SFraser Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Something I have wanted to bring up for discussion beyond the simple queries over Centre Backs or dealing with Wingers is the entire concept of defending. Without a doubt defending is tactically demanding in this game and like a teams offensive play and general performance is not something that can just be tweaked to perfection and then left, although the ideal is to construct a basic system that is easy to adapt to various challenges, hopefully with the minimum of fuss. Some people prefer to use multiple sets of tactics for Attacking and Defending and Controlling the game etc. but I prefer to use one single tactic and to adapt that tactic on a game by game basis to the opponent in question. This approach in my opinion leads to a greater understanding of the "whole" that you are dealing with and tweaking game after game and leads to a better understanding of the minor subtleties of action and reaction, choice and consequence, problem and solution. Others may disagree but it is ultimately a choice of method and not the point of this thread. Defending is by no means simple to understand in its entireaty and it by no means begins and ends with the defence. There are multiple issues to deal with when considering defence not least of all understanding the basic issues at a functional level. Successful defence is ultimately a holistic team strategy in its own right, but merges directly with all other team concerns and is a part of what forms an overall tactic. I have seen a lot of tactics produced for discussion on these forums that fail to understand that attack and defence are two sides of the same tactical coin. Formations designed to create and exploit space in attack that are themselves wide open for exploitation and dissection. A successful tactic merges both defence and attack into one formation, the 4-4-2 becoming the 2-4-4 or the 4-1-4-1 becoming the 4-3-3 etc. There are several key elements to defending as I understand them. These key elements are how I approach the question of defence and indeed adapt my offensive tactics should the need arise. Covering. Reduced to its elementary form this is what defending is all about, covering the goal with your body. The goalkeeper is the most specialised position in football and it is his job to do precisely this, cover the goal. The entire education of the goalkeeper in basic principles reduce to effective covering of the goal, "narrowing the angles" to reduce effective space between body and goalposts from the point of view of threat and "keeping on your toes" to be ready to physically cover exposed areas of the goal. Likewise the traditional centre back partnership exists to cover space. They are positioned in such a way as to cover the extreme width of the goal and force threats down the sides towards incredibly narrow angles of goal threat or indeed to go straight through middle and down the goalkeepers throat. A striker running directly towards the goal in a central position faced by a goalkeeper and two centrebacks should see almost no exposed part of the goal. 90% or more of the space between posts and bar will be covered by some part of a player. In one sense they are goalkeepers that cannot use their hands, they are the Rooks of defending to the Goalkeepers Queen. The Newcastle United Centreback Steven Taylor and his comical "sniper moment" is a great example of this truism. The Fullbacks of the traditional back four also exist to cover defensively. They are positioned on the flanks to provide defensive cover of goal mouth space against opponents utilising the flanks, so that the Centrebacks can maintain their direct cover of the goal area, and so that the Centreback does not have to contend with multiple threats from various angles at the same time, thus disrupting his effective cover of the goal. They also provide the function of covering behind the centreback whenever he is pulled out of position, taking up the same position of covering a side of the goal directly. This is an example of defence in depth at its most basic level, having players available to take up the critical defensive positions and duties should the initial organisation be defeated or disrupted. These examples are all examples of covering of space by defenders and of the covering of the goal. The defensive wall infront of a direct Free-Kick and lining up on the goal-line when faced with an indirect free-kick inside the box are examples of defending reduced to its primordial form, getting your body between the ball and the goal. This is an absolutely fundamental issue when considering your defensive strategy. Getting your entire team between the opposition and the goal is a rather effective means of defending. Pressure. Theoretically speaking the most effective means of covering the goal with your body is to stand right infront of the ball. Thanks to the likes of Giggs and Henry and their sharp minds it is now customary to have the closest player to the ball stand right infront of it whenever a Free-Kick is whistled for, just to make sure they do not catch the re-organising defending side off-guard. If you are at arms length from the opponent in possession of the ball and between him and the goal it is nigh on impossible for him to see anything behind you and incredibly difficult for him to pick a pass or a shot that will get anywhere near the goal mouth. He will also have to concern himself with the immediate threat of a tackle and this will reduce his awareness of either his options or of the defenders challenge. Conversely the defender will also have to focus on his potential tackle, reducing his awareness of his surroundings and of his ability to cover threats, otherwise the ball player will have the opportunity to dribble around him and completely take him out of the game, which is the worst possible consequence for a defender and a defence. This is a critical issue for a defender and a trully decisive issue for a goalkeeper. You cannot afford to let a player be one-on-one with the last man and to drop ever further back towards the goal otherwise a critical point will be reached where space is no longer covered but grows exponentially and scoring a goal becomes ever easier untill it is near impossible to miss. This is why goalkeepers are taught to Rush-Out not amble out or slowly move out covering the space behind them. They cannot afford to get caught out of position and cannot afford to let the player get too close to goal. They must time their run perfectly and make it impossible for the opponent to do otherwise than lose the ball. As cover diminishes, whether through players being taken out of the game or the distance to goal decreasing, so the issue of pressure and the necessity to cover the ball players options with a single player rather than multiple becomes increasingly powerful. Likewise leaving a position of goal mouth cover or space cover to a position of direct covering of options by pressuring the ball carrier is the moment a defence is at it weakest and the defender in question most exposed, a gap is produced and the player in question is of no help in defending untill at arms length from the opponent. This is the moment passing and movement sides look to exploit by taking advantage of the gap in the defensive cover, and this is the moment technically and mentally gifted players look to expose the defender, by either dribbling past him or passing around him. Infact one could argue that the success or failure of this key transition phase is how you score a goal or defend successfully, and it is this issue that leads to the next key element of defending. Identification and Elimination of Key Threats. Marking. If you are already pressuring a key attacking threat before he receives the ball then there is no transition phase from covering of space to pressuring the ball and it cannot be exploited. More so than this there exists the opportunity for an interception or a tackle before he has the ball under control. The short of this issue is simply that the tables are turned, he is not looking to exploit your moment of greatest vulnerability, your are exploiting his. Like all elementary aspects of defending it has its drawbacks and that is that unless for some reason the player is drawn to your position of greatest cover of space and you can pressure him from there, you cannot do both at the same time. Indeed if the player in question is highly mobile then you cannot cover at all. Man for Man it is the most effective way of eliminating a single threat but in the context of a team wide defensive strategy it is incredibly risky unless properly accounted for. Identification and Elimination of Key Threats. Formation Options. One of the best ways to defend in a thorough manner is to neutralise the opponents formation options with the placement of your own players. The principle behind this defensive element is much the same as putting a Wall up infront a Free Kick or sticking all your players on the goal line, but the purpose here to deny your opponent attacking options through the placement of players and indeed the number of players. If your opponents midfield is faced with 5 midfielders holding a line and 4 defenders behind that midfield then he is going to have an incredibly tough time constructing attacking threats. Likewise if every passing option from opponent to opponent has one of your own players in the way, and every forward pass is into an area of greater numbers of defending players than attacking players then the opponent is in a tricky position no matter he is on the pitch. Identification and Elimination of Key Threats. Width. There are no goals on the touch line and the likelyhood of scoring from the corner flag is minimal. Conversely scoring from the penalty spot is the easiest chance in the game in terms of angles. By defending through the centre in numbers and forcing the opponent down the flanks you restrict him to attacking options that ultimately resolve to chance and luck, unless ofcourse that is his greatest attacking strength because he has Carsten Janker or Luca Toni upfront. Identification and Elimination of Key Threats. Tempo, Timewasting and Motivation. The best defensive strategy ultimately is to keep the ball and not give it back. The longer you have the ball the less time the opponent has to score goals. Likewise forcing the opponent to play at a Tempo he cannot handle or is not used to is a great way disrupt his flow. Against certain teams it is possible to force the game to a Tempo the opponent does not like and frustrate him through your usage of the ball and play a rough, physical game that will actually demoralise the opponent. Demoralised and disgruntled opponents can make mistakes or get distracted by irrelevant and unwinnable battles. Likewise keeping your own Motivation high and playing at a Tempo suited to your players and tactics will reduce mistakes and errors at key phases of play and keep your defensive and offensive game solid and mistake-free. Identification and Elimination of Key Threats. Defensive Line. The Defensive Line exists to reduce space infront of or behind your Centre Backs. The distance between goal and Centre Backs is a key consideration in the entire process of constructing an adequate defensive system to deal with your opponents threats. Stay too deep and the opponent will have a shot on goal if you make a mistake or your organisation and defensive system is overpowered and found lacking. Stay too high and you can be defeated entireally by a single long punt over the heads of your defenders. It is not sufficient to judge your Defensive Line and indeed entire defensive system simply by the pace of the opponents strikers, you must understand how they attempt to supply those strikers and what their overall plan is for attacking you. Ontop of this you must consider what they are capable of doing should a potential opening exist that is contrary or unexpected by their game plan. Find out where they intend to, but above all else figure out where they can exploit space against you, and shut it down. Identification and Elimination of Key Threats. Off-Side Trap. The Off-Side trap is the final means of defending for a system that has become overloaded, but it is also a potent weapon for completely removing space behind your defenders as a threat to your team, and in this manner it becomes an incredibly offensive tool allowing you to shut down space ahead of your defence and employ aggressive defence tactics. None Elementary Defending: Team Tactics. Football is a team game against another team and you cannot simply choose to play a Covering game with your back four staying deep and then line-up against Arsenal. It is not a luxury to defend from the front or to use your midfield as the first line of defence, nor is it a luxury to organise your defence according to the instructions of each other and the midfield; these things are necessities irrespective of how ultimately simple a set of instructions you take to the pitch with. The very nature of the game does not make a well organised and effective defence something you can experiment with later or leave out altogether. Approach defending with a cavalier attitude at not only will your goals against column suffer, but your goals for column, points column, possession, morale and motivation and maybe even your career. Team Tactics require that you make decisions first and foremost. Sometimes that decision may simply be defend for 90 minutes and hold out for an unlikely draw, and therefore you set about nullifying the opponent to the best of your ability. However most of the time that decision is going to be play football and compete with your opponent and attempt to win the game. This decision leads the manager down the road of constructing mutually complimentary offensive and defensive systems of play, and the demands made by the offensive behaviour of the team will place demands on the defensive structure of your side and vice versa. Are you going to sit back and counter-attack? Are you going to press hard and harrass your opponent into submission? Are you going to sacrifice defensive numbers for offensive overloading and if so how are you going to redress the balance of cover and pressure and the elimination of threats? There are many strategies to defend with and they may possibly be theoretically unlimited. Some simple and some complex. I have very little time to discuss multiple defensive strategies so I will stick to exploring a single defensive scenario; a high pressing 4-4-2 against another 4-4-2. A large number of decisions are already assumed with the high pressing 4-4-2. Firstly I must feel confident of outplaying my opponent and defending against through balls and long punts with a high D-Line and Off-Side Trap. I will also be limiting my ability to defeat threats through formation options and instead choose to play with 2 lines of four whereby wingers and fullbacks support the attack. This also assumes pace down the flanks. What this does is limit the number of players I have to position directly infront of my backfour and channel the opponent down my flanks and it makes the centre of the pitch a threat to me. The intention here is to win the ball back quickly, pressurise the opponent into playing infront of my midfield and using my strikers to close down defenders alongside my wingers. Likewise my wingers and central midfielders will close down midfielders and my central midfielders and fullbacks will close down opposition wingers. The threats my opponents pose me are like this: 1. Long ball over the top. Countered by Off-Side Trap and a goalkeeper instructed to come out and cover behind my defence. Pacey fullbacks provide further protection. 2. Easy passage through the centre of my midfield. Countered by playing narrow, pushing my defence forward, and giving a Centreback aggressive closing down instructions. 3. A through ball cutting out my Centreback. Countered by instructing the other centreback and both fullbacks to cover behind as back 3 through zonal and lose and playing the Off-Side trap. 4. Simple overloading passing with a regressed striker that keeps me out of the game and succeeds in "winning" a 0-0. Countered by playing narrow, at high tempo and employing aggressive closing down and hard tackling OI on their entire team barring the isolated striker. This is an incredibly simple strategy whereby a midfield four is playing narrow, fast, high pressing, hard tackling closing down defensive football. Balls forward behind my midfield will be immediately met by either a centreback or a fullback playing a high pressing game with neutral tackling while the other 3 cover as a back 3 and the midfield closedown from behind. Likewise when during the transition phase from attack to defence where the opponent clears the ball I expect one of my two centrebacks to either win it outright, catch the opponent off-side or one Centreback presses and the other covers while my fullbacks and midfielders recover their positions and perform defensive duties. It is a highly aggressive strategy that does not man-mark any key threats but presses the opponent back and quickly defends against forward passes. It is a strategy aimed at taking the ball off inferior opponents whenever they pass forward and closing them down whenever they pass backwards. Against opponents that push players forward it can deal with multiple threats without adaption, but against high quality opposition that attempt to overload it requires radical alteration of defensive settings and overall team strategy. I hoped to deal with a complex defensive system employing multiple marking systems and layers of defence but I think I shall leave that for another day, or for someone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrithral Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Brilliant read No information in it, actually it doesn't say anything that most people don't already know, but plenty of soundbites, well played Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asim Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 it is a good read but it always comes down to how the game interprets your instructions. every point you made is valid and can be implemented in real life. but the fm match engine seems to have different ideas. the best form of defence seems to be attack with a high def line, which i dont like to do. what instructions have you implemented to get the effect of the points you have discussed? and how did they have an impact on the game? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 That whole post could have been writtin in about a third of the words that you've managed to stretch it out to SFraiser. I started reading it but the sheer amount of waffle caused me to stop about half way through. From what I did read it's a good (if not long winded) description of how real life defending should work. Unfortunately it's far too difficult these days to translate any real world football knowledge into the FM tactical system. Yes, there are a select few who seem to have spent an eternity studying every nuance of the tactical side of FM and for that reason can use this knowledge to achieve realistic tactical results. So in effect they have learned to understand the match engine and tactical interface and then manipulated it to produce tactics that look to be based on real world football. But that is very different form using real world football knowledge and translating it to FM, that simply doesn't work, and it is that which is becoming FM's biggest downfall at the moment. For the most part the tactical side of FM does not reflect real life football very well. To make it do so you must first endlessly study the workings of the match engine and the tactical interface, only then can you start to find some corrolation between what you see in FM and what you see in the real world. Unfortunately that approach is in no way fun for most people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
googoo56 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I'm happy to see that more and more people start realizing the problems that have been there for some time now. It's definitely a step forward, and I do hope that SI will see this and do something about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebedee77 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Sometimes this forum is comedy gold A good OP which sets the groundwork and underlying principles for further discussion which can be then linked to specific slider use. If some of you guys know all this stuff already then explaining how your defensive systems function and how you get your goals conceded down to below an average of c.0.6 for decent (relative to level) teams or c.1.2 for rubbish (relative to level) teams would be brilliant - as I struggle to get them below that level and could use some helpful holistic overviews. I'd agree that much of it is in part 'common knowledge' but then if it is so widely known, why do so many players of the game have such incredible cognitive dissonance when facing tactical options even when they clearly know the function of the sliders? Chopper99's post seems to sum up the issue really - either something is possible, if difficult, or it is not possible - you can't have it both ways; that some can do it would imply understanding how they do it might pay dividends... but when someone attempts to provide comprehensive detail on how such understanding is achieved then they face, erm, stylistic critiques when setting out the basic principles which will frame any exploration of ideas? Judging from the few tactics I have downloaded from these forums, I'd say that very few people have a holistic view of defence (a point hammered home by reading any thread asking for defensive advice) and rely on 'we can score one more than the opposition' and unbalanced tactical set-ups (that's those which aren't accidentally or otherwise utilising exploits to get results) to try and achieve that result. Great fun when it works, poor tactical ability at an objective level though and something which will increasingly be found out should the AI managers improve on their currently limited tactical choices. Which is a diversion from the purpose of the thread for which I'd apologise if such silliness didn't seem to be endemic on the forums. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCIAG Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 chopper has said that implementing defensive instructions by using real life methods doesn't work. You have to find a way to change the means to suit the ends. SFraser basically waffles around, using a lot of words but saying little. Elrithal is right. My defensive system? I mostly play 07, because it has a better ME by so, so far. IRL, the top "assisters" are wingers. Therefore, the majority of goals will come from headed chances. Therefore, having a central defender with high jumping and bravery is essential. All defenders need high marking, positioning and tackling. Three of the back line must also have decent pace, say 15 or above, so they can deal with a counter attack. That number can be as low as 11 in the lower leagues. I play a "low mixed" defensive line. This way, the line will stay deep most of the time, but will push up to restrict space when the ball is right up the other end. Global "direct" passing and "fast" tempo, this allows for speedy, defence releaving (sp?) attacks. "Width" must be wide, so that the full backs are wide enough to mark wingers, and so that my wingers can put the ball in and get those easy chances (crosses) into the box. DCs mentality set to the far left, this further reduces the space behind them. Pushing the defence up is asking for trouble, especially with a slow defence. Full backs are on global, which is normally about three away from the far right. MCd four to the left of neutral to deal with opposition MCa and stop the defence being isolated. It doesn't work in 09- the gaps "feature" and illogical ME being mostly behind that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
googoo56 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Good post SCIAG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_costa Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Sometimes this forum is comedy gold A good OP which sets the groundwork and underlying principles for further discussion which can be then linked to specific slider use. If some of you guys know all this stuff already then explaining how your defensive systems function and how you get your goals conceded down to below an average of c.0.6 for decent (relative to level) teams or c.1.2 for rubbish (relative to level) teams would be brilliant - as I struggle to get them below that level and could use some helpful holistic overviews. I'd agree that much of it is in part 'common knowledge' but then if it is so widely known, why do so many players of the game have such incredible cognitive dissonance when facing tactical options even when they clearly know the function of the sliders? Chopper99's post seems to sum up the issue really - either something is possible, if difficult, or it is not possible - you can't have it both ways; that some can do it would imply understanding how they do it might pay dividends... but when someone attempts to provide comprehensive detail on how such understanding is achieved then they face, erm, stylistic critiques when setting out the basic principles which will frame any exploration of ideas? Judging from the few tactics I have downloaded from these forums, I'd say that very few people have a holistic view of defence (a point hammered home by reading any thread asking for defensive advice) and rely on 'we can score one more than the opposition' and unbalanced tactical set-ups (that's those which aren't accidentally or otherwise utilising exploits to get results) to try and achieve that result. Great fun when it works, poor tactical ability at an objective level though and something which will increasingly be found out should the AI managers improve on their currently limited tactical choices. Which is a diversion from the purpose of the thread for which I'd apologise if such silliness didn't seem to be endemic on the forums. I'm going to go out on limb and say that you're kind of new around here The only posts that matter in this forum are posts with a download link and a screenshot to prove that the tactic can win at least 1 game. This is then followed by posts saying how good or bad the tactic is by doing or not what it was supposed to do. However if a poster dares to not include a download link, he then has to explain every single setting in detail. Anything else is meaningless. (SFraser: keep up the good work!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouchaldinho Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Judging from the few tactics I have downloaded from these forums, I'd say that very few people have a holistic view of defence (a point hammered home by reading any thread asking for defensive advice) and rely on 'we can score one more than the opposition' and unbalanced tactical set-ups (that's those which aren't accidentally or otherwise utilising exploits to get results) to try and achieve that result. Just to contribute to the discussion, without making any comments regarding the 'guide', my 4-4-1-1 tactic is probably one of the few tactics for upload that is based on a defensive and cautious mentality first and foremost. In the highly pretentious title are the words 'Structural Solidity' and this is because of the tactical philosophy in terms of defence. The overall tactical philosophy is holistic, and relies on a hard-working culture with the following highly-disciplined characteristics: - Defensive players sticking to their roles and not taking risks. - Wide players working extremely hard and tracking back. - The whole side defending from the front by pressing in the opposition half. - A rigid mentality system where each player knows their role in the team. Some of the key points relating to good defensive practice: - My defensive players all have low creative freedom across the tactics. I want a highly organised and efficient approach at the back with all players following my instructions to the letter. - Closing down is heavy for the wide players and the forward across the tactics because I want my highly-disciplined side to defend from the front. - Marking is zonal for the majority of my tactics, as so that the the opposition will ideally be facing two lines or 'banks' of four players covering the entirety of one half of the pitch. The emphasis here is on my players keeping their defensive structure. - In my more aggressive and attacking tactics, a high defensive line is particularly important as, with proper communication and synchronised movement, it can exploit the offside rule and prevent all long-balls and through-balls succeeding. With a good side, using these principles, I have managed to keep goals conceded down as low as an average of 0.3 goals per match over the course of a season. C. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCIAG Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Closing down is important. If you have any players with enough stamina in your attacking contingent, increase their CD. If you use two similar strikers, then putting them on "swap positions" and giving one position high closing down would be ideal. The same could be done for wingers if both were capable of playing on both sides. That way, they'll "take it in turns" to tire, in an RPG like manner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFraser Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 It seems I shall have to take some responsibility for providing no basis for further discussion in the original post or indeed providing little "game relevant" information. To be fair it is quite easy to run out of steam when writing such posts, something I am grateful to find understood by my fellow posters. Constructing a Defence. Although a specific defensive system is likely to vary on a game by game basis, those variations are very likely to be variations upon a theme rather than a variation of themes. Examples would be the Centre Back partnership of Ferdinand and Vidic where the aggressive ball winning tendencies of Vidic are invariably supported by the game reading and pace of Ferdinand, irrespective of whether the defence holds a high line and defends as a 2-3 man unit in an aggressive attacking home lineup against the meat of Premier League opposition, or indeed the defence sits deep and operates in conjuction with the midfield as an organised defence-in-depth system against for example Barcelona in the European Cup 2 years ago. The fundamental point here is that the abilities of defenders already produce defensive strengths and defensive weaknesses in their game and when taken together they already produce particular systems of defending that are weak or strong. Irrespective of how you come to possess particular defenders with their particular strengths and weaknesses it is fundamentally important to understand their synergy and to base your fundamental defensive organisation around this synergy. The word fundamental crops up alot because the synergy of your defenders is going to form the bedrock of every defensive strategy varient you design to deal with your opponents threats. If you lack pace across your Centre Backs then you are going to have to present width in your Central Partnership and the ability to function side-by-side as a unit. If you possess pace and intelligence in one and lack pace and intelligence in another then you are going to have defend in depth and sweep up behind the mistakes of the lesser, which further demands pressure from the lesser and cover from the stronger in order to remove the weaknesses of a particular players game from the actual defensive system. These are just examples for centrebacks, the easiest system of defence to deal with, but the principles are going to apply right across a team and it is from the centreback or central partnership that the entire team-wide defensive synergy and individual player attribute or tactical requirements will stem. Symmetry and Asymmetry When considering the construction or form of a basic defensive system, before testing and adapting it to the demands of a specific opponent, I find that symmetry and asymmetry are two very important points to consider. A Centreback partnership consisting of a pacey coverer and aggressive ball winner is not very vulnerable to pace or pressure or directness through the centre, but is vulnerable to pace down the outside of the slow centreback and is vulnerable to direct running, aggressive passing or even crosses into the area of the covering centreback. Therefore while rather symmetrical and potent when faced with threats through the middle, the asymmetry of abilities and positioning when faced with threats from other areas of the pitch or other angles on goal can produce large deficiencies in the defensive capability of the system. This is infact a consideration that strikes to the very heart of defending. Symmetry is not a question of providing identical players covering each area of the pitch, it is a question of providing identical or equivelant threat-negation from each area of the pitch. Thus a strong, slow, aggressive Centreback covered by a fast, intelligent Centreback on his inside will benefit hugely from a fast, intelligent Fullback on his outside. Likewise a pacey, intelligent covering Centreback that has an aggressive, ball winning Centreback on his inside will benefit from an aggressive, ball winning Fullback on his outside. This provides a symmetry of ball winning and pacey covering across both sides of the pitch and it also provides a defence in depth as the ball winning fullback is taken out of the game and is covered by pace and intelligence, who is covered by aggression and power, who is covered by pace. At all times this "asymmetrical, symmetrical" defensive system will face a threat with one style of defending and be covered by a different style perhaps more adept at defeating that threat, who will in turn be covered by a combination of power, pace and intelligence. And even further the potential passing options that may take several players out of the game are themselves covered by the exact same basic defensive principles and basic defensive style in all areas that you began with with your Centrebacks. Defence In Depth. Carlos Tevez closes down the ball carrier in defence while Rooney, Giggs and Park mark up the out balls. The ball is played through the middle where Giggs misses his interception and Fletcher closes down the ball carrier while Carrick, Evra and Brown mark up the out balls. The ball is again played through the centre and Carrick misses his interception, while Vidic closes down the ball carrier and Ferdinand retreats to a Central position marking both Striker outballs. Vidic misses his interception and the ball is played to one striker, while Ferdinand marks the ball to the other striker while approaching the ball carrier with van der Sar covering the goal. The ball is dinked over the head of Ferdinand to the back post, Brown does not get back in time and the other Striker has a free header. A goal is scored. Despite the defence being breached, this is an example of defence in depth. Defence in depth is the relentless positioning of a defensive obstacle after defensive obstacle no matter how deep the opponent is or how many players the opponent has in attack. Even with 6 on 4 it is possible to provide defensive challenges time after time after time to the opponent so that he never has a clear cut chance and is always presented by organisation and solidity, despite his overwhelming advantage. Defence in depth takes the battle right down to the last man and is the epitome of organisation even if particular strategic mistakes on the managers part mean it is futile. Despite being faced with overwhelming organisational, technological, strategic and timing superiority, defence in depth is what won Russia the Second World War, though perhaps with a bit of fortune from the immediate routing of its front-line and the Russian winter. A lack of adequate and strategic defence in depth is how the French handed their country to the Germans. "Where is your strategic reserve?" asked Churchill, "We have none" replied the French General, and so unlike WWI where the Paris Garrison halted the march of the Kaisers flank and brought about the horrific stalemate of trench warfare, France was lost in a matter of weeks. Defence in depth is, in my opinion, best planned from the worst-case-scenario and this is where it ties directly into the original defensive planning brought about by the synergy of your central defensive unit. In a situation where you have 2 strikers against 1 Centreback it is vital that you do not instruct this player to charge in and break legs, it is vital that you instruct him to keep his cool and find the position of greatest defensive strength despite overwhelming superiority of numbers, and from here in conjuction with your defensive synergy and handling of the issues of symmetry and asymmetry will develop your entire tactical approach to team wide defending. Simply by taking defence-in-depth into account in your planning you will develop an understanding of what defending actually means in football and though you will no doubt be faced with the failure of your own organisational mistakes you will be in a position to understand the failures and fight back at the highest level of tactics, if not the highest level of success. Tactical Options in Defence. The D-Line Perhaps the most important consideration when constructing a defence is the D-Line, as it represents (to my knowledge) the hypothetical maximum limit of Centreback advance when not under pressure and when in possession of the ball. When under pressure even a maximum D-Line defence can be pushed back to its own six yard line as it defends threats and organises itself according to the unfolding game. As pressure decreases and the ball advances towards the opponents goal, the defence will move forward under the positional and defensive concerns posed by the opposition and your own team, to eventually take up its maximum D-Line position when conditions allow. Thus maximum D-Line defence rarely reach their maximum level except when the opponent is under intense pressure and forced back into their penalty area. The D-Line is not an absolute, it is a provocation for the defence to advance or to stay put whenever conditions allow. If you play a high D-Line game you will only reach that line when the opposition is under immense pressure, and you may not ever reach it. None the less it is vitally important in determining exactly how you wish to play the defensive game. High D-Line means faster interceptions and faster tackling of opponents that clear the ball, it means further to run when the defence is breached, but it also means a larger space to aim at behind the Centrebacks. Mentality Though commonly viewed as a positional indicator, this is infact about 1/10th of the actual consideration relevant to the Mentality slider. The Mentality slider governs risk evaluation when making decisions and at a fundamental level Mentality is the difference between a Centreback that holds a central defensive position and covers the goal as much as possible, or a Centreback that positions himself to intercept passes from opponent to opponent or catch the opponent off-side. Split mentality Centrebacks are incredibly dangerous if you do not know what you are doing, and incredibly potent when it is a considered part of your strategy and you know what the slider means. Low Mentality defenders will not take risks, whether in passing, positioning, marking, closing down or any other decision based action. High mentality defenders will take plenty of risks, triggering off-side traps, intercepting passes, marking AMCs rather than Strikers etc. Mentality is an awsome slider for its simplicity yet its profound influence. If you can get into the mindset of viewing Mentality as equal to risk you will not go far wrong. The only place you will be caught out is in understanding where the defender in question views risk and what decisions carry the consideration of risk (all of them as far as I am aware). Closing Down Closing Down is a lot simpler to understand in its entirety than Mentality yet a lot harder to impliment in practice because it is far less theoretical in nature and a lot more context dependant, in my opinion. Closing Down represents the distance between defender and ball carrier that will encourage the closing down of that player. It is not hard to understand but because of the nature of football it requires micro-management on a game by game basis to ensure that A: players are not sucked out of position by variations in opposition tactics and attributes, or B: that players get to the opponent quick enough without being distracted by other opponents. Personally I find this setting to be one of the toughest to manage game by game. Tackling Personally I find this setting to be one of the most vital settings in all defensive considerations, because it directly governs the likelyhood of a player to go in for a tackle. The difference between a high closing down Fullback sliding in to tackle a winger or getting close and presenting his body as an obstacle is this very setting. It is for this very reason that this setting is perhaps the most potent individual setting in the game. It defines defensive behaviour. If two strikers are up against your sole Centreback then hard tackling will encourage him to nail to the opponent and perhaps give away a penalty. Conversely low tackling will encourage him to get close (depending upon closing down) but present his body as a guard against passes or shots or dribbles. Tackling is vital to tune the behaviour of your defenders. It is a critical tactical option. Again I am running out of steam with this post. I have probably left out more critical issues than I am even aware of, let alone tactical options. Hopefully this one can provoke some actual discussion of defending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilles Domoraud Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Just to let you know something important SFraser... I ate five biscuits as I read that last post.... Also - good thread. Can I ask how you view your matches? Extended Highlights? Full Match? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 · Mentality Though commonly viewed as a positional indicator, this is infact about 1/10th of the actual consideration relevant to the Mentality slider. The Mentality slider governs risk evaluation when making decisions and at a fundamental level Mentality is the difference between a Centreback that holds a central defensive position and covers the goal as much as possible, or a Centreback that positions himself to intercept passes from opponent to opponent or catch the opponent off-side. Split mentality Centrebacks are incredibly dangerous if you do not know what you are doing, and incredibly potent when it is a considered part of your strategy and you know what the slider means. Low Mentality defenders will not take risks, whether in passing, positioning, marking, closing down or any other decision based action. High mentality defenders will take plenty of risks, triggering off-side traps, intercepting passes, marking AMCs rather than Strikers etc. Mentality is an awsome slider for its simplicity yet its profound influence. If you can get into the mindset of viewing Mentality as equal to risk you will not go far wrong. The only place you will be caught out is in understanding where the defender in question views risk and what decisions carry the consideration of risk (all of them as far as I am aware). Not trying to be a dick but this is wrong. The manual says it is wrong and PaulC (head ME guy) has said words to that effect as well. Mentality does not directly affect - will I run with the ball decision - where will I run with ball to decision - will I play offside decision - will I try to intercept decision - who will I mark and how will I mark decision - will I make the tackle or won't I - will I make a forward run or won’t I It does affect - where will I position myself - how much of a risk will I take when I pass the ball Mentality affects position which under certain circumstances will place the defender at a point that allows him to make the intercept/pick up/tackle decision but it does not directly affect that decision making process. The Manual:- Mentality Mentality directly affects a player’s position on the field. His set position on the tactical pitch display is where he will line up as a base default, but depending on the mentality set he may be more restrained or cavalierin his approach. The slider ranges from Ultra Defensive to All Out Attacking. The further right the slider is set for the team instruction, the more aggressive your players will play positionally and more ambitious they may be when passing the ball (a more aggressive mentality will result in more forward passes). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFraser Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share Posted July 2, 2009 You may be right on that point, although there are some areas of player behaviour I have observed that would make me query that conclusion. There is for example the decision to make a forward run that can quite easilly be seen to vary from low to high mentality and there are in general many other decisions outside of positioning and passing aggression alone that would appear to be influenced by mentality. Your point makes sense in fairness and if it accounts for behaviour observed then fair enough, but personally I would question whether it does indeed account for certain behaviours, and I certainly would not be inclined to appeal to the manual or to SI staff with a high renown for keeping the fundamentals hidden. You state that mentality affects positioning and passing direction only, I have stated that it effects every decision. You may well be right and I shall keep an extra close eye out for it in future, but currently I don't think so. And theoretically it should not be so. Thank you for your post. Certainly the first so far to help me consider ways to improve my game. Maybe you have some defensive strategies you might like to describe? I certainly am open to suggestion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micro-ice Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 considering your difficulty managing the closing down slider, have you ever tried the mirror approach? whereby, mentality, closing down and D-line are set almost in the same positions on their respective sliders depending on your match strategy. i personally find this particular approach to be extremely reliable when setting up a solid defense, needless to say, it also makes perfectly logical sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT-- Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Mentality does not directly affect - will I run with the ball decision - where will I run with ball to decision - will I play offside decision - will I try to intercept decision - who will I mark and how will I mark decision - will I make the tackle or won't I - will I make a forward run or won’t I It does affect - where will I position myself - how much of a risk will I take when I pass the ball You see, I think mentality does interact with forward runs. Try this in a match (you don't have to save it!) - put both DCs on forward runs often, with one on the lowest mentality and one on the highest. Watch what happens when your team has the ball: the low mentality DC will generally hold his position until very late in the move, whereas the high mentality DC will start making a forward run almost immediately. I've also tried various experiments with two STs and two CMs on the same settings but polar opposite mentalities (same attributes, using an in-game editor). On mixed run with ball, the attacking striker almost always had much higher number of dribbles per game whereas the low mentality striker covered much more distance because he starts tracking back immediately when the opponents have the ball (to the point where he'll almost be level with the midfield if the opposition keep the ball for long enough). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
donpost2 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 That's a nice read, Sfraser. The "Tactical options in defence" section contains some useful stuff that even I can apply in FM. Until now, I had no idea how closing down works. As for the mentality debate that now seems to be raging, I don't like it. I am confused enough already about what exactly most sliders do. The fact that the actual developer of the ME is saying things that contradict with what the experts of the community are observing in game just makes it worse. I think it would help a lot of people if in FM10 SI had proper explanations of what each slider does, instead of the cryptic messages contained in the manual at the moment. It's not like I want to be able to see "under the hood" of the ME, just a proper explanation of the controls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne\'o Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 it's good you have taken the time to do this but i beleive despite every thing making sence, this game just isnt geared up to favor any defensive tactic, when the AI wants to attack and attack they do, i personaly dont find any form of defendign works or tactic.. i cant be crap at FM because i did manage to win the championship scoring over 100 goals obtaining over 100 points and only losing 3 games all season. but here i sit on a new save and not the best team but never the less a good one. despite playing very well, and after a save from the previous day, as always a reload and my tactics become obsolete over nite.. as all ways i make changes during the game and can oftern finish with more possesion, but trying to keep a lead or coem back from a goal down ends in dissaster, i dont feel nothing works... i must of reloaded a particuler game and replayed it 30 times using different tactics and getting a result is near impossible. i think fate is already desided b4 a ball is kicked it seems.. how a team performing well suddenly turns into players that stand and watch a player dribble around them, or cant be arsed to run towards a lose ball is pathetic, just because the Ai employs an attacking mentality how on earth does this make good players performing well turn into complete headless chickens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
googoo56 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 See guys, that's the problem. You're arguing about what mentality does because you haven't got a clue. Yes, you all have theories, but there is no clear definition what the sliders do. We really shouldn't be having these talks. Trying to find out what these idiotic sliders do shouldn't be the aim of the game. It's impossible to design tactics if we only have theories that 'x' setting does 'y' thing. And unfortunately the ME relies on this complete mess... No wonder why it's so poor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilles Domoraud Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Setting a players mentality is setting a players decision making 'base' in a risk/reward balance. Everything else revolves around mentality in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 You may be right on that point, although there are some areas of player behaviour I have observed that would make me query that conclusion. There is for example the decision to make a forward run that can quite easilly be seen to vary from low to high mentality and there are in general many other decisions outside of positioning and passing aggression alone that would appear to be influenced by mentality. Your point makes sense in fairness and if it accounts for behaviour observed then fair enough, but personally I would question whether it does indeed account for certain behaviours, and I certainly would not be inclined to appeal to the manual or to SI staff with a high renown for keeping the fundamentals hidden. You state that mentality affects positioning and passing direction only, I have stated that it effects every decision. You may well be right and I shall keep an extra close eye out for it in future, but currently I don't think so. And theoretically it should not be so. Thank you for your post. Certainly the first so far to help me consider ways to improve my game. Maybe you have some defensive strategies you might like to describe? I certainly am open to suggestion. Forward runs is affected by mentality but not directly. Every player set to forward runs often will make their way up the pitch. What mentality affects is how aggressively they do so and their ‘starting position’. Lower mentality players will arrive later but what makes them more cautious is that if the attack breaks down early they won’t be caught out of position. Another point is that the differences for 3 or 4 notches is not massive, but if you set one defender to 1 and another to 20 there is a marked difference on a fairly consistent basis. Strikers and CBs differ as they tend to make their way to a default position anyway. I did test CBs and off the top of my head their FWR decision was dependent on how many strikers stayed up. Thinking on it this may just be a case of me misinterpreting your point. I am taking your point about mentality effect on forward runs as a FWR often FB may not do so because his mentality is too low. I am refuting this point by saying a ment low (1) player set to FWR often will always get forward but his low mentality affects how aggressively he does so relative to the context. Just a different interpretation of a ‘forward run’ and expectation of a ‘mentality effect’? If anyone reading this is interested in some screenshot justification let me know and I’ll throw some up. ------------------------------------------- That’s a fair point about how much SI reveal, but PaulC tends to be on the up and up. For example the only reason we know how counter attack works is because he happened to read a thread where people questioned it’s impact, which lead to him revealing the inner workings so people could make a more informed judgement. This also resulted in a change based on the observations of a forum user. So when he posts that mentality has no effect on closing down I am more inclined to believe him than a gamer’s theory on it’s effect. No offence intended So closing down, run with ball I am 99.9% certain of. With the other decisions we return to the subjective impasse we met on the effect of influence. It’s unfortunate that so few people contributed their experiences but as has been noted above a fairly high percentage come here looking for the killer tactic. You only have to look at the number of views Tylerbode’s threads have gotten. Not meant as any disrespect to those who do, play the game whichever way you enjoy it. The difficulty I have with your theories is that you never give concrete examples, either pkms or screenshots. So for example I do not know what you would regard as an interception or as an aggressive play. I’ll throw up a sequence of behaviours of a mentality 1 CB set to tight man mark with a defensive line of 20. You’ll see contrasting decisions all in the space of a couple of minutes. First he lets the striker run across him, later he gets close and makes the tackle. http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3505/dl054.jpg http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9564/dl055.jpg http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9523/dl056y.jpg http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8372/dl057.jpg http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8619/dl058.jpg http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1592/dl059.jpg http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8092/dl060.jpg http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3051/dl061.jpg http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6126/dl062.jpg http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6322/dl063.jpg You might theorise that it was because it was closer to goal hence his low mentality saw it as less risky but here’s a similar scenario with ball into feet of the striker where he now attacks the ball to win it back. http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9909/dl075.jpg http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3057/dl076.jpg Here’s a mentality 1 CB attacking the ball http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/1360/fwr018.jpg http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4923/fwr019.jpg Here’s a mentality 20 CB not attacking a ball that looks winnable http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8507/fwr023.jpg http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9810/fwr024x.jpg That to me is both ‘aggressive’ behaviour and less so all rolled into identical settings. They represent what I see in that from a given position a CB may or may not ‘attack’ the ball but mentality has little to do with it other than shaping what position he will be in within the context. If you can show me examples of what you mean then I might come round to your way of seeing things, but as it stands I’m just not seeing it. To clarify I’m not ‘calling you out’, it’s just word descriptions don’t cut it for me when they don’t match up to what I have seen. So it’s more to do with enlightening me than proving you wrong ------------------------------------------- With respect to defensive strategies everything you post here (and in other threads) is similar to my approach, except I avoid split mentality CBs because I don’t like how it functions against two strikers in terms of the potential for breaking the offside trap (in the general sense of being offside, not necessarily having offside ticked in FM). - I play the numbers game to deny space - I protect the middle at all costs · Staggered closing down to prevent CBs getting drawn out to close an onrushing MC · Keeping an MC protecting either with mentality/fwr or specific man marking when it is the same opposition MC who keeps getting in the hole - Use of defensive line to pressurise depending on context - Use of defensive line/closing down to challenge the opposition to beat me in a particular way (long shots vs balls over the top) - Clogging the middle to force the opposition out wide if I’m comfortable with my aerial capabilities - Remove tight man marking when faced with an offset AMC lone striker combo - Remove tight man marking if directly opposite striker has lower mentality and arrives later/staggers his run more frequently - remove tight man marking if their striker keeps getting loose in the box - on top of the above lower MC mentality, keep on loose zonal so he collapses into the box to defend crosses as early as possible, this way I clog up the box without players robotically man marking and allowing room under certain circumstances - Zonal loose on FBs as I want them in the % position as opposed to getting tight to a winger or the drifting striker and tucking in - generally tight marking plus hard tackling vs a fast striker but if he keeps appearing in the highlights (or getting away on full match) I’ll go to loose - I’ll incorporate defensive line into the above if the striker in question is getting too much separation allowing him to run at the back line too easily (his success at doing so makes a difference but if I see it once I usually snap react as all it takes is one more time - alternatively if I try that and see a ball over the top event that looks like it could lead to trouble (i.e. my keeper has to clean up) I’ll try to cut out their supply directly · If not already use a holding MC · If I am, line him up to increase the likelihood of him blocking the route · Drop back a striker to act as a 5th man on the same side as my holding MC · With hard working, fast wingers employ OI to double up on MCs but what happens in game makes this a micro strategy rather than a key/extended highlights strategy That’s just a general, off the top of my head listing. As you can tell I’m much more micro than ‘philosophy’ but some hold true regardless of strategy. They are just my ideas/concepts based on watching the ME so if anyone wants to poke holes in them knock yourself out One area I differ to you (and the majority it seems) is I’m a technical whore and probably suffer for it. I'll take a low work rate/team work talented player over a hard working mediocre player most of the time. Sure I see issues from match to match but in my experience quality can shine through over a season/career especially when married with high consistency. ------------------------------------------- Given the length of this post (I can hear the yawns and snoring over the web) I’ll summarise. I’m not disagreeing with the ‘defensive philosophy’, it’s just I’d prefer it if theory/conceptualisation of the ME (or any other part of the game) that I believe/know to be false does not become the standardised response on here. For example I still see people post about the different tutoring options determining what is gained (PPMs, Hidden Mental or both). So the next time you’re playing a match, just note the incident times and post the pkm (quicker than screenshots if you can't be arsed). As I said it’s not about ego or proving you wrong, as I am more than happy to discover that my interpretations of the ME are wrong or to see evidence that is contrary to my ‘theory’. When it comes to the sliders false knowledge does more damage so I’d prefer to be shown I’m wrong than to plough on in ignorance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 You see, I think mentality does interact with forward runs.Try this in a match (you don't have to save it!) - put both DCs on forward runs often, with one on the lowest mentality and one on the highest. Watch what happens when your team has the ball: the low mentality DC will generally hold his position until very late in the move, whereas the high mentality DC will start making a forward run almost immediately. I've also tried various experiments with two STs and two CMs on the same settings but polar opposite mentalities (same attributes, using an in-game editor). On mixed run with ball, the attacking striker almost always had much higher number of dribbles per game whereas the low mentality striker covered much more distance because he starts tracking back immediately when the opponents have the ball (to the point where he'll almost be level with the midfield if the opposition keep the ball for long enough). That's why I posted it might just be me misinterpreting personal 'definitions'. Regardless of mentality all FWR often players will do so if you hold possession long enough. In fact if you move the ball quickly they'll do so in almost unison without holding back. - ment 1 MR vs ment 20 ML - ment 1 MC #8 forward run - ment 1 RB arriving late - ment 20 MC #8 not dropping back http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/620/fwr001.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2497/fwr002.jpg http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4192/fwr002a.jpg http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6140/fwr003.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9499/fwr004.jpg http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2740/fwr005.jpg http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6998/fwr006.jpg http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5338/fwr007.jpg http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/368/fwr008.jpg http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/858/fwr009.jpg http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6931/fwr009a.jpg - similar starting positions they all stream forward regardless of mentality - rare time that FBs matched - width has an impact due to transition and context http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9587/fwr010.jpg http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7499/fwr011.jpg http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3940/fwr012.jpg http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6947/fwr012a.jpg http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3792/fwr012b.jpg http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1420/fwr012c.jpg http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2452/fwr013.jpg http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2786/fwr014.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7146/fwr015.jpg http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/209/fwr016.jpg Yes I've seen what you described re holding back but the mentality 1 FWR often player will still look to get advanced as play progresses. He won't ever 'hold back' because it is the 'safe' option. He'll be more likely to pause his run if play slows to show for it but he'll still get into the box if you hold possession long enough and reach near the byline. With your RWB example I tested RWB often and 442 teams split down the middle re mentality. I saw context based aggressive dribbling and passing (passing quickly or passing after dribbling a given distance due to pressure and options) but I just didn't see a mentality influenced difference. Of course I'm willing to accept that might just be my own observation/interpretation deficiencies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
googoo56 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 This is crazy... Nothing against you isuckatfm, you're a great cotributor to this forum, but it's just crazy. I mean, you have to write lengthy posts like that with a thousand screenshots to try to explain what a certain slider does... We're not talking about tactics anymore, because we (the most of us, the ones who dont play the game 24/7) can't properly implement them anyway... Which is down to a really poor and illogical ME and to a catastrophic UI. If that's the direction FM is heading towards... Then I suppose we're damned Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 This is crazy...Nothing against you isuckatfm, you're a great cotributor to this forum, but it's just crazy. I mean, you have to write lengthy posts like that with a thousand screenshots to try to explain what a certain slider does... We're not talking about tactics anymore, because we (the most of us, the ones who dont play the game 24/7) can't properly implement them anyway... Which is down to a really poor and illogical ME and to a catastrophic UI. If that's the direction FM is heading towards... Then I suppose we're damned Look mate, it's an open forum so you can post what you want but can you not derail the thread with another back/forth about how crap/illogical the interface is. It's been had many times before and if your intention is to to engage with certain people who seem to be pro the ME/tactics (like myself) then by all means open a new thread and I'll give you my two cents. Suffice it to say I agree with you that the average FMer gets no joy from and has no desire to spend hours if not days playing with the ME to figure out the sliders. Hopefully for the game's sake the wizard for FM10 will help in this regards. The screenshots make it seem like an arduous process but it only takes one full match to see the difference between the extremes. From there it is (in my opinion anyway) safe to assume every other value falls somewhere in between. Certain mindsets and backgrounds will be more inclined to do so and better equipped to come up with a testing methodology that suits them. I am not talking about intelligence/IQ here but a particular mindset. I would guess the majority of 'slider afficionados' share common interests/backgrounds. Me I studied engineering so testing/analysis/interpretation is second nature (ignoring the fact I might be useless at it ) plus I have a genuine interest in discovering the mechanics of what is essentially a mathematical model of a football match. Both of those contribute to my approach to FM. It's not that I spend 24/7 playing it (although I do ) but more that when the 'average' gamer is playing the game in the first few weeks, I'm 'studying' the game. Different strokes for different folks and hopefully the wizard will help to bridge the gap. That's the last I'll post in this thread about the ME/interface. Apologies to SFraser for derailing your thread again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFraser Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share Posted July 2, 2009 That's why I posted it might just be me misinterpreting personal 'definitions'. Regardless of mentality all FWR often players will do so if you hold possession long enough. In fact if you move the ball quickly they'll do so in almost unison without holding back.Yes I've seen what you described re holding back but the mentality 1 FWR often player will still look to get advanced as play progresses. He won't ever 'hold back' because it is the 'safe' option. He'll be more likely to pause his run if play slows to show for it but he'll still get into the box if you hold possession long enough and reach near the byline. With your RWB example I tested RWB often and 442 teams split down the middle re mentality. I saw context based aggressive dribbling and passing (passing quickly or passing after dribbling a given distance due to pressure and options) but I just didn't see a mentality influenced difference. Of course I'm willing to accept that might just be my own observation/interpretation deficiencies So in effect what you are saying is that observed variations in FWR are down to the Positional differences brought about by Mentality on a context by context basis? That makes sense. However I have two points I wish to bring up. I do not currently have screenshots or pkms of the behaviour but I will play a few games later tonight and get some. I am taking your point about mentality effect on forward runs as a FWR often FB may not do so because his mentality is too low. I am refuting this point by saying a ment low (1) player set to FWR often will always get forward but his low mentality affects how aggressively he does so relative to the context. Just a different interpretation of a ‘forward run’ and expectation of a ‘mentality effect’? I have observed several times that when playing a back four of 2 FWR Often Fullbacks, one will get forward to a position on the wing, whereas the other Fullback will stay back in a back 3. I do not recall their being more than one opponent staying forward and generally 9 outfield players recede to the box. I had put this behaviour down to Mentality, as with a rather high Mentality this opposite side fullback has a tendency to arrive at the back post whereas with a low Mentality he has a tendency to stay back and provide cover. I shall have to post screenshots of this behaviour, but it is very much the kind of ME behaviour that sticks in the mind when observed due its obvious intelligence. What mentality affects is how aggressively they do so and their ‘starting position’. Lower mentality players will arrive later but what makes them more cautious is that if the attack breaks down early they won’t be caught out of position. I think I understand your point here but I would like clarification. Do you mean for example that the distance is greater, thus they arrive later and are unlikely to travel so far (positioning) with a low mentality, that the positioning function of mentality determines the extent of the forward run? Is it a case ultimately of context triggering action and Mentality defining positioning? Thus though only indirectly affecting an action being triggered, it still has a rather large impact on both the starting and end of each action? For example would Mentality impact upon the final positioning of a RWB action? That's the last I'll post in this thread about the ME/interface. Apologies to SFraser for derailing your thread again. Don't worry about it. I wouldn't right two full posts of defensive theory in the face of "you waffle on" if I wasn't trying my hardest to encourage some actual game discussion. I find it rather ironic to be honest. What more could the hapless defence coach want than several posts of theory combined to an indepth discussion of the exact function of a slider? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I have observed several times that when playing a back four of 2 FWR Often Fullbacks, one will get forward to a position on the wing, whereas the other Fullback will stay back in a back 3. I do not recall their being more than one opponent staying forward and generally 9 outfield players recede to the box. I had put this behaviour down to Mentality, as with a rather high Mentality this opposite side fullback has a tendency to arrive at the back post whereas with a low Mentality he has a tendency to stay back and provide cover. I shall have to post screenshots of this behaviour, but it is very much the kind of ME behaviour that sticks in the mind when observed due its obvious intelligence. It may well be something more subtle going on and me drawing the wrong conclusions based on flawed analysis. I haven't tested it in a while and my OCD makes me a fan of symmetry so my wing players have the same mentality, thus I wouldn’t have been in a position to observe it in general gaming. Having said that I refer you to the first set of screenshots where the FWR often, mentality 1 RB for Arsenal Sagna makes his way right up to the box from his deep position because of how the play evolved. His deeper position is a by product of his mentality, and this defines the start point of his forward run. If the play does not break down he will generally make his way as far as possible. To illustrate context and mentality effects some screenshots of a back and forth starting with Clichy clearing the ball. If you don’t want to open them all to see the transition then look at fwr23 then fwr30 when it broke down. You’ll see the ment 20 FWR Often LB advanced beyond the mnt 1 RB on the opposite side. You’ll also see the 2 MCs set to FWR Often in more or less the same lateral line. Similar to the second bunch of screenshots in my last post. http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8507/fwr023.jpg http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4791/fwr024.jpg http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1108/fwr025.jpg http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5049/fwr026.jpg http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/792/fwr027.jpg http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8887/fwr028.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2536/fwr029.jpg http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/6779/fwr030.jpg Now the ball is cleared. Similar things happen as well as some oddities - oddity: Arsenal ML #7 drops right back behind the LB #3 - transition difference between MC #8 and MC #9 Not 100% deterministic but the higher the mentality the more likely it is advanced player will hang back near the opposition line after they clear workrate plays a role in their effort here - as soon as Sagna knocks it on all FWR players start pushing on - you can also see clearly here how spacing affects where players run to as the LB #3 occupies the area the ML #7 would usually be in, thus the winger does not attack the back post - the RB gets as far as he can until the attack breaks down - contrast this with previous screenshots where he made it right to the edge of the opposition’s box http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5607/fwr031.jpg http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9726/fwr032.jpg http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4136/fwr033.jpg http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6950/fwr034.jpg http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6288/fwr035.jpg http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8885/fwr036.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5108/fwr037.jpg http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5702/fwr038.jpg Now the United counter - difference between RB and LB - maybe a context thing due to attacking down the left? - having said that the difference between the FBs is something I’ve seen independent of flanks - the MCs push forward in unison until Tevez momentarily stalls at which point ment 1 MC seems to slow - when the attack breaks down you can see the separation between the FBs - the quickness and points of slow down of an attack impact on when/if lower mentality FWR often players slow their forward movement - note the wingers on more or less same line because of context of the play’s evolution As before if the transition is of no interest look at fwr39 then fwr47 to see thee positions http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3379/fwr039.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7213/fwr040.jpg http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2032/fwr041.jpg http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1706/fwr042.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4088/fwr043.jpg http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4766/fwr044.jpg http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7797/fwr045.jpg http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8049/fwr046.jpg http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7151/fwr047.jpg The counter shows another effect, namely a ment 1 FWR midfielder is more likely to halt his run and show for a pass under certain contexts, particularly when the attack is on his side and the ball halts it’s forward motion. Forward runs and mentality work in tandem to affect this but not in a direct manner. That may sound contradictory but in my opinion it isn’t as the match engine is about probabilities. Regardless of mentalities MCs set to mixed FWR are much more likely to show for a pass and halt their run (this off memory rather than recent ‘testing’ so is up for debate). So here you’ll see ment 20 #9 bomb on while ment 1 #8 holds his run when Van Persie lays it back to Sagna. http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/941/fwr048.jpg http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2120/fwr049.jpg http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6582/fwr050.jpg http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/654/fwr051.jpg http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3434/fwr052.jpg http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2776/fwr053.jpg http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/7159/fwr054.jpg http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9968/fwr055.jpg Having said all of that there may be a subtlety involved that my test missed. Namely the opposition having only 1 striker upfield means 2 CBs vs 1 striker, hence the risk assessment for the mentality 1 full back is altered. This might explain the difference between these test screenshots and your observation of a relatively lower mentality full back holding his run even when set to make forward runs often. I might have a mess around with that at some point. I think I understand your point here but I would like clarification. Do you mean for example that the distance is greater, thus they arrive later and are unlikely to travel so far (positioning) with a low mentality, that the positioning function of mentality determines the extent of the forward run? Is it a case ultimately of context triggering action and Mentality defining positioning? Thus though only indirectly affecting an action being triggered, it still has a rather large impact on both the starting and end of each action? For example would Mentality impact upon the final positioning of a RWB action? In relation to mentality yes, that’s pretty much what I have observed and how I interpret it. Of course I could be incredibly wrong and it wouldn’t be the first time As before I refer you to the first group of screenshots where you see the deeper ment 1 MC #8 arrive late but still surge into the box, and the deeper ment 1 FB arrive late to reach the edge of the box. This is typical of what happened when the context allowed it. http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/620/fwr001.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2497/fwr002.jpg http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4192/fwr002a.jpg http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6140/fwr003.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9499/fwr004.jpg http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2740/fwr005.jpg http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6998/fwr006.jpg http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5338/fwr007.jpg http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/368/fwr008.jpg http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/858/fwr009.jpg http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6931/fwr009a.jpg For Run With Ball I think the difficulty is that in my opinion it is far more open to interpretation of the context, and if it does have an impact it is doing so in a much more subtle manner than th screenshots of mentality affecting forward rus. I’ll show a quick example from this forward run test to illustrate. The LB Evra is mentality 20 and RWB is mixed. http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3451/fwr066.jpg http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2026/fwr067.jpg http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2484/fwr068.jpg http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9423/fwr069.jpg http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4905/fwr070.jpg http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2263/fwr071.jpg http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3320/fwr072.jpg - if mentality = aggressive then would he not have attacked the space instead of halting? - or did he halt because his dribbling attribute/strong foot determined the path available which was blocked by an opposition player? - or was it because his RWB was mixed and not often? - did he miscontrol the dribble? - or is it the exception that proves the rule? I’ll admit to only testing it for one match and never looking for a link while playing so I could be wrong, but I just have not seen a difference. In the test I did the same as above, I split the 442 down each side with left side mentality 20 and right side mentality 1 and all set to RWB often. What I observed was similar decision making with respect to when to run with the ball, whether or not to continue to run with the ball, where to run with the ball and at what point to give up a pass all shaped by - availability of space - foot ability - passing options - pressure from the opposition Your suggestion that mentality/passing style triggers the ‘make pass now’ decision (try through balls? Long shots?) is interesting, but again as with mentality it may be us seeing the same thing but having a slight disparity between our interpretations of an effect. But what I generally saw was that given space to run into relative to their preferred foot a RWB Often player did it regardless of mentality i.e. the risk involved. But as I said, because I had this hazy memory of PaulC (or an SI avatar poster) saying there was no link, I stopped looking for one. The above screenshots again show the positioning of the split mentality players. - ment 1 RB and CB hang back while ment 20 CB pushes up - ment 20 MC #9 pushes on while ment 1 MC #8 more or less holds - ment 20 ML #7 pushes right onto FB while ment 1 MR is less aggressive - so not a huge difference between 1 and 20 for a given FWR often setting To certain extent that highlights that it is probably just a difference of interpretation as I don’t regard forward movement due to mentality as the same thing as a forward run (in FM). If anybody reading sees anything in those screenshots or their game that doesn’t tally with my explanations, then by all means tell me I’m talking nonsense . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Just playing a match to check if keeping strikers up has any impact on FB runs. Saw this incident in relation to CB mentality. Attempted through ball intercepted by mentality 1 centre back http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6939/aggrssivecb00.jpg http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3725/aggrssivecb01.jpg http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/6416/aggrssivecb03.jpg To me that's an aggressive, risky move. If he gets it wrong then Tevez is in. Is that different to yourconceptualisation of mentality affecting CB behaviour SFraser? Maybe proximity to goal has an effect in your interpretation? Not being argumentative, just trying to get a handle on the types of events that brought you to your interpretation and that I might be missing some subtlety that you are seeing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFraser Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share Posted July 2, 2009 Just playing a match to check if keeping strikers up has any impact on FB runs. Saw this incident in relation to CB mentality. Attempted through ball intercepted by mentality 1 centre backhttp://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6939/aggrssivecb00.jpg http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3725/aggrssivecb01.jpg http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/6416/aggrssivecb03.jpg To me that's an aggressive, risky move. If he gets it wrong then Tevez is in. Is that different to yourconceptualisation of mentality affecting CB behaviour SFraser? Maybe proximity to goal has an effect in your interpretation? Not being argumentative, just trying to get a handle on the types of events that brought you to your interpretation and that I might be missing some subtlety that you are seeing. I will go through your previous posts at a later time, because there is a quite a lot to get through. The example you show would to me appear first and foremost an Anticipation related action: the interception is clearly Anticipation related but the gap left and the potential for a mistake leaving a one-on-one is also quite clear. It is definately superficially high-risk, and even if not superficially high risk from the ME perspective, most managers would probably be facing a "squeeky bum" moment. I would view this action from two potentials, given I have no absolute knowledge of the match engine operation. First, it is possible that from the point of view of the defender (decisions, anticipation, positioning, aggression etc.) that this move is the lowest risk choice, which corresponds to my previous views on mentality. In this context mentality is the instruction delivered to a particular player to play the lowest risk game, and it is up to his attributes to make that determination. Second, that coincides with your view on mentality, his Anticipation and Decisions alone provoke the action from his mentality + positioning relative position. He intercepts the pass because it is the best choice irrespective of instructions. This actually makes the most sense when combined to my personal observation of the ME. Players anticipate, intercept, pass and carry out other actions according to their innate abilities, subtely guided by slider input. There is also a third potential solution, that tackling, closing down and mental attributes have combined to produce an impetus for aggressive defending i.e. intercepting where mentality plays no role in these particular decisions. That is where I personally would be placed when attempting to understand the behaviour shown in your screenshots. Each has its own logic but so far I have been unable to determine the mechanical fact of such scenarios. Good example you brought up there. It really gets down to the nitty-gritty of this game. There may be some hope for this thread after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I will go through your previous posts at a later time, because there is a quite a lot to get through.The example you show would to me appear first and foremost an Anticipation related action: the interception is clearly Anticipation related but the gap left and the potential for a mistake leaving a one-on-one is also quite clear. It is definately superficially high-risk, and even if not superficially high risk from the ME perspective, most managers would probably be facing a "squeeky bum" moment. I would view this action from two potentials, given I have no absolute knowledge of the match engine operation. First, it is possible that from the point of view of the defender (decisions, anticipation, positioning, aggression etc.) that this move is the lowest risk choice, which corresponds to my previous views on mentality. In this context mentality is the instruction delivered to a particular player to play the lowest risk game, and it is up to his attributes to make that determination. Second, that coincides with your view on mentality, his Anticipation and Decisions alone provoke the action from his mentality + positioning relative position. He intercepts the pass because it is the best choice irrespective of instructions. This actually makes the most sense when combined to my personal observation of the ME. Players anticipate, intercept, pass and carry out other actions according to their innate abilities, subtely guided by slider input. There is also a third potential solution, that tackling, closing down and anticipation have combined to produce an impetus for aggressive defending i.e. intercepting where mentality plays no role in these particular decisions. That is where I personally would be placed when attempting to understand the behaviour shown in your screenshots. Each has its own logic but so far I have been unable to determine the mechanical fact of such scenarios. Interesting assessment That's the challenge of the game and one of the reasons I would never post tactics no matter how well I do with them (or don't as the case may be). Without 'cracking' the ME code, you'll never know if it was tactics/attributes/etc. so one man's rubbish can be another man's treasure. I'd like to think that an individual player will override instructions where they deem it necessary, but some things I see make me question if that is the case e.g. FBs standing in front of wingers who are behind them but onside due to CBs playing them on. Having said all of that there may be a subtlety involved that my test missed. Namely the opposition having only 1 striker upfield means 2 CBs vs 1 striker, hence the risk assessment for the mentality 1 full back is altered. This might explain the difference between these test screenshots and your observation of a relatively lower mentality full back holding his run even when set to make forward runs often. I might have a mess around with that at some point. This seems to be the case when two strikers stay upfield but oddly enough mentality doesn't sem to be playing a role with the ment 20 FWR often just as likely to hold as the ment 1 FWR often FB. Might post some screenshots to see if someone else can figure this out. But it's not 100%, sometims they hold and other times they behave as they did in prior screenshots. Maybe the illogical settings playing a role? I'd still expect some kind of pattern..... Maybe it's not about mentality but a tandem of FWR settings for the FBs versus where the strikers are? One going and one staying more often than not to maintain 3 vs 2 at the back? The position of the striker seems to play a role in triggering the run, but what's notable is that despite both strikers with identical settings of ment 20 fwr often, one is dropping deeper when his team is defending. I don't remember this happening the last time I tested (9.0). Slightly confusing :confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFraser Posted July 3, 2009 Author Share Posted July 3, 2009 Two points here. First I think that if we involved hypotheticals regarding the Teamwork attribute we could quickly come to solid conclusions, but they would be even less "factual" than the basis we start from. Second I think that player attributes themselves play roles that although coded for are impossible to explain in contextual subtlety by anyone related to FM. It is quite possible I am wrong and I am quite sure you would not like to accept the vague nature of my claims, and frankly nor would I if I did not think it factual and relevant, but I think that positioning, behaviour and attributes are going to produce events that cannot be explained deductively without observing the lowest common denominators over a series of actions, a period of time, and a tendency of equivelance. Don't take this to mean I am arguing against you, because I most certainly am not. What I am saying is that input of X,Y and Z influence is going to make the factual explanation of A action impossible without rigorous comparison of prior events involving identical factors, and that the sheer number of factors potentially involved will make it a difficult task. I am not saying that your perception of mentality is incorrect, indeed your arguements have swayed me and your logic and the sensibility, as well as the simplicity, of the mechanics you offer are compelling. What I am saying is that the explanation of Z event in absolute detail is going to require an immense amount of variable negation. Teamwork, Aggression, Decisions etc. "could" all have a rather important impact upon any scenario, from the level of knowledge of FM I have. Basically what I am saying is that obviously somewhere along the line attributes must be taken into consideration and that attributes like "Decisions" etc. really gum up the works for figuring out the mechanics behind a particular action. Ofcourse "Decisions" could be narrowed down to a certain set of modifiers or a certain set of context triggers, but I personally am nowhere near knowing that involvement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebedee77 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Maybe the illogical settings playing a role? I'd still expect some kind of pattern..... Maybe it's not about mentality but a tandem of FWR settings for the FBs versus where the strikers are? One going and one staying more often than not to maintain 3 vs 2 at the back? Maybe not so much the strikers alone but also the wingers and the midfield. The actual movement of the players within the formation chosen would seem to me to be the deciding factor. If you have a tactical system which encourages fluidity of movement around the wings then you may well see different results from a tactical system which keeps the wingers wide. If I get chance later this weekend I'll take some screenshots as I'm pretty certain that I know how to manipulate a certain tactic I've got to demonstrate this. Where a one striker formation may have influenced your test is that it may not be providing the opening of space for the fullback to move into. The position of the striker seems to play a role in triggering the run, but what's notable is that despite both strikers with identical settings of ment 20 fwr often, one is dropping deeper when his team is defending. I don't remember this happening the last time I tested (9.0). Slightly confusing :confused: Is this using the 'split' formation of mentalities test? And is the striker dropping deeper on the side of the lower mentality players? I've seen similar 'results' from using differing marking schemes in the centre of the field - the zonal side (MCa, FCa) will stay higher up the pitch than the man-marking side (MCd, FCd) with the aggression of the tracking obviously a result of the marking instructions and not just solely down to the mentality differences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Two points here.First I think that if we involved hypotheticals regarding the Teamwork attribute we could quickly come to solid conclusions, but they would be even less "factual" than the basis we start from. Second I think that player attributes themselves play roles that although coded for are impossible to explain in contextual subtlety by anyone related to FM. It is quite possible I am wrong and I am quite sure you would not like to accept the vague nature of my claims, and frankly nor would I if I did not think it factual and relevant, but I think that positioning, behaviour and attributes are going to produce events that cannot be explained deductively without observing the lowest common denominators over a series of actions, a period of time, and a tendency of equivelance. Don't take this to mean I am arguing against you, because I most certainly am not. What I am saying is that input of X,Y and Z influence is going to make the factual explanation of A action impossible without rigorous comparison of prior events involving identical factors, and that the sheer number of factors potentially involved will make it a difficult task. I am not saying that your perception of mentality is incorrect, indeed your arguements have swayed me and your logic and the sensibility, as well as the simplicity, of the mechanics you offer are compelling. What I am saying is that the explanation of Z event in absolute detail is going to require an immense amount of variable negation. Teamwork, Aggression, Decisions etc. "could" all have a rather important impact upon any scenario, from the level of knowledge of FM I have. Basically what I am saying is that obviously somewhere along the line attributes must be taken into consideration and that attributes like "Decisions" etc. really gum up the works for figuring out the mechanics behind a particular action. Ofcourse "Decisions" could be narrowed down to a certain set of modifiers or a certain set of context triggers, but I personally am nowhere near knowing that involvement. I fully agree. Figuring out the subtleties of attribute effects and the extent to which they have an impact is difficult, and I don't disagree with your points. I always test out the sliders as above using high quality players (sometimes edited to see the 'optimum') particularly with respect to decision making. As you said the sheer variety of scenarios makes it very difficult to find identical ones that allow exact like for like comparisons. That’s why I always try to remember to mention player attributes in relation to tactical settings. But what I will say is that the ‘generalities’ of what I posted hold from lowest quality BSS players to Premier League. So in my brief stint in the lower leagues on 09 (more so on 08) the general positioning of players in a given 442 would be the same with respect to Forward Runs and Mentality, but the higher quality players would make more subtle little movements beyond those of the BSS players to find space (without free roles in the mix). To be honest in terms of figuring out the attribute effects I did try to ‘test’ it on 08 but it became too time consuming and I reached a point where I just wanted to play the game and gave up. What I will say in relation to attributes is that I don't believe the ‘range’ they encompass is as large as people assume them to be. For example I tested 1/1 vs 20/20 in acc/pace for edited identical teams against each other. There was a difference which manifested itself in the 2D and in the dominance of the 20/20 side, but it wasn’t a hare vs the tortoise visual effect when two players ‘faced off’ (I’m aware of other attributes having an effect, so again this is a generality). So I agree with you about the subtler effects of attributes and that without exactly comparable situations it’s impossible to know, and even then it will still be a ‘theory’. It might well be as you suggested that mentality does play a role in the defensive decisions of a player beyond simply his positioning, and that your use of split mentalities means you see a ‘long term’ pattern of behaviour that is more noticeable because it is ‘on the pitch’ game in game out. So the subtlety of it’s effect becomes more obvious with consistent observation. What I mean by this is I do the following - test for 10 matches and see little difference - favour symmetry in playing which affects my observations So I’ve used mentality ranges of 5 to 16 for defenders in game, but never asymmetrically so I miss the little things that your long term use of split mentalities reveals. If it weren’t for PaulC posting about it, then I would probably not doubt your observations and causality conclusions. Just a point of note, when I mentioned workrate in relation to high mentality players returning from advanced positions it was with reference to the 9.3 changelist - Players move back from badly offside positions better subject to workrate It could be a false logical leap though, in assuming it affects this movement even when not offside. Maybe not so much the strikers alone but also the wingers and the midfield. The actual movement of the players within the formation chosen would seem to me to be the deciding factor. If you have a tactical system which encourages fluidity of movement around the wings then you may well see different results from a tactical system which keeps the wingers wide. If I get chance later this weekend I'll take some screenshots as I'm pretty certain that I know how to manipulate a certain tactic I've got to demonstrate this. Where a one striker formation may have influenced your test is that it may not be providing the opening of space for the fullback to move into. Not sure what you mean to be honest, so I’ll be interested to see. EDIT: Do you mean the way players move relative to available space and positioning of team mates? Not sure it had any impact here. The FBs were running more often when the ment 1 striker dropped back past the halfway than when he stayed up. It seemed they were reacting more to this than being governed by mentality (ment 20 fwr often LB just as likely to hold as the ment 1 fwr often RB). A quick few screenshots. The ment 20 LB who was pushing on early very consistently in previous test where the striker dropped off is now holding his position longer. http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8701/fwr3006.jpg http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/848/fwr3007g.jpg http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8306/fwr3008.jpg http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3405/fwr3009.jpg http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/6653/fwr3010.jpg http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9369/fwr3011.jpg http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8941/fwr3012.jpg Here the ment 1 fwr often RB holds his deeper position much longer than in prior screenshots and again seems to push up in reaction to the striker dropping http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4048/fwr3013.jpg http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/746/fwr3014e.jpg http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/385/fwr3015.jpg http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2572/fwr3016.jpg http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2690/fwr3017.jpg http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4766/fwr3018.jpg http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2644/fwr3019.jpg http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7720/fwr3020.jpg It wasn’t 100% because at times they moved identically to prior screenshots but when their movement did differ it seemed to be in reaction to the striker holding a high position. Is this using the 'split' formation of mentalities test? And is the striker dropping deeper on the side of the lower mentality players? I've seen similar 'results' from using differing marking schemes in the centre of the field - the zonal side (MCa, FCa) will stay higher up the pitch than the man-marking side (MCd, FCd) with the aggression of the tracking obviously a result of the marking instructions and not just solely down to the mentality differences. That’s exactly what it was . For anyone reading this I realise what I come across as (argumentative and fixed in my opinions about how it works), and I will now further that perception I think you are reaching a conclusion that is coincidental in relation to marking. Attributes not withstanding, one must lead to the other. In other words mentality has to put him in a position to trigger the ‘pick him up’ decision. The reason I believe this to be the case is that regardless of marking settings, I have seen a deeper striker ignore a holding midfielder only a few yards goalside of him simply because the pick up wasn’t triggered. Much like the mentality arguments prior, attributes do play a role beyond tactics and so does context, but in general unless mentality is right the pick up won’t be triggered regardless of being man or zonal. I think anyone who has played as a heavily favoured side against a defensive 451 will have seen this mechanic in action. If the striker mentality is too high then the DMC finds himself regularly unmarked or in possession with no one closing him regardless of marking settings. In fact tight man will in this scenario have the opposite effect as the striker will tend to ‘lock on’ to the centre half. With high enough closing down and ‘high’ teamwork/workrate strikers they will make a move eventually, but it won’t be proactive as their mentality does not place them consistently goalside. Note that this was something that was improved between 9.0 and 9.3. On 9.0 strikers rarely if ever ignored mentality to come back to close a midfielder behind them. As always that’s just my view of how it works and I honestly believe you are seeing something that isn’t there to be seen. If you've got a pkm that shows different then fair enough but in all my testing/observation in playing the mentality>position>pick up mechanic has been the most consistent (it will even opeerate in reverse for ingrs re FBs regardless of marking besides specific). In any case to the original dropping back, when I ‘normalised’ the tactic removing the extremities (strikers remained 20/20) the striker stopped dropping slightly deeper. If you want examples of this theory, let me know and I'll put up some screenshots when possible. Some of it might be seen in this thread http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=59441 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashidi Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 isuckatfm has made some good spots on mentality, and to be fair to him, that observation is shared by some other individuals as well. I don't have the luxury of time to go in and support his views with ss of my own, but i will reinforce his view that, mentality affects positioning and the influences how a player evaluates risk. Since mentality affects positioning it then has a cascading effect on how a team is defending. Therefore the judicious use of defensive lines and closing down is important. In some formations its an advantage to have staggered closing downs as this allows a team to defend in stages, esp helpful with overly attacking formations. You can definitely get fb's to overlap if they have a low mentality, in fact you can make a possession centric formation where the ball is passed around in your half of the pitch. Honestly i just had to say my piece seeing how interesting a read this thread had become. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebedee77 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I think you are reaching a conclusion that is coincidental in relation to marking. Attributes not withstanding, one must lead to the other. In other words mentality has to put him in a position to trigger the ‘pick him up’ decision. The reason I believe this to be the case is that regardless of marking settings, I have seen a deeper striker ignore a holding midfielder only a few yards goalside of him simply because the pick up wasn’t triggered. Much like the mentality arguments prior, attributes do play a role beyond tactics and so does context, but in general unless mentality is right the pick up won’t be triggered regardless of being man or zonal. To get within 'range' to trigger the 'pressing' is a positional issue and this is where mentality obviously has a function which will impinge on the actual 'formation' or 'shape of the team. Yet once within range, the actual marking instructions used will dictate how the player will try to act. Which is what I was trying to clumsily try to suggest - note the difference in behaviour of a FCd on zonal marking compared to his behaviour under man-marking. (will add this to screenshots to do tomorrow). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathxxx Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 isuckatfm has made some good spots on mentality, and to be fair to him, that observation is shared by some other individuals as well. I don't have the luxury of time to go in and support his views with ss of my own, but i will reinforce his view that, mentality affects positioning and the influences how a player evaluates risk. Since mentality affects positioning it then has a cascading effect on how a team is defending. Therefore the judicious use of defensive lines and closing down is important. In some formations its an advantage to have staggered closing downs as this allows a team to defend in stages, esp helpful with overly attacking formations.You can definitely get fb's to overlap if they have a low mentality, in fact you can make a possession centric formation where the ball is passed around in your half of the pitch. Honestly i just had to say my piece seeing how interesting a read this thread had become. Ditto... You've pretty much said exactly what I think too. Sorry to sound like a... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 To get within 'range' to trigger the 'pressing' is a positional issue and this is where mentality obviously has a function which will impinge on the actual 'formation' or 'shape of the team. Yet once within range, the actual marking instructions used will dictate how the player will try to act. Which is what I was trying to clumsily try to suggest - note the difference in behaviour of a FCd on zonal marking compared to his behaviour under man-marking. (will add this to screenshots to do tomorrow). I'll be interested to see what your observation is . I guess it's a case of misinterpretation on my end as I thought you were suggesting man marking would cause a striker to drop deeper than his mentality tells him to, in order to pick up a man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevc Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 This thread is a ****ing joke. It's supposed to be an enjoyable game not a ****ing BA Honours Degree in football management. There should be two versions of this game, a simple version like previous releases of FM, and a ****ed up version for those of you out there that have nothing better to do than spend hours and hours watching the ME. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_costa Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Which simple previous releases of FM are you talking about? CM1 & CM2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dankrzyz Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 It's supposed to be an enjoyable game not a ****ing BA Honours Degree in football management. Maybe trying to figure out this complex puzzle is enjoyable to some people... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
googoo56 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 It would be enjoyable if there was a better UI and the ME wasn't that poor as it is now. In it's current state it's a messed up ****.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bednar Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Its hilarious, SI have successfully made the game more complex than real life management when it comes to tactics. I am currently trying to imagine the scene - Alex Ferguson is chatting to Rio and big Vidic before a league game at home to Spurs... He thinks, right, i want the 2 Centre backs to act like centre backs, i will tell them to pass it short so they can let Carrick in front make the play. I will tell them not to take unncessary risks and to mark zonal. Job done, out you go boys. He does not think - "right, if i say take no risks, how will this affect what i told Rio about occasionally bringing the ball out from the back when there is space" - And then think "now if i tell him to play high up the park, the effect of me saying bring the ball out will be different".... See i am a reasonably educated chap, i do a fairly complex job and dont have problems understanding theory. I have enjoyed FM/CM from the start (on the old amiga) and i like that tactics have evolved a bit to allow us all to be "creative". But FM09 is just a step too far, its absolutely crazy that if i have a world class midfielder, i need to carefully consider 6 different factors just to have him go and play his normal game. Even worse, if i put together a tactic and i want a wide player to cut in and make diagonal runs.....i cant just tell him this by puting a diagonal run on the board showing the formation.....god forbid that Sir Alex could be able to move his pen in a diagonal direction... And oh then there is the option i have to tell my Centre Midfiled that i want him only make forward runs "rarely" - Now i am no genius, but going forward rarely is NOT the same as going backwards....and yet which arrow corresponds to this instruction...... Anyway, so thats how i see it. Still does not help me get my defensive set up for my 4 3 3 with a DMC working..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFraser Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 Did you guys get lost on your way to General Discussion or what? Please take your complaints and insults out of my thread and out of the Tactics and Training Tips forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevc Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Did you guys get lost on your way to General Discussion or what? Please take your complaints and insults out of my thread and out of the Tactics and Training Tips forum. Don't be so ****ing anal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_costa Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 He thinks, right, i want the 2 Centre backs to act like centre backs, i will tell them to pass it short so they can let Carrick in front make the play. I will tell them not to take unncessary risks and to mark zonal. Job done, out you go boys. Really? I do this too ingame easily. He does not think - "right, if i say take no risks, how will this affect what i told Rio about occasionally bringing the ball out from the back when there is space" - And then think "now if i tell him to play high up the park, the effect of me saying bring the ball out will be different".... So, what you are saying is that Ferguson just spews out instructions to his players without thinking about the impact they will have on the tactic/team? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bednar Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Did you guys get lost on your way to General Discussion or what? Please take your complaints and insults out of my thread and out of the Tactics and Training Tips forum. Any need for you to be annoying along the way to trying to sound aloof? Every single time you post a thread or comment, it comes across as trying to sound smarter than the rest, which would be fine if it were only true..... None the less, i shall ask a relevant question. When playing with a 3 man midfield (one DMC, 2 x MC), how can you a achieve a Set up where by the DMC will go cross field to help the fullbacks (depening on which flank is being attacked). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bednar Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Really? I do this too ingame easily. So, what you are saying is that Ferguson just spews out instructions to his players without thinking about the impact they will have on the tactic/team? No, what i am saying is that Ferguson (like any human) expects his instructions to be taken "litterally" - whether they are or not undoubtably depends on the quality of player. Clearly the MI is just an complex set of algorithms and part of the frustration is that you cannot make algorithms react like humans. Somewhat bizarrely, a couple of people on here seem to think you can and tries to work on tactical analysis as if they are looking at a real "human" team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCIAG Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Guys, the OP has said he doesn't want criticism of the game in this thread, however fair. Therefore, I suggest you two open a new thread. I could even open it for you if you like? On older versions (06 and 07) the DM or MCd would do that automatically if you set their mentality correctly. They still do to an extent, but perhaps not how you hoped. Set forward runs to "rarely" and choose a more defensive mentality than the MCs, maybe the same as the FBs. I'd suggest completely ignoring the "gaps" philosophy. Set DCs to the far left and STs to the far right. Put wingers and MCs on the default (i.e. keep the box unticked so they have the global mentality), as they'll dictate the team's overall mentality. Set the DM and the FBs to three or four clicks from the left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter-evo Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I agree with SCIAG. Let's keep all critiscism of posters and the M.E out of this thread and concentrate on the topic. Been quite an interesting read regarding risk taking. Never thought to look at such things myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathxxx Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Please everyone, if you've nothing on-topic that's constructive to the thread, please refrain from posting. It's a while since I've had to infract anyone in T&TT and it's not something I enjoy doing particularly. This isn't the place to rant, unless you want to discuss a particular tactical issue, in which case the forum users here will always try to help where they can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.