Tactical Theorems and Frameworks '07

[jorisvanhulst]

Well I've been trying to create a succesful 4-3-3 forever, and one of the things that bother me, is that the wingers defend too much. They'll end up defending the fullbacks, even when they go over the middelline, even when I set closing down to 3. Not saying that they don't have defensive duties, but I don't want them to go back all the way..

[PaulC]

Originally posted by Ans Gulrik:

I'm not saying that the engine isn't better than FM06. What I am saying is that you control less. There are certain ways of playing, that you simply can not instruct your players to play.

For all the good things that has happened, surely this is not one of them. You can not play with out and out wingers. You can't tell a winger: "Listen - you don't have any defensive duties. You just wait for your team mates to win the ball, and then you can concentrate on attacking." The only way for this to work is to make the winger play as a forward - and that seems a bit odd - doesn't it?

Anyway - this is a bit off topic...

Its probably worth me posting here that the 7.0.1 engine will have a bit more sensitivity in terms of the mentality instruction - in that the differences positionally of each end of the scale will be more profound. I think this gives a fair bit more control......

[wwfan]

Originally posted by jorisvanhulst:

Well I've been trying to create a succesful 4-3-3 forever, and one of the things that bother me, is that the wingers defend too much. They'll end up defending the fullbacks, even when they go over the middelline, even when I set closing down to 3. Not saying that they don't have defensive duties, but I don't want them to go back all the way..

Try them on high mentality (16ish) and high closing down (18-20). That way they should close down up the pitch and only drop back to cover overlaps from the full-back. CD of 3 will make them retreat and stay behind the ball.

[wwfan]

Originally posted by PaulC:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ans Gulrik:

I'm not saying that the engine isn't better than FM06. What I am saying is that you control less. There are certain ways of playing, that you simply can not instruct your players to play.

For all the good things that has happened, surely this is not one of them. You can not play with out and out wingers. You can't tell a winger: "Listen - you don't have any defensive duties. You just wait for your team mates to win the ball, and then you can concentrate on attacking." The only way for this to work is to make the winger play as a forward - and that seems a bit odd - doesn't it?

Anyway - this is a bit off topic...

Its probably worth me posting here that the 7.0.1 engine will have a bit more sensitivity in terms of the mentality instruction - in that the differences positionally of each end of the scale will be more profound. I think this gives a fair bit more control...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that means I'm going to have to get my thinking cap on again with regards to my split mentality theories. Thanks, I think!

[jorisvanhulst]

Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jorisvanhulst:

Well I've been trying to create a succesful 4-3-3 forever, and one of the things that bother me, is that the wingers defend too much. They'll end up defending the fullbacks, even when they go over the middelline, even when I set closing down to 3. Not saying that they don't have defensive duties, but I don't want them to go back all the way..

Try them on high mentality (16ish) and high closing down (18-20). That way they should close down up the pitch and only drop back to cover overlaps from the full-back. CD of 3 will make them retreat and stay behind the ball. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm never thought about it that way.. I'll try this in my next few matches! I always thought of the 'vicious circle' in which players run after the ball. I was afraid high closing down might pull them back to the midfield too much, closing the ball down there.

[wwfan]

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

Or you could barrow your fullbacks too to stop them balls. Thats what I had to revert too, as I didn't want my players closing down heavily due to them being out of place I had my strikers close down heavily instead and they seemed to hassle the fullbacks thank god, or id have been screwed

[wwfan]

Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

Or you could barrow your fullbacks too to stop them balls. Thats what I had to revert too, as I didn't want my players closing down heavily due to them being out of place I had my strikers close down heavily instead and they seemed to hassle the fullbacks thank god, or id have been screwed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't tried that. I don't mind the high CD for wingers, as I'm playing with a tall TM, which gives them time to get out of defensive positions and ready for the counter when I win possession. I would have to rethink things heavily if I was trying to play slow, short passing down the flanks, as they will often be too close to their opposite numbers to receive passes early enough to launch counter-attacks.

[Guest Rafalution]

Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

I agree completely. I always have my wingers/outer strikers close down heavily. Sometimes I even have them man mark the opposition's full backs.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

Or you could barrow your fullbacks too to stop them balls. Thats what I had to revert too, as I didn't want my players closing down heavily due to them being out of place I had my strikers close down heavily instead and they seemed to hassle the fullbacks thank god, or id have been screwed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't tried that. I don't mind the high CD for wingers, as I'm playing with a tall TM, which gives them time to get out of defensive positions and ready for the counter when I win possession. I would have to rethink things heavily if I was trying to play slow, short passing down the flanks, as they will often be too close to their opposite numbers to receive passes early enough to launch counter-attacks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've scrapped playing down the flanks now, don't ask why lol. But I find it better left mixed or through the middle. Down the flanks only really works when playing wide anyways, and I hate playing wide as it leaves too many gaps. Thats probably cos I use rubbish teams though

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Rafalution:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

I agree completely. I always have my wingers/outer strikers close down heavily. Sometimes I even have them man mark the opposition's full backs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do that from time to time, its really effective.

[wwfan]

Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

Or you could barrow your fullbacks too to stop them balls. Thats what I had to revert too, as I didn't want my players closing down heavily due to them being out of place I had my strikers close down heavily instead and they seemed to hassle the fullbacks thank god, or id have been screwed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't tried that. I don't mind the high CD for wingers, as I'm playing with a tall TM, which gives them time to get out of defensive positions and ready for the counter when I win possession. I would have to rethink things heavily if I was trying to play slow, short passing down the flanks, as they will often be too close to their opposite numbers to receive passes early enough to launch counter-attacks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've scrapped playing down the flanks now, don't ask why lol. But I find it better left mixed or through the middle. Down the flanks only really works when playing wide anyways, and I hate playing wide as it leaves too many gaps. Thats probably cos I use rubbish teams though </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My current theory on down the flanks is that it needs a slow, patient system of play for it to work. Otherwise, the wingers never get far enough forward to reach the balls played to the wings. Cetrainly, Focus Down the Middle and a direct, high tempo system works wonders for me at LLM. However, this leads to contradictions:

a) The manual states that slow, short passing systems need narrow formations to work effectively

b) Slow, short passing systems seem to be required to get the wingers into the right position to allow Focus Passing Down Both Flanks.

c) Narrow formations and Focus Passing Down Both Flanks seems counter-intuitive

It may be that as I use a target man this has skewed my findings and a direct, wide, high tempo system will work with Down Both Flanks. Time will tell.

[jorisvanhulst]

a) The manual states that slow, short passing systems need narrow formations to work effectively

I read this part too, but I think it's mainly about the short part. My current home/away formations are like this:

Home:

- Slow

- Wide

- Long passing

- Focus passing down flanks

Away:

- Quick

- Narrow

- Short passing

- Mixed passing (in terms of flanks/middle)

This has been working really good for me, it's really my starting point for any formation now.

[Ans Gulrik]

Originally posted by PaulC:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ans Gulrik:

I'm not saying that the engine isn't better than FM06. What I am saying is that you control less. There are certain ways of playing, that you simply can not instruct your players to play.

For all the good things that has happened, surely this is not one of them. You can not play with out and out wingers. You can't tell a winger: "Listen - you don't have any defensive duties. You just wait for your team mates to win the ball, and then you can concentrate on attacking." The only way for this to work is to make the winger play as a forward - and that seems a bit odd - doesn't it?

Anyway - this is a bit off topic...

Its probably worth me posting here that the 7.0.1 engine will have a bit more sensitivity in terms of the mentality instruction - in that the differences positionally of each end of the scale will be more profound. I think this gives a fair bit more control...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds great!

[Ans Gulrik]

Originally posted by Rafalution:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ans Gulrik:

For all the good things that has happened, surely this is not one of them. You can not play with out and out wingers. You can't tell a winger: "Listen - you don't have any defensive duties. You just wait for your team mates to win the ball, and then you can concentrate on attacking."

Sorry if this is off the point, by way in the name of far out fishing would you tell a player that he doesn't have any defensive duties? In my book, every player needs to perform some defensive duties for the team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many Latin teams would allow certain creative players not to have defensive duties. The idea is that they don't tire and are ready to exploit the opposition as soon as the team win the ball. It might not be the style you prefer, but there are plenty of examples to suggest that it's effective (apparently at PSG Ronaldinho had been taught he had to participate in defending, and Barcelona had to convince him that they actually meant it when they told him to leave it out) - not to mention that certain players simply don't feel obliged to participate in winning the ball.

I wanted to build an effective 4-3-3, where my wingers were ready to run at the opponents defence as soon as my team won the ball. With PaulC's comments I will wait and try again with the patch.

[wwfan]

Originally posted by Ans Gulrik:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rafalution:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ans Gulrik:

For all the good things that has happened, surely this is not one of them. You can not play with out and out wingers. You can't tell a winger: "Listen - you don't have any defensive duties. You just wait for your team mates to win the ball, and then you can concentrate on attacking."

Sorry if this is off the point, by way in the name of far out fishing would you tell a player that he doesn't have any defensive duties? In my book, every player needs to perform some defensive duties for the team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many Latin teams would allow certain creative players not to have defensive duties. The idea is that they don't tire and are ready to exploit the opposition as soon as the team win the ball. It might not be the style you prefer, but there are plenty of examples to suggest that it's effective (apparently at PSG Ronaldinho had been taught he had to participate in defending, and Barcelona had to convince him that they actually meant it when they told him to leave it out) - not to mention that certain players simply don't feel obliged to participate in winning the ball.

I wanted to build an effective 4-3-3, where my wingers were ready to run at the opponents defence as soon as my team won the ball. With PaulC's comments I will wait and try again with the patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing you could try is to assign them 'free roles'. As I understand it, this informs the player to disregard defensive duties and constantly wander the pitch trying to get into 'best' attacking positions, whether you have the ball or not. I haven't tried it, but it may well work.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ans Gulrik:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rafalution:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ans Gulrik:

For all the good things that has happened, surely this is not one of them. You can not play with out and out wingers. You can't tell a winger: "Listen - you don't have any defensive duties. You just wait for your team mates to win the ball, and then you can concentrate on attacking."

Sorry if this is off the point, by way in the name of far out fishing would you tell a player that he doesn't have any defensive duties? In my book, every player needs to perform some defensive duties for the team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many Latin teams would allow certain creative players not to have defensive duties. The idea is that they don't tire and are ready to exploit the opposition as soon as the team win the ball. It might not be the style you prefer, but there are plenty of examples to suggest that it's effective (apparently at PSG Ronaldinho had been taught he had to participate in defending, and Barcelona had to convince him that they actually meant it when they told him to leave it out) - not to mention that certain players simply don't feel obliged to participate in winning the ball.

I wanted to build an effective 4-3-3, where my wingers were ready to run at the opponents defence as soon as my team won the ball. With PaulC's comments I will wait and try again with the patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing you could try is to assign them 'free roles'. As I understand it, this informs the player to disregard defensive duties and constantly wander the pitch trying to get into 'best' attacking positions, whether you have the ball or not. I haven't tried it, but it may well work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, ive used freeroles and they still seem to defend at times. As I always thought the option was so players can disregard defensive duties

[Ans Gulrik]

Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

Or you could barrow your fullbacks too to stop them balls. Thats what I had to revert too, as I didn't want my players closing down heavily due to them being out of place I had my strikers close down heavily instead and they seemed to hassle the fullbacks thank god, or id have been screwed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't tried that. I don't mind the high CD for wingers, as I'm playing with a tall TM, which gives them time to get out of defensive positions and ready for the counter when I win possession. I would have to rethink things heavily if I was trying to play slow, short passing down the flanks, as they will often be too close to their opposite numbers to receive passes early enough to launch counter-attacks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've scrapped playing down the flanks now, don't ask why lol. But I find it better left mixed or through the middle. Down the flanks only really works when playing wide anyways, and I hate playing wide as it leaves too many gaps. Thats probably cos I use rubbish teams though </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My current theory on down the flanks is that it needs a slow, patient system of play for it to work. Otherwise, the wingers never get far enough forward to reach the balls played to the wings. Cetrainly, Focus Down the Middle and a direct, high tempo system works wonders for me at LLM. However, this leads to contradictions:

a) The manual states that slow, short passing systems need narrow formations to work effectively

b) Slow, short passing systems seem to be required to get the wingers into the right position to allow Focus Passing Down Both Flanks.

c) Narrow formations and Focus Passing Down Both Flanks seems counter-intuitive

It may be that as I use a target man this has skewed my findings and a direct, wide, high tempo system will work with Down Both Flanks. Time will tell. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the last part about the target man is important. My first succesfull tactic(s) in FM07 did not include a target man. I used 4 tactics (Diamond formation: Attack Direct, Focus mixed; Attack Very Direct (for bad pitch conditions); Focus Mixed, and similar direct but defensive formations, Focus down both flanks.)

I did really well, but when I read that the target man was back on, I tried to include it in the tactic, and since then I have struggled to achieve results as good as I did prior to the inclusion of a target man. The target man himself plays really well, but often he win the headers only for the defence to pick up the ball.

I now believe that with or without target man will have to be two different school. In the Premier League my best results are without a target man. It is quite possible that in LLM, you simply can not afford the bonus that the target man seems to get in the air.

[jorisvanhulst]

Originally posted by jorisvanhulst:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">a) The manual states that slow, short passing systems need narrow formations to work effectively

I read this part too, but I think it's mainly about the short part. My current home/away formations are like this:

Home:

- Slow

- Wide

- Long passing

- Focus passing down flanks

Away:

- Quick

- Narrow

- Short passing

- Mixed passing (in terms of flanks/middle)

This has been working really good for me, it's really my starting point for any formation now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may look cocky quoting myself, but anyway: does anyone else have experience with this? For me it's still working really well, and it simply sounds very logical:

When you're playing wide, the players don't stand close to each other. Therefore, you need longer passing to be able to reach those players. There's no need to play quick, because when you play wide, you have much more space in posession. You won't be closed down very fast, therefore you can take the time to look for the best option.

When playing narrow, players are really close to each other, so there won't be any need for long passes. Also, because you play narrow, there is little room when you have posession. Therefore, it's a must to play quick, because otherwise players dwell too long on the ball.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by jorisvanhulst:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jorisvanhulst:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">a) The manual states that slow, short passing systems need narrow formations to work effectively

I read this part too, but I think it's mainly about the short part. My current home/away formations are like this:

Home:

- Slow

- Wide

- Long passing

- Focus passing down flanks

Away:

- Quick

- Narrow

- Short passing

- Mixed passing (in terms of flanks/middle)

This has been working really good for me, it's really my starting point for any formation now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may look cocky quoting myself, but anyway: does anyone else have experience with this? For me it's still working really well, and it simply sounds very logical:

When you're playing wide, the players don't stand close to each other. Therefore, you need longer passing to be able to reach those players. There's no need to play quick, because when you play wide, you have much more space in posession. You won't be closed down very fast, therefore you can take the time to look for the best option.

When playing narrow, players are really close to each other, so there won't be any need for long passes. Also, because you play narrow, there is little room when you have posession. Therefore, it's a must to play quick, because otherwise players dwell too long on the ball. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on id say, pretty logical too. Although depending on how narrows, you can still play a short passing game.

[jorisvanhulst]

Good to have some confirmation about this. It just sounds so logical, I think it's strange that no-one else has come up with it yet. Most people right now have the assumption that direct passing should be used away and short passing at home, which I think isn't necessarily true.

[bluesjunior]

I agree with the logic of this but have found that although previous versions tended to favour short passing. I have had more success with direct passing in FM07.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by bluesjunior:

I agree with the logic of this but have found that although previous versions tended to favour short passing. I have had more success with direct passing in FM07.

Same actually, but I think thats because of the shape of my formations. At times I have players far from each other.

[Gabi80]

Don`t agread with theory that sort passing can`t work with wide. I playing as farnborough with conference, have very poor players, but playing with short passing, slow tempo, tight marking and wide(18). Look for stats ( passing)

I have average 71% passing with conferencer i think its good results!!

]stats 1[/url]

[Gabi80]

Sorry here the pictures:

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Gabi80:

Don`t agread with theory that sort passing can`t work with wide. I playing as farnborough with conference, have very poor players, but playing with short passing, slow tempo, tight marking and wide(18). Look for stats ( passing)

I have average 71% passing with conferencer i think its good results!!

]stats 1[/url]

Noone said it can't work. However its logical to use it on narrow formations due tot he space being so little between players.

[Ekholm]

Originally posted by thenamesfang:

I think the reason why you use .bmp is because you can only use Paint? I suggest then if you don't have a proper graphic program to use Gadwin PrintScreen, (http://www.gadwin.com/printscreen/) which allows you to take screenshots in a variety of formats, such as .png.

My sincere apologies for going off-topic but what makes you think that you cannot save images in PNG format in Paint? I'm doing it all the time, always saving my screenshots as PNG and I am using Paint!

[Ans Gulrik]

Whatever a tactic works or not has become much more complicated in FM07 (and now I have critized the engine, I will also allow myself to applaud it).

In FM06 it was pretty much the case, that if you had an effective tactic, it would work with every team - that was my experience anyway.

To begin with I thought the same was the case in FM07. Second game I won every competition with Spurs in the opening season. I did not enjoy it - I thought I had a system that had turned the engine inside out. Next game I reproduced the results (well almost). Comfirmation it seemed.

But since then my tactical system hasn't worked. The principles I used did not apply if I made the sligthest of changes. I'm sceptical towards jumping to conclusions now.

Therefore I test my tactics in a special game, where everything has gone wrong. The idea is that a global sound tactic will be able to turn the fortunes around even for this side. If we are to arrive at Tactical Theorems, as wwfan did in FM06, even my lousy test game ought to be winable.

[fg]

I hace question to tactical expert!!!

If i`m play narrow( 5 for example) it is meand that my fulbacks don`t forwards run? ( even i give him forwards run often?)

sorry for english, hopes taht you understand

[MaVeRiXxX]

Hi all,

I've beenplaying a 4-3-3 as well lately, and having succes, with lots of potential to be even better.

And I'm using an attacking, short passing, wide, quick game, and it works. I mostly use both TM & PM against weaker sides, TM against normal, and no-one against stronger sides.

But this doesn't seem to be logical, according to the last couple of replies, right?

[jorisvanhulst]

No need for the sarcastic last sentence. If you can quote me saying that wide play and short passing can't work right, then you have the permission to be sarcastic.

I'm just offering some other assumptions than the ones that are currently used by most people. I'm very impressed by my results using these new assumptions and they also sound pretty logical. I only said I now use them as a starting point for my own formations. I'm not saying they are better for every single player playing FM07..

[jorisvanhulst]

Maverixx, you can forget about that last post. I misread your post, which made it look like you were being ironic. My apologies for the last post..

[MaVeRiXxX]

Didn't even read it

I've been testing almost all mixtures of settings for my 4-3-3

http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/mc.schonhage/FM2007/4-3-3_1.bmp

and found that using the following team instructions work very good:

Mentality - 14

CF - 7

PS - 7

Tempo - 6 or 16 *

Width - 12

CD - 10

TM - 2

DL - 12

Mixed Focus, Zonal marking with Tight for Defenders and MidMC, RunOntoBall and TM & PM ticked.

* I use 16 beginning the match, unless against very strong teams, then switch to 6 if winning by 2, or if with 6 better then strong team, then switch to 16 to get goal.

I've set all my Individual Instructions with wanting total football in mind...

Cheers, R.

[MaVeRiXxX]

Originally posted by MaVeRiXxX:

Didn't even read it

I've been testing almost all mixtures of settings for my 4-3-3

http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/mc.schonhage/FM2007/4-3-3_1.bmp

and found that using the following team instructions work very good:

Mentality - 14

CF - 6[CHANGED]

PS - 6[CHANGED]

Tempo - 6 or 16 *

Width - 12

CD - 10

TM - 2

DL - 12

Mixed Focus, Zonal marking with Tight for Defenders and MidMC, RunOntoBall and TM & PM ticked.

* I use 16 beginning the match, unless against very strong teams, then switch to 6 if winning by 2, or if with 6 better then strong team, then switch to 16 to get goal.

I've set all my Individual Instructions with wanting total football in mind...

Cheers, R.

[jorisvanhulst]

Just curious: why did you put your wingers one place up, on the same level as your striker? Does it influence your play a lot?

[Benoit2]

Putting them there means they rarely drop back into midfield.

[jorisvanhulst]

Yeah, but would they still function? This is a non-existing position really. If you look at players positions, every area of the field is covered, except for those two corners really.. Would make sense if they're the same as the AML/AMR position.

A players ability to play in a position has to do with his ability and the positions he is played, so I'm just afraid that playing there will make them play worse.

Hope that makes sense..

[Benoit2]

Any striker/winger can play there.

[RMXtreme]

But since you can't train players to become competent at that level, I think that will affect their performences.

I also noticed that FR/L tended to play as if they were playing in the AMR/L position.

[Cleon]

Any AML/AMR will be competent there, you can also make them help out the midfield extremely well too.

[Smac]

While we're talking semantics r/e "Short" vs. "Direct", I have to say this seems totally illogical to me (the names and supposed effects, both).

The shorter the pass, the more direct it will have to be in a spacial sense, if not a vector direction. True, you can in real life, 'lay off' a pass to someone behind you with a pass in the nearly opposite direction (forward), provided they are making a run past you. And also true that the longer the pass the less angle you have to play with if you want them to get to the ball.

But, conversely, the longer the pass, the more travel time and the more you may have to 'lead' the pass. A cross from left back to right wing may lead a player 30+ yards with no problems. You are therefore aiming indirectly far more than you would via a short-pass.

Taking the two things into consideration: Vector angle and Vector length, the idea that passes between moving objects can be summarized by 'direct' or 'indirect' as some way of describing their distance as well, or that 'short' must somehow also mean 'less direct', is misleading at best and quite useless at worst.

'Direct' means to me that the ball is played directly towards the player. You do see teams play like this, even in the premiership. Everton comes to mind, who seem to feel that its often best to run towards the passer to receive, keeping the defender behind them with some will placed elbows and hip-checks. This is opposed to say, Man U, who tend to rely on pace and anticipation to pass the ball into the vectored run of a player (except in the midfield on defense, where they play 'directly' just after taking possession of the ball).

In FM, a truly direct ball gets this: The attacker stands there like a dunce. The defender crawls up their ******** and boots the ball back towards the opposition, 95% of the time. Though indirect sports are more visually appealing (The Beautiful Game is a flowing one, not a game of shielding defenders and running the 'wrong' way to keep possession), direct passing is found in most team sports and often makes up the bulk of possession play until a risk/reward presents itself for a break-away: See Hockey, Basketball, Everton.

So, in the world of FM, truly direct play doesn't work, although it should, especially with physically strong teams. Its just about missing from the game engine. So, what do we have instead?

Its actually FM's version of 'Short Passing' that looks most like 'direct passing'. Most short passes are directly towards another player who's running towards the passer. It works in FM just as 'Direct Passing' does in real life. I have only seen strikers in FM actually 'lay off' or 'pass and run' with any accuracy. Wingers seem to try this with fullbacks more by accident than design.

Long-ball, or 'medium-ball' in FM works by banging the ball upfield to a statuesque midfielder or striker, having it "rejected!" by the defenders 95% of the time, and having the "rebound" picked up occasionally by the onrushing midfield who then occasionally pass the ball into the path of a striker or winger: IE, indirectly.

If anything needs reworking in the slider-system, its the passing slider:

1. Allow the match-engine to simulate true direct passing, where the 'receiver' runs towards the passer to insure getting the ball.

2. Rename the slider, or make two sliders:

a. Direct--------Indirect (leading)

b. Short---------Long

'Direct' passing also works in FM if your players are able to make the right runs and get in some kind of position for the match engine to try a 'leading pass'. The only time Direct Passing works in a realistic way is when its.........Indirect!

I want a 'give and go' or 'pass and run' option, dangit!

-Smacksim

[jorisvanhulst]

a. Direct--------Indirect (leading)

b. Short---------Long

Good point you have there. However, I think you could leave the first one away, I think this is covered by slow/quick tempo. Good post though.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Smac:

While we're talking semantics r/e "Short" vs. "Direct", I have to say this seems totally illogical to me (the names and supposed effects, both).

The shorter the pass, the more direct it will have to be in a spacial sense, if not a vector direction. True, you can in real life, 'lay off' a pass to someone behind you with a pass in the nearly opposite direction (forward), provided they are making a run past you. And also true that the longer the pass the less angle you have to play with if you want them to get to the ball.

But, conversely, the longer the pass, the more travel time and the more you may have to 'lead' the pass. A cross from left back to right wing may lead a player 30+ yards with no problems. You are therefore aiming indirectly far more than you would via a short-pass.

Taking the two things into consideration: Vector angle and Vector length, the idea that passes between moving objects can be summarized by 'direct' or 'indirect' as some way of describing their distance as well, or that 'short' must somehow also mean 'less direct', is misleading at best and quite useless at worst.

'Direct' means to me that the ball is played directly towards the player. You do see teams play like this, even in the premiership. Everton comes to mind, who seem to feel that its often best to run towards the passer to receive, keeping the defender behind them with some will placed elbows and hip-checks. This is opposed to say, Man U, who tend to rely on pace and anticipation to pass the ball into the vectored run of a player (except in the midfield on defense, where they play 'directly' just after taking possession of the ball).

In FM, a truly direct ball gets this: The attacker stands there like a dunce. The defender crawls up their ******** and boots the ball back towards the opposition, 95% of the time. Though indirect sports are more visually appealing (The Beautiful Game is a flowing one, not a game of shielding defenders and running the 'wrong' way to keep possession), direct passing is found in most team sports and often makes up the bulk of possession play until a risk/reward presents itself for a break-away: See Hockey, Basketball, Everton.

So, in the world of FM, truly direct play doesn't work, although it should, especially with physically strong teams. Its just about missing from the game engine. So, what do we have instead?

Its actually FM's version of 'Short Passing' that looks most like 'direct passing'. Most short passes are directly towards another player who's running towards the passer. It works in FM just as 'Direct Passing' does in real life. I have only seen strikers in FM actually 'lay off' or 'pass and run' with any accuracy. Wingers seem to try this with fullbacks more by accident than design.

Long-ball, or 'medium-ball' in FM works by banging the ball upfield to a statuesque midfielder or striker, having it "rejected!" by the defenders 95% of the time, and having the "rebound" picked up occasionally by the onrushing midfield who then occasionally pass the ball into the path of a striker or winger: IE, indirectly.

If anything needs reworking in the slider-system, its the passing slider:

1. Allow the match-engine to simulate true direct passing, where the 'receiver' runs towards the passer to insure getting the ball.

2. Rename the slider, or make two sliders:

a. Direct--------Indirect (leading)

b. Short---------Long

'Direct' passing also works in FM if your players are able to make the right runs and get in some kind of position for the match engine to try a 'leading pass'. The only time Direct Passing works in a realistic way is when its.........Indirect!

I want a 'give and go' or 'pass and run' option, dangit!

-Smacksim

I think your over complicating things in all honesty.

[Kristian]

Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

Or you could barrow your fullbacks too to stop them balls. Thats what I had to revert too, as I didn't want my players closing down heavily due to them being out of place I had my strikers close down heavily instead and they seemed to hassle the fullbacks thank god, or id have been screwed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cleon,

That's the way I've gone.

Full-backs still have high closing down (about 14-15) so they close down with high intensity, but because they are barrowed they don't start closing down until the ball reaches much further forward.

i.e. they close down the winger heading for the bye-line instead of the opposition full-back deep in his own half.

Definitely the way to go for that. My defence (Sunderland) has conceded only 23 goals in 41 games in the Championship. Need to score a few more (actually a lot more!) but my defensive base has meant that we've lost only one game because in the 10 games we've failed to score, we've prevented the opposition scoring in 9 of them.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kristian:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

Or you could barrow your fullbacks too to stop them balls. Thats what I had to revert too, as I didn't want my players closing down heavily due to them being out of place I had my strikers close down heavily instead and they seemed to hassle the fullbacks thank god, or id have been screwed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cleon,

That's the way I've gone.

Full-backs still have high closing down (about 14-15) so they close down with high intensity, but because they are barrowed they don't start closing down until the ball reaches much further forward.

i.e. they close down the winger heading for the bye-line instead of the opposition full-back deep in his own half.

Definitely the way to go for that. My defence (Sunderland) has conceded only 23 goals in 41 games in the Championship. Need to score a few more (actually a lot more!) but my defensive base has meant that we've lost only one game because in the 10 games we've failed to score, we've prevented the opposition scoring in 9 of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nice to see you having some success using that

[Smac]

Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Smac:

Good long post that contradicts the prevailing sense of 'Its so logical'

-Smacksim

I think your over complicating things in all honesty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

[Kristian]

Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kristian:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

High closing down for the wingers is one of my major changes between '06 and '07. It is almost a necessity in '07. If they don't close down (and heavily at that) you get murdered from deep crosses by the FBs. The manual suggests high CD on the wings, so I tried it, and it made a major difference defensively.

Or you could barrow your fullbacks too to stop them balls. Thats what I had to revert too, as I didn't want my players closing down heavily due to them being out of place I had my strikers close down heavily instead and they seemed to hassle the fullbacks thank god, or id have been screwed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cleon,

That's the way I've gone.

Full-backs still have high closing down (about 14-15) so they close down with high intensity, but because they are barrowed they don't start closing down until the ball reaches much further forward.

i.e. they close down the winger heading for the bye-line instead of the opposition full-back deep in his own half.

Definitely the way to go for that. My defence (Sunderland) has conceded only 23 goals in 41 games in the Championship. Need to score a few more (actually a lot more!) but my defensive base has meant that we've lost only one game because in the 10 games we've failed to score, we've prevented the opposition scoring in 9 of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nice to see you having some success using that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I have to confess it's been a revalation. Was just tinkering and it seemed sensilbe even though it looks dreadful on the tactics screen (I like "tidy" looking tactics) but it works a treat.

Interested to read on here today that you and Buxton have both suggested it.

To be honest I need help with getting wingers and striker ratings up and a few more goals going on, cause I can see next season in the Premiership being a long, hard slog with them getting even fewer opportunities and therefore us scoring even fewer goals.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Smac:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Smac:

Good long post that contradicts the prevailing sense of 'Its so logical'

-Smacksim

I think your over complicating things in all honesty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interested to read on here today that you and Buxton have both suggested it.

It had never crossed my mine until I so Buxton post about it, now I find it essential to use

[Uncle Sam]

I have pretty much given up on counter attack, at the lower league level anyway. Even when away from home, I seem to possess the ball more and create better chances with this unticked.

[andre_costa]

Originally posted by Uncle Sam:

I have pretty much given up on counter attack, at the lower league level anyway. Even when away from home, I seem to possess the ball more and create better chances with this unticked.

Errr...i think that's how it is supposed to work

With Counter Attack ticked on, your players seem to play a game waiting for the right moment to catch the opponents with their pants down.