Closing the Gap Between Defence, Midfield and Attack: Analysis and Discussion

Introduction

Hi guys, you know when you’ve created your tactic and set all your mentalities for your players but you’re leaving big holes between your midfield and defence? Or perhaps your midfield isn’t linking up well enough with your strikers? Maybe you’ve asked your Assistant Manager for feedback on your performance and he’s advised you that your opponents are exploiting the gap between your midfield and defence?

Well this thread is created to maybe solve some of your problems with these particular issues. Advanced users on the forum will no doubt be aware of this anyway, but I want to try and explain to the less advanced users what you can do to remedy this when you get these messages.

I have spent several hours over the last few days altering different mentalities for different positions on the field, seeing how it affects the gaps between your midfield and defence and your midfield and attack.

From the experiments I have conducted, it appears that altering the defensive line does not appear to affect this. The reason I say this is because whenever I altered the line and left the mentalities alone, the Assistant Manager never commented that this had changed anything, he said the gaps still existed. This would appear to be something that can only be remedied by altering your player’s mentalities. When I refer to a gap in this discussion, I am referring to the mentality difference between positions. So if I say you can have a gap of no more than 3 between your defence and midfield, I mean the mentality difference between defence and midfield can be no more than 3.

I would just like to point out before we move any further that if you play a global mentality, you will not get these messages and there will be no gaps as all players are singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak.

I am also not saying that this is a way of building a ‘Super Tactic’; it is purely a guide to cutting out the gaps between positions and getting rid of that message from your assistant manager. Additionally, there will be ways advanced users can work this differently, this is just a basic guide for inexperienced users.

Let’s take a look at some basic formations…

4-4-2

The 4-4-2 is the most common formation in football so we will start to take a look at this.

In this formation the gap between the defence and the midfield can be no more than 3 if you are playing with a flat midfield like this. You can have whatever mentality you want for your defenders, just as long as the gap in between your midfielders is no more than 3. However, the gap between your central defenders and midfielders can be as big as 6 if you match the mentality of your full backs to that of your midfielders.

For example, if you wanted to play with a defensive minded back four, you could set all their mentalities to 6, but your midfielders would have to have a mentality of 9 in order for their to be no gap between your defence and midfield. However, if you wanted to be a little bit more attacking, you could set your central defenders mentality to 6, but your full backs mentality to 12 as long as your midfielders also had a mentality of 12.

You don’t always have to set your mentalities this close together though between defence and midfield and this is something I will discuss later when looking at another formation.

In regards to the midfielders and strikers in this formation, you can not have a gap any more than 3, so if all your midfielders were set to 12, your strikers could only be set as high as 15 before a gap between your midfield and strike force would start to appear.

Now let’s take a look at a variation of the traditional 4-4-2.

4-4-2 - Wingers

In this formation, the mentality gaps allowed are slightly different. The same rule applies for the back four and the two central midfield players, you can have a gap as big as 3 between defence and central midfield if all four defenders share the same mentality and the gap between the central defence and central midfield can be as big as 6 if the full backs share the same mentality as the central midfielders.

With the AML and AMR in this formation the gap between them and the defenders can only be 4. However, if you drop the mentality of your two central midfielders to that of your two central defenders, the gap between your AML, AMR and defence can now be as big as 6.

What is interesting about this formation is that where with the traditional 4-4-2, you could only have a gap as big as 3 between your midfield and attack before the assistant pointed out a gap in between midfield and attack, you can have an unlimited mentality gap between AML, AMR and your strikers. For example, in the traditional 4-4-2 if your ML and MR had a mentality of 12, your strikers would have to be no more than 15. In this formation, your AML and AMR can be 12, but your strikers could be as much as 20.

4-3-3

Now we start introducing holding midfield players into the equation. In this particular formation, there can be a gap no bigger than 3 between the defenders and the DMC and there can be a gap no bigger than 4 between the back four, the two central midfielders and the wingers. Again, if the mentality of the full backs matches that of the central midfield players, the gap between the central defenders and the central midfield can be as big as 6. As there are wingers in this formation, it is the same as the 4-4-2 with wingers in that there can be a gap as big as you like between the AML, AMR and strikers.

If you wanted to play a variation of this formation i.e.; instead of a DMC an AMC behind the striker, you would need to make sure the gap between the defenders and central midfielders was no greater than 3, unless the mentality of the full backs matched that of the central midfield players, in which case the gap could be as big as 6 like in previous formations.

However, the gap now between the defence and the AML, AMR and AMC could be no bigger than 4. The gap between the AML, AMR, AMC and the striker could be as big as you wanted as per the previous formations.

4-3-2-1

In this particular formation, it is fairly straightforward. The gap between your defenders and your ML, MR and MC can be no more than 3 before the assistant manager reports a gap between your defence and midfield. If you were to drop the MC into a DMC position, this would still be the same. Additionally, the gap between your two AMC’s and your defenders can be no more than 4 and the gap between your AMC’s and SC can be anything.

Now we’re going to take a look at a couple of formations that contain two DMC’s. This is quite interesting as the rules regarding gaps between defence and midfield differ somewhat as to previously.

We will start by looking at a 4-4-2 shape with two holding midfielders.

4-4-2 DM x 2

With this particular formation, you can set your back four mentality up and the gap between them and the rest of midfield can be anything. In one match I set my back four up with a mentality of 1 and it allowed me to change the mentality of the entire midfield section (including DM’s) to a very attacking mentality without recognising a gap between defence and midfield. I don’t know exactly why this is, perhaps it is so you can accommodate an attack minded, deep lying playmaker into your team alongside a midfield destroyer. I am not sure, but that is what it allowed me to do.

However, although it appears you can have a gap as big as you want between your defence and midfield, you can not have a gap any bigger than 3 between the midfielders and the strikers.

I quite like the idea of this, as it would appear you could be playing quite offensive football whilst maintaining a good defensive shape.

The final formation I am going to look at is a 4-2-2-1-1 formation.

4-2-2-1-1

Here we have two holding midfielders again, so the same rules apply with mentality and the gap between your defence and midfield being anything you want it to be.

With this shape though, the gap between your DMC’s, ML, MR, AMC and SC can only be as big as 3. So for example, you could have the following:

DR: 8

DC: 8

DC: 8

DL: 8

DMC: 13

DMC:13

MR: 13

ML: 13

AMC: 13

SC: 16

However, if you match the mentality of your DMC’s and AMC to that of your SC, there can be a gap as big of 6 between your ML, MR and SC. ie;

DR: 8

DC: 8

DC: 8

DL: 8

DMC: 15

DMC: 15

MR: 9

ML: 9

AMC: 15

SC: 15

Please note:- I am not recommending these as actual set ups to play, I am just stating potential values

I think this is good because you’ve got the three central players supporting the striker and because of this, you can ask your wide men to do more defensive roles.

Summary

As you can see, there does seem to be some logic built into the match engine and some sort of framework you have to follow, as stated in TT&F ’09, in order to build a tactic. There are many other formations I have not yet studied, mainly because it is too time consuming to look at every possibility. For example, I have not yet studied wingbacks and how they affect your framework. That might be something I look at on another day though, not for the moment. If I haven’t covered something in this thread, it is probably because I haven’t researched it, so I probably wont be able to answer any questions about something I haven’t covered unfortunately. Not at the moment anyway. I may expand this sometime soon to include wingbacks etc… but I would like it if others wanted to contribute some of their own findings to this thread instead.

Again, as previously stated, this is not a blue print for a Super Tactic, it is just exploring what mentalities and frameworks cause your assistant to advise of gaps in your formation and how these can be remedied.

One thing to keep in mind though, this does not answer the question of the amount of space behind your defence you leave. This will be something affected by the defensive line setting and for the initial mentality you give to your defenders

Regards,

Noel

Wow!!!!

I have been taking notes to record all this down actually!

So so glad that you have done it and make everything so clear

Are you able to write an example in full?

For example,

DC:6

FB: 9

MC:9

MR/L: 10

FC: 12

Something like that. It would be much much easier to see

i think i understand where your coming from noel dude

im experimenting with the quiroz 4-2-3-1 formation from TT&F hopefully through your suggestions i think i have it

is this the sort of setup your talking about, and is it correct to your understanding.

Hi Stvndysn, no, I am not sure about that set up for having no gaps in between defence and midfield and in between midfield and attack. Your midfield players have too a high mentality from your defenders, to my understanding of it that would cause there to be gaps

Wow!!!!

I have been taking notes to record all this down actually!

So so glad that you have done it and make everything so clear

Are you able to write an example in full?

For example,

DC:6

FB: 9

MC:9

MR/L: 10

FC: 12

Something like that. It would be much much easier to see

Hi,

Yeah this set up is fine. I just tried this set up on my game and my assistant didn't report any gaps between midfield and defence or between midfield and attack.

Just so you get a rough idea, play this set up, but change your MR and ML to 11 instead of 10 and then check your assistant feedback. He will tell you there is a gap between defence and midfield. But as soon as you switch your MR and ML back to 10 again, he will no longer report any gaps.

Obviously, as long as the gaps remain the same as you have got them now, you can change the mentalities of each player to become more defensive or more attacking as you see fit

Looks superb this, will give it a read later on this evening. Good work.

Erm, when you say check your assistant feedback? Where exactly do you do that?

Anybody? Come on dont be shy, I've been looking for this to no avail :/

Fantastic post Noel, fair play to you.

I was wondering in a flat 4-4-2 (ML/MR), would having you MCd on mentality of 8, CBs 5 and your MCa mentality 14 and strikers 17 would it work or would there be a big gap between the two CM's?

Thanks,

Patrick

Anybody? Come on dont be shy, I've been looking for this to no avail :/

During a match you can get your assistant manager to give you feedback.

Thanks a lot I was having the same problem with my tactics playing 4-4-2 formation even though in terms of wining matches has not been much of a problem for me! Ok let me go try this out now lol

I have my mentalities set as follows:

FB - 10

DC - 7

MR/L - 10

MC - 8

MC - 12

MR - 10

ST - 13

and I constantly get that the gap between my strikers and midfield is too big.

very interesting! but i have a question, if you were to play a mixture of 4-4-2 and 4-4-2-wingers so you have the the left winger and the two centre midfield men in the normal 4-4-2 position but the right winger in the advanced position as shown in the 4-4-2-wingers screen shot can he have a mentality of +4 and not +3 like the other midfield players do IF the back 4 have the same mentality settings ?

if he can does that then mean that the 2 forwards can if you wanted have any mentality setting you want ?

I'm a little confused about the defensive line/mentality interaction. According to the TT&F, the mentality and DL settings should be the same; however, as you've mentioned, the DL setting doesn't actually seem to affect the gaps in your team, which makes me wonder if the DL setting is really the "jumping off" point for where the mentalities are implemented. You seem to be thinking along those same lines, which means that you could drop your DL back and not have to alter the mentality setting (which would be fantastic). Is that your experience, or am I reading this wrong?

Hi

could someone post a good mentality overview for a 433/451 formation? I hope to have a 'universal' mentality structure which I can use all the time while adjusting the DL and passing etc as Cleon does. I think that I am dropping the ball with the mentalities.

I have my mentalities set as follows:

FB - 10

DC - 7

MR/L - 10

MC - 8

MC - 12

MR - 10

ST - 13

and I constantly get that the gap between my strikers and midfield is too big.

Try either increasing the MC who is on 12 slightly (might not resolve the problem - or at least it may leave a hole behind that MC for the opposition to exploit), or having one of your STs on a slightly lower mentality - the gap the AM is reporting is basically the area where an AMC positionally plays so having a player who will move into it to link play is what you're after.

Great looking thread, the OP is very well presented. Im a bit down on the slider tweaking at present, am trying minimal sensible tactics of my own, consequently I couldnt be ar$$ed to analyse it all but when I need to get all technical again I shall head for here!

Must learn how to download imagepacks too, the terriers set looks awesome.

With all due respect guys. When can the assistant manager ever be trusted with anything?

He is supposed to be your right-hand man. The guy to rely on. But what does he actually do correctly?

Lets start with opinion on tactics. What utter rubbish he spouts.

"player X is used to playing a more direct passing game". OK I'll increase it. Then even with direct passing at its most direct he still says... "player X is used to playing a more direct passing game".

"player X is used to closing down more than he is being asked to". OK I'll increase that too. Then even with closing down on max he still says... "player X is used to closing down more than he is being asked to".

"we should show player x onto his weaker foot". OK I'll do that then.

Oh but "we should show player y onto his weaker foot". OK I'll do that then.

Oh but "we should show player z onto his weaker foot". OK I'll do that then.

and so it continues until you have ran out of players.

Also why is it you only get feedback from the assistant? Last time I looked at a Premiership bench the manager could ask his under 8's manager's uncles's opinion on the game.

The AM's feedback does seem to be quality dependant (the better the AM, the better the feedback seems to be a fair comment - or perhaps more accurately, the more feedback given...). It does take time for the AM to notice 'in-match' changes. This seems to be every 8 minutes or so (with major match events seeming to trigger it too - sendings off, goals etc) if the grind on my PC processor is any guide. (This also seems to be the time the AI manager also 'reacts' to match events).

I think the key is to be able to recognise that the AM is giving you symptoms, and those symptoms can be cured in a huge variety of ways - that's if the cure isn't worse than the 'illness'.

It does seem like there is a problem with the AM not noticing some changes being made if the situation has been allowed to go on for some time. I don't know whether this is because I'm far more used to feedback from the bargain basement AMs or whether it's also a problem for high end AMs. Things like player X isn't used to... and player X is running the game and must be shut down... seem to become set in stone once things have been allowed to continue for a while before changes have been made by the player manager.

There also seems to be a limit on two opposition players for the AM to recommend OIs for. However, it is good that the AM will recommend OI (or OI equivalent player instructions/tactical instructions would be a tad more precise) as the match situation unfolds - I frequently see OI recommendations for the opposition fullbacks and wingers as my wingers tire and aren't covering them adequately any more.

Zeb,

What SMSL says,

""player X is used to playing a more direct passing game". OK I'll increase it. Then even with direct passing at its most direct he still says... "player X is used to playing a more direct passing game".

"player X is used to closing down more than he is being asked to". OK I'll increase that too. Then even with closing down on max he still says... "player X is used to closing down more than he is being asked to".

"we should show player x onto his weaker foot". OK I'll do that then.

Oh but "we should show player y onto his weaker foot". OK I'll do that then.

Oh but "we should show player z onto his weaker foot". OK I'll do that then.

and so it continues until you have ran out of players."

Applies to the top assmen too. I tend to take account of his initial suggestions, but ignore him if he's still rattling on after I've made the tweaks.

I'm afraid even his post match suggestions are simply repetitve. To me this indicates poor programming and that it simply doesn't work how it's supposed to.

It always tells you to put two strikers onto their weaker foot (even if they don't have one). Tells you hard tackle 2 players and close down one.

The top rated AssMen just like top rated scouts and probably coaches and physios just do not work as you think. The whole thing needs re-doing.

."

Applies to the top assmen too. I tend to take account of his initial suggestions, but ignore him if he's still rattling on after I've made the tweaks.

The major difference I noted with top level AMs was the quantity of advice. I didn't notice any qualitative improvement (although 1 rushed season with Liverpool counts for little more than confirming my gut instincts ).

Some of the 'tweaks' suggested, as I said, seem to be just symptoms. If you're following the match, you will probably already be aware that your fullback is hoofing it long because he's under constant pressure from the opposition winger without being told that player X is giving the ball away...

The OI advice seems to be a deluge because it's limited to two players per specific OI advice. Whether it's worth following as OI or not, is another thing altogether...

Definitely agree that religiously following the AM's advice should come with a health warning. It's my first time playing an FM with AM feedback, and I'm pleasantly surprised by it (the misplaced passing information can provide useful hints as to possible tempo adjustments which can be made) although I think the feedback could perhaps be made clearer (at the risk of annoying anyone who feels that AM feedback somehow destroys 'realism').