FM14 - New Tactical Elements

[moxphere]

In the database tactical att's show as 1-20, so unless you are saying that attributes are generally aesthetic aswell which is another argument. I have to believe that 20 attacking and 1 attacking make a difference. And I keep going back to it, but attacking 20 and counter (and other combo's) is not possible. There is a loss of control, there is a trade off in what you can choose, a little like COD where you pick 1 perk instead of another. I play in a network clan where tactical battles have been the best thing about the game, I think this limits how far we can take it now.

I try to agree with Skeletor (although I don't know if Cleon has answered it). A feature cannot be introduced with the justificative that it's bad but it was worse before and we could not realize it. The Man Marking/Zonal Marking thing disappearing from the scene (at least I couldn't find it so far) saying that they can be replaced by "mark tight" or some other similar order is not acceptable by FM standards. Actually, I had patience to try marking systems as many times as necessary to have a proof they were valid. If everything was farcical, it may be a great shame then.

[yonko]

So, I've been playing the Demo for the past few days (yes, my curiosity won over my disappointment) and I have to say that the new tactical system is like "Fog of War" to me or whatever the phrase is. It feels so weird not being able to see the default instructions. Also the ME feels worse to me than the ME in FM13 after the last patch.

Things are confusing to me considering that there are some Team Instructions that are also available as Individual Instructions. For example, Roaming, Tight Marking, Short Passing. If I set Roaming as Team Instruction, does it affect the whole team or does it affect only certain positions? Which positions? How is it different from setting Roaming for Individual player? Does Team Roaming + Individual Roaming = more Roaming?

Same goes for Tight Marking. What is the difference between using Tight Marking as a Team Instruction and Individual Instruction? Does Team Tight Marking + Individual Tight Marking = the Tightest Marking possible?

Short Passing. If my Team is set to pass short and I select one individual to pass short too, is that the same thing or is his passing even shorter than the rest of the team?

One of my frustrations during a game is when my Inside Forwards get inside the penalty box, near the byline and don't square the ball to my STC or to the other IF on the opposite side. Another one is that my STC doesn't drop deep enough regardless if he is playing as F9 or Trequartista even though the player has "comes deep" PPM also. I can instruct players to "Get Further Forward" but I can't tell them to play in deeper positions. Also, I'm having hard time figuring out which Individual Instructions are unavailable because they are already selected by default or simply not available for the role.

I need clarification what does "Retain Possession" actually does in terms of underlying instructions. When I select that option, why can I still control the tempo by selecting if I want higher or lower one. If I remember correctly "Retain Possession" reduced the passing length, lowered the tempo and increased the time wasting (???) on FM13. Now this ties with my previous questioning regarding Short passing as Team and Individual Instructions. Isn't using Retain Possession and Much Higher Tempo contradicting instructions?

Anyway, playing FM14 I still think (even more so than before) something very important to me is missing from the tactical side.....something "visual".

[Svenc]

This is how d-line pretty much works now in relation to your base strategy. Each base strategy (Contain -> Overload) has three defensive line variants (Standard / Drop Deeper / Push Higher), which are, respectively, medium, low and high block. However, they are relatively higher as you go up the strategies.

Speaking of which, was it at all necessary to have this many modifiers per mentality/strategy? Didn't there used to be an overlap between the mentality slider and d-line instructions? As such I barely spotted a difference between the two most extreme modifiers employing the same strategy in FM 2014, never mind the variants in between, but that might also be caused by an UI bug.

Also: Why does picking "hassle opponents" and "drop much deeper" don't close themselves out, and vice versa for "stand off"/"push much higher up"? Those are contradictory combinations, as I see it.

[tieio]

I won't be playing the demo but I fear that SI's goal to make the game closer to reality with every new release will result in taking the fun of it. Not everyone wants to play this game with maximum levels of detail and attention. And what I mean doesn't fit in the "play FMC instead" response.

As many other people, I really enjoy the game in long-term saves. This means I go through season fairly quickly and I don't waste much time with polishing my tactics, adapting it to the opposition before every match, or using in-game shouts.

I'm not sure - as I haven't seen it - how I'll be able to play the game my way without the sliders system. I'm not saying it's bad they are gone, I'm saying it's bad if the new system can't keep the game as enjoyable as it was with sliders.

The theory that sliders don't apply to real life is false IMO. Don't you rate albums, movies, games or restaurants with a numerical system? So why won't you rate players? I can imagine a scout report from a professional scout in which he rates a certain player by using a template that that envolves grading his abilities, either by saying "good passer" or "passing: 7/10" is that really a big difference?

All this to say: I will start a save and use the same tactic I have used in older games. I want to see if I can reproduce the slider instructions I had with the new system. If I'm able to do that, then I'll be happy. If not, then I consider the end of sliders a downgrade.

Agree 110% with this post.

So, I've been playing the Demo for the past few days (yes, my curiosity won over my disappointment) and I have to say that the new tactical system is like "Fog of War" to me or whatever the phrase is. It feels so weird not being able to see the default instructions. Also the ME feels worse to me than the ME in FM13 after the last patch.

Things are confusing to me considering that there are some Team Instructions that are also available as Individual Instructions. For example, Roaming, Tight Marking, Short Passing. If I set Roaming as Team Instruction, does it affect the whole team or does it affect only certain positions? Which positions? How is it different from setting Roaming for Individual player? Does Team Roaming + Individual Roaming = more Roaming?

Same goes for Tight Marking. What is the difference between using Tight Marking as a Team Instruction and Individual Instruction? Does Team Tight Marking + Individual Tight Marking = the Tightest Marking possible?

Short Passing. If my Team is set to pass short and I select one individual to pass short too, is that the same thing or is his passing even shorter than the rest of the team?

One of my frustrations during a game is when my Inside Forwards get inside the penalty box, near the byline and don't square the ball to my STC or to the other IF on the opposite side. Another one is that my STC doesn't drop deep enough regardless if he is playing as F9 or Trequartista even though the player has "comes deep" PPM also. I can instruct players to "Get Further Forward" but I can't tell them to play in deeper positions. Also, I'm having hard time figuring out which Individual Instructions are unavailable because they are already selected by default or simply not available for the role.

I need clarification what does "Retain Possession" actually does in terms of underlying instructions. When I select that option, why can I still control the tempo by selecting if I want higher or lower one. If I remember correctly "Retain Possession" reduced the passing length, lowered the tempo and increased the time wasting (???) on FM13. Now this ties with my previous questioning regarding Short passing as Team and Individual Instructions. Isn't using Retain Possession and Much Higher Tempo contradicting instructions?

Anyway, playing FM14 I still think (even more so than before) something very important to me is missing from the tactical side.....something "visual".

This one too.

The days of browsing these forums, I see the same trend over and over again... multiple people posting their difficulty with tactics, a few people come and more or less tell them "it's your tactics" in a different way of saying "I'm not having this issue so you must be a moron". Clearly many people think in many different ways and I agree a LOT with the fact there is a complete lack of explanation on the 'new' tactics system. One person says the FB's are broken, I see it, they stand there like pylons no matter the setting, but then another person comes on and says they work perfectly fine. We have the same game, presumably the same patch, so how can this be? I just finished testing my 5th save in this game, trying new things and implementing tactics people post in these forums and say work. They work to a degree, if you like 5-4, 4-3, 6-4 score lines. I also realize there will be some people coming on here and saying "my games aren't that high scoring! I can defend the lead easily!", yet a great many people cannot replicate this result, why? I just finished a match that ended 5-4 in extra time. I had a 2-0 lead, 3-1 lead and was up 4-3 in extra time. I KNOW there isn't some comeback code in the ME but there is obviously an underlying issue somewhere. In the previous versions of the game, you'd have a good lead (3-1 for example in this game at the 83 minute mark) and you would attempt to set yourself defensively to protect it. Sometimes there would be an odd comeback, but rarely, as is realistic, not many teams blow a 2 goal lead with just 7 minutes to go, but it is a regular occurrence in this game. I read all about this person on here with a Barca save and his tactics and how he went about winning and protecting leads etc so I decided to try it his way. After a few games, I saw the same old stuff I had been seeing but just to eliminate anyone saying "it is your team not being fluid with tactics!" or "team morale!" I bought FMRTE and boosted morale and tactics familiarity to max every game, it did not help. I get sick of reading "it's yoru tactics" when I have no used MY tactics since my first save, I've been using all of yours posted through these forums. We have the same game, I know I am not stupid and I have been more than open minded to trying new things to produce results similar to the previous games to no avail. Now I go back to patiently waiting for a patch that might help some.

[RTHerringbone]

^^ A lot of the points in that statement are made redundant by the fact that you are testing with downloaded tactics, plus you are massaging the gaming environment with the RTE and expecting it to change the world.

If you can use a RTE to max out Tactical Familiarity, that's great, but it does not change the fact that if the team you use is fundamentally not suited to the downloaded tactic, then it won't work as well as it did for the person who built the tactic.

Even if you do use the same team, it does not change the fact that you may not react in game in the same way as the person who built the tactic did. The notion of Plug and Play is dead. The notion of Plug, Play and React is here, and without reaction, you will not achieve as much as if you did react.

Let's not mess about here - the ME does have issues at the moment, but I'm afraid the "it's your tactics" line does have merits on a number of occasions. For me, on this occasion, it is your tactics, and they aren't even your tactics - which is even worse!

[Steve Odom]

@tieio

I hope you do realise that managers irl implement their tactics to suit yhe team at their disposal. They even change their strategies from match to mzrch. When they have a good lead thhey will also adapt to what they thinl is appropriate. I haven't expierenced a lot of comebacks like the ones you think happen 'all the time in fm. There are some defending issues but you can alter your tactics to mi.imise their effect. In my current save I concede about 0,7 goals a game which tells me the problem isn't as big is you might expect.

[Macon]

I don't think "stand off" and "push higher" are contradictory. "Push higher" means have a high defensive line, and "stand off" means avoid rushing an opponent with the ball. I agree that they are a poor combination to pick, and you'll get punished by through ball after through ball, but they are not opposites of one another.

[Felizao]

This is a fair comment if you don't know how the base strategies work. I'm not sure how clear that is currently. In terms of d-line, you'd have the following:

Contain: Very Low

Defensive: Low

Counter: Low-Medium

Standard: Medium

Control: Medium-High

Attacking: High

Overload: Very High

You then have six different modifiers:

Stand Off: Lowest possible d-line

Much Deeper Line: What it says on the tin

Drop Deeper: Somewhat deeper line

Push Higher Up: Somewhat higher line

Much Higher Line: What it says on the tin

Hassle Opponents: Highest possible d-line

Now, I could explain this in sliderese, thus:

Contain: 4

Defensive: 6

Counter: 8

Standard: 10

Control: 12

Attacking: 14

Overload: 16

Stand Off: 1

Much Deeper Line: -2, -5, -7 (dependent on base strategy)

Drop Deeper: -1, -3, -5 (dependent on base strategy)

Push Higher Up: +1, +3, +5 (dependent on base strategy)

Much Higher Line: +2, +5, +7 (dependent on base strategy)

Hassle Opponents: 20

(Note, these are from memory so might not be 100% correct. They will all change if you do or do not play a DMC, which automatically deepens the d-line slightly to give him space to operate in, or play wing backs, which makes the d-line slightly higher to force them upfield)

You can see that, for contain, for example, you can have a d-line set at 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, or 20. For Defensive, 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13 or 20. For Attacking, 1, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, etc, etc

I don't see why the numbers are necessary. What extra info do they give? How are they better than you knowing that you are asking your d-line to be extremely deep, very deep, deep, deepish, normal, highish, high, very high, extremely high within the relative context of your base strategy?

this is what confuses me with these team instructions.

I want to drop deeper, draw my opponent into my half, then once there, launch into them like enraged Rottweilers with lots of pressing and hit them on the counter.

Obviously, Counter strategy would be my starting point, that would drop my D-Line, adding Drop Deeper or even Much Deeper Line would also be logical, but the second (Pressing) part of my plan would (seem to) be Hassle Opponents, which according to this sets a D-Line to the max! Where is my D-Line now?

[RTHerringbone]

Hassle Opponents does not affect Defensive Line at all, it was an error above.

[jozza800]

this is what confuses me with these team instructions.

I want to drop deeper, draw my opponent into my half, then once there, launch into them like enraged Rottweilers with lots of pressing and hit them on the counter.

Obviously, Counter strategy would be my starting point, that would drop my D-Line, adding Drop Deeper or even Much Deeper Line would also be logical, but the second (Pressing) part of my plan would (seem to) be Hassle Opponents, which according to this sets a D-Line to the max! Where is my D-Line now?

If only we had some sort of visual guide, maybe something that looks like a sli...!

[RTHerringbone]

If only we had some sort of visual guide, maybe something that looks like a sli...!

Sigh...

This is a redundant way of thinking now, you have to embrace the new system in order to get the most from it.

Steadfastly failing to adapt will only serve to hinder your enjoyment of the game, it is time to move on!

[THOG]

If only we had some sort of visual guide, maybe something that looks like a sli...!

The slider was never a visual representation of where your d-line would be on the pitch. It simply modified how high the defence would be willing to push up relative to their mentality.

[Contexx]

relative to their mentality.

If only more people would keep that part in mind when considering their tactics things would be much easier.

I personally like the sliderless system, and it certainly allows you to think of your tactics in terms of ranges rather than figures. "push higher up" certainly feels more realistic than sliding a from 12 to 17 and wondering if maybe it should have been 15 or 18.

However, the one thing the slider system did was demonstrate changes of one variable and their effect on others. For example, "more direct passing" would not only affect passing strategy, but also width and tempo etc. It's one of the reason a lot of tactics which struggle are so packed with shouts - you get the tactics with things such as "much higher line", "quicker tempo", "play wider", "hassle opponents". I'm not saying the tactics are wrong or bad, but sometimes people forget that shouts are modifiers relative to the overall mentality and philosophy.

The problem is when you're going to the key derby, and you have a "naked" counter strategy, with no shouts. It's easy to forget the variables and affects on passing, tempo, creativity, and closing down already contained in "control" by default. So we often "spice" it up according to the the type of football we want to see.

I realized this in a recent match, where I was trying to play a more possession based style - using "control" strategy, I gave the instructions to retain possession and use shorter passing, and was also playing fairly. Was the passing ever short! And considering the opposition were parking the bus, the passing was also very pointless. Probably in the next 90 minutes, I would have carved the opposition open and the goal would have been a spectacular piece of football erotica, or a missed interception from the opposition who finally lost concentration. For my taste or style of play, I decided "shorter passing" was pointless - retain possession already ensured we wouldn't be lumping it, but the passing range opened up. For most game players, being able to actually see a representation of what instructions and strategies do is reassuring your instructions are accurate. 90% of tactical errors seem to come from people not understanding what their instructions actually do and their consequence on the overall style of play.

I hope it's okay for me to mention this in the forums, but alongside the truly inspiring stickies and threads here, I think the old Tactical Theorems and Frameworks should be as close to a manual as anything SI have put out. The sections about mentality and its connections to real football really are brilliant.

Someone recently mentioned in a reply about the curse of Sparcelona and people's obsession with possession football. The same can be said of Dortmund and pressing. Suddenly you have catchphrases like "6 second rule" and "gangpressing" or "the DLP with 989 passes completed in a a match" and when you have instructions like "retain possession" "lower tempo" or "hassle opponents", it's easy to fall in love with the term without knowing what it actually does. Next thing you have is people shouting "game is broken I use retain possession but I'm not keeping the ball like Swansea in real life".

The slider system was silly and limited - this system leads to more satisfying and accurate game play. However, it did make it easier for people to visualize the mechanics of their instructions.

[petergoddard]

I'm with you Contexx. I can (and I do) agree that the current tactical system is indeed a step in the right direction. As RT mentioned in his article on the CCC magazine, what's realistic about a manager telling a player "do 10% more of what you do" (not accurate, but I think this was the idea). But although being that step in the right direction, it is also a step from 8 to 80, a kind of a step bigger than the leg. It would be better if a transition phase was introduced for people get used to the changes, it's difficult to perceive the implications of the instructions and people who tend to use a lot of instructions end up building confliting and incoherent tactics... then they shout FM sucks without looking to what they are doing tacticaly. They indeed wrongly shout it, but the current status doesn't help also. Without perceiving the practical implications of the instructions, the text boxes should be more clarifying mainly the ones that already existed (roles and duties). Let's not forget that when fm14 was released it wasn't even possible to know what PI's was by default assign to a role / duty.

Plus, some better customizing would be nice since a few instructions affect the all team but then I can't tune it in PI's... of course I'm not talking about sliders. But for instance, for the moment I'm thinking the more disciplined / more expressive TI. It affects all players but there is no instruction to tune in PI's.

[Felizao]

Hassle Opponents does not affect Defensive Line at all, it was an error above.

I thought as much as I hade been having success with Hassle and Drop Deeper but glad to have this confirmed.

[Taipan]

If only we had some sort of visual guide, maybe something that looks like a sli...!

Aye, that little flag which shows you are using "off-side" in the tactics display. I'd love one similar to show where my line of no retreat actually is.

[petergoddard]

It would be nice to have some tactic box in TI where we could actually see the implications of some instructions, like the defence line or playing narrow / wider

[yonko]

It seems people want visualization of the instructions and the changes they cause. Why am I not surprised? I called it even before the game was released.

[THOG]

It would be nice to have some tactic box in TI where we could actually see the implications of some instructions, like the defence line or playing narrow / wider

The problem with this is that no team plays in such a static way. All instructions control tendencies that guide how a team will tend to adapt to a particular opponent in a particular play in a particular phase. There is no way to visualize that in a meaningful way that would actually be of any practical use to anyone. The simple language of "more" or "less" is necessary because all tactics are necessarily adaptive. Football isn't chess. It's a game in which there are countless variables in movement at any given moment.

This was the main problem with the slider system. It created the illusion and misconception that play was so mechanized that you could set the defensive line to sit at exactly 40m, that CMs would move exactly 10m apart every time, that a player would close down an opponent at exactly 60m from his goal, etc. That's not how football works, and it's not how tactical instructions are given to players. Everything is much more generalized than that.

[RTHerringbone]

The problem with this is that no team plays in such a static way. All instructions control tendencies that guide how a team will tend to adapt to a particular opponent in a particular play in a particular phase. There is no way to visualize that in a meaningful way that would actually be of any practical use to anyone. The simple language of "more" or "less" is necessary because all tactics are necessarily adaptive. Football isn't chess. It's a game in which there are countless variables in movement at any given moment.

This was the main problem with the slider system. It created the illusion and misconception that play was so mechanized that you could set the defensive line to sit at exactly 40m, that CMs would move exactly 10m apart every time, that a player would close down an opponent at exactly 60m from his goal, etc. That's not how football works, and it's not how tactical instructions are given to players. Everything is much more generalized than that.

Perfectly articulated - cheers!

[b101]

If only more people would keep that part in mind when considering their tactics things would be much easier.

I personally like the sliderless system, and it certainly allows you to think of your tactics in terms of ranges rather than figures. "push higher up" certainly feels more realistic than sliding a from 12 to 17 and wondering if maybe it should have been 15 or 18.

However, the one thing the slider system did was demonstrate changes of one variable and their effect on others. For example, "more direct passing" would not only affect passing strategy, but also width and tempo etc. It's one of the reason a lot of tactics which struggle are so packed with shouts - you get the tactics with things such as "much higher line", "quicker tempo", "play wider", "hassle opponents". I'm not saying the tactics are wrong or bad, but sometimes people forget that shouts are modifiers relative to the overall mentality and philosophy.

The problem is when you're going to the key derby, and you have a "naked" counter strategy, with no shouts. It's easy to forget the variables and affects on passing, tempo, creativity, and closing down already contained in "control" by default. So we often "spice" it up according to the the type of football we want to see.

I realized this in a recent match, where I was trying to play a more possession based style - using "control" strategy, I gave the instructions to retain possession and use shorter passing, and was also playing fairly. Was the passing ever short! And considering the opposition were parking the bus, the passing was also very pointless. Probably in the next 90 minutes, I would have carved the opposition open and the goal would have been a spectacular piece of football erotica, or a missed interception from the opposition who finally lost concentration. For my taste or style of play, I decided "shorter passing" was pointless - retain possession already ensured we wouldn't be lumping it, but the passing range opened up. For most game players, being able to actually see a representation of what instructions and strategies do is reassuring your instructions are accurate. 90% of tactical errors seem to come from people not understanding what their instructions actually do and their consequence on the overall style of play.

I hope it's okay for me to mention this in the forums, but alongside the truly inspiring stickies and threads here, I think the old Tactical Theorems and Frameworks should be as close to a manual as anything SI have put out. The sections about mentality and its connections to real football really are brilliant.

Someone recently mentioned in a reply about the curse of Sparcelona and people's obsession with possession football. The same can be said of Dortmund and pressing. Suddenly you have catchphrases like "6 second rule" and "gangpressing" or "the DLP with 989 passes completed in a a match" and when you have instructions like "retain possession" "lower tempo" or "hassle opponents", it's easy to fall in love with the term without knowing what it actually does. Next thing you have is people shouting "game is broken I use retain possession but I'm not keeping the ball like Swansea in real life".

The slider system was silly and limited - this system leads to more satisfying and accurate game play. However, it did make it easier for people to visualize the mechanics of their instructions.

Damn, that's a good post. Really agree with everything you've mentioned, and I know I'm one of those who jumps onto a tactics 'fad'

[petergoddard]

The problem with this is that no team plays in such a static way. All instructions control tendencies that guide how a team will tend to adapt to a particular opponent in a particular play in a particular phase. There is no way to visualize that in a meaningful way that would actually be of any practical use to anyone. The simple language of "more" or "less" is necessary because all tactics are necessarily adaptive. Football isn't chess. It's a game in which there are countless variables in movement at any given moment.

This was the main problem with the slider system. It created the illusion and misconception that play was so mechanized that you could set the defensive line to sit at exactly 40m, that CMs would move exactly 10m apart every time, that a player would close down an opponent at exactly 60m from his goal, etc. That's not how football works, and it's not how tactical instructions are given to players. Everything is much more generalized than that.

generalized and covering all the ways about thinking football

[themadsheep2001]

The problem with this is that no team plays in such a static way. All instructions control tendencies that guide how a team will tend to adapt to a particular opponent in a particular play in a particular phase. There is no way to visualize that in a meaningful way that would actually be of any practical use to anyone. The simple language of "more" or "less" is necessary because all tactics are necessarily adaptive. Football isn't chess. It's a game in which there are countless variables in movement at any given moment.

This was the main problem with the slider system. It created the illusion and misconception that play was so mechanized that you could set the defensive line to sit at exactly 40m, that CMs would move exactly 10m apart every time, that a player would close down an opponent at exactly 60m from his goal, etc. That's not how football works, and it's not how tactical instructions are given to players. Everything is much more generalized than that.

Absolutely bang on the money. Exactly why the sliders had to go. What is required is a visualisation of an entirely different kind, one that hasn't been present in FM before.

[deserter]

I just wish I could forget how the sliders were set for everything pre-FM14. Translating everything back to them intuitively is really quite unproductive and will be even more so in the future with SI undoubtedly moving further away from them.

[daleuk8]

so hassle opponent does not affect d-line?

[RTHerringbone]

so hassle opponent does not affect d-line?

Correct.

[eddymunster]

Correct.

Does 'stand off opponents' affect D-line, always assumed it was the mirror of hassle opponents.

[RTHerringbone]

Does 'stand off opponents' affect D-line, always assumed it was the mirror of hassle opponents.

The online manual says this "Instructs your players to give the opposition more time, retreat into a defensive shape and minimise the risk of being opened up."

My understanding is that it does drop your defensive line, and also reduces Closing Down and removes Tight Marking. It's all about maintaining shape essentially.

[THOG]

Does 'stand off opponents' affect D-line, always assumed it was the mirror of hassle opponents.

It is the opposite of hassle opponents, but it does not affect d-line. It just encourages your defenders to retain shape and invite the opponent to try to play through the defence (as opposed to telling defenders to go chasing after the ball).

[RTHerringbone]

It is the opposite of hassle opponents, but it does not affect d-line.

Is that correct? I usually get defensive line related questions wrong, so I'm just seeking clarification!

Defensive Lines have a natural bit of "creep" to them if you don't Stand Off, but I'm reasonably sure that as well as minimising this "creep" by reducing Closing Down, that Stand Off does have a minor line drop.

[Cleon]

Is that correct? I usually get defensive line related questions wrong, so I'm just seeking clarification!

Defensive Lines have a natural bit of "creep" to them if you don't Stand Off, but I'm reasonably sure that as well as minimising this "creep" by reducing Closing Down, that Stand Off does have a minor line drop.

Yups.

If people want clarification to what it alters then it actually reduced closing down, removes tight marking and reduces tempo.

[RTHerringbone]

Yups.

If people want clarification to what it alters then it actually reduced closing down, removes tight marking and reduces tempo.

You seriously need to cancel any plans for Paternity Leave

I'm getting everything wrong lately, it's the sleep deprivation.

I found the answer to this whilst you posted that and was going to come back to correct myself!

[THOG]

Is that correct? I usually get defensive line related questions wrong, so I'm just seeking clarification!

Defensive Lines have a natural bit of "creep" to them if you don't Stand Off, but I'm reasonably sure that as well as minimising this "creep" by reducing Closing Down, that Stand Off does have a minor line drop.

Unless this has been changed recently, it doesn't affect d-line.

Think of it as the difference between collective pressing and individual pressing. "Stand Off" + a high d-line means your team will tend to push up in formation. They won't go chasing after the ball individually, but they're trying to get the opposition to play through them and, by pushing up, forcing the issue sooner. It's a similarly high risk approach, but very effective if pulled off correctly.

You are right that "Stand Off" will tend to cause more creep, but again, this is because players aren't individually chasing the ball. If the opposition manages to progress, your defence will drop back accordingly, but the idea is that, even if you don't manage to intercept the ball, you're forcing them to keep it slow and very precise (or take the chance of hoofing it over the top).

[eddymunster]

Cheers guys.

[eddymunster]

You seriously need to cancel any plans for Paternity Leave

I'm getting everything wrong lately, it's the sleep deprivation.

I found the answer to this whilst you posted that and was going to come back to correct myself!

Not surprised, moderating round here must be like herding cats.