't be attacking. After all they're still attacking, it's just the base in which you use makes it slightly more cautious but at the end of the day an attacking duty is still going to be attacking.

There's not much wrong with what he's trying to do it's just a little too adventurous at the minute to be a real counter attacking style tactic. You need to reign the attack duties in and stick to using no more than 2 ideally. That way you overload the opposition in the areas that matter for counter attacks i.e your own half. That's how and why it works because you win the ball back after they over commit and hit them on the break with numbers from deep.

But they're still going to be higher than the other players especially when they're on a support or defensive duty the gap between players will still be large and he specifically stated he wanted two solid banks of 4. To achieve that you need them all on the same page, that means not one of them more advanced than the other. It's logical and common sense really. Just because you use a defensive mentality doesn't mean you can use attacking roles and they won't be attacking. After all they're still attacking, it's just the base in which you use makes it slightly more cautious but at the end of the day an attacking duty is still going to be attacking.

There's not much wrong with what he's trying to do it's just a little too adventurous at the minute to be a real counter attacking style tactic. You need to reign the attack duties in and stick to using no more than 2 ideally. That way you overload the opposition in the areas that matter for counter attacks i.e your own half. That's how and why it works because you win the ball back after they over commit and hit them on the break with numbers from deep.

The problem with this is that there is no way to know that except for asking on the forums. The average user will say, right okay this looks like a balanced set up with a defensive-ish mentality. This should be good set up for tough matches, and I'm not going to try to close down aggressively / etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong, obviously, it's just a little counter-intuitive because if you follow any of the stickied guides none of them suggest the number of roles/duties of a certain type you should have for a particular style to make sense.

Granted, I know a lot of this is trial and error, and most of my learning in FM has come from that. And I don't disagree that it's probably the best way to do things. But some of the tactical concepts in FM can be quite counter intuitive. For example when I played, if we were facing a much better team we would obviously try to sit back and hit them on the break. But.. The coach wouldn't say like: "right, you guys are "attacking" and you guys are "defending". You just had your roles, so to speak.

Regardless, I appreciate your help Cleon. Thank you.

The problem with this is that there is no way to know that except for asking on the forums. The average user will say, right okay this looks like a balanced set up with a defensive-ish mentality. This should be good set up for tough matches, and I'm not going to try to close down aggressively / etc.

I'm not saying you're wrong, obviously, it's just a little counter-intuitive because if you follow any of the stickied guides none of them suggest the number of roles/duties of a certain type you should have for a particular style to make sense.

Granted, I know a lot of this is trial and error, and most of my learning in FM has come from that. And I don't disagree that it's probably the best way to do things. But some of the tactical concepts in FM can be quite counter intuitive. For example when I played, if we were facing a much better team we would obviously try to sit back and hit them on the break. But.. The coach wouldn't say like: "right, you guys are "attacking" and you guys are "defending". You just had your roles, so to speak.

Regardless, I appreciate your help Cleon. Thank you.

Not really. If people understand the basics of football in real life they'd know this. It's not a game thing, it's a football thing. It's just common sense if you want to defend or counter attack then you need players behind the ball in order to do so. What's so hard to understand, it's basic football knowledge at any level?

Not really. If people understand the basics of football in real life they'd know this. It's not a game thing, it's a football thing. It's just common sense if you want to defend or counter attack then you need players behind the ball in order to do so. What's so hard to understand, it's basic football knowledge at any level?

The concept itself isn't hard to understand. Translating what you want to do into FM is where people get tripped up.

Besides, part of what made me want to create a more "balanced" system via the pairs and combinations guide, is that I felt if I used too many support/defend duties we would be inviting pressure, and we'd never get out of our own way.

The concept itself isn't hard to understand. Translating what you want to do into FM is where people get tripped up.

Besides, part of what made me want to create a more "balanced" system via the pairs and combinations guide, is that I felt if I used too many support/defend duties we would be inviting pressure, and we'd never get out of our own way.

Its requires stopping and really thinking about what you are trying to do.

And you do want to invite pressure. If the intent is to counter and doing so effectively requires the opposition to be committed to attacking you when you win back the ball, how else can you accomplish that? If your goal is win back the ball by the halfway line when most of their side is still in their half, its not going to counter-attack effectively at all.

Its requires stopping and really thinking about what you are trying to do.

And you do want to invite pressure. If the intent is to counter and doing so effectively requires the opposition to be committed to attacking you when you win back the ball, how else can you accomplish that? If your goal is win back the ball by the halfway line when most of their side is still in their half, its not going to counter-attack effectively at all.

It's the second post I've seen from this young man today saying exactly what I was about to write

I think it is the concepts you struggle with because if you understood how you wanted to play in real life, then the same applies to FM (with regards to this thread only). You'd need to invite pressure in order to do it yet you've failed to realise this and think its counter intuitive to sit deep with the roles you used. It's not its perfectly logical and makes sense. Your styles you create still seem to conflict what you want. You always say you want to play X way then when pushed on things it turns out you actually want to play Y way. I don't mean to sound critical but you don't seem to apply logic to things.

I find the best counter football is played with the 4-1-4-1 - I've been running with the following with Canada (counter, flexible).

------------------AF (A)

WM (S) - BBM (S) - AP (S) - W (S)

-------------------A (D)

FB (S/A) - CD (S) - CD (S) - FB (S)

------------------GK (D)

TI: Stick to position, more disciplined, retain possession, play narrower

Couple notes

1) If I'm playing at home against a team I think I'm better than I'll set the FB to A, and then have my WM sit more inside to allow for possible overlap (find the shape doesn't change too much if at all)

2) If I'm playing against a team that's far better me I'll set the defensive line slightly deeper and try to take a breather throughout the match when I'm absorbing a lot of pressure.

Results have been rather promising so far. Wouldn't call Canada a power by any means but got through the semi-final round with a 3-2-1 record (including three road draws in Mexico/Central America) and currently 1-2-2 in the final qualifying round (both losses to Mexico). Conceded 11 goals in 11 matches (4 in the 7 matches against non-Mexico countries and never more than two in a single match against anyone), and I've had more clear cut chances than the opposition in 9 of the 11 matches (as is the case IRL with Canada, scoring goals unfortunately is...not a thing).

The counter looks pretty nice when its executed well. The winger is slightly higher up than the rest of the midfield so he acts as the outlet for the defenders, and then you get the trailing BBM heading into the box with the AF, and the AP sitting back to distribute if the opposition has numbers in the box. Or it gets flipped to the left and the FB makes the appropriate overlap run and fires in a cross with the WM/BBM/AP/AF/W all in the general box vicinity. If the counter isn't there, the retain possession instruction at least slows the match down and gives me a decent spell of possession.

Defensively, the ball gets forced out to the flanks a ton. The opposition will routinely play 40-50 yard balls across the field to their fullbacks (which looks impressive), but the ML/MR generally close them down before they can get a cross off. Even when they don't, you have a mass of humanity in the box to make sure there's not much chance of damage. I think I've conceded two goals total where the opposition had more than a single touch on the ball in my box. The one downside of the tactic I've seen so far is that I concede an absolute crapload of corners (like, 7-10 per match).

I feel like with an actual useful striker this tactic would be ridiculous - need to test it out at a club team.

I find the best counter football is played with the 4-1-4-1 - I've been running with the following with Canada (counter, flexible).

------------------AF (A)

WM (S) - BBM (S) - AP (S) - W (S)

-------------------A (D)

FB (S/A) - CD (S) - CD (S) - FB (S)

------------------GK (D)

TI: Stick to position, more disciplined, retain possession, play narrower

Couple notes

1) If I'm playing at home against a team I think I'm better than I'll set the FB to A, and then have my WM sit more inside to allow for possible overlap (find the shape doesn't change too much if at all)

2) If I'm playing against a team that's far better me I'll set the defensive line slightly deeper and try to take a breather throughout the match when I'm absorbing a lot of pressure.

Results have been rather promising so far. Wouldn't call Canada a power by any means but got through the semi-final round with a 3-2-1 record (including three road draws in Mexico/Central America) and currently 1-2-2 in the final qualifying round (both losses to Mexico). Conceded 11 goals in 11 matches (4 in the 7 matches against non-Mexico countries and never more than two in a single match against anyone), and I've had more clear cut chances than the opposition in 9 of the 11 matches (as is the case IRL with Canada, scoring goals unfortunately is...not a thing).

The counter looks pretty nice when its executed well. The winger is slightly higher up than the rest of the midfield so he acts as the outlet for the defenders, and then you get the trailing BBM heading into the box with the AF, and the AP sitting back to distribute if the opposition has numbers in the box. Or it gets flipped to the left and the FB makes the appropriate overlap run and fires in a cross with the WM/BBM/AP/AF/W all in the general box vicinity. If the counter isn't there, the retain possession instruction at least slows the match down and gives me a decent spell of possession.

Defensively, the ball gets forced out to the flanks a ton. The opposition will routinely play 40-50 yard balls across the field to their fullbacks (which looks impressive), but the ML/MR generally close them down before they can get a cross off. Even when they don't, you have a mass of humanity in the box to make sure there's not much chance of damage. I think I've conceded two goals total where the opposition had more than a single touch on the ball in my box. The one downside of the tactic I've seen so far is that I concede an absolute crapload of corners (like, 7-10 per match).

I feel like with an actual useful striker this tactic would be ridiculous - need to test it out at a club team.

Exact same set up I use at Sheffield United with one exception, I used a DF rather than AF as the striker . Even the same TI's

It's the second post I've seen from this young man today saying exactly what I was about to write

I think it is the concepts you struggle with because if you understood how you wanted to play in real life, then the same applies to FM (with regards to this thread only). You'd need to invite pressure in order to do it yet you've failed to realise this and think its counter intuitive to sit deep with the roles you used. It's not its perfectly logical and makes sense. Your styles you create still seem to conflict what you want. You always say you want to play X way then when pushed on things it turns out you actually want to play Y way. I don't mean to sound critical but you don't seem to apply logic to things.

You've taught a lot of us a great deal, so it was bound to happen that we would end up mimicking you lol

Like many others on here, I'm still learning and growing too. Reading stuff helps. Paying attention to real matches helps a lot. But you have to really consider what you are doing and trying to do. Even if the match commentators don't use the exact terms we have in the game, they are describing the same concepts and ideas. You would never hear a commentator say something like "The away side is playing really defensive and looking to counter... They have 7 men behind the ball!" Its going to be 9 or even all 10.

You can't be balanced at the same time as you are being defensive and looking to counter, bababooey. You can be balanced and still use a counter, but it won't be as tight defensively and it won't counter attack as much. Its about selecting an approach and building around that. Trying to be everything simply doesn't work.

I've been toying with a 4-4-2 narrow diamond counter tactic that works reasonably well. My AM isn't always that involved. In trying to solve that, I realize that having him as an AM is a bit problematic in itself. By pulling him back as another CM, he's going to be helpful in defending and launching counters. As an AM, he's more helpful when I have possession and am looking to build play, but that's not my primary approach so I want to use the player where he helps the most.

I like the 4-1-4-1 shape, theaub5. I think that might be more flexible to use at different clubs than the narrower formation I've been using.

Exact same set up I use at Sheffield United with one exception, I used a DF rather than AF as the striker . Even the same TI's

Haha good to see I'm figuring this stuff out. Do you find the DF pushes back the opposing defensive line enough when they don't have the ball? I tried a DLF for a bit and mostly just found that he drifted too far back so when I tried to counter my midfield didn't have a lot of space. The AF at least stays high up so while there's the odd time that he's isolated when I go to counter my LM/RM usually have a bit of room to run or if their fullbacks push up there's space for the A/BBM/AP to pass the ball around.

I've been toying with a 4-4-2 narrow diamond counter tactic that works reasonably well. My AM isn't always that involved. In trying to solve that, I realize that having him as an AM is a bit problematic in itself. By pulling him back as another CM, he's going to be helpful in defending and launching counters. As an AM, he's more helpful when I have possession and am looking to build play, but that's not my primary approach so I want to use the player where he helps the most.

I like the 4-1-4-1 shape, theaub5. I think that might be more flexible to use at different clubs than the narrower formation I've been using.

I found this as well (which is why I'm not a huge fan of the 4-4-1-1). I'd rather have the extra defensive help, and in reality with the 4-1-4-1 I find that the anchor man is actually pretty important because 90% of the time when the attack resets it ends up with him having the ball.

I find the best counter football is played with the 4-1-4-1 - I've been running with the following with Canada (counter, flexible).

------------------AF (A)

WM (S) - BBM (S) - AP (S) - W (S)

-------------------A (D)

FB (S/A) - CD (S) - CD (S) - FB (S)

------------------GK (D)

TI: Stick to position, more disciplined, retain possession, play narrower

Couple notes

1) If I'm playing at home against a team I think I'm better than I'll set the FB to A, and then have my WM sit more inside to allow for possible overlap (find the shape doesn't change too much if at all)

2) If I'm playing against a team that's far better me I'll set the defensive line slightly deeper and try to take a breather throughout the match when I'm absorbing a lot of pressure.

Results have been rather promising so far. Wouldn't call Canada a power by any means but got through the semi-final round with a 3-2-1 record (including three road draws in Mexico/Central America) and currently 1-2-2 in the final qualifying round (both losses to Mexico). Conceded 11 goals in 11 matches (4 in the 7 matches against non-Mexico countries and never more than two in a single match against anyone), and I've had more clear cut chances than the opposition in 9 of the 11 matches (as is the case IRL with Canada, scoring goals unfortunately is...not a thing).

The counter looks pretty nice when its executed well. The winger is slightly higher up than the rest of the midfield so he acts as the outlet for the defenders, and then you get the trailing BBM heading into the box with the AF, and the AP sitting back to distribute if the opposition has numbers in the box. Or it gets flipped to the left and the FB makes the appropriate overlap run and fires in a cross with the WM/BBM/AP/AF/W all in the general box vicinity. If the counter isn't there, the retain possession instruction at least slows the match down and gives me a decent spell of possession.

Defensively, the ball gets forced out to the flanks a ton. The opposition will routinely play 40-50 yard balls across the field to their fullbacks (which looks impressive), but the ML/MR generally close them down before they can get a cross off. Even when they don't, you have a mass of humanity in the box to make sure there's not much chance of damage. I think I've conceded two goals total where the opposition had more than a single touch on the ball in my box. The one downside of the tactic I've seen so far is that I concede an absolute crapload of corners (like, 7-10 per match).

I feel like with an actual useful striker this tactic would be ridiculous - need to test it out at a club team.

Now this is interesting. I play a very similar system, though I use a DLF/S, and my midfield two is a DLP/S and a CM/A. I also use a WM/A on the left and a WB/A on the right.

On the face of it, your system would appear to isolate the front man, as you have no-one in your midfield on at attack duty. Some support will arrive from the BBM of course, but still. How do you find that pans out?

Wish I could show this using screens but I'm not around my playing computer for a couple days (stupid work).

The main reason I like using the AF here is because I do feel he really stretches out the opposition's defense. I compare it a bit to a hockey team on the counterattack, where after getting possession they will send a forward high up the ice towards the opposition blue line to immediately get the defenders to retreat or risk giving up a breakaway.

In this case its slightly different (offsides rule changes things of course), but the concept is still there. As I'm entrusting my other nine outfield players to defend and retrieve the ball, I'm 100% OK isolating the AF when in a defensive posture at the benefit of stretching out the gap between the opposition defenders and midfielders (or at a very minimum the central midfielders and the centre backs).

Once the ball is retrieved, if there's no break opportunity the ball generally gets worked up the field slowly. In this case I find even with the attack duty the AP tracks back a bit and either floats to the wing to get a potential long ball or presents himself as an option to hold the ball up in the middle circle. In either of these cases, since he's not really looking to push forward there will generally be some support from a flank player or the AP when he gets the ball. Only in the absolute worst case scenario (ie the defense is out of shape and needs to be reset) would I want a defender to just boot the ball down the pitch (as in this case yes the AF is 100% isolated and will extremely rarely win the ball).

If there is a break opportunity, I find the ball usually ends up with the right side winger. The optimal usage of the AF is if he can keep the entire defensive line slightly deeper and allow the winger to run at the defender with pace (or even better, if just the centre backs stay back and prior to receiving the ball the winger can just run right past his full back with no risk of being offsides). Once this happens, even on a support duty the AP and the BBM will both make their way forward. What I find happens most often on a good counter is the winger will take the ball down near the byline and you have the AF charging into the box with the CD's, the BBM coming in slightly later to also challenge the CD's, the WM coming into the box late, the AP lingering around the top of the box and the A + FB acting as reset outlets.

The tl;dr I guess is since my TI's focus either bringing the ball out up slowly or countering with force and numbers, the AF generally avoids being isolated with the ball, and I am more than happy to leave him isolated and farther up the pitch without the ball.

In what way has counter attacking changed in 16? Read this mentioned somewhere

Don't mean to sound snipey but I think this is actually the first thread I've seen where the concept behind getting counter-attacking to work has been explained clearly. Very useful, ya beauts.

The problem with this is that there is no way to know that except for asking on the forums. The average user will say, right okay this looks like a balanced set up with a defensive-ish mentality. This should be good set up for tough matches, and I'm not going to try to close down aggressively / etc. .

Taking your quote, slightly out of context. My nephew has just started playing FM (cos I handed down my old PC rig) and it, for lack of better word, freaky how predictable he fell into making every single common mistake I've seen on this forum. He basically threw in a 4-2-3-1, ultra attacking, auto duties and all that. I had a video call with him and went over some of the stuff in here, like how defensive mentalities tend to be better for possession and so on, though it was kinda hard to explain as he was taking things at face value. To be fair though, he's 16...

I guess what I'm saying is, you're quite right that the average user (new or otherwise) may very well go into the game with misconceptions and such. Without someone to say otherwise, I'm not entirely sure my nephew would have gotten far - I was his first port of call as he wasn't happy with the tactic as he was winning "unconvincingly".

ON that note, I do agree with Cleon that it is common sense - provided you have the knowledge of football and you have the knowledge of translating that into a system - Though, its a matter of understanding that knowledge and having a viewpoint, I mean outside of these forums I rarely see much in the way of tactical discussion, particularly in England where the bants is always "you can't polish a turd" when a team is doing badly. /sigh.

Another year that i start the game completely clueless of what to do. I ve read all the guides plus Cleon's topic, tryied A LOT of things, i play this game since CM 00/01 and i feel like completely crap. I cant find a consistent tactical approach to play the way i like regardelss of the version of the game or the ME. I do brilliantly in man managment. I build the strict disciplined squad of 23 players, trying two different approaches :

1. Buy the best players i can afford by selling half of the squad. For example in my current Panathinaikos team i have in August of 2015 an excelent first 11 (considering my low quality league), including Lucas Otavio, Fernandes, Olsson, Ajer, Henrique (Vasco). Rest of them are perfectly balanced. For example there is no full back with low positioning, marking, tackling and there is NO player with Work Rate below 12.

2. Build a strict defending squad : Full backs that are Centerbacks, MLRs that are good WBs, Box to Box attribute-wise D/DMs. Quick forwards with key attributes for a number 10 and a striker.

I love both approaches. My purpose? Win solidly. Build a tactic hard to brake that kills you lethally upfront. I dont want to succeed from the first year. I dont care if i loose. I want to feel that i am onto something correct, in my philosophy, that works.

REMEMBER : Every year i find a way to do this. But i feel like its by lack plus somethings i ve learned in here and some ideas of mine. But its lack, because same approach doesnt work after next patch or version of the game.

Its like there are three groups of players : Some of you understand perfectly tactics IRL and in Football Manager and play and having fun with game, regardless of the approach they like (being solid, loose, loose but solid, tiki taka, counter etc) taking advantage of its brilliant depth in ALL areas. Its what Rashidi said. Its an easy game. I believe him. I just cant understand the little change he did to adapt to the new match engine.

Some others are perfectly happy downloading a perfect set of attacking tactics and OIs, or creat one attacking tactic for themselves and they dont care abput defence.

And some others like me, are lost in knowing a lot about the game and how it works and at the same time knowing nothing and especially how to build a defence first winning side

I just have to begin from scratch and find a simple guide that will free me, or wait for someone to translate in my native language the guides to understand its difficult terms. Until then, i will follow heavily this topic.

You'll figure it out eventually, OP. I wanted to play the Simeone style with my ManU team and so far so good. I even beat the mighty Bayern Munich 1-0

I played Defensive/Fluid and it worked out well

Especially with the changes to counter attacking this year. You want players behind the ball, so to counter attack properly and efficiently you'd want 2 attack duties at most.

This.. What kind of changes have they made which differs from the 2015 version?

This.. What kind of changes have they made which differs from the 2015 version?

I've also got some questions around this. I play 4-1-4-1 Counter, and I use three attack duties. A FB, a WM and a CM.

Now, as I understand it, defensive positioning is defined by formation (primarily). So to play counter attacking football, I'd suggest that a solid formation, such as 4-1-4-1 with 3-4 attack duties, is more solid than a 4-1-2-2-1, with two players in the AM strata on a support duty - that may be a bad example, but I'm trying to labour the point. The rationale behind that is that the attack duty players defend deep, before rushing forward when the ball is won, which is surely one of the key tenets of counter attacking football - achieving penetration while your opponent is in the defensive transition.

I'm more than happy to be corrected, but I'll admit to being a little confused.

I've also got some questions around this. I play 4-1-4-1 Counter, and I use three attack duties. A FB, a WM and a CM.

Now, as I understand it, defensive positioning is defined by formation (primarily). So to play counter attacking football, I'd suggest that a solid formation, such as 4-1-4-1 with 3-4 attack duties, is more solid than a 4-1-2-2-1, with two players in the AM strata on a support duty - that may be a bad example, but I'm trying to labour the point. The rationale behind that is that the attack duty players defend deep, before rushing forward when the ball is won, which is surely one of the key tenets of counter attacking football - achieving penetration while your opponent is in the defensive transition.

I'm more than happy to be corrected, but I'll admit to being a little confused.

I think this has confused a few people, and I have made the exact same assumption as you. I assumed that even on an attack duty, with low mentality settings and a deep defensive position on the tactic board, a player would move back to their deep defensive position when the ball is lost.

That probably is wrong, and yes it makes sense that a player with attack duty would neglect his defensive duties more often and not get back to a position in which to counter, but like a lot of the controls in the game, it all feels rather ambiguous and unexplained.

It all seems quite confusing to me. It may make sense but I don't really get it.

I would have never thought to use the TI retain possession when wanting to play with a counter style.

I realize I know nothing about the game.

How, exactly, has counter attacking changed from FM15? People keep mentioning it everywhere.

How, exactly, has counter attacking changed from FM15? People keep mentioning it everywhere.

It's more decisive. Better long range passes combined with better off ball runs into space.

It all seems quite confusing to me. It may make sense but I don't really get it.

I would have never thought to use the TI retain possession when wanting to play with a counter style.

I realize I know nothing about the game.

Well, you still have to tell the team what you want them to do when they aren't on a counter-attacking, right? You can't launch a counter attacking every single time your side has the ball. The Retain Possession instruction won't affect the counter much, if at all. Its not as if every counter opportunity is suddenly going to have your players stopping short of goal and then just trying to pass the ball around. But they will try to hold the ball when in possession otherwise, which should minimize bad giveaways and you getting hit on the counter.

... And some others like me, are lost in knowing a lot about the game and how it works and at the same time knowing nothing and especially how to build a defence first winning side

I just have to begin from scratch and find a simple guide that will free me, or wait for someone to translate in my native language the guides to understand its difficult terms. Until then, i will follow heavily this topic.

Well, my friend I'm also stumbling along.

Even after playing FM daily for 10 years and reading possibly thousands of pages of FM advice I've reached a rather pitiful level.

When I watch guys playing FM on youtube I'd like to shout at the screen: don't do these stupid things( overload with 10 men or attack mentality spiced up with 10 more TI's).

Obviously afterwards a rather smug feeling takes hold of me and I think that finally I've gold a hold on the game

Well.. until I continue my save game and very swiftly the ME teaches me modesty

Btw a great thread: I've finally understood that counter-attack is not necessarily hoofing a long ball to a striker.

It all seems quite confusing to me. It may make sense but I don't really get it.

I would have never thought to use the TI retain possession when wanting to play with a counter style.

I realize I know nothing about the game.

Well I think what is confusing is that counter-attack is nothing we as players can initiate: it's a sort of autonomous event which gets triggered when your opponent has committed too many players forward.

This means that the ME changes on its own PI instructions ( like pass into space) and mentality of your players.

In this instance also your TI instructions are ignored.

Therefore Shorter Passing shouldn't influence the counter attack phase.

What I'm not sure: does the counter attack mentality increase the likelihood of a counter attack sequence - compared for example with defend or standard.

Because rationally a defend mentality should trigger a counter attack more often than a counter mentality as the opponent commits even more players forward.

Well I think what is confusing is that counter-attack is nothing we as players can initiate: it's a sort of autonomous event which gets triggered when your opponent has committed too many players forward.

But we kind of can. ok, we don't have a "Counter Attack Now" button we hit to start a counter attack, but setting the tactic up right in the first place means that you become more likely for the ME to trigger a counter. Any tactic can occasionally generate a counter attack given the right conditions, the "trick" (if you like) is to sway those conditions in your favour.

Yes it's autonomous in as much as it is the ME that decides when certain criteria are met in order for a counter attack to start. However we are able to influence the ME into making that decision more often with a properly set up tactic.

What I'm not sure: does the counter attack mentality increase the likelihood of a counter attack sequence - compared for example with defend or standard.

Because rationally a defend mentality should trigger a counter attack more often than a counter mentality as the opponent commits even more players forward.

The Defend, Counter and Attack mentalities increase the likelihood of a counter attack sequence. Counter attacks can occur in any mentality, but in those 3 mentalities the ME's rules (for want of a better term) aren't quite so strict.

But we kind of can. ok, we don't have a "Counter Attack Now" button we hit to start a counter attack, but setting the tactic up right in the first place means that you become more likely for the ME to trigger a counter. Any tactic can occasionally generate a counter attack given the right conditions, the "trick" (if you like) is to sway those conditions in your favour.

Yes it's autonomous in as much as it is the ME that decides when certain criteria are met in order for a counter attack to start. However we are able to influence the ME into making that decision more often with a properly set up tactic.

The Defend, Counter and Attack mentalities increase the likelihood of a counter attack sequence. Counter attacks can occur in any mentality, but in those 3 mentalities the ME's rules (for want of a better term) aren't quite so strict.

I am not sure about this, and hopefully someone will correct me if I have understood this wrong, but the ME doesnt make your team more likely to create a counter attack if you are playing in the 3 mentioned strategies (Defend, Counter and Attack), its just the basic template of selecting these strategies which makes it seems like it triggers more often. Like if you play on a counter mentality the default settings will favor counter attacking more than if you were playing on control. Its not like the ME calculates with what strategy is being used, but what instructions are being changed, removed or applied to your given tactic. It just so happens that counter has better default settings than lets say control, to actually make a counter attack occur.

I am not sure about this, and hopefully someone will correct me if I have understood this wrong, but the ME doesnt make your team more likely to create a counter attack if you are playing in the 3 mentioned strategies (Defend, Counter and Attack), its just the basic template of selecting these strategies which makes it seems like it triggers more often. Like if you play on a counter mentality the default settings will favor counter attacking more than if you were playing on control. Its not like the ME calculates with what strategy is being used, but what instructions are being changed, removed or applied to your given tactic. It just so happens that counter has better default settings than lets say control, to actually make a counter attack occur.

My understanding is that the ME's rules that defines when a counter can occur are a bit more "relaxed" (for want of a better term) under those 3 mentalities. Thus a counter can occur more frequently than within the other mentalities regardless of default settings - default settings may help as well, but I believe there is something else in the coding.

My understanding is that the ME's rules that defines when a counter can occur are a bit more "relaxed" (for want of a better term) under those 3 mentalities. Thus a counter can occur more frequently than within the other mentalities regardless of default settings - default settings may help as well, but I believe there is something else in the coding.

I understand where you are coming from, but as previously stated I do believe the choice of strategy is somewhat irrelevant in the sense that you on the base of selecting one of the 3 highlighted strategies wont increase your chances of counter attacking, but rather the instructions within a given strategy. I have a hard time believing the ME will take into consideration which strategy you use, and then based on that makes a decision wether or not a counter is occouring. But thats just whats makes sence to me.

Defensive, counter and overload have a lower threshold to initiate a counter. Thats a separate, under-the-hood instruction to the visible instructions.

I understand where you are coming from, but as previously stated I do believe the choice of strategy is somewhat irrelevant in the sense that you on the base of selecting one of the 3 highlighted strategies wont increase your chances of counter attacking, but rather the instructions within a given strategy. I have a hard time believing the ME will take into consideration which strategy you use, and then based on that makes a decision wether or not a counter is occouring. But thats just whats makes sence to me.

I think it depends how a 'mentality' is framed. Is it really just a collection of Team instructions, and Personal instructions, or is it separate entity that creates specific behaviours. I always imagined it was the former.

Well, you still have to tell the team what you want them to do when they aren't on a counter-attacking, right? You can't launch a counter attacking every single time your side has the ball. The Retain Possession instruction won't affect the counter much, if at all. Its not as if every counter opportunity is suddenly going to have your players stopping short of goal and then just trying to pass the ball around. But they will try to hold the ball when in possession otherwise, which should minimize bad giveaways and you getting hit on the counter.

Well I think what is confusing is that counter-attack is nothing we as players can initiate: it's a sort of autonomous event which gets triggered when your opponent has committed too many players forward.

This means that the ME changes on its own PI instructions ( like pass into space) and mentality of your players.

In this instance also your TI instructions are ignored.

Therefore Shorter Passing shouldn't influence the counter attack phase.

What I'm not sure: does the counter attack mentality increase the likelihood of a counter attack sequence - compared for example with defend or standard.

Because rationally a defend mentality should trigger a counter attack more often than a counter mentality as the opponent commits even more players forward.

Cheers dudes, I didn't see it from that point. It makes sense now.

Defensive, counter and overload have a lower threshold to initiate a counter. Thats a separate, under-the-hood instruction to the visible instructions.

This to answer the two posts below it, and yes Herne is correct here as well. On those mentalities, a counter is triggered with fewer conditions, and then you as the user can make it even more possible by setting a strategy which will help that happen.

Although both defensive and counter mentalities can be used to build a counter attack approach, my thought is that the counter approach is a bit more geared specifically toward it. Both approaches will be geared toward nullifying the opposition attack, but with defensively, you seem more likely to have players going safety-first. So winning the ball away where a counter is at least a possibility, on defensive they might clear it to touch or hack the ball away rather than really looking for the counter. That's my though on the difference between them, but not entirely sure if that's how it plays out.

Although both defensive and counter mentalities can be used to build a counter attack approach, my thought is that the counter approach is a bit more geared specifically toward it. Both approaches will be geared toward nullifying the opposition attack, but with defensively, you seem more likely to have players going safety-first. So winning the ball away where a counter is at least a possibility, on defensive they might clear it to touch or hack the ball away rather than really looking for the counter. That's my though on the difference between them, but not entirely sure if that's how it plays out.

Currently, defensive/counter are only marginally different, though the default settings of Counter are geared slightly more toward winning the ball slightly higher up the pitch and preventing you from getting boxed into your own penalty area.

As far as defensive football goes, I think people spend too much time looking at the instructions they use and not the personnel. If you're planning to spend most of your time in the defensive phase, you need skill sets that will shine through in that phase of play, not creative mids and attacking wingbacks. If you field a squad of players with lower table level defensive attributes and play defensive football, you'll play like a lower table club.

The same applies to what style of defence you're playing. Keeping shape won't help that much if you have tactically and positionally inept defenders who mostly excel at tackling and bullying weak attackers. Dropping into your penalty area will end in tears if you use quick ball-playing defenders who are otherwise average at marking and making aerial challenges.

That's a really good point about the personnel, THoG. An easily overlooked aspect. Being defensively solid is going to be much more difficult if you lack players who have the Positioning, Work Rate, Composure, etc.

I actually just brought it up earlier today in the Hull City thread, as I want to try a 4-1-4-1 counter formation after using a 4-4-2 narrow diamond to good effect. I've typically used wide attacking players further up, in the AM strata and often as Inside Forwards. But using the deeper winger means a less attack-minded player and a more rounded one. So I've been looking for players who can play there but have more solid Positioning and Work Rate, without completely sacrificing the attacking element either.

Another aspect I'm trying to keep in mind is that counter attacking is going to be even more effective at pace, so having some pace in the side is also highly desirable.

Took everyone's advice, especially Cleon...

Just had my first proper "away" style win in FM16 so. I'm quite pleased with what I'm seeing now!

Thanks guys!

On 28/11/2015 at 21:01, bababooey said:

Took everyone's advice, especially Cleon...

Just had my first proper "away" style win in FM16 so. I'm quite pleased with what I'm seeing now!

Thanks guys!

I know this thread is very old.. but how did you adapt your 4-4-1-1 in the end? Currently trying to play a similar way with the same formation so very intrigued