Ramblings of an old man, lost in the world of tactics

[Gerry-Atric]

Hi all I have played football manager for as long as I can remember but this 2013 version I just haven't been able to get into, due to the fact no matter what tactic I try team I am I can not win, I lose to teams that are classed as teams I should easily beat, this is my Favourite formation through the ages.

---------------------GK-----------------

FB(att)---------BPD(stopper---------CD(cover)------FB(att)

---------------------Anchor man-------------------

----------------DLP(support) BWM(defend)

W(attack)-----------------------------------------IF(attack)

------------------------Poacher-----------------------

I play a rigid attacking football game with man marking pressing more and short passing, i just cant seem to win even against teams fighting relegation i get turned over, ive only played on the game a few days every month as i cant get into this what is wrong with my formation?

[miguelalves]

If it's an attacking football, why rigid???? Change to fluid in order to your FB's participate in the attack phase of the game

[däkkä]

The most glaring problems are:

No runs from midfield three.

Maxed runs for attacking three.

Someone of the forward three should drop deep, someone from midfield should drive forward.

[ModernLefty]

Few points, agree with all the points dakka makes.

I'll just add the specifics. A poacher up front on his own without very little support on FM13 isn't half as effective as it used to be (and had no right to be, seeing as it isn't tactically sound), as the collision detection is sorted in this match engine, so they cannot just use their pace to run through players.

The poacher and IF(a) are both going to want to be utilising the same space, the IF will 'cut inside' into the gap between full back and centre back, and the poacher will move into the channels. So if the ball goes in that direction the are both going to be getting into each others way.

To extrapolate from dakka, a more natural setup is a DLF, or Trequartista, complete forward (s) to drop deep link up play, and bring others in, as opposed to solely sitting on the last man trying to poach a goal. Though if you want to play/ only have the kind of player to play a fast advanced forward/poacher role have a look at Cleon's 'understanding your tactic': http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/334248-Understanding-Your-Tactic-The-Discussion and the way Cleon adapted for Jermain Defoe's 'sits on shoulder of last defender' PPM/skillset and made the system work.

Another furthering the point dakka made, there is absolutely no link between midfield and attack. None of those roles have any real forward impetus they all just want to sit. Also you really don't need a BWM plus an anchor man, you've already got somebody who is in the side to just sit and play simply and tackle in an Anchor man, so you don't need a BWM to also do that. A better role would be a B2B midfielder or an advanced playmaker.

[tomtuck01]

If it's an attacking football, why rigid???? Change to fluid in order to your FB's participate in the attack phase of the game

Why? Many tacticians here on the forums would say that playing Rigid on FM can be better for a more attacking style.

[Puni]

If it's an attacking football, why rigid???? Change to fluid in order to your FB's participate in the attack phase of the game

Ignore this. You have an anchor man, a DLP, a BWM and a BPD, if you want them to stick to their role you should stick to rigid/very rigid.

As already has been stated, I'd say the gap between your midfield and attack is too big because of the RFD issue. a DLF would help, and maybe a box-to-box instead of a BWM.

[Gerry-Atric]

so the way forward would be to totally overhaul the functions of my two midfields and change the striker from poacher to maybe dlf? and i should see more movement from midfield?

[ModernLefty]

There's not a lot wrong with the DLP (support), and anchor man combo, you just need them partnered with a midfielder who gets up and supports the attack, a box to box player, or an advanced playmaker. An example of this kind of trio working, would be the classic Liverpool three of Mascherano (Anchor/DM), Xabi Alonso (DLP(s)) Gerrard (B2B).

And yeah, the striker needs to drop deeper and maybe the winger should be on support, just to have him less aggressively focussed on attacking, meaning that he links the attack and midfield abit more also.

[ZdlR]

If it's an attacking football, why rigid???? Change to fluid in order to your FB's participate in the attack phase of the game

I concur with people above that this is incorrect. You can be rigid and attacking at the same time. You can also be fluid and defensive at the same time - which is how I'm currently playing.

[Noel Gallagher]

If it's an attacking football, why rigid???? Change to fluid in order to your FB's participate in the attack phase of the game

People need to understand that the styles 'Rigid', 'Fluid' etc are just mentality structures. A person using a 'Rigid' style can still play effective, attacking football. For example, a full back in a 4-1-2-2-1 formation using a rigid style and an attacking strategy has a mentality of 14 when set by the TC so he will still be more attack minded than defense minded. The same player in the same formation still has the same mentality setting when you change the style to fluid.

I think a lot of people don't understand the TC properly which is why they struggle with their tactics.

[ModernLefty]

Having held this misconception, from my experience, I think it is down to real world attacking football always having the word 'fluid' associated with it, as 'rigidly' holding shape of attacking formation died when England were destroyed by Hungary in 1953.

This label may be fairly correct in FM terms for Dutch Total Football, or the Invincibles, who were fairly fluid if not 'fluid' by FM terms, but for many teams labeled as 'fluid' in the real world, the 'fluid' label in an FM sense just isn't true, as I found out pretty bluntly, to say the least.

A far less smooth name for it but possibly instructive would a range of 'tactical specificity': from 'Heavily Specialised/Specified instructions' to Harry Redknapp-esque: 'Just run about abit'

[Meneltin II]

I play the same formation in my Oxford save in League 1.

I use a midfield trio of DM, DLP/APM and a BWM. The BWM I trained to have the ppm's runs forward often and plays one-two's.

He is still lacking the finishing to score a lot of goals but his physical presence upfront is good for 5-10 goals per season.

I adjust the mentality settings based on opposition quality and formation.

Against a weak opponent I'll play with a APM(S) and a BWM(S), against strong opposition I might play a DLP(S) and a BWM(D).

[Master420]

Here are some of the points I've noted:-

i) Your RB, should be given support duty at most, since your winger is on attack and there will be no space for your attacking fullback. This will allow to field one attack minded Central Midfielder without taking any hit to your defense. Else you could try changing the winger to inside forward or AP.

ii)Your midfield needs to move forward, especially since you are playing short. Change the role of one of your central midfielders. A DLP(S) and BBM would be good. If you don't have a player with the stamina to be a BBM, you could also have a BWM(S), who will provide few counter attacking options.

iii) You need someone to link attack with midfield. You should change your striker to a DLF(TM if you decide to change to direct passing). Alternately, as I have said in point i), if you decide to change to your Winger, You could change him to an AP(A)[(S) if you decide to retain FB(A)] and keep your striker as an AF or as a treq, if he has the ability.