The Omnipresent Post-Season Break Sickness

God, I just want to #$#$½+%%#$½36+%

This is my nth game in FM. Years after years, nothing changes. If I ever manage to finish the first half of the season at a very promising part of the table, right after the break, I stumble for around 2 months, if not for a while longer, when I lose reins to all my season expectations.

It just happens. I am at Vitesse Arnhem now, having entered the month of January with a 5 point lead, my post-break record is: DLWDLLD

Every. Fecking. Time.

You know what's coming next? A wonderful revitalization starting from the month of May which will be too little and too late for my title challenge.

I thought this has something to do with tactics, hence the place of the thread. If this is something particular that is in connection with other aspects of the game such as mid-season training etc., please advise accordingly.

I, for once ever since my Real Betis wonders in CM 01-02, want to taste how title feels with an underdog in my first season.

Thanks in advance.

Yet another home loss. 3 out of 4 shots in. My blood is boiling with anger. This drama, every time, every year, may it be FM 07 or FM 78.

It could be tactics, fitness, the way the AI adapts to your form and reputation; any number of things. As this is the tactics forum, it would be beneficial to understand what your system is: the whole shebang please - formation, Roles, Duties, Mentality, Team Shape, plus any Team and Player Instructions used.

Bear in mind that you are top of the league and suddenly start playing teams for a second time. You presumably won your fair share of matches in the first half of the season, so the opposition may be mindful of that when you next face them.

Right. I'm so frustrated that (why do we even "play" this anyway?) I forgot to disclose any details so that thread would make more sense.

Here is the layout. I guess you can see every aspect you asked for in the SS. Let me know if I neglected anything.

There are quite a few issues there on that tactic from an initial look but what are your main problems? How are you conceding 3 goals on 4 shots? How are you looking going forward, what are your stats like?

Well it's always the same.

Despite my team being still able to create chances, they are wasted somehow however opponents score most of their chances on target.

To elaborate, for example, that 3 out of 4 came by an outstanding performance of a youngster with 12 in Long Shots who found perfect chances at the edge of the box and another goal after a rebound.

I was not able to detect a particular pattern on the ways my team conceded goals, they just score and I can not. And a 3 or 4 matches like that drag the morale down as well, the poor run turns into a string of doom.

I was not able to detect a particular pattern on the ways my team conceded goals, they just score and I can not.

Is your Targetman always outnumbered in the box?

Are your wingers out on an island, without adequate support and passing options, if the cross isn't on?

Are your opponent's wingers or fullback getting a lot of time on the ball, without a challenge?

1- Yes, but he never was the driving/prolific force of the attacks anyway. He just gets marked and that's what I want.

2- If full backs too late for the overlap, to an extent, yes, however I always had the BBM's surging into the penalty area for a low pass in mind (yet to succeed at that)

3- I generally conduct specific man marking on them. If the winger is highly hazardous, I ask for the closer BBM to be an additional marker.

1- Yes, but he never was the driving/prolific force of the attacks anyway. He just gets marked and that's what I want.

So who is supposed to be the scorer(s) in that setup? Your TM appears to be the only one in the box, or consistently attacking the box, and he's bound to be outnumbered. A box-to-box mid will help, to a degree, but I would want someone more focused on attacking the goal.

2- If full backs too late for the overlap, to an extent, yes, however I always had the BBM's surging into the penalty area for a low pass in mind (yet to succeed at that).

I much prefer to use roles and Player Instructions to create the FB/W overlap, instead of the Team Instruction. I find it's a much more consistent and natural overlap.

So who is supposed to be the scorer(s) in that setup? Your TM appears to be the only one in the box, or consistently attacking the box, and he's bound to be outnumbered. A box-to-box mid will help, but I would want someone more focused on supporting the TM or attacking the goal.

Well I'm -at least up to this sickness point- the highest scoring team of the league. Not one match without a goal.

I much prefer to use roles and Player Instructions to create the FB/W overlap, instead of the Team Instruction. I find it's a much more consistent and natural overlap.

I'll give that a go.

Well I'm -at least up to this sickness point- the highest scoring team of the league. Not one match without a goal.

Well it's always the same.

Despite my team being still able to create chances, they are wasted somehow however opponents score most of their chances on target.

I was not able to detect a particular pattern on the ways my team conceded goals, they just score and I can not.

I must have misread your problem, it sounded like you weren't scoring consistently. If you're a top scoring team, your opponents may realize that and pack the box or focus on defending tighter. It's a reasonable thing to do. In that case, your chances may not be as clean or consistent as before. Perhaps an attacking boost from an Inside Forward or CM(A) might be needed? Sometimes a little tap to a player with a clearer shot - or a second man to put away a rebound - can help.

I must have misread your problem, it sounded like you weren't scoring consistently. If you're a top scoring team, your opponents may realize that and pack the box or focus on defending tighter. It's a reasonable thing to do. In that case, your chances may not be as clean or consistent as before. Perhaps an attacking boost from an Inside Forward or CM(A) might be needed? Sometimes a little tap to a player with a clearer shot - or a second man to put away a rebound - can help.

What you're suggesting is a positional tweak in tactic ?

Does this conclude that my tactics have/had been cracked by the new year's eve everytime ?

Edit: My problem exactly is the team's inability to score as before -despite the number of chances created- and conceding a high proportion of chances created against me.

That's one positional change I would try, given what you've shared about your tactic and troubles. An Inside Forward cutting in, with a Fullback overlapping to the outside is a classic combination. This might offer your TM someone in the box to connect with - or another body in the box for your remaining winger to cross to. Just one thought, I'm sure there are many solutions to try.

Tactics aren't "cracked", but teams do adjust how they plan to play against you. (Why wouldn't a team change their approach based on opponent strength?)

That's one positional change I would try, given what you've shared about your tactic and troubles. An Inside Forward cutting in, with a Fullback overlapping to the outside is a classic combination. This might offer your TM someone in the box to connect with - or another body in the box for your remaining winger to cross to. Just one thought, I'm sure there are many solutions to try.

Tactics aren't "cracked", but teams do adjust how they plan to play against you. (Why wouldn't a team change their approach based on opponent strength?)

In case of FM, I can not think AI being "divided and assigned seperately" for each opposing team. There is one AI and once it's found out how to crack your tactic, it devises that onto all other teams this way or that way. Otherwise it wouldn't explain a total meltdown of a tactic, I reckon.

What you're, righteously, suggesting is what I am so annoyed about all this: Teams, I mean, managers do not tweak their formations once a year because opponents find a way in. If it's a good tactic it works somehow or else we wouldn't be talking about manager's trademark formations and playing styles -it feels so unrealistic that way.

I wrote this in a different thread, but perhaps relevant here as well:

"There can be reputational and/or tactical issues to consider.

For example - perhaps you are a club not expected to do very well in the league. Other teams know this and try to play aggressively against you - they see you as easy prey. This falls into your hands tactically speaking and you exploit the holes that their aggressiveness leaves. You go on a good run and overachieve for a time. After a while other teams recognise your good form and stop playing quite so aggressively - so now the holes you were exploiting are no longer there and you stop getting such good results. You need to adapt.

2nd example - you are playing as a top club. Most of the time you will simply be able to steamroller opponents because of your quality. A lot of teams will play fairly defensively against you but you'll still win. However, sometimes their defensive attitude will pay off - you'll get matches where you seem to dominate, they'll have 2 shots all match, score one with a break away goal or set piece, and win. Your team fails to break down these opponents and you are left feeling frustrated. Again, perhaps you should adapt during matches like this to get through these parked buses."

Does any of that sound familiar?

Looking at your system, you could well be leaving space for opponents to exploit. It's quite an aggressive set up, especially in defence, so that could be a good place to start.

I wrote this in a different thread, but perhaps relevant here as well:

"There can be reputational and/or tactical issues to consider.

For example - perhaps you are a club not expected to do very well in the league. Other teams know this and try to play aggressively against you - they see you as easy prey. This falls into your hands tactically speaking and you exploit the holes that their aggressiveness leaves. You go on a good run and overachieve for a time. After a while other teams recognise your good form and stop playing quite so aggressively - so now the holes you were exploiting are no longer there and you stop getting such good results. You need to adapt.

2nd example - you are playing as a top club. Most of the time you will simply be able to steamroller opponents because of your quality. A lot of teams will play fairly defensively against you but you'll still win. However, sometimes their defensive attitude will pay off - you'll get matches where you seem to dominate, they'll have 2 shots all match, score one with a break away goal or set piece, and win. Your team fails to break down these opponents and you are left feeling frustrated. Again, perhaps you should adapt during matches like this to get through these parked buses."

Does any of that sound familiar?

Looking at your system, you could well be leaving space for opponents to exploit. It's quite an aggressive set up, especially in defence, so that could be a good place to start.

That's by far the most reasonable explanation I've heard through all these years to this. Thank you.

@dankrzyz

I'm not convinced at the "realism" part. If you ask me tweaking a Winger into an IF is a huge systematic change in a tactic. It totally alters the way you're looking to score and that is half the game. Still thanks a lot for your valuable insight.

My problem with conceding seems like more demoralizing than the inability to score atm. I need to rectify that before anything else.

Being down to 10 men when it was still 0-0 in the first half, I totally dominated the last game with a thumping result of 5-0.

Making changes that meant more sense with players roles' indeed proved effective. Still, the opponent was Zwolle and the fixture I opened this thread because of included a 4-0 win over them too.

Anyway, this thing looks promising. Very much so. I'll keep you posted. Please advise if you spot anything contradicting.

It's been a revival so far. AZ cleanly beaten on their own turf 0-2. Target man started to shine, Both wide AP's are directly involved in scoring whereas my RB in particular is putting in assists almost every match.

Let's see how this fares.

Hiccup yet again.

Since the layout above turned in hardly productive results, I changed the left and right central midfielders into CM(A)s and got smashed by Feyenoord at home 2-5.

I need a solution to in-the-box population scarceness. I need some guys to be ready in the rooms of spaces within the box to take first time shots when my wingers whip or short-pass the ball.

I have found that a combination of "much higher tempo", "early crosses" TI and "gets forward whenever possible" and "roams from position" PI for the relevant midfielders seems to work.

But i also employ no playmakers and use wingers instead of AP's. You do have a lot playmakers.

You're always going for completely symmetrical roles in your team why is that? Also 11 ti's some that make no sense to me I mean what is the point in using control which has a higher tempo already then trying to play a possession game then increasing the tempo? You also have control which has a higher than normal defensive line already and pushing the line up even more are your defenders competent enough to deal with that?

I am surprised it has been working at all tbh, don't see much scoring support there but you're top of the league (in that last screenshot) with Vitesse so are things that bad?

Edit: Losing 5-2 is typical of the glaring defensive issues is your setup.

I need a solution to in-the-box population scarceness. I need some guys to be ready in the rooms of spaces within the box to take first time shots when my wingers whip or short-pass the ball.

You are using a Target Man. Regardless of your other tactical settings, that will encourage early and/or long balls to him. If the ball reaches him quickly, your other players may not be able to get to him fast enough to provide support.

I don't think the problem is "in-the-box population scarceness" (especially if you have switched to using a CM attack), I think the problem is related to using the Target Man role. A DLF(s) or CF(s) instead could be an option to try. Somebody running from midfield will help.

I'd also think carefully about your defence. You are playing with a very high defensive line, with lots of closing down and two attacking fullbacks. That could leave you exposed to fast counter attacks or through balls/balls over the top. Seeing as Feyenoord just beat you 2-5 at home, play the match back and see how you conceded - better, see how you lost possession in the first place which led to their goals.

@Cocu

I was using them as Wingers 3 matchdays before, I wanted to resolve Target Man getting overwhelmed in the box, hence the role change.

@Crazy_Ivan

Weird thing is I've never experienced FM to be reflecting the exact rationale behind your thinking. You throw in some disconnected stuff into a tactic and they somehow work, true.

I've never thought Control game meant higher defensive line to be honest. If so, I'll be tweaking there.

@herne79

That match was very CLEARLY due to going on the offensive way too much, I got hit in the back of the net by counter attacks for at least twice that match.

Also I'm not very comfortable with converting two midfielders into CM(A)s because that would leave the midfield bare. I need to find another way around to my scoring impotency.

I've never thought Control game meant higher defensive line to be honest. If so, I'll be tweaking there.

Chapter 4 of "Lines and Diamonds" may offer some insight: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/423054-Lines-and-Diamonds-The-Tactician-s-Handbook-for-Football-Manager-2015-%28Part-3-Updated%29?p=10256030&viewfull=1#post10256030

Also I'm not very comfortable with converting two midfielders into CM(A)s because that would leave the midfield bare. I need to find another way around to my scoring impotency.

Why not just *one* CM(A) and the other two cover for him defensively? A 4-2-3-1.

Chapter 4 of "Lines and Diamonds" may offer some insight: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/423054-Lines-and-Diamonds-The-Tactician-s-Handbook-for-Football-Manager-2015-%28Part-3-Updated%29?p=10256030&viewfull=1#post10256030

Why not just *one* CM(A) and the other two cover for him defensively? A 4-2-3-1.

Just done that with the midfielder on the right center before you mentioned it. Things looking quite more positive now. Stern tests ahead.

In my replay of that match against Feyenoord, I had 4 clear cut chances, 3 woodworks and the match ended 2-4.

I don't feel well. |:

Failed yet again.

WDDLL

The form is inevitable. It's as if the AI is determined to derail the team no matter what. While my wide players fail to find the net, shoot it either out or in the face of the keeper, rival wide players keep tucking the ball into the corners like hot knife through butter.

I really can't bear watching this anymore.

i would say with those roles you would be heading more towards "rigid" rather than flexible.

@herne79

That match was very CLEARLY due to going on the offensive way too much, I got hit in the back of the net by counter attacks for at least twice that match.

Also I'm not very comfortable with converting two midfielders into CM(A)s because that would leave the midfield bare. I need to find another way around to my scoring impotency.

Re. the counter attacks, that's exactly what I was talking about. You are overly aggressive, especially down the flanks and with your very high defensive line.

Also, I didn't mention using two CM(A)s, nor would I. Having one runner from midfield to support attacks is plenty. My point was that as you are using a Target Man as your lone striker, the ball may be reaching him too quickly for decent support to get to him in time before he loses possession. Try an alternative striker such as a DLF(s) or CF(s) - that way your team won't be just pumping the ball to your striker quite so rapidly, thus allowing your support players more time to advance.

In my replay of that match against Feyenoord, I had 4 clear cut chances, 3 woodworks and the match ended 2-4.

I don't feel well. |:

You replayed the match vs Feyenoord that you originally lost 2-5? Why? I advised you to play the match back (i.e., watch it again) so that you can see exactly how you are losing possession and conceding.

Overall, your system looks a bit over involved. A control mentality is pretty aggressive - by default it has a high def line, lots of closing down, shorter passing in defence, more direct in attack, played wider and at a high tempo. With 4 attack duty players down your flanks and a large gap behind your central defenders, wingers and anyone capable of playing through balls or balls over the top to a pacey striker will have a field day.

To that you then add 11 team instructions which attempt to tell your team to be even more aggressive in defence than you already are. When in possession, you tell your team to cut down on the direct attacking play by using Retain Possession (which lowers the tempo, tells players to pass shorter thus making the team play more compactly), but you also want them to run at the defence while working the ball into the box, and hold up play in order to look for someone overlapping.

But, because you are using a Target Man, they might not follow those instructions at times anyway, just so your players can get the ball to him in a potentially isolated position.

Personally I would look to rebalance the flanks, lose some defensive aggression, re-think the in possession TIs (your two APs have dribble more set by default, who else is going to "run at the defence" exactly?), make sure you have one runner from midfield, and change the Target Man to a different role.

Less is more .

Edit: Losing 5-2 is typical of the glaring defensive issues is your setup.

In my replay of that match against Feyenoord, I had 4 clear cut chances, 3 woodworks and the match ended 2-4.

Leaky defense. Still playing aggressive offensively (control) with only one holding player (DLP) and both fullbacks attacking? I'd agree with Herne79:

I'd also think carefully about your defence. You are playing with a very high defensive line, with lots of closing down and two attacking fullbacks. That could leave you exposed to fast counter attacks or through balls/balls over the top. Seeing as Feyenoord just beat you 2-5 at home, play the match back and see how you conceded - better, see how you lost possession in the first place which led to their goals.

What's your latest setup - formation, roles, and TI? How much are you changing during the game?

Less is more .

I tend to get too complicated and change too impatiently. I often have to fight that urge and simplify. This is good advice by Herne79 - echoed by the other savvy FM managers on the forums.

I just want to point out that I play control with a higher defensive line with Lille and in my last season we conceded 22 goals in 38 games, pushing up is not an issue but defensively I have the right players to do that and pace is not the key to this either. Also the roles of your wide players is key here too and as has been pointed out you are way too open down the flanks.

You're focusing too much on your attacking, both those games against Feyenoord you have been pointing out your attacking deficiencies but when scoring two goals I would at the very least want a draw out of that(And I would be pissed at the draw too), yet you have lost both ganes conceding four or more twice. Sort your defensive frailties first, but that is just my opinion.

Good job .

Hiccup yet again.

Since the layout above turned in hardly productive results, I changed the left and right central midfielders into CM(A)s and got smashed by Feyenoord at home 2-5.

I need a solution to in-the-box population scarceness. I need some guys to be ready in the rooms of spaces within the box to take first time shots when my wingers whip or short-pass the ball.

Do you have some kind of symmetry OCD? When I used a 4-3-3 wide with Spurs, I found the best midfield set-up utilised one ball-winner on defend (in the middle) one advanced playmaker on attack, and one box-to-box on support. Similarly, on the wings I had one inside forward attack to support the striker, and the other was just a winger on support duty. Making your left and right CMs and left and right winger do exactly the same job every time seems like a waste to me. Why have two people doing the same job??

Do you have some kind of symmetry OCD? When I used a 4-3-3 wide with Spurs, I found the best midfield set-up utilised one ball-winner on defend (in the middle) one advanced playmaker on attack, and one box-to-box on support. Similarly, on the wings I had one inside forward attack to support the striker, and the other was just a winger on support duty. Making your left and right CMs and left and right winger do exactly the same job every time seems like a waste to me. Why have two people doing the same job??

I had that affliction, yes, however now that I'm free of it, my team is free of troubles as well.

I even beat Olympiacos 3-0 away from home.

Edit: Oh not in real life, no, although I had other anxiety problems.