Questionable formations, massive success

[Ackter]

Who was the last creative #10 that was actually successful? Riquelme had one good season iirc, and he was all technique and creativity.

[wwfan]

If you had played football, you would know that defenders are taught to hold up, or 'jockey' these players rather than diving in with challenges because they have no problem with it.

Wow! So which world class creative forwards have you been trained to play against?

[pauly1616]

Well you see.. usually.. we teach defensive technique from about 10 years old... nobody explains to Nesta this new technique for dealing with #10's on the eve he comes up against Bergkamp.

Death of the #10 in England has nothing to do with anything physical. Not really relevant to the primary discussion but it just shows your ignorance on a new and fluffier level.

[BiggusD]

The funny thing about this thread is how wwfan and pauly1616 doesn't actually disagree on anything but still manage to argue about it.

Both of you completely agree that playing two outright strikers is actually quite rare in modern football.

Firstly, you agree that the "Trequartista" - essentially a forward staying away from defenders in order to be available for a pass at all times, thus not working for his team at all - is gone from modern football. The reason such a player doesn't function well in modern football is of course -both- that there is less space for him to move in and less time to do magic with the ball, -and- that the modern football requires all 10 outfield players to work defensively. So you're both right.

Secondly, this thread started out as an argument on strange formations in FM. The 4-2-3-1 deep formation is perfectly reasonable both in the game and in real life because if you want your attacking midfielder to have plenty of space to move in (like a Trequartista) you can't fill it with your midfielders. Whether those two deep midfielders are represented as central midfielders dropping deep or defensive midfielders pushing up is pure semantics! Also, whether you represent that attacking midfielder as a striker dropping deep or a midfielder pushing up is exactly the same. ALSO, whether you represent those wingers as wingers cutting inside, or attacking midfielders moving out wide is exactly the same.

Stop arguing that the "starting formation" means anything.

[wwfan]

OK. I'll accept that one of the books, articles or manuals I've read on football tactics have any truth in them at all. All the observations I've made that support their arguments just relate to my own bias. Your own theoretical contribution to the field is obviously perfect and beyond reproach.

Likewise, your understanding of the how the sliders, mentality and the ME work is far beyond mine. Mainly because you've played more football than I have. Especially top flight football.

My own contribution to football theory was simply adapting the actual theory dominant in real world tactical debate to FM. I don't actually come up with any football theory. I just read people who have and repeat it here, alongside interpreting it into slider combinations within FM. As I've obviously been reading all the wrong people, please let me know when your own book on football theory is being published so I can replace all of the flawed theories with the correct ones. Thanks in advance.

[wwfan]

Firstly, you agree that the "Trequartista" - essentially a forward staying away from defenders in order to be available for a pass at all times, thus not working for his team at all - is gone from modern football. The reason such a player doesn't function well in modern football is of course -both- that there is less space for him to move in and less time to do magic with the ball, -and- that the modern football requires all 10 outfield players to work defensively. So you're both right.

As far as I can tell, Pauly's arguing the opposite. If he is saying this, then I agree completely.

Secondly, this thread started out as an argument on strange formations in FM. The 4-2-3-1 deep formation is perfectly reasonable both in the game and in real life because if you want your attacking midfielder to have plenty of space to move in (like a Trequartista) you can't fill it with your midfielders. Whether those two deep midfielders are represented as central midfielders dropping deep or defensive midfielders pushing up is pure semantics! Also, whether you represent that attacking midfielder as a striker dropping deep or a midfielder pushing up is exactly the same. ALSO, whether you represent those wingers as wingers cutting inside, or attacking midfielders moving out wide is exactly the same.

Sort of. I would contend there is a different between playing two players you want to control the game from a deeper position and two that you want to get stuck into a central midfield battle. In FM terms, that is the difference between a 4-2-3-1 Deep and a 4-2-3-1. Pauly believes the former is not possible as he thinks it would result in a 30-yard gap between midfielders, a notion that is clearly nonsensical in reality and in FM.

[pauly1616]

Mancini wrote a now famous article on the role a few years ago when Baggio was at Brescia- here is the first page with some translations:

First column:

In football culture the trequartista has clearly defined qualities:

excellent capacity to "un-mark" himself

great technical foundation and technical application

unpredictability

natural ability to put attackers through on goal in various ways

predisposition to dribbling

not much care to defend

the next column is titled: historical notes

lines 3-4 read:

in the 90's the role was in crisis, often coaches sacrificed the #10 for reasons of necessity to protect the side's balance. it is difficult to understand if these decisions were theoretical or because of the lack of talented players. In recent years however the role has seen a "return to flame", many teams are built around a trequartista for example brescia and juventus.

the role has undertaken a decisive evolution. Players like zidane, rui costa, rivaldo are very different to their colleagues of the past. they have undisputed technical quality but also not-indifferent physical qualities which allows them to take part more actively in the phase retrieving the ball.

and he goes on to say some nonsense that may support wwfan which i won't translate! enjoy.

[cemendur88]

Zidane, ui Costa et all are hardlly modern football. The way the game is played has changed since their days. The Trequarista role is dying out in Europe, only really remains strong in Argentina where it is almost worshipped.

[Shake Appeal]

No useful system is rigidly exactly how the players are laid out on the tactics screen.

Exactly. And there is nothing weird about that 4-2-3-1. In fact, I think the game has a default tactic 4-2-3-1 Deep that is exactly that.

[pauly1616]

Exactly. And there is nothing weird about that 4-2-3-1. In fact, I think the game has a default tactic 4-2-3-1 Deep that is exactly that.

sky sports pre-game gibberish have poisoned your mind. marcello lippi would projectile vomit if he saw 5-0 express on his chalkboard.

[cemendur88]

To back up the point about the trequartista are not very common in Europe anymore, and that there are no more players who fill the roles of Zindane and Rui Costa, here is a good article on the matter:

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/26/trequartista-engance-classic-no-10sstruggle/

[pauly1616]

Dear slowest guy of the year,

nobody is debating whether there is or isn't a downturn in the amount of #10's. wwfan is saying it is because they can't perform due to space restrictions/pressing. I am saying teams cannot support one because of the amount of teams playing with more players in midfield.

[Shake Appeal]

What will it take for you to realize that what is shown on the tactics screen doesn't actually represent where the players will play during a game? I mean, there's an 'average positions' view in the match analysis for precisely this reason.

[The Welsh Lad]

It 4-2-3-1 with DMs does exist we used it on the weekend, with one DM with more of an anchor man style and the other more in the deep lying playmaker role so when in posession hes looking to pass to either the full-backs who where going forward or if space through the middle to our AMC or if the opposition defensive line is pushed up a ball over the top for our ST, WINGERS to run onto.

Just because you haven't played in the formation or against it does not mean it does not exist.

[milnerpoint]

and he goes on to say some nonsense that may support wwfan which i won't translate! enjoy.

Ah so we are dismissing anything that goes against what you are saying, and only focusing on any points that prove your point yes?

[wwfan]

It's obviously both. Pressing, fit, zonal marking defences came first, which reduced the influence of TQs, as there was less space in the final third than previously. Consequently, different formations that had the creators in different positions (i.e. where the space is) evolved, further reducing the possibility of a classic 10 from being able to play effectively as there is also an opposing player always in the space he's trying to find.

The 4-2-3-1 Deep is symptomatic of that turn. The two holding midfielders sit deep and protect the 3/4 space. Further, their AMs can drop deep into the space in front of them and create from there.

[pauly1616]

What will it take for you to realize that what is shown on the tactics screen doesn't actually represent where the players will play during a game? I mean, there's an 'average positions' view in the match analysis for precisely this reason.

... well wouldn't that depend entirely on how strict you are as a coach?

If you put creative freedom down, and "rigidity" up, wouldn't you expect them to?

What I was complaining about, was in the formation above, where Italy won the euro without looking, and scotland just walked into the finals with a 5-0 win over turkey:

a) front 4 are set to 19+ pressing

b) DMC's are set to "own half" pressing"

c) team strategy is set to "rigid"

d) creative freedom is: front 4: 18+, DMC's 7-10.

If that is not the condition for, or the instruction to, make a 30 yard gap, I don't know what is. It makes absolutely no sense to ask 4 players to press alone and 2 DMC's to sit off like that. Yet, here I am surfing the internet while scotland are smashing goal after goal past turkey.

[Shake Appeal]

Simple question: when you were watching Scotland smash goal after goal past Turkey, did you actually watch the game at all to see where your DMs were playing? Did you check if there actually is a 30-yard gap between your two groups of players? Spoiler warning: there isn't.

And if you don't understand the sense in having the front players aggressively press high up the field while one or two other players sit deep ready to chase down loose balls and redistribute them to a team already well-placed to attack, I would have to ask... have you never watched Barcelona play these past few years?

[pauly1616]

It 4-2-3-1 with DMs does exist we used it on the weekend, with one DM with more of an anchor man style and the other more in the deep lying playmaker role so when in posession hes looking to pass to either the full-backs who where going forward or if space through the middle to our AMC or if the opposition defensive line is pushed up a ball over the top for our ST, WINGERS to run onto.

Just because you haven't played in the formation or against it does not mean it does not exist.

a) does your team press?

if yes, answer question b), if no, move on to d)

b) was your coach hit by a large 2x4?

if yes, more on to question c), if no, d)

c) have you handed in a transfer request?

d) well what is his story?

[pauly1616]

Simple question: when you were watching Scotland smash goal after goal past Turkey, did you actually watch the game at all to see where your DMs were playing? Did you check if there actually is a 30-yard gap between your two groups of players? Spoiler warning: there isn't.

perhaps you fail to understand what I'm saying. THIS INSTRUCTION:

a) front 4 are set to 19+ pressing

b) DMC's are set to "own half" pressing"

c) team strategy is set to "rigid"

d) creative freedom is: front 4: 18+, DMC's 7-10.

should result in a 30 yard gap. Not CRUSHING CRUSHING SCOTLAND WINS

[Shake Appeal]

Leave aside "should result" for the moment. Does the fact that it doesn't result in a 30-yard gap not suggest to you that maybe you don't understand the sliders and what they actually do?

[The Welsh Lad]

When we loss the ball, our attacking players drop back to around the half to compact the space and press the players in possesion. the tactic is doing use well so far

[wwfan]

perhaps you fail to understand what I'm saying. THIS INSTRUCTION:

should result in a 30 yard gap. Not CRUSHING CRUSHING SCOTLAND WINS

Why? It is your slider interpretation only. No coach has ever said to a player, 'right, your creative freedom is 18, your pressing 19 and you must rigidly stick to these instructions'. Don't you think it might be your slider translations at fault here?

[Cougar2010]

... well wouldn't that depend entirely on how strict you are as a coach?

If you put creative freedom down, and "rigidity" up, wouldn't you expect them to?

What I was complaining about, was in the formation above, where Italy won the euro without looking, and scotland just walked into the finals with a 5-0 win over turkey:

a) front 4 are set to 19+ pressing

b) DMC's are set to "own half" pressing"

c) team strategy is set to "rigid"

d) creative freedom is: front 4: 18+, DMC's 7-10.

If that is not the condition for, or the instruction to, make a 30 yard gap, I don't know what is. It makes absolutely no sense to ask 4 players to press alone and 2 DMC's to sit off like that. Yet, here I am surfing the internet while scotland are smashing goal after goal past turkey.

You were told yesterday why there wouldn't be a 30 yard gap, you were told other things have an input into a players position not just pressing and yet again you've chosen to ignore those points

Reading your other posts its clear this discussion isn't going anywhere much like discussions in the past as you're incapable of listening to anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion.

You talk about wanting to improve the game and take it forward but really all you want to do is shape it to your own vision.

[Shake Appeal]

I can't imagine the steam that's going to come out of pauly's ears when he finds out a 4-4-2 diamond with AMC, DMC, ML, and MR doesn't result in a thirty-yard diameter dead zone in the middle of the pitch.

[pauly1616]

Why? It is your slider interpretation only. No coach has ever said to a player, 'right, your creative freedom is 18, your pressing 19 and you must rigidly stick to these instructions'. Don't you think it might be your slider translations at fault here?

what the hell!?

So what does it mean when I give the DMC 7-10 for creative freedom, and press in own half? can we establish this first before I go on.

[pauly1616]

oh, and before you pull out the amazingly predictable "it means nothing on it's own"

mentalty of DMC's; 5-6, mentality of attacking 4: 18-20

[wwfan]

what the hell!?

So what does it mean when I give the DMC 7-10 for creative freedom, and press in own half? can we establish this first before I go on.

It is dependent on the other instructions he has. For example, one of the things that DMC playmakers will do is try to remain behind the attacking players but in a position he is supporting the attack. An Anchor will hold behind him. If the attack loses the ball, the opposition will have three layers of player to go through. Further, if the FBS have Run from Deep set, they will invariably be in the 2nd line of midfield as well, meaning they can too close down any immediate break.

It is far more fluid that you are giving it credit for, even with a 'rigid' philosophy (which it isn't anyway given the creative freedom of the front players).

[Shake Appeal]

I mean screaming about how it's a 'rigid' philosophy when all the sliders are apparently ticked and set independently is kind of wild to me.

[The Welsh Lad]

And I just rememeber Man City played 4-2-3-1 against spurs with barry and yaya toure played the holding roles while the front 4 had license to attack

[wwfan]

oh, and before you pull out the amazingly predictable "it means nothing on it's own"

mentalty of DMC's; 5-6, mentality of attacking 4: 18-20

Now I will start agreeing with you that it is not a realistic tactic and that the creator is probably trying to exploit the ME. It sounds similar to BiggusD's 4-2-4, which also succeeds by keeping six players deep and booting the ball forward to the attackers. In this situation, it will look strange, but it is more to do with the mentality split that the formation employed.

[pauly1616]

It is dependent on the other instructions he has. For example, one of the things that DMC playmakers will do is try to remain behind the attacking players but in a position he is supporting the attack. An Anchor will hold behind him. If the attack loses the ball, the opposition will have three layers of player to go through. Further, if the FBS have Run from Deep set, they will invariably be in the 2nd line of midfield as well, meaning they can too close down any immediate break.

It is far more fluid that you are giving it credit for, even with a 'rigid' philosophy (which it isn't anyway given the creative freedom of the front players).

Right. So, explain to me how I am supposed to understand this.

The two DMC's, have mentality set for between 6 and 10.

They have pressing set to "own half"

They have low creative freedom

The AMC has a mentality of 20/20 attack

He has about 17/20 pressing "whole pitch"

The striker has 20/20 mentality and 20/20 pressing

the AML/AMR have about 18 pressing and 17/20 mentality.

How can it be possible, that I am not instructing these players to widen the already big gap between themselves rather than diminish it?

How can it be possible that I am askign 4 players to press the opposition defence, then effectively leaving them 4 free midfielders to pass to. and winning by huge huge margins without trying?

[wwfan]

Basically, all you are doing is taking a finely tuned tactic that exploits an ME weakness and illustrating that it exploits the weakness. Is not the formation that is the issue, rather the FWR / mentality splits.

My own position is such a tactical shouldn't be possible to build, as it is akin to the manager telling his forwards that the match strategy is to push for goals and the defence that, if the team does attack, it will be on the counter and that defence is priority one. With some really fine tuning, these tactics do quite well and help teams overachieve.

[bieritarier]

Don't worry about what he says, as it is complete nonsense. The 4-2-3-1 deep is a completely standard modern football formation, as anyone who knows an ounce of tactical theory would recognise.

This. The "double 6" is a pretty common formation these days- be it with 2 wingers, an attacking mit and a striker or two wings and 2 strikers. Bayern Munich officially plays that way, as does the German national team. Tactically the DMCs act like a DMC and MC hybrid, generally with one being more of a deep lying playmaker (in the examples Schweinsteiger) and a more defensive minded counterpart (Tymoschuk, Khedira). Can play in variations (e.g. with Kroos in the lineup). There are certainly a lot more examples but tese are the ones most familiar to me.

I think we can agree that some positions generally work better than others in FM. I for one don't play with DMCs as I'm in my 10th season and don't have natural DMCs that are good enough. My central mids generally perform quite well though, at least on the offensive end (well, not scoring a lot but quite a few assists).

I just don't understnad why a gap between AMC and DMC should be any worse than a gap between MC and DC.

One thing I do agree with is that the formation with 2 wingers and two wide mids should not result in good performances. It is, I believe a recognized weakness of the ME that wide mids play like full backs in a formation with three central defenders.

[crouchaldinho]

Playing multiplay one of our opponents has "thought up" this inventive "football formation":

..................GK..................

RB.........CB........CB.........LB

............DMC....DMC...........

.......................................

.......................................

AMR...........AMC...........AML

..................ST.................

What's wrong with this formation? :confused:

[crouchaldinho]

There are very few people who, over the years, have proved to me that it's worth listening to everything they say. wwfan is one of them.

Amen!

[pauly1616]

Basically, all you are doing is taking a finely tuned tactic that exploits an ME weakness and illustrating that it exploits the weakness. Is not the formation that is the issue, rather the FWR / mentality splits.

My own position is such a tactical shouldn't be possible to build, as it is akin to the manager telling his forwards that the match strategy is to push for goals and the defence that, if the team does attack, it will be on the counter and that defence is priority one. With some really fine tuning, these tactics do quite well and help teams overachieve.

No, I am trying to do more than that. What I am trying to say, is that a "pressing 4231" like Barca play, should not be be represented in this way (and you would be correct in saying that it is not. In my view, it is an exploit of the match engine to set up in this double DMC way, press, leave the defenders back and see it work).

Anyway- the more general idea I am getting at, is why does it work?

possible explanations- to exploit this type of formation, MC's would need to be strong, and long shots would need to work better, which in this version, neither are.

or secondly, and what I think is far more likely and far more damning for.. not the match engine, but the system we have to interact with it- that the sliders don't do what we ask them to:

take this screen from "match analysis", it is the AMC with 20/20 attacking mentality, and 18/20 pressing. How is it, that someone on those settings, in a 5-0 win, who has a work rate of 12 and team work of 13, takes up the following average position:

[Guest aaron70]

As for your results, I just cant get the same success as you.

Still, you did provide a highlight when you suggested you know Ferguson's tactics better than him and because you are the only person on this whole forum to have ever played (must be true) you know the game so much better.

You are being to arrogant and too dismissive of many good arguments.

[whilewolf]

Pauly has raised a reasonable question.

"The two DMC's, have mentality set for between 6 and 10.

They have pressing set to "own half"

They have low creative freedom"

That's telling the DMs to sit in front of the defense and wait for the opposition to come to them before trying to win the ball back is it not?

"The AMC has a mentality of 20/20 attack

He has about 17/20 pressing "whole pitch"

The striker has 20/20 mentality and 20/20 pressing

the AML/AMR have about 18 pressing and 17/20 mentality."

That's telling the attack to play high up the pitch and look to win the ball back as quickly as possible from the opposition defenders once they have lost it. Isn't it?

Now if both those things happen there will be a gap where the opposition midfielders can receive the ball under no pressure and mount a counter. So whats happening. Are the sliders not doing what they seem to suggest? or are they doing what they suggest but for some reason there isn't a significant advantage for the opposition when they receive the ball unmarked in the middle of the pitch?

[Cougar2010]

Pauly has raised a reasonable question.

"The two DMC's, have mentality set for between 6 and 10.

They have pressing set to "own half"

They have low creative freedom"

That's telling the DMs to sit in front of the defense and wait for the opposition to come to them before trying to win the ball back is it not?

"The AMC has a mentality of 20/20 attack

He has about 17/20 pressing "whole pitch"

The striker has 20/20 mentality and 20/20 pressing

the AML/AMR have about 18 pressing and 17/20 mentality."

That's telling the attack to play high up the pitch and look to win the ball back as quickly as possible from the opposition defenders once they have lost it. Isn't it?

Now if both those things happen there will be a gap where the opposition midfielders can receive the ball under no pressure and mount a counter. So whats happening. Are the sliders not doing what they seem to suggest? or are they doing what they suggest but for some reason there isn't a significant advantage for the opposition when they receive the ball unmarked in the middle of the pitch?

You are only asking half a question though.

What are the other team settings, player settings and OIs?

You can only reach a conclusion once you have all the information unfortunately pauly chooses to base his conclusion only on the parts that suit his argument ignoring the rest.

[milnerpoint]

players are not robots that stand on one spot and stay there the whole game, with the fleck example, the reason his average position is centre mid is because that is where the space is, there is no point at all in him standing 20 yards further forward completely surrounded and uninvolved in the game. Naturally players will find space and utilize it.

[whilewolf]

the only things I can think of that would stop the opposition having an advantage in midfield against pauly's tactic on the counter are one, They are playing the exact same tactic and so there is a big space in the center of the pitch with no one in it. Or two, Their back line is so high that their midfield is pushed up against pauly's DMs.

[crouchaldinho]

the only things I can think of that would stop the opposition having an advantage in midfield against pauly's tactic on the counter are one, They are playing the exact same tactic and so there is a big space in the center of the pitch with no one in it. Or two, Their back line is so high that their midfield is pushed up against pauly's DMs.

What big space in the centre of the pitch?

Did you not see SnakeXe's screenshots earlier in this thread?

Milnerpoint says, 'players are not robots that stand on one spot and stay there the whole game'. They aren't in FM either.

It's plainly obvious that there is no 'big space' in the middle of the pitch. When playing without MCs, the DMs and AMCs fill this imaginary 'gap' depending on the phases of play. The tactics screen is a representation of positioning but not an accurate one. The only thing that really matters is the positioning of the players in the match engine and it's plain to see that there is no 'big space in the centre of the pitch' when playing 4-2-3-1 deep.

It seems worth posting SnakeXe's images again because people seem to be missing the point. This is his 4-2-3-1 deep during play and there is no big gap in the middle of the pitch.

[pauly1616]

crouch- as I said, I'm not arguing that there isn't.

I'll say it plainly-

there is no gap in the ME's representation of the above instructions. That is not my problem. I am saying that with those settings, there should be. otherwise the instructions make no sense

[whilewolf]

Then the players aren't doing what the sliders are telling them to do because if they were any time his attack lost possession in the opposition third there would be considerable space between his attacking 4 who would be aggressively hunting for the ball high up the pitch and his defensive six who would be sitting deeper.

[afced7]

Unless the players have individual instructions

[crouchaldinho]

Well, first of all, doesn't closing down work as a 'radius' instruction (i.e. all over the pitch). Therefore, you wouldn't be instructing the attacking players solely to press high but to close down the ball all over the pitch, thus surely encouraging the AM to 'track back', no? With high closing down settings, the AM isn't going to just sit high up the pitch and not close the ball down when in the defensive phase with the DMs shielding the back four.

Now, the second thought I have is that I'm pretty sure there is some feature in the match engine to account for the fact that, by employing a formation such as the 4-2-3-1 deep, you are not using the MC strata. It is traditional for a football pitch to be separated into four bands, of course, and I believe that this is how the ME translates such a formation into its representation. This is why you see, from the screenshots above, that the DMs and AM in SnakeXe's pictures, stay in communication with each other almost as if the MC band doesn't exist. You notice, when playing this formation, that it is typical for the DMs to shield the defence in the defensive phase whilst the AM slots into almost an MC position. Also, in the attacking phase, the DMs can look as though they have 'shifted' to the MC slot whilst the AM positions himself in the AM strata. This is my observation anyway and I'm pretty sure I had this confirmed by someone from SI at some point in the past.

Ultimately, what I'm suggesting by this is that the 'gap' between AM and DM stratas does not exist in this way. It wouldn't make any sense if it did exist either. When using this formation, I tend to think that the MC strata does not exist, and that there are four bands represented by the ME. This would seem to be represented quite well in SnakeXe's screenshots. Therefore, the fact that they are DMs and AMs, with no MCs, would seem to be irrelevant.

I hope that makes sense.

[whilewolf]

I believe you are right and pressing is a radius instructing. So yes the AMs should track back once possession is lost.

Now an important question is what type of Marking is Pauly using? If its man marking /tight marking it makes sense that they rush back to mark their man and the gap is closed as soon as he losses possession. If its zonal I have more of a problem shouldn't more then one attacking player then be pressing the ball that surly should leave some one free in the middle.

I still think automatically added farrows and barrows on the tactics screen would clear a lot of this confusion up and give a better indication of the effects of tinkering with the sliders.

[pauly1616]

I will post a more lengthy response later, however my initial reaction to backwards pressing is amusement. How many encyclopedias am I supposed to be holding when I interpret these relatively well-founded football terms? And secondly, how far into insanity do things have to go before people will stop defending them, stand up and admit the game may have a problem in the way it communicates your options to you. It is utterly, utterly counter-intuitive.

Also, Zonal marking. cheers!

[0gris]

8 Pages and still not given up?

I admire your tenacity, though you are so hypocritical it hurts.