General strategies: Philosophy

[Tafse]

First of all, let me praise the new addition of the Tactic Creator (TC). I think it is a huge leap in the right direction of making the tactical side of Football Manager more intuitive and "real". I've also had decent success using the TC in all my saves so far, but I should also mention that I almost always play as Liverpool FC. I do not know how I would fare using the TC with a lesser team.

Anyway, I think it's time to discuss something rather important for those of us who are using the TC to set up and tweak our tactics. Mainly because there are some things I have a hard time getting my head around, and I find myself constantly second guessing my tactical decisions, even when beeing relatively successful. I don't think I am the only one.

My main area of confusion relates to the "Philosophy" setting under "General Strategies".

Philosophy is described like this in the game:

The philosophy determines how rigidly the players adhere to their playing positions or to what extent attacking and defending are shared responsibilities.

Rigid philiosophies tend to be preferred by managers who like to dictate every facet of a player's role, whereas fluid philosophies appeal to the more progressive tactician.

The TC gives us five different Philosophies to choose from: Very Rigid - Rigid - Balanced - Fluid - Very Fluid. Each philosophy affects the individual player settings of mentality, creative freedom and to some extent, closing down in different ways. A more rigid philosophy will apply less aggressive values for these settings. But at the same time, we have the option to play more or less attacking and with more or less creative freedom. So how do we decide what is the most suitable philosophy for any given team, and/or under any given situation?

It would make sense to assume that less talented teams could do well with more rigid philosophies. However, in TT'10, Sir Alex Ferguson's Man Utd is equated as a team playing with a rigid philosophy, but with more creative freedom and more roaming for the forward players. The upside to this is that the team will be difficult to break down and able to grind out a result when needed, and at the same time able to play fantastic attacking football. If this is true, then why should we choose anything different (granted we have decently skilled players)?

- Wouldn't Rigid with more creative freedom provide the best of both worlds - a solid defense and attacking potency?

- Why, and under what circumstances, should we choose something different from this?

- Is there any situation where Very Fluid with less creative freedom and less roaming would be advisable?

I also wonder if it would be benefical for the team to stick with one Philosophy, so that the players get familiar with their roles and understand each others positons on the field? I don't know if there's a definitive answer to this, but one could argue that constantly changing Philosophy will upset the balance of the team and have an adverse effect on the players' ability to play like a unit. On the other hand, one could argue that an ingame change of Philosophy from Rigid to Balanced or even Fluid - with no other tweaks - will provide more options in attack if things need to be shaken up a bit.

And how do we fit Match Strategy - how defensive and attacking the tactics are - into all this? If things need to be shaken up in the pursuit of a goal, would it be more advisable to change strategy from like Standard to Control or Attacking without changing Philosophy? Changing both might be too much of a wholesale change for the team and might actually be counter productive?

As you can see I'm very confused about this and always keep second guessing myself. But maybe that's the way it is intended to be because a real life manager will always face multiple choices during a match? Even so, I would be interested in hearing what you all think of this and why you make certain changes or apply or prefer a certain Philosophy.

[Tafse]

Wow. Obviously not a topic of much interest. Surprising.

[dz47]

i have been thinking about philosophy as being fundamentally tied to the way the manager prefers their team to play in a broad sense. From that point, i think you can only have one philosphy which you deem to be the 'best' way to play. If you read much about real life managers and their footballing philosophies, it always comes across as defining how their teams play. This still allows some room for making changes within a philosophy (but without changing the overall philosophy) such as creative freedom, tempo, passing etc. That is they may tinker or experiment and make changes in particular areas, but their overall philosophy will stay the same. Your example of Ferguson is a good one, in that while he has always had sides that play attacking, agressive football; he has also balanced this with an equally strong focus on defence.

I think the more rigid philosophies could probably be very effective when mixed with apprpriate levels of creative freedom.

[Justified]

I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to rigid systems and then higher CF further up the field. I can't think further back enough where I didn't play like this. In FM09 I played 4-2-3-1 mostly with a rigid system with high CF wingers. In FM08 I played with a Nike system defence (Rule of One) and a fluid midfield with one striker. The theory there was just what you have posted, a system which uses both a rigid system and a fluid system but the striker told to do "his job" so to speak. The whole thing with Rigid is that you're "telling" your player what his role is in the team. If you then give high CF he'll most likely disobey but high CF in the right areas (something more fluid) you'll see some results.

I can't for the life of me think further back then that. IIRC I did play mostly with a rigid 4-3-3 back in FM07 as well. Time does go too quick doesn't it

[phnompenhandy]

You raise a very good point. I've been struggling to see what the difference is between philosophy and team creative freedom.

I've created a 10-tier structure and am managing in tier 10 at the moment. In previous (pre-comp editor) games I've always used high CF but with a team where many players have decisions 1 and none are into double-digits, I dare not give CF and nudge above balanced philosophy (indeed almost always rigid).

But here is an associated question - should the philosophy be related to the league standard? I mean should I think 'rigid, low CF' because the players' footballing intelligence is low according to a global standard, or should I think 'higher CF, more fluid' if the team's intelligence is good compared to the amateur sides we play in the league?

[Tafse]

i have been thinking about philosophy as being fundamentally tied to the way the manager prefers their team to play in a broad sense. From that point, i think you can only have one philosphy which you deem to be the 'best' way to play. If you read much about real life managers and their footballing philosophies, it always comes across as defining how their teams play.

Surely that is the case in real life. But does it apply to the game? Does it make any difference if we change the Philosophy like we keep changing Match Strategy to suit the opponent? If I play away at Old Trafford, I might do well with a more Rigid approach, but when I'm at home at Anfield next week against Hull I might do well with a more fluid system?

[Tafse]

I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to rigid systems and then higher CF further up the field. I can't think further back enough where I didn't play like this. In FM09 I played 4-2-3-1 mostly with a rigid system with high CF wingers. In FM08 I played with a Nike system defence (Rule of One) and a fluid midfield with one striker. The theory there was just what you have posted, a system which uses both a rigid system and a fluid system but the striker told to do "his job" so to speak. The whole thing with Rigid is that you're "telling" your player what his role is in the team. If you then give high CF he'll most likely disobey but high CF in the right areas (something more fluid) you'll see some results.

I can't for the life of me think further back then that. IIRC I did play mostly with a rigid 4-3-3 back in FM07 as well. Time does go too quick doesn't it

Yes, a Rigid Philosophy + more creative freedom and roaming for the attacking players might to be the way to go. It seems to provide the best of both, a solid defensve and a sparkling attack. At least, that's what it reads on the tin.

[dz47]

Surely that is the case in real life. But does it apply to the game? Does it make any difference if we change the Philosophy like we keep changing Match Strategy to suit the opponent? If I play away at Old Trafford, I might do well with a more Rigid approach, but when I'm at home at Anfield next week against Hull I might do well with a more fluid system?

well yeah, this probably does apply more specifically in real life, but i think there is still some FM relevence. I don't have a definitive answer, but i would think that changing philosophy would have some sort of detrimental effect on performance, and moreseo the more extreme your change (ie from rigid to very fluid). I think that philosophy is assigning players different roles in terms of defense, transition and attack, and changing these dramatically i would think would have an impact. As for your example of making changes according to the specific game situation, i think this can be achieved better by changing the playing strategy and roles rather than philosophy. But like i said, this is only my opinion, though i do think there is some inherent logic in it.

[Tafse]

You raise a very good point. I've been struggling to see what the difference is between philosophy and team creative freedom.

I think it is a very relevant and interesting topic. Philosophy certainly affects the creative freedom for the hole team, generally giving less freedom in a more rigid environment, and obviously more expressive in a fluid one. However, Philosophy also affect the mentality framework of the team.

A "Balanced" Philosophy roughly equates the mentality framework of the good old "role theory" in TTF'09. A "Very Rigid" Philosphy roughly equates the much approved "Rule of One" system. "Fluid" is the old "5x5" approach, and so on. Point is however, a change in Philosophy from a rigid to a more fluid system during a match, will probably have a bigger impact than a change in Match Strategy from let's say Standard to Control or from Control to Attacking. Or will it not?

[Tafse]

well yeah, this probably does apply more specifically in real life, but i think there is still some FM relevence. I don't have a definitive answer, but i would think that changing philosophy would have some sort of detrimental effect on performance, and moreseo the more extreme your change (ie from rigid to very fluid).

This is actually what I tend to believe myself, but at the same time I keep second-guessing myself. Perhaps it is best to just decide on a specific Philosophy and then stick with it? It would make sense to assume that settling on a certain Philosophy - or style of play if you like - would prove benefical to the team and improve the players' ability to perform as a unit.

I think that philosophy is assigning players different roles in terms of defense, transition and attack, and changing these dramatically i would think would have an impact. As for your example of making changes according to the specific game situation, i think this can be achieved better by changing the playing strategy and roles rather than philosophy. But like i said, this is only my opinion, though i do think there is some inherent logic in it.

Maybe you are right, and there certainly is some logic to it.

[dz47]

This is actually what I tend to believe myself, but at the same time I keep second-guessing myself. Perhaps it is best to just decide on a specific Philosophy and then stick with it? It would make sense to assume that settling on a certain Philosophy - or style of play if you like - would prove benefical to the team and improve the players' ability to perform as a unit.

Maybe you are right, and there certainly is some logic to it.

don't worry, i tend to 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th guess myself!!! As a result i never get as far into this damn game as i want to!!!

But i definitely do think that having a stable philosophy is beneficial.