Counter Attacking, How Is It Interpreted?

[Loversleaper]

I haven't seen any threads on the subject so this is why I have decided to open a discussion regarding the issue. I am under the impression that FM10 has misinterpreted the Counter-Attacking (CA) function compared to Real Life football. I would think that CA has always been a type of football that you implemented when sitting further back on the pitch exploiting an opponent that is pressing forward. Also reading up on the subject in tactic books/explanations indicate that this is basically the overall game plan when implementing CA. That is why I have difficulties understanding why in FM you would be pressing high and implementing the Counter as you do in some of the pre-set (Wizard/Creator) tactics. To me, it seems as the FM game has it back to front, so I was wondering how some of you other Gamers interpret this instruction?...

[Beardeye]

I belive a counter attack is launched in FM when there are only "X" number of opposition players between your player with the ball and the goal, at which point all players in your team has their mentality increased to all out attack.

Ticking counter attack makes the "X" number of players a different value (presumably higher).

I may have this slightly wrong, so will dig around for the post from SI to see if I can confirm if my memory is correct.

[shakeable]

Here it is.

http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=2906696&postcount=315

So not such a bad thing to have on an attacking strategy considering you are already trying hard to get a goal and if the defensive team finds themselves outnumbered at the back wouldn't you want your team to take advantage of this rare occurrence?

[Tafse]

I have to agree with Loversleaper on this one. I find it a bit counter intuitive to have 'counter attack' ticked when already playing an attacking pressing game high up on the pitch. Surely, a team playing on the attack should automatically exploit an obvious counter attack opportunity if it's on, as would any team with an attacking mindframe. But 'counter attack' as a match strategy should be something else, like the default 'counter strategy' suggests?

[aadam]

Maybe it is misinterpreted but it's simple. Ticking the box does nothing more than allowing your players to initiate quick attacks. Everything else depends on your strategy. If you're attacking, you might want to play possession-based football so it's not obvious to have the box ticked. I think this option is the main difference between control and attacking game plans. If you want to play the classic counter attacking style, sitting back, you need to tick the box AND adopt a defensive strategy (like deep def. line, less aggressive tackling and closing down).

[Vitor Campos]

Maybe it is misinterpreted but it's simple. Ticking the box does nothing more than allowing your players to initiate quick attacks. Everything else depends on your strategy. If you're attacking, you might want to play possession-based football so it's not obvious to have the box ticked. I think this option is the main difference between control and attacking game plans. If you want to play the classic counter attacking style, sitting back, you need to tick the box AND adopt a defensive strategy (like deep def. line, less aggressive tackling and closing down).

I agree with almost everything; just confuses me the fact that I'd have to tackle softer?

To begin a CA in real life, we need the DM's and defensive line to steal to ball, so they'd have to tackle more and harder. At least if I don't catch the chance to CA, I'd be breaking the opposition attack and defending well

[Loversleaper]

A counter attack in FM is launched when a team gets the ball and there are less than X opposing players between the ball and their goal.

Ticking the counter attack box means that X is a higher value.

Once on counter attack, a team will play as if on highest mentality until the counter attack phase of play ends.

If you have examples where you dont feel this is working as it should, then let me know and I will be happy to look at a pkm example.

I think the mathmatics here are not totally correct, as it would seem that it would help the attacking mechanism in a more 'exploitive' fashion. If you are pressing high up the pitch and retrieve the ball, then the Mentalities would increase thus going basically to an all out attack mode, which doesn't really make the Counter-Attack option coherent with Real Life. I, personally, think that the CA should increase other 'values':

When using more defensive Mentalities with a lower Defensive Line, then the CA should increase 'values' such as Tempo and maybe implement it with more Direct Passing to get the ball out from the Defense trying to exploit the 'space' that would/could be created by an opponent that is further up the pitch. Maybe only increase Mentality 'values' on the players that don't implement Defensive Mentalities? With the explanation from PaulC above suggests that you cannot play defensive and lower Defensive Line because then 'x' number of players part would make the function less likely to be 'triggered'. My personal view on it is either remove the option (as we should be able to make this scenario with the sliders) or if the SI thinks it should be an option then they would have to change the 'mechanism' values to make it coherent with Real Life. I was hoping some people would share how they could see it work in the ME...

[Beardeye]

I was hoping some people would share how they could see it work in the ME...

I have been watching the match engine for some time and I still havent figured it out. I play a defensive formation with counter attack away from home every season (using your Athletico, Tapia, Olexiy, Allegri tactics loversleaper) and I still havent worked out what value "X" is.

In fact, I rarely score goals on the counter away from home anyway, they normally come from passing and build up play.

If, for example, I had 4 attackers versus the AI's 4 defenders, and counter attack was ticked- I would expect to see my whole team switch to "all out attack" at this moment. I must say I have never seen this happen though, so I cant confirm if its true.

If my central midfielder was carrying the ball out of defence, and there were 4 defenders in front of him (DL, DC, DC, DR) and my two FC's- i would want to counter (i.e 3 v 4 situation)- again I am afraid I cant confirm if this happens- as i have never seen it (or taken note when it has).

[lam]

When counter attacking is ticked the following formula is applied (at least this is what I read somewhere).

If attacking players outnumbers defending players then TEAM mentality sets to 21 (all out attack). The counter attack is over when the defending players outnumber the attacking ones.

LAM

[Beardeye]

When counter attacking is ticked the following formula is applied (at least this is what I read somewhere).

If attacking players outnumbers defending players then TEAM mentality sets to 21 (all out attack). The counter attack is over when the defending players outnumber the attacking ones.

LAM

Ok- So if they have a flat back 4 with no forward runs, i would need 5 players between the ball and goal to trigger the counter.

Or if their fullbacks have pushed right up I would need 3 players vs their 2DC's.

I will look out for this and post a screenie or pkm if i see it happen.

[lam]

Yup. Thats what I udnerstand.

To be honest, its not that tough to do. When a team has prolonged possession in your half (which is generally where counter attacks start) you will find that their FB/WB push up, regardless of their forward runs. It happens as the wingers or midfields will make a pass into the space infront of them and they will move forward to intercept it.

Its this reason that playing with a deep defence line works well with counter attacking. The more they are in your half the more daring they become (regardless of philosophy).

LAM

[lucatonix]

I think that ticking the box counter attacking just increases the chance when a team will counter attack ie forget player roles and rush forward to join the front men and ultimately score a goal. This can be employed with a defensive or attacking strategy. For a defensive one, the team will soak up pressure and counter when possible, based on a ration probably 2 or 3 defenders to a striker. when playing an attacking strategy, the team will press but if collect the ball say 40 yards away from your goal but there's a half-chance for a quick break to score, the team will take the chance. but if the box is not ticked the team will play as normal unless there are very few players compared to strikers then a counter attack is automatically initiated.

[Mitja]

I think you're confusing CA as strategy and CA as tactical feature. from observing the ME, CA as tactical feature is working fine, maybe for the first time in all versions. imo

[dz47]

When counter attacking is ticked the following formula is applied (at least this is what I read somewhere).

If attacking players outnumbers defending players then TEAM mentality sets to 21 (all out attack). The counter attack is over when the defending players outnumber the attacking ones.

LAM

Yep I think this is right from what I have been seeing. For example in my current Arsenal game I have set up a 4-1-2-1-2/fluid/control strategy that is based around a possession game. This is set up using the wizard, which by default has the ‘counter’ button unticked. What I have noticed with this is that even when the opportunity to counter is on (ie I have won back possession and my attackers outnumber their defenders), my players do not seem to exploit this opportunity and continue to play a ‘possession’ based game rather than go more direct to exploit the opportunity. A classic example of this is the striker spreading the ball back out wide to the fullback rather than taking on the defender, or taking it out wide when he could make a run directly into the box.

My expectation then would be that if I tick the ‘counter attack option’ that in the above scenario, I should see my forwards prioritise a direct route to goal rather than continuing to play the possession game. If this is right then I would think that all strategies should have ‘counter’ ticked as the default, with the very defensive strategies the only possible exception. The logic in this is that you would always want to exploit an opportunity to counter unless you are trying to protect a result.

The only other problem I have with counter at the moment is that most counter opportunities lead to a one-on-one with the keeper, and these of course seem to have a very low chance of being scored

[lam]

DZ,

I agree with what you say until you state that all attacking strategies should have counter attack ticked.

The point of a control game is that you do not relinquish possession to easily. However, when you do, you have a controled team that are not going to be caught on the counter attack, as you have men back. The controled tactic should not be confused with a mild attacking tactic. Its not a softer option, its something very different.

If I want a controled game, I do not want my team bombing forward when I have 5 players forward and the defence has only 4.

The counter counter game in this version is deadly and it DOES happen.

[dz47]

lam

well we might have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one mate!

I agree with some of what you are saying about using the counter attack option in a control tactic. However, my position has always been that the control tactic is best used when you are heavy favourites, and where the opposition is playing very defensively and looking to ‘park the bus’. Thus the aim is to focus on playing a more patient build up, using lots of creativity to try to ‘unlock’ the defense. Hence it is a controlled attacking strategy, but still inherently attacking, and not to be confused with the ‘balanced’ strategy.

In my mind, the opportunity for the attacking team to counter in such a game might be rare, but still should be exploited when an opportunity arises. I would maintain that the ‘risk’ of over-committing (and the opposition doing a ‘counter-counter’ as you say) would be outweighed by the ‘reward’ of scoring a goal in such a game where good chances might well be hard to come by. I agree that the ‘counter-counter’ game is deadly in this version, but it should also be able to be used by the attacking team. That is, the defending team in my example is likely to be playing a counter strategy, and so looking to hit me on the counter if the chance arises. But I still maintain that if I stop this counter attack (ie by winning the ball back/intercepting etc) and by doing so create an opportunity to ‘counter’ myself, then my team should absolutely exploit that opportunity itself and not respond unrealistically by playing keep ball when they could go for the throat.

As I write this I realize that I could play the way I am suggesting by selecting the ‘counter’ option myself in the control tactic. But my main point (if I still have one after such a long post!!!) is that I believe it should be ticked as default as I don’t see how it is inconsistent with a control strategy.

Now of course all of this depends on what we accept ticking ‘counter attack’ actually does (which gets us back to the focus of this thread…finally!), as opposed to playing an out and out counter attack tactic. My expectation (and I accept that I may well have this wrong) would be that the effect of ticking counter is that the team plays its normal style as selected (in this case ‘control’), but will take the opportunity to counter if it is clearly ‘on’. Maybe this then leads to another question as to how the team collectively (tactics/style?) and individually (mentality/decisions etc) determines when such a chance is actually ‘on’. I wonder how sophisticated the ME is then in determining the risk VS reward for the counter option. Perhaps it is not very sophisticated (or only so when played with the best teams with high mental attributes for decision making etc) and this is why SI have chosen to leave it unticked in the default.

It would be good to hear some views from SI or a ‘tactics guru’ on this one.

I think that’s enough from me for now!