Tactical Theorems and Frameworks '07

[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 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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have done very well with a TM at LLM. However, you have to focus pases through ther middle or mixed or he will just head the balls to the defence. The higher the tempo the more likely you will have to play through the middle.

[Tezread]

Ive read through this thread and it is quite complex so I want to clarify somethings before i race off and create a new game.

I usually play with Wolves so I go for a direct style- fairly fast. With the RoT theory in place let me demonstrate my thinking to see if this is an appropriate tactic for handling teams:

I'm proposing a variety of instructions so i will start off with 'home vs big club' as this is the most challenging if you are a 'lesser' team:

Im sikc of 442 as i always use it

are these team instructions ok?

First up team instructions:

[Tezread]

My team loayout for a home game against a big team

Am i right in saying that of you are playing against a team who can pass well e.g Arsenal then the best way to counter it is to play defensive line deep but have closing down high.

Am I also right in saying that if you play a counter attacking team with pace e.g Chelsea that you play the same - deep with high closing down be it home or away (if you are a smaller team)?

[Tezread]

Home big !!!! try again!

[Uncle Sam]

Originally posted by andre_costa:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. The problem is, I never catch anyone but myself pantsless. Having a lot more success away with a narrow, slow tempo tactic.

[Alowa]

I couldn't understand why using a high DL away with counter-attack ticked. The Idea of counter-attacking isn't bring the opponent to your field to open spaces??

Playing without conter-attack the idea is not try to keep the possession or try to dominate?? so why using a deep DL in a dominating tactic??

High DL worked nicely for me when i play away counter-attacking, and i want to know why...A deep DL didn't work for me in a home tactic. I think it gives freedom to the other team dominate and lead the match.

sorry my english

[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 Ans Gulrik:

<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:

<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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have done very well with a TM at LLM. However, you have to focus pases through ther middle or mixed or he will just head the balls to the defence. The higher the tempo the more likely you will have to play through the middle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. TM and down both flanks seems like a disaster. To a lesser extent any wide formtation with a target man seems a bad idea.

Seems to be two problems: The defenders do not know if they should pass it to one of the wide players, or hit is long to the TM. The TM himself, will always play well (I haven't seen a TM with a bad average rating yet!), but more often than not you lose possesion afterwards, if you haven't got players around to pick up the balls that the target man win.

When you start winning, the AI start to use very defensive formation. Against these formations I have been forced to surrender the TM and turn to the traditional tools: Wide play, low DF, less running with the ball (because the AI close down heavily).

Now - and I'm playing in the PL - I only use a TM against strong opposition away from home, cause otherwise the AI will soon force me to use a more sophisticated attacking threat, than the pretty one dimensional TM tactic.

[MaVeRiXxX]

Originally posted by 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..

But for some reason putting them in AMR/L position makes them play bad, putting them here doesn't, so...

[wwfan]

Originally posted by Alowa:

I couldn't understand why using a high DL away with counter-attack ticked. The Idea of counter-attacking isn't bring the opponent to your field to open spaces??

Playing without conter-attack the idea is not try to keep the possession or try to dominate?? so why using a deep DL in a dominating tactic??

High DL worked nicely for me when i play away counter-attacking, and i want to know why...A deep DL didn't work for me in a home tactic. I think it gives freedom to the other team dominate and lead the match.

sorry my english

I can't really answer this with any degree of accuracy. Lowering the d-line undoubtedly helped attacking formations in '06, but there seems to have been a major redesign in how it works. There are so many discussions and theories on it, but none are proven.

Currently, the best bet is to play a high d-line with low closing down (and possibly the offside trap) at home, and a low d-line with high closing down away. These need to be adjusted depending on defensive stats, with pace and positioning being key. If you play a high d-line and have very slow defenders you will be in trouble.

[Alowa]

thanks for the anser wwfan.

i'm very inclined to think that a deep DL at home is not very good against opponents that like to have the possession.

thanks :]

[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 Alowa:

I couldn't understand why using a high DL away with counter-attack ticked. The Idea of counter-attacking isn't bring the opponent to your field to open spaces??

Playing without conter-attack the idea is not try to keep the possession or try to dominate?? so why using a deep DL in a dominating tactic??

High DL worked nicely for me when i play away counter-attacking, and i want to know why...A deep DL didn't work for me in a home tactic. I think it gives freedom to the other team dominate and lead the match.

sorry my english

I can't really answer this with any degree of accuracy. Lowering the d-line undoubtedly helped attacking formations in '06, but there seems to have been a major redesign in how it works. There are so many discussions and theories on it, but none are proven.

Currently, the best bet is to play a high d-line with low closing down (and possibly the offside trap) at home, and a low d-line with high closing down away. These need to be adjusted depending on defensive stats, with pace and positioning being key. If you play a high d-line and have very slow defenders you will be in trouble. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO Home and Away as concepts have become problematic. It seems that reranking is a constantly ongoing process now. The AI don't mind attacking away and likewise defending at home. I still use the Home / Away factor for team talks, but I think I - in a sligthly unconscious way - have begun approaching most games the same way: A cautious start until I dominate possesion, and then I make changes depending on how the game progress.

[grimness]

I agree with Ans Gulrik about Home and Away. So far I have rarely played game on Full Match highlights but now it is turned on allmost every time. It seems to me that the best way is to make template which is tweeked as needed during the match. At first I thought it will be annoying but it turned out to spice up the game. Anyone seen Rafa writing notes in 85th minute against Arsenal? Now I am emulating him hehe

In FM 06 I would rarely play up too 3rd season cos it would become boring, but now I'm looking forward to it.

KUTGW everyone!

[Asmodeus]

He was writing "our players have not yet built up a good level of understanding."

[bean feast]

Sorry Grimness, but the last person I would admit I was emulating would probably be Rafa Benitez. Anyone that thinks a has-been winger can be more effective than Steven Gerrard in the middle needs to be examined. He's not really taking notes about the game in the 86th minute, he's jotting down ways of how he can break the news to Craig Bellamy that his moustache looks ridiculous; and how to break the news to the red half of town that Mark Gonzalez isn't actually a footballer.

[Guest Rafalution]

Originally posted by bean feast:

Sorry Grimness, but the last person I would admit I was emulating would probably be Rafa Benitez. Anyone that thinks a has-been winger can be more effective than Steven Gerrard in the middle needs to be examined. He's not really taking notes about the game in the 86th minute, he's jotting down ways of how he can break the news to Craig Bellamy that his moustache looks ridiculous; and how to break the news to the red half of town that Mark Gonzalez isn't actually a footballer.

I'm sorry for the off topic comment I'm about to make, but I think today's performance from Steven Gerrard is evidence he should be in central midfield, for those who ever doubted that. He was like Mount Everest today.

[Justified]

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 bean feast:

Sorry Grimness, but the last person I would admit I was emulating would probably be Rafa Benitez. Anyone that thinks a has-been winger can be more effective than Steven Gerrard in the middle needs to be examined. He's not really taking notes about the game in the 86th minute, he's jotting down ways of how he can break the news to Craig Bellamy that his moustache looks ridiculous; and how to break the news to the red half of town that Mark Gonzalez isn't actually a footballer.

I'm sorry for the off topic comment I'm about to make, but I think today's performance from Steven Gerrard is evidence he should be in central midfield, for those who ever doubted that. He was like Mount Everest today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to continue it off topic but I think as soon as Rafa moves him into the middle people instantly thinks he's had a good game. I personally think he had a solid game but in my eyes Agger was the star of the show with his defensive duties and was the reason why we didn't concede.

[Ans Gulrik]

Startegic advice against narrow defensive AI formations (idea developed when the opposition was reduced to 10 players, but seems to work wonders against all the tight defensive formations, where AI only use one lonely striker (further testing nessecary):

Narrow and down both flanks.

Seems a bit counter intuitive, but the AI depends on it's ability to take advantage of the space between your defenders, which narrow prohibits, and at the same time Down both Flanks, enable you to attack the lonely full back.

[Garate]

Trying to create more space for my crappy strikers to score, I set them up like this:

FC-> <--FCR

|

AMC

So one is all the way to the right with long sarrow, the other is towards the left side of the box with very short sarrow to the middle. AMC has an arrow to the middle.

Watching the game I noticed something interesting: both strikers took very close positions to the right of the park, while the AMC went to the FC position. FC was on rarely FWRs, FCR on often, AMC on rarely.

So I went to the toilet -as we know, it's where Benitez review his notes because creativity and flair bloom hand in hand in that environment-, and tried to figure out why the short sarrow had more effect than the long, and played with ideas so to exploit that, like choosing the AMC as TM. But I didn't come out with anything brilliant. However, before I drop the whole idea, I wanted to share, maybe somebody can get something successful out of it.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Garate:

Trying to create more space for my crappy strikers to score, I set them up like this:

FC-> <--FCR

|

AMC

So one is all the way to the right with long sarrow, the other is towards the left side of the box with very short sarrow to the middle. AMC has an arrow to the middle.

Watching the game I noticed something interesting: both strikers took very close positions to the right of the park, while the AMC went to the FC position. FC was on rarely FWRs, FCR on often, AMC on rarely.

So I went to the toilet -as we know, it's where Benitez review his notes because creativity and flair bloom hand in hand in that environment-, and tried to figure out why the short sarrow had more effect than the long, and played with ideas so to exploit that, like choosing the AMC as TM. But I didn't come out with anything brilliant. However, before I drop the whole idea, I wanted to share, maybe somebody can get something successful out of it.

That set up would actually reduce the space you created for the strikers. If you want space, then have the FRC run to FC position and the FC position run to FRL position. Then the striker who is running to FLR position would drag the defenders with him too.

[wwfan]

Originally posted by Ans Gulrik:

Startegic advice against narrow defensive AI formations (idea developed when the opposition was reduced to 10 players, but seems to work wonders against all the tight defensive formations, where AI only use one lonely striker (further testing nessecary):

Narrow and down both flanks.

Seems a bit counter intuitive, but the AI depends on it's ability to take advantage of the space between your defenders, which narrow prohibits, and at the same time Down both Flanks, enable you to attack the lonely full back.

Interesting. I'm still struggling to come to terms with how effective narrow is defensively. My biggest problem right now is all bar one of my strikers are way below divisional standard and can't score for toffee. It may be worth experimenting with tight formations to see if I can grind out some one nil wins.

[Garate]

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 Garate:

Trying to create more space for my crappy strikers to score, I set them up like this:

FC-> <--FCR

|

AMC

So one is all the way to the right with long sarrow, the other is towards the left side of the box with very short sarrow to the middle. AMC has an arrow to the middle.

Watching the game I noticed something interesting: both strikers took very close positions to the right of the park, while the AMC went to the FC position. FC was on rarely FWRs, FCR on often, AMC on rarely.

So I went to the toilet -as we know, it's where Benitez review his notes because creativity and flair bloom hand in hand in that environment-, and tried to figure out why the short sarrow had more effect than the long, and played with ideas so to exploit that, like choosing the AMC as TM. But I didn't come out with anything brilliant. However, before I drop the whole idea, I wanted to share, maybe somebody can get something successful out of it.

That set up would actually reduce the space you created for the strikers. If you want space, then have the FRC run to FC position and the FC position run to FRL position. Then the striker who is running to FLR position would drag the defenders with him too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're totally right, Cleon. The set up for the strikers made them play all together on the side, not at all what I was planning. But I was wondering about the effect of the sarrows, I found that interesting.

Thanks for the suggestion, it makes a lot of sense.

[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 Ans Gulrik:

Startegic advice against narrow defensive AI formations (idea developed when the opposition was reduced to 10 players, but seems to work wonders against all the tight defensive formations, where AI only use one lonely striker (further testing nessecary):

Narrow and down both flanks.

Seems a bit counter intuitive, but the AI depends on it's ability to take advantage of the space between your defenders, which narrow prohibits, and at the same time Down both Flanks, enable you to attack the lonely full back.

Interesting. I'm still struggling to come to terms with how effective narrow is defensively. My biggest problem right now is all bar one of my strikers are way below divisional standard and can't score for toffee. It may be worth experimenting with tight formations to see if I can grind out some one nil wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well all my strikers are scoring for fun. I'm averaging 2.5 goals. The downside is that I'm conceeding 1 goal a game. Maybe I should take lesson from the AI and go narrow.

Has anyone made a Target Man tactic where they win by scoring and not by keeping clean sheets? It seems to me, that TM-based tactics are easily made solid (because they are narrow), but won't give you the same amount of goals (only one attacking plan).

[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 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:

Startegic advice against narrow defensive AI formations (idea developed when the opposition was reduced to 10 players, but seems to work wonders against all the tight defensive formations, where AI only use one lonely striker (further testing nessecary):

Narrow and down both flanks.

Seems a bit counter intuitive, but the AI depends on it's ability to take advantage of the space between your defenders, which narrow prohibits, and at the same time Down both Flanks, enable you to attack the lonely full back.

Interesting. I'm still struggling to come to terms with how effective narrow is defensively. My biggest problem right now is all bar one of my strikers are way below divisional standard and can't score for toffee. It may be worth experimenting with tight formations to see if I can grind out some one nil wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well all my strikers are scoring for fun. I'm averaging 2.5 goals. The downside is that I'm conceeding 1 goal a game. Maybe I should take lesson from the AI and go narrow.

Has anyone made a Target Man tactic where they win by scoring and not by keeping clean sheets? It seems to me, that TM-based tactics are easily made solid (because they are narrow), but won't give you the same amount of goals (only one attacking plan). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm scoring circa 2.0 goals a game, but hardly any from my strikers. I seem to be spreading the goals a bit like Man Utd pre-Ruud. The best finish I have seen was when my right back got one-on-one with the keeper and slotted it past him from the edge of the area. He was coolness personified. None of my FCs ever seem to score in similar positions. Quite how my right back got himself behind the defence I don't know. It would never have happened in '06.

I'm less than half-way through the season and have one of the better goal-scoring records in the division, but no single player has more than 5 goals. I like the fact that '07 can spread the goals around more realistically than previous FMs, but I'm frustrated by the lack of goals up front. If I had one quality striker scoring a goal every other game or so, then I would be looking at battling for first place.

As for TM, I'm only using it away, so it is supposed to be tight. My away form is dodgy, but that is partly because I'm playing wider than I would usually as I'm testing supersaint's theories and trying to match width, d-line and passing. I intend playing the 2nd half of the season with a narrower formation to see whehter it reduces goals against.

[wwfan]

Originally posted by wwfan:

I'm slightly less than half-way through the season and have one of the better goal-scoring records in the division, but no single player has more than 5 goals. I like the fact that '07 can spread the goals around more realistically than previous FMs, but I'm frustrated by the lack of goals up front. If I had one quality striker scoring a goal every other game or so, then I would be looking at battling for first place.

[Uncle Sam]

I've begun testing a new little twist with my lower league Brazil team.

My formation is a 4-2-2-2 with the midfield consisting of 2 DM's and 2 MC's with sarrows on the MC's. About half the teams in Brazil run this formation.

In my experiment I have given all 4 midfielders the hold up ball instruction and given the squad a quick tempo with a wide formation. This seems to help get players forward quickly but the mids don't just give the ball away trying to force things.

Unfortunately, my players are awful and the competition I face is not much better so perhaps someone could try this method of Fast Tempo, all central Midfielders holding up ball with better players at a higher level.

[Cleon]

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 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:

Startegic advice against narrow defensive AI formations (idea developed when the opposition was reduced to 10 players, but seems to work wonders against all the tight defensive formations, where AI only use one lonely striker (further testing nessecary):

Narrow and down both flanks.

Seems a bit counter intuitive, but the AI depends on it's ability to take advantage of the space between your defenders, which narrow prohibits, and at the same time Down both Flanks, enable you to attack the lonely full back.

Interesting. I'm still struggling to come to terms with how effective narrow is defensively. My biggest problem right now is all bar one of my strikers are way below divisional standard and can't score for toffee. It may be worth experimenting with tight formations to see if I can grind out some one nil wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well all my strikers are scoring for fun. I'm averaging 2.5 goals. The downside is that I'm conceeding 1 goal a game. Maybe I should take lesson from the AI and go narrow.

Has anyone made a Target Man tactic where they win by scoring and not by keeping clean sheets? It seems to me, that TM-based tactics are easily made solid (because they are narrow), but won't give you the same amount of goals (only one attacking plan). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 goal a game is about average in RL and on FM. If you notice only maybe 2 teams conceed less that 1 goal a game over a season.

As for a targetman, I made a solid tactic with one and a lethal one going forward. Its in my thread further down the forum.

[Tezread]

I was wondering- given the ROT Solid away tactics that seem to work what is the best ploy to have against a stronger team. Im Wolves playing Arsenal at the Emirates stadium. I know the answer will depend on my players but what is the general advice one could give?

[Cleon]

Play defensive, direct, fast tempo and play on the counter attack. Thats how id set about it

[Guest johnc]

intersting... Never read this before.

[Beevster]

Wow took me a good few hours of reading but i've finaly cought up.

Loads of jucie bits, very good job too those who posted in the proper manner, and ,,!,, to those who didnt (hi beanfest)

I feel the need to add somthing worthy to the cause as i have been able to take a lot from it.

The only thing i can think of that might be of interest is in the rearly mixed often part of player instructions.

For front men (sc) havent you noticed they get cought off side a lot with fwd runs often? i found henry was getting cought offside way to much with fwd runs often even tho hes a fast striker with good OTB stats, setting them to mixed i found stoped the needles fwd runs and gave him the option to do so, Now this lead's me into thinking maybe we use rearly mixed often in the wrong sence.

Another point, have you ever seen your team score long shots, have you ever seen a manager in real life set out in his tactics, "you take long shots as much as possible ronaldinho." i have no proof but imo id say that if a player trys a long shot its out of pure time of the moment, So i set everyone to long shots rearly, my shots on target went up quiet a bit and instead of blasting a shot from distence much more chances where created in the right manner, of course they still did long shots but at better moments, i dont belive this is down to decision stats or anything else.

This then lead me onto run with ball and crossing, nearly in everones tactics fb are cross ball often, i watched my fullback lots of times simple passes would have been better options, but they try a cross and nothing comes of it, so i set them to mixed and i see much better use of crossing and if no cross they do a nice little pass which was a better choice, once again it wasnt down to crap players with poor dicision stats, as i tested this with arsenal.

Then came run with ball, i watched players on the wings with rwb often, time after time they started to dribble right infront of a guy then lost the ball and they get an easy counter-attack, it was frustrating to watch a guy with 20 dribble 20 first touch losing possesion maybe 3/4 times he trys to dribble, so setting this 2 mixed give him the option weather or not to attempt to dribble, once again worked wonders for build up play.

So now my basic logic on rearly/mixed/often differs on diffrent types of players.

strikers: Fast striker [FR mix] [RWB mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Mix][CB Mix]

Target Striker [FR Mix] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Mix] [CB Rearly] (altho the target man might want to be on FR rearly according to some posts, somthing id like to try might help my tactics, but i find that a target man with some pace can also be good with FR too )

Wingers: [FR Mix] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Rarely] [CB Mix] FWR to often would be ok for wingers if you like them to get high up the pitch, offside shouldnt be a problem here.

MCa [FR Often] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Mix] [CB Rarely] cross ball rarely should keep him central, like the target man

MCd [FR Rarely] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [CB Rarely]

Fullbacks [FR Mix] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Rarely] [CB Mix] If you like the risk send ur fb on FR often but since defence is a pain in the ass at the moment i dont see overlapping fb as a good idea just yet.

Pritty easy to figure out, through balls down the middle and crosses on the flanks with the exception of the fast striker who could go too the wings and have a cross while the Target man should remain central and not cross.

I tested this quiet a lot with Arsenal a top end team , i liked the build up more then i did with things on often, with poor sides you might have to tell the players what to do more, in this case i adopt an approach where, if a player is balenced all round for your league, dont tell him to do loads of things often just because he can, but get him to do things that are more important for his position, van persie is a good example, he has over 16 for most things dribble, long shots, ect... i tryed him on often for everything and this is when i started to think about how where instructing our players, In my eyes telling a player to run with ball often is saying to him "you must run with ball at every chance you get" he will do this no doubt but it probably wasnt the right choice, same with crossing your telling the player no matter what his dicisions are to cross the ball at every chance he gets.

Anyway feel free to pick holes in my views, and by all means test them out and see if you can spot a diffrence.

Ill appoligise for my spelling, i should be in bed by now, i just felt i had to add somthing !

[Beevster]

Supersaint, I was just having a look at your tactic, and noticed you dont have any global settings for mentality or closing down, while i dont actuly know what global closing down will do over player instructed cd, i do know that if you have all your players on mentalitys and have your global mentality on default, your only telling the team to get into a normal position.

I think as your struggling for goals this is the key, if you increased your global mentality 2 of 3 notches you should see much more attacking efforts from the team, and vice versa.

Sorry if i got it wrong and you already are doing such things in matches, but looking at you instructions its been overlooked

Also taclking hardness,

closing down

These to not so important in your instructions, but im guessing their on default setting "normal" and "mixed"

good work anyway, id like to test this cd thingy looks like it could solve my defensive problem.

Bve.

[wwfan]

@ beevster: There's definitely something in your theory at LLM level at least. My possession percentages have shot up since I employed your suggestions. However, I would think a high quality technical player would be able to make "often" instructions work.

[Dayle Wood]

Beevster - I think your ideas are quite good. One thing though that should be factored in when deciding to 'mix' or 'often' their personal instructions is their attribute for decisions and maybe even Creativity. These I imagine would have a huge bearing on things.

But I am going to apply your theory and see how it works out.

I play with three different sides all at different levels. One of them is Barcelona and although I have given Ronaldinho a free role and most of his settings are on often I find he doesn't always perform well.

I assumed that maybe he was being marked out of the game but perhaps by putting his settings on often I am inhibiting him from making better decisions.

[Smac]

beevster, I've reached the same conclusions, especially with top-flight teams. Its annoying to watch your player try to turn to 'run with ball' and be tightly marked, unable to make the turn, and repeat this three or four times...gets one thinking.

What I found was that if a player receives the ball in certain circumstances they are able to continue their 'run with ball' easily, even right over opponents. It seems mainly that when a player is stopped that they run into this kind of conflict-of-interest with their instructions.

For example, playing Chelsea (to have some fun with money), I could consistently get Scheva to 'Run with Ball Often' 95% of the time. As a striker he had no other instructions set to 'often', and nearly always received the ball during a run either towards or across the passer's position.

I saw Robben stagnating on the wing, so turned all his options besides 'Run With Ball' to medium or low, and lo and behold, he did the same thing, consistently running along the endline and often into the goal itself.

I've seen the same thing with my LLM side, Sporting West Haralbeke in Belgium, and with all sorts of different instructions. Enough so that this is now policy in my tactical instructions:

Keep most instructions @ Rarely or Mixed for all players.

Though I think this applies differently to teams/positions that can afford a lot of Creative Freedom, the conflicting 'Often' instructions do seem to affect even these players somehow.

Overall, its hard to say whether this makes for a stronger team, but it makes for prettier football.

[Asmodeus]

Beevster- I've always adhered to the theory of little or no "often" settings for individual instructions, for the reasons you've suggested.

[Beevster]

Yeh i think these instructions are closely related to creative freedom. but really if you have a guy on the wings why would you ask him to do through balls longshots often when really the idea of a wide player is to get himself down that flank and behind the defence, stick him on through balls rarely and if he cant get down the wing he could opt out of the dead end and do a through ball, thats the nice thing about rarely, is its not actully turning the option off but its just making it less important, and when they do do do do do do one then it normaly has a big effect, with long shots off all round the team ive seen quiet a few long shots which are on target now and if they dont get saved there banging them in on that massive rebound hehe

[Beevster]

I ment "if they do get saved"

[Asmodeus]

I think the reason many have such wildy disproportionate shots on/off target stats is because they have players set to long shots "often." As you said strikers set to FWR often just get caught offside constantly. Even Thierry Henry.

[-=[MaVeRiXxX]=-]

@ Smac's:"Keep most instructions @ Rarely or Mixed for all players"

and for the rule after that, keep your individual instructions to a three split, defend, midfield, attack.

Cheers, R.

[Uncle Sam]

Does anyone else reckon just about everything is going to have to be re-evaluated after the patch is released? Looks like they made some changes to the match engine.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Uncle Sam:

Does anyone else reckon just about everything is going to have to be re-evaluated after the patch is released? Looks like they made some changes to the match engine.

Doesn't make much difference tbh

[jep]

Originally posted by Beevster:

Wow took me a good few hours of reading but i've finaly cought up.

Loads of jucie bits, very good job too those who posted in the proper manner, and ,,!,, to those who didnt (hi beanfest)

I feel the need to add somthing worthy to the cause as i have been able to take a lot from it.

The only thing i can think of that might be of interest is in the rearly mixed often part of player instructions.

For front men (sc) havent you noticed they get cought off side a lot with fwd runs often? i found henry was getting cought offside way to much with fwd runs often even tho hes a fast striker with good OTB stats, setting them to mixed i found stoped the needles fwd runs and gave him the option to do so, Now this lead's me into thinking maybe we use rearly mixed often in the wrong sence.

Another point, have you ever seen your team score long shots, have you ever seen a manager in real life set out in his tactics, "you take long shots as much as possible ronaldinho." i have no proof but imo id say that if a player trys a long shot its out of pure time of the moment, So i set everyone to long shots rearly, my shots on target went up quiet a bit and instead of blasting a shot from distence much more chances where created in the right manner, of course they still did long shots but at better moments, i dont belive this is down to decision stats or anything else.

This then lead me onto run with ball and crossing, nearly in everones tactics fb are cross ball often, i watched my fullback lots of times simple passes would have been better options, but they try a cross and nothing comes of it, so i set them to mixed and i see much better use of crossing and if no cross they do a nice little pass which was a better choice, once again it wasnt down to crap players with poor dicision stats, as i tested this with arsenal.

Then came run with ball, i watched players on the wings with rwb often, time after time they started to dribble right infront of a guy then lost the ball and they get an easy counter-attack, it was frustrating to watch a guy with 20 dribble 20 first touch losing possesion maybe 3/4 times he trys to dribble, so setting this 2 mixed give him the option weather or not to attempt to dribble, once again worked wonders for build up play.

So now my basic logic on rearly/mixed/often differs on diffrent types of players.

strikers: Fast striker [FR mix] [RWB mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Mix][CB Mix]

Target Striker [FR Mix] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Mix] [CB Rearly] (altho the target man might want to be on FR rearly according to some posts, somthing id like to try might help my tactics, but i find that a target man with some pace can also be good with FR too )

Wingers: [FR Mix] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Rarely] [CB Mix] FWR to often would be ok for wingers if you like them to get high up the pitch, offside shouldnt be a problem here.

MCa [FR Often] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Mix] [CB Rarely] cross ball rarely should keep him central, like the target man

MCd [FR Rarely] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [CB Rarely]

Fullbacks [FR Mix] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Rarely] [CB Mix] If you like the risk send ur fb on FR often but since defence is a pain in the ass at the moment i dont see overlapping fb as a good idea just yet.

Pritty easy to figure out, through balls down the middle and crosses on the flanks with the exception of the fast striker who could go too the wings and have a cross while the Target man should remain central and not cross.

I tested this quiet a lot with Arsenal a top end team , i liked the build up more then i did with things on often, with poor sides you might have to tell the players what to do more, in this case i adopt an approach where, if a player is balenced all round for your league, dont tell him to do loads of things often just because he can, but get him to do things that are more important for his position, van persie is a good example, he has over 16 for most things dribble, long shots, ect... i tryed him on often for everything and this is when i started to think about how where instructing our players, In my eyes telling a player to run with ball often is saying to him "you must run with ball at every chance you get" he will do this no doubt but it probably wasnt the right choice, same with crossing your telling the player no matter what his dicisions are to cross the ball at every chance he gets.

Anyway feel free to pick holes in my views, and by all means test them out and see if you can spot a diffrence.

Ill appoligise for my spelling, i should be in bed by now, i just felt i had to add somthing !

Quite simply one of the most sensible and helpful posts in the Tactics forum - nice one Beevster

[Kristian]

Originally posted by jep:

Quite simply one of the most sensible and helpful posts in the Tactics forum - nice one Beevster

I entirely agree. Excellent tips in there for anyone who thinks that they're players aren't doing what they tell them.

Have to confess that after reading it I considered my own tactic, which has no players on "often" for ANY of those instructions, and a few players on rarely for things you'd think I'd want them to do regularly.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Beevster:

Wow took me a good few hours of reading but i've finaly cought up.

Loads of jucie bits, very good job too those who posted in the proper manner, and ,,!,, to those who didnt (hi beanfest)

I feel the need to add somthing worthy to the cause as i have been able to take a lot from it.

The only thing i can think of that might be of interest is in the rearly mixed often part of player instructions.

For front men (sc) havent you noticed they get cought off side a lot with fwd runs often? i found henry was getting cought offside way to much with fwd runs often even tho hes a fast striker with good OTB stats, setting them to mixed i found stoped the needles fwd runs and gave him the option to do so, Now this lead's me into thinking maybe we use rearly mixed often in the wrong sence.

Another point, have you ever seen your team score long shots, have you ever seen a manager in real life set out in his tactics, "you take long shots as much as possible ronaldinho." i have no proof but imo id say that if a player trys a long shot its out of pure time of the moment, So i set everyone to long shots rearly, my shots on target went up quiet a bit and instead of blasting a shot from distence much more chances where created in the right manner, of course they still did long shots but at better moments, i dont belive this is down to decision stats or anything else.

This then lead me onto run with ball and crossing, nearly in everones tactics fb are cross ball often, i watched my fullback lots of times simple passes would have been better options, but they try a cross and nothing comes of it, so i set them to mixed and i see much better use of crossing and if no cross they do a nice little pass which was a better choice, once again it wasnt down to crap players with poor dicision stats, as i tested this with arsenal.

Then came run with ball, i watched players on the wings with rwb often, time after time they started to dribble right infront of a guy then lost the ball and they get an easy counter-attack, it was frustrating to watch a guy with 20 dribble 20 first touch losing possesion maybe 3/4 times he trys to dribble, so setting this 2 mixed give him the option weather or not to attempt to dribble, once again worked wonders for build up play.

So now my basic logic on rearly/mixed/often differs on diffrent types of players.

strikers: Fast striker [FR mix] [RWB mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Mix][CB Mix]

Target Striker [FR Mix] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Mix] [CB Rearly] (altho the target man might want to be on FR rearly according to some posts, somthing id like to try might help my tactics, but i find that a target man with some pace can also be good with FR too )

Wingers: [FR Mix] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Rarely] [CB Mix] FWR to often would be ok for wingers if you like them to get high up the pitch, offside shouldnt be a problem here.

MCa [FR Often] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Mix] [CB Rarely] cross ball rarely should keep him central, like the target man

MCd [FR Rarely] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [CB Rarely]

Fullbacks [FR Mix] [RWB Mix] [LS Rarely] [TB Rarely] [CB Mix] If you like the risk send ur fb on FR often but since defence is a pain in the ass at the moment i dont see overlapping fb as a good idea just yet.

Pritty easy to figure out, through balls down the middle and crosses on the flanks with the exception of the fast striker who could go too the wings and have a cross while the Target man should remain central and not cross.

I tested this quiet a lot with Arsenal a top end team , i liked the build up more then i did with things on often, with poor sides you might have to tell the players what to do more, in this case i adopt an approach where, if a player is balenced all round for your league, dont tell him to do loads of things often just because he can, but get him to do things that are more important for his position, van persie is a good example, he has over 16 for most things dribble, long shots, ect... i tryed him on often for everything and this is when i started to think about how where instructing our players, In my eyes telling a player to run with ball often is saying to him "you must run with ball at every chance you get" he will do this no doubt but it probably wasnt the right choice, same with crossing your telling the player no matter what his dicisions are to cross the ball at every chance he gets.

Anyway feel free to pick holes in my views, and by all means test them out and see if you can spot a diffrence.

Ill appoligise for my spelling, i should be in bed by now, i just felt i had to add somthing !

This is worthy of its own thread imo, a lot of people might be able to identify with this simple approach

[Noel Gallagher]

That's a great post Beevster, well done!

[wwfan]

This week, I have mostly been holding up the ball.

Having had my faith in the RoT dented it has been reawakened by a thread posting tactics based on the RoT in The Dugout. I downloaded it to see whether it worked and to an extent it did. It is possession friendly and creates quality chances. However, defensively it is full of holes and did not suit my team of LLMers. But it gave me an idea...

In the tactic both wingers were holding up the ball. It was something I had suggested in an earlier post but had forgotten all about. When experimenting with the tactic I noticed that the AI teams also held up the ball at the back, especially with the FBs. So, I set HUB on 6 players, the MCd, the FCd, both wingers and both FBs, but reverted to my basic counter-attacking RoT 4-4-2 short-farrowed tactic.

Instant success. Bearing in mind I am playing a very high tempo, very direct passing 4-4-2 against teams supposed to beat me, my possession and passing percentages were excellent. Also, my wingers stopped crossing early balls into the box before my strikers were anywhere close to being in the right position. It also seemed to stop the wingers losing possession with their first touch which was happening previously. The FBs also played some dangerous balls into the channels or over the DCs heads which my strikers were able to reach, which happened very rarely previously. I haven't tested heavily yet, but early results and performances have been hugely encouraging. First match up I beat my parent club (Ipswich, who are the current holders of the FA Cup) and did it in style. The other matches have also been quality peformances.

[Ans Gulrik]

Regarding FR for pacey strikers: I still got mine on often. But I lowered mentality to avoid off sides. Currently I get 3 off sides against me in average. But Heskey and Antonio Valencia both average 1 goal / Game.

I can't say what's the better option (lowering FR or mentality).

But I think low striker mentality in general is good. If Mentality is a risk / benefit factor, lowering mentality also reduce the number of crazy shots. RIP RoT!

[Uncle Sam]

Originally posted by wwfan:

This week, I have mostly been holding up the ball.

Having had my faith in the RoT dented it has been reawakened by a thread posting tactics based on the RoT in The Dugout. I downloaded it to see whether it worked and to an extent it did. It is possession friendly and creates quality chances. However, defensively it is full of holes and did not suit my team of LLMers. But it gave me an idea...

In the tactic both wingers were holding up the ball. It was something I had suggested in an earlier post but had forgotten all about. When experimenting with the tactic I noticed that the AI teams also held up the ball at the back, especially with the FBs. So, I set HUB on 6 players, the MCd, the FCd, both wingers and both FBs, but reverted to my basic counter-attacking RoT 4-4-2 short-farrowed tactic.

Instant success. Bearing in mind I am playing a very high tempo, very direct passing 4-4-2 against teams supposed to beat me, my possession and passing percentages were excellent. Also, my wingers stopped crossing early balls into the box before my strikers were anywhere close to being in the right position. It also seemed to stop the wingers losing possession with their first touch which was happening previously. The FBs also played some dangerous balls into the channels or over the DCs heads which my strikers were able to reach, which happened very rarely previously. I haven't tested heavily yet, but early results and performances have been hugely encouraging. First match up I beat my parent club (Ipswich, who are the current holders of the FA Cup) and did it in style. The other matches have also been quality peformances.

Just a few posts up I had suggested putting the Hold Up Ball instruction on several players. In my current 4-4-2 Box Midfield I have 2 DMs and 2 MCs all holding up ball. I dont play direct but I do play with a quick tempo.

[wwfan]

Originally posted by Uncle Sam:

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

This week, I have mostly been holding up the ball.

Having had my faith in the RoT dented it has been reawakened by a thread posting tactics based on the RoT in The Dugout. I downloaded it to see whether it worked and to an extent it did. It is possession friendly and creates quality chances. However, defensively it is full of holes and did not suit my team of LLMers. But it gave me an idea...

In the tactic both wingers were holding up the ball. It was something I had suggested in an earlier post but had forgotten all about. When experimenting with the tactic I noticed that the AI teams also held up the ball at the back, especially with the FBs. So, I set HUB on 6 players, the MCd, the FCd, both wingers and both FBs, but reverted to my basic counter-attacking RoT 4-4-2 short-farrowed tactic.

Instant success. Bearing in mind I am playing a very high tempo, very direct passing 4-4-2 against teams supposed to beat me, my possession and passing percentages were excellent. Also, my wingers stopped crossing early balls into the box before my strikers were anywhere close to being in the right position. It also seemed to stop the wingers losing possession with their first touch which was happening previously. The FBs also played some dangerous balls into the channels or over the DCs heads which my strikers were able to reach, which happened very rarely previously. I haven't tested heavily yet, but early results and performances have been hugely encouraging. First match up I beat my parent club (Ipswich, who are the current holders of the FA Cup) and did it in style. The other matches have also been quality peformances.

Just a few posts up I had suggested putting the Hold Up Ball instruction on several players. In my current 4-4-2 Box Midfield I have 2 DMs and 2 MCs all holding up ball. I dont play direct but I do play with a quick tempo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you did. Sorry. I missed it. It does seem to do a lot of good though, doesn't it?

[Uncle Sam]

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 Uncle Sam:

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

This week, I have mostly been holding up the ball.

Having had my faith in the RoT dented it has been reawakened by a thread posting tactics based on the RoT in The Dugout. I downloaded it to see whether it worked and to an extent it did. It is possession friendly and creates quality chances. However, defensively it is full of holes and did not suit my team of LLMers. But it gave me an idea...

In the tactic both wingers were holding up the ball. It was something I had suggested in an earlier post but had forgotten all about. When experimenting with the tactic I noticed that the AI teams also held up the ball at the back, especially with the FBs. So, I set HUB on 6 players, the MCd, the FCd, both wingers and both FBs, but reverted to my basic counter-attacking RoT 4-4-2 short-farrowed tactic.

Instant success. Bearing in mind I am playing a very high tempo, very direct passing 4-4-2 against teams supposed to beat me, my possession and passing percentages were excellent. Also, my wingers stopped crossing early balls into the box before my strikers were anywhere close to being in the right position. It also seemed to stop the wingers losing possession with their first touch which was happening previously. The FBs also played some dangerous balls into the channels or over the DCs heads which my strikers were able to reach, which happened very rarely previously. I haven't tested heavily yet, but early results and performances have been hugely encouraging. First match up I beat my parent club (Ipswich, who are the current holders of the FA Cup) and did it in style. The other matches have also been quality peformances.

Just a few posts up I had suggested putting the Hold Up Ball instruction on several players. In my current 4-4-2 Box Midfield I have 2 DMs and 2 MCs all holding up ball. I dont play direct but I do play with a quick tempo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you did. Sorry. I missed it. It does seem to do a lot of good though, doesn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing that really stood out to me was my midfield isn't getting in a hurry and giving the ball away. I'm seeing my possession approach 60% and completion % up over 80%. My fear was that it would slow the tactic down but I'm still getting the quick off the ball movements but the passes are more appropriately timed it seems.