FM14 - New Tactical Elements

[thomit]

I liked the last 2 posts from furiousuk a lot. Makes perfect sense, and I'm even more reassured that this move is the right one.

[siambluebird]

Very true, unfortunately the game is going in another direction and looking for a different and probably larger audience.

It is so frustrating to keep reading comments that disregard what FM is trying to do with the TC. It seems so clear, but people are just not listening to what WWFan is actually saying and somehow are not getting the experience that the TC brings to the table.

It took me a few months. I complained about it, and then it clicked. I got it. It is about making football play the way you want it to be played. It is about designing a theory and tactic that get the team to play football how you want it to be played. You then have to be aware of many subtleties that can bring down your game plan. You have to adapt, use different shouts in different matches, get your players in the best shape you can, and build for your season. I love this and I just don't get it when people say they have no control...it really makes me scratch my head.

The sliders were the opposite. Move it a notch here and then see what the result was...oh...okay lets move it a notch back now and see if I win. To be frank it was fine at the time, but once experiencing the TC the sliders are a pathetic tool which did not represent football logic.

I read a complaint here that you should not have to watch the game to know how a position works. I completely disagree. All your players are different. They have different attributes. You HAVE to watch the game to understand how your team works not just the roles. Since I switched to watching the full game I have really appreciated the tactical side of football even more.

Please try to open up to the TC. Think about football and not just how do I beat the game. The TC is not perfect, some things about the game are not perfect, but how you can want to go back to just tweaking a slider to find a combination that will win you 90% of matches and then think you have a representation of football, I don't get.

[etcetera]

I know this will fall on deaf ears, but why not try to use the next 6/7 weeks to try and use the Tactics Creator exclusively on FM13, to make the jump from sliders to no-sliders less painful?

At least then you may be able to at least approach the new system from a more neutral perspective.

The reason people don't try the play with the TC exclusively is because there are many problems with it, one of which are the examples i raised before. Shouts at the moment affect the entire team, and can't be used on individuals. If that's what end user wants to do (tweak settings for an individual player), he has to use sliders, he can't use shouts, and now you're telling him to play the current game exclusively with TC/shouts.

Another thing, I think the vast majority of people who are pro-sliders aren't lost causes like you think they're to be. I can almost guarantee the people that don't want sliders gone don't micromanage within a game. Like a few people have said, they like to click on the 'show instructions' box and understand the role/duty that way. That's just logical for them. I've played this game for over 10 years, back in CM01/02 there were only sliders. Now you have a 2 line description of a preset role that you're supposed to trust, and 15-20 shouts that are potentially just as vague. I don't think the vast majority of people would give a damn if they can use sliders or not as long they can give individual instructions to their players. What most of those people want is to see how their changes affect their players 'tendencies', or what's going on 'under the hood'.

I don't think it's an incredibly complicated feature to put in the game nor is it an outrageous request. But i'm surprised how much **** people get for expressing their views, eg

You really are a lost cause, aren't you?

You can sit about in a swamp of negativity for the next few weeks and then cut off your nose to spite your face and disassociate yourself from a game that has served you well for years, or you can just try to step out of the negative spiral and try and embrace the direction that the game continues to take.

I don't actually know why I respond.

I don't care if you play or like the game or not, but I'm staggered by your steadfast negative attitude when you've not even seen the damn game in action.

How can someone be convinced if the person trying to convince them has that type of attitude?

For the record, I love the TC. I never understood the intricacies of time wasting, mentality, width and the other 20 point sliders, but by looking at the team/individual sliders it helps me to understand what those roles/strategies do. A name's just a label, its the adjustable instructions that make the role

[furiousuk]

What most of those people want is to see how their changes affect their players 'tendencies', or what's going on 'under the hood'.

Why? What's the point?

FM is incredibly complicated, it's probably taken the designers and developers 5-10 years of working professionally to learn how to structure and build a system like FM. You could probably be taught the basic in 6-12 mths but you wouldn't really understand all that was happening. Why would you want to learn all that, in your spare time, just so that you can work out how to get a midfielder to sit a little deeper? Just tell him to sit deeper and then look if he is or not. Takes 2 minutes (plus, I guess, an additional few minutes to find the buttons to actually 'communicate' with that virtual player).

It doesn't matter what is happening 'under the hood'.

Not to you as a gamer.

Makes no difference at all.

Think of it a different way. Go into a pub and find a football fan who does not know FM (I know this is pretty darned hard). Try telling him (or her) that you moved the width slider from 12 to 20 and your team found more space and you won. Chances are they only understood the second half of your sentence. So if you want them to understand you have to explain what a slider is and how this one relates to width, then explain what 12 is, then explain what 20 is, probably explain a little about what the perceived difference is (not the actual, you dont know that unless you've coded the game) between 12 notches and 20 notches and then they may understand your whole sentence (although they still have no grounding because they haven't played FM so are only connecting the sliders to the theory through a proxy, you, and therefore second hand). Now try telling them that your asked your team to play wider, and they did, and you found space and won the game—while the other guy is stuck explaining sliders you're already on your 3rd pint.

Moving the sliders is NOT telling your team to play wider, not to you as a gamer anyway. It's moving some sliders in order to get your team to play wider. As an end-user (FMer), hitting a button that says play wider IS telling your team to play wider. No intermediate step, no complex procedure. It's almost just the same as you'd do in real life.

I don't think it's an incredibly complicated feature to put in the game nor is it an outrageous request

Hopefully I've managed to explain that whatever is going on under the hood is, infact, incredibly difficult for FM to explain to us. Infact, it's impossible. Most of us could not write FM in a million years, but most of us could become very good at playing it. You don't need to be able to do the former to be able to do the latter. Infact, often game devs make terrible players in any sort of non-trivial game.

[RTHerringbone]

etcetera, I think you read too much into some of my comments!

higgins and I have been discussing this stuff here, in a blog and on Twitter.

We have opposite opinions but (I think) understand each other well enough to exchange some fairly direct and forthright comments.

Having said that, he is a lost cause

I absolutely don't think that all slider users are lost causes. What I do think is that people who do make use of the sliders could set themselves up to adapt to FM14 better, if they embrace the TC in the dying days of FM13. Of course, their decision as to whether to continue with the series or not is entirely their own.

Shouts at the moment affect the entire team, and can't be used on individuals. If that's what end user wants to do (tweak settings for an individual player), he has to use sliders, he can't use shouts, and now you're telling him to play the current game exclusively with TC/shouts.

This should not be an issue in FM14 according to the video, as a result of the Player Instruction layer. As has been discussed a lot in this thread; the quantum of instruction may be less without sliders, but we should still be able to change player behaviour from the defaults.

I absolutely share furiousuk's stance here. What we, as a user base, have to accept is that sliders, their use a reference point and as a tactical tool, are gone. To best adapt to this change, I personally am forgetting everything I did or didn't know about them because they are no longer relevant.

[siambluebird]

I personally am forgetting everything I did or didn't know about them because they are no longer relevant.

Exactly! The game has changed and we will now be playing FM using footballing language. I bitched about steam for awhile, but in the end you change your mindset and eventually the "issue" is not really an "issue" anymore.

[tomtuck01]

I've played this game for over 10 years, back in CM01/02 there were only sliders.

Err, no there wasn't.

[Madminister]

CM01/02 brings back fond memories. Am I the only one missing the wibble/wobble screens

[ceefax the cat]

Having looked over my posts and those of a few (very sound) contributors, my stance can be summed up thus:

The TC is in essence absolutely the perfect next step for tactics in FM, but it needs to be more nuanced and specific.

"You're playing too narrow, play wider" needs to become "Play wider. Not that much wider - bit less. Ok spot on". Because there are more than two possible team widths in football.

"You're playing it too short - go more direct" needs to be able to be "You're playing it too short. Hit more passes to Craggsy, or look to switch it across the back four" because passing in football does not boil down to 'short or less short'.

When we get to that level of control then I will rejoice and celebrate the fact that FM has evolved into an actual football experience, and that the sliders I spent years arguing against are finally gone. Until then, I'm reluctant to give up the extra level of control that sliders give me over choosing from what is, considering the many, many possible parameters in football, a very basic menu indeed.

[siambluebird]

Because there are more than two possible team widths in football.

Can you see where there is some frustration. How you set up your whole team and player roles can create more width or less width. You are not restricted to two possible widths. I think this has been explained repeatedly throughout the thread. Until this is accepted there is not much else that can be discussed.

[RTHerringbone]

Can you see where there is some frustration. How you set up your whole team and player roles can create more width or less width. You are not restricted to two possible widths. I think this has been explained repeatedly throughout the thread. Until this is accepted there is not much else that can be discussed.

I agree, and this isn't a criticism of saying "there are only two widths", but pointing out some known facts:

It doesn't take FM14 to know that we already have different width settings for each Strategy - so there are more than two default widths.

Whilst I don't believe we know what Team Instructions we can influence in FM14, I'd be absolutely staggered if we can't influence Defensive Line and Width within each Strategy, so we actually should have plenty of options.

wwfan said something earlier in the thread which is important. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is logical:

In terms of width and depth (etc), the user needs to recognise their relative relation to strategy. He can have a deepish attacking strategy, but must accept that a relatively high line is an inherent part of such a strategy. If he wants a lower line, he'll have to be less attacking minded. Trade offs will be absolutely necessary. Personally, I think such trade offs are an inherent part of all management, whether sporting or non-sporting.

[ZdlR]

wwfan said something earlier in the thread which is important. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is logical:

The corollary to what wwfan said is that you can no longer do something 'illogical'. So, you can't play extremely deep and attacking at the same time. This is just a natural limitation of removing the sliders. There are two positive affects of this: firstly, it is much harder to do something 'silly' which shouldn't work - beginners will be less able to tie themselves in a tactical knot. A good thing. The other positive is that it removes a huge range of settings from the match engine inputs, which will make it easier to code. Think of simple website form validation - if you ask a person to enter a number without validation, you need to handle all of the crazy cases where people put huge numbers in, negative numbers, non-numbers, dogs, etc. If you prevent them from doing that at source, you don't need to think about dealing with all those permutations.

The downside is that certain tactics that would have been possible will no longer be so. Perhaps it really is the best strategy for your team to be super attacking from deep. Well, tough. You can drop the d-line back a bit, but you can't drop it back entirely. A more realistic example of something that I think will not be possible is defending very deep but very wide laterally. This is something you might want to do if you are holding onto a lead and the opposition have both a striker with pace that likes to get behind the defence and a tall striker that is good with their head. You want to drop back and defend your lead and deny the pacey striker space, but all pro-actively stop the delivery of crosses from wide for the tall striker.

I think this latter problem is solved by the match engine being more nuanced. It will know what a defensive width usually is and, if you have shouted 'play wider' your width will be greater than the default for that mentality. Thus, the match engine knows that you want to prevent the threat from out wide. Or, perhaps that's just the wrong way to deal with such a situation and, actually, you should use opposition instructions to close down the wingers and fullbacks. Either way, I don't see the removal of sliders as being so catastrophic. It's a shame I won't be able to glance at the settings for mentality and off the ball - for example - and know what positional problems I might have due to too many players going forward. Same goes for other sliders, really. I think setting them to read-only would have been a nice half-way house before removing them entirely.

Infact, often game devs make terrible players in any sort of non-trivial game.

Couldn't disagree more. We're better able to understand how something is likely implemented and that gives us an advantage.

[thomit]

There is no such thing as "defensive width". How "wide" across the pitch your players position themselves when defending, is determined by the attacking width of the opposing team. You cant instruct a defensive width, and it would be ridiculous if you did. In defense, your team absolutely need to adapt to your opponents.

[Spart]

There is no such thing as "defensive width". How "wide" across the pitch your players position themselves when defending, is determined by the attacking width of the opposing team.

Depends. If your goal is to react to the opposition's shape and movement, fine.

If, like Mourinho's Inter Milan at times, you want to drop off and shift into deep and well-drilled strata when out of possession, you may well want to define a defensive width.

[thomit]

Depends. If your goal is to react to the opposition's shape and movement, fine.

If, like Mourinho's Inter Milan at times, you want to drop off and shift into deep and well-drilled strata when out of possession, you may well want to define a defensive width.

No you wouldn't. Defining a specific width for your defense would be near suicidal.

[furiousuk]

Couldn't disagree more. We're better able to understand how something is likely implemented and that gives us an advantage.

Not necessarily, it could be a disadvantage, especially if you're only guessing at the implementation or don't know all of it.

I guess my point was though that it isn't a requirement that you understand how a system works in order to be better at using it, you just have to know how to use that system, not necessarily how it actually works.

I don't need to know all of the complex mechanical and chemical reactions that occur to make me run fast, I just need to know how to run fast.

I was trying (and a poor example maybe) to just make that distinction when some opinions where that you have to know how the system works in order to use it. There are plenty of times when this is a good thing but its not a requirement.

[däkkä]

There is no such thing as "defensive width". How "wide" across the pitch your players position themselves when defending, is determined by the attacking width of the opposing team

Is it not perfectly reasonable for a manager to prioritize keeping gaps between players in the defensive line and in midfield as small as possible, if the opponent's central threat is considered bigger than the threat their wide men provide?

[ZdlR]

...snip...

Yup, higher level abstractions that are closer to the real-world representation > low level mechanics. Every time.

[thomit]

Is it not perfectly reasonable for a manager to prioritize keeping gaps between players in the defensive line and in midfield as small as possible, if the opponent's central threat is considered bigger than the threat their wide men provide?

No. As in: "We know they have wingers, but you guys concentrate on keeping the gaps in central as small as possible, don't worry about their wide men. Keep your width in defense narrow, whatever."? That would be the stupidest manager you'd be likely to see in football, ever. As would the other way around be. "I know they concentrate their attack centrally, but you guys should stretch across the whole width of the pitch, whatever. I don't care if they're overloading us centrally, and that you 2 full backs then virtually don't contribute in defense much at all - you do as I say, period!"

But this is allready quite off topic, I'll end it here. Defining or instructing a certain width in defense, that the defense should stick to whatever, don't exist in football. The width of your defense is determined by where your opponent's attacking players are positioned. If they have many and across the whole width of the pitch, your defense will be stretched accordingly - sometimes forcing you to add more players to the defense. If they have few and/or attack predominantly centrally, your full backs or wing backs tuck inside, making the width - and the gaps - narrower. Well, except for the astonishingly stupid ones, that is. This, however, happens not as a product of the manager's instructions, but as a result of the play on the pitch, it's just common sense - or call it football intelligence, if you like.

[ZdlR]

There is no such thing as "defensive width". How "wide" across the pitch your players position themselves when defending, is determined by the attacking width of the opposing team. You cant instruct a defensive width, and it would be ridiculous if you did. In defense, your team absolutely need to adapt to your opponents.

An important clarification you could make would be to say whether you are talking a) how the game currently works/should work/will work in FM14 or b) how football works in real life.

In other words, are you saying that the game has no concept of defensive width or that there is no real-life concept of defensive width. I would agree with your claim if it is the former and disagree if it is the latter.

edit: You've made your clarification. It's the latter. Although I don't see how you can be so unequivocal that it 'doesn't exist in football', I can see why you think it would be wrong for a manager to set this instruction up. With FM14, it appears that only minor tweaks narrower or wider than the defensive default will be allowed. The wider question of whether this is a Good Thing. I tend to think so, but I can understand if someone wanted to set their width in defensive even wider. If this would really be suicidal, then it's surely a good thing that there's one less error path for us human managers.

[Äktsjon Männ]

No. As in: "We know they have wingers, but you guys concentrate on keeping the gaps in central as small as possible, don't worry about their wide men. Keep your width in defense narrow, whatever."? That would be the stupidest manager you'd be likely to see in football, ever. As would the other way around be. "I know they concentrate their attack centrally, but you guys should stretch across the whole width of the pitch, whatever. I don't care if they're overloading us centrally, and that you 2 full backs then virtually don't contribute in defense much at all - you do as I say, period!"

No offense, but this post is pretty far off. Teams actually do keep a narrow shape in defense against wide attacks, it doesn't mean that they don't close down the player on the ball, but the full back on the other side will tuck in and midfielders will cover centrally. It encourages the opposition to try and switch a flank by denying other options. As for the second example, there are more ways to set up a defense than a traditional back four, many of which require different approaches. Even if a team is focusing play through the middle you might want to restrict their wide outlets, for example. It doesn't mean there necessarily has to be a 'defensive width' option in the game, just some more intuitive ways to control defensive shape.

[thomit]

No offense, but this post is pretty far off. Teams actually do keep a narrow shape in defense against wide attacks, it doesn't mean that they don't close down the player on the ball, but the full back on the other side will tuck in and midfielders will cover centrally. It encourages the opposition to try and switch a flank by denying other options. As for the second example, there are more ways to set up a defense than a traditional back four, many of which require different approaches. Even if a team is focusing play through the middle you might want to restrict their wide outlets, for example. It doesn't mean there necessarily has to be a 'defensive width' option in the game, just some more intuitive ways to control defensive shape.

Here you are talking defensive shape, and defensive behaviour in closing down, height/depth, not width. Of course the defense drifts towards the side where the attack is happening - this has nothing to do with the concept of a manager "setting" a width that the defense should observe. That just does not happen in football. Again, it's just common sense. The defense adapts to what's happening on the pitch, where the ball is, where the attacking threats are. It's not something the manager can "set". And that's why you can't "set" a defensive width in FM either. The "width" instruction only takes effect when you are in posession of the ball.

My example with a defense including 2 full backs was just one example - it doesn't really make any difference.

I really feel that this discussion belongs elsewhere though, not in this thread. I would be happy to discuss further, but elsewhere.

[RTHerringbone]

I really feel that this discussion belongs elsewhere though, not in this thread. I would be happy to discuss further, but elsewhere.

The discussion has done a good job of demonstrating how subjective football is, let alone Football Managers' interpretation of it.

For me, the crux is that if people can't agree on something like Defensive Line (not Width - I'm with you 100% on this), then it renders a lot of the nonsense we've all contributed to this thread even more ludicrous!

[thomit]

The discussion has done a good job of demonstrating how subjective football is, let alone Football Managers' interpretation of it.

For me, the crux is that if people can't agree on something like Defensive Line (not Width - I'm with you 100% on this), then it renders a lot of the nonsense we've all contributed to this thread even more ludicrous!

Well, if you - the creator of this thread - is happy with this slightly off-topic discussion continuing in here, then I am too. Though I really don't feel that there is much to discuss; As a manager, you can choose how wide you want to be in attack. But you simply don't have a choice in defense - you have to adapt to your opponent. Thus, no "setting" of defensive width, neither in FM nor in real life football. How well your defense adapts, where they should position themselves laterally, how they should both mind the opponents and mind the gaps - this is stuff they learn in "defender school". Not something a manager can instruct them before every match. Other than to instruct them that they should disregard what they have learned, perhaps. Which would just be silly.

[gechal]

Im pretty sure real life managers tell their fullbacks how far apart they want them to be from each other if they feel the need.

Chelsea Barcelona in the champions league a few seasons back. Barcelona played very wide. Chelsea player very deep and very narrow. Their full backs were not being stretched. they stayed basically on the edges of the penalty area because Chelsea knew Barcelona's main threat was through the middle. Let them have space out wide, we can mop up the crosses all day long.

So I am a bit confused by what thomit is saying. Chelsea did not adapt to the width of Barcelona, they set their own defensive width.

[RTHerringbone]

I am a bit confused by what thomit is saying. Chelsea did not adapt to the width of Barcelona, they set their own defensive width.

It's one area where FM and "real" football differ. In FM, you set a "without the ball" Defensive Line Depth.

Width is only relevant "with the ball".

The width a defence adopts in FM is all about the coded intelligence and how much they want to press the player / ball.

[gechal]

So its an area in FM that could be improved then.

thomit did say though that teams do not set defensive width in real life.

[RTHerringbone]

So its an area in FM that could be improved then.

thomit did say though that teams do not set defensive width in real life.

It's another subjective thing.

Personally I don't think a manager would say "Play Narrow and ignore their wide men", nor do I think they say "Stay wide and expect their wide men to move into your zone".

I think FM's interpretation is about right "Think about how deep/high you are but close your man zonally or man to man depending on what I've told you to do".

[ZdlR]

In FM, you set a "without the ball" Defensive Line Depth.

Is that absolutely, verifiably, unequivocally true?

[Spart]

Im pretty sure real life managers tell their fullbacks how far apart they want them to be from each other if they feel the need.

Chelsea Barcelona in the champions league a few seasons back. Barcelona played very wide. Chelsea player very deep and very narrow. Their full backs were not being stretched. they stayed basically on the edges of the penalty area because Chelsea knew Barcelona's main threat was through the middle. Let them have space out wide, we can mop up the crosses all day long.

So I am a bit confused by what thomit is saying. Chelsea did not adapt to the width of Barcelona, they set their own defensive width.

I agree. Some managers may wish to drill their team to move into a specific defensive formation without the ball. Benitez and Moyes are recent examples of players doing just that at Napoli and Manchester United. I don't think anyones suggesting a manager will be screaming to adjust width when a winger is baring down the flanks, but if a team is without the ball but with time to reorganise themselves, they may well fall back into a pre-determined defensive width, even if that will be tweaked depending on who they are facing.

[Spart]

Is that absolutely, verifiably, unequivocally true?

I don't think it is. If you set a high defensive line for example it's often to also help your midfielder as they moves upfield in possession.

[gechal]

It's another subjective thing.

Personally I don't think a manager would say "Play Narrow and ignore their wide men", nor do I think they say "Stay wide and expect their wide men to move into your zone".

I think FM's interpretation is about right "Think about how deep/high you are but close your man zonally or man to man depending on what I've told you to do".

I think that maybe you have not got as much control of your defenders as you would like at times. I really liked how Chelsea controlled the space in that Barcelona game. It was an extreme example granted, but one that would be difficult to replicate in FM.

Drop deeper - Stand off opponents - Stay on feet . With a contain strategy, with full backs on defend, and wide midfielders on defend.

Maybe that is as close as you can get to it.

[Cleon]

I don't think it is. If you set a high defensive line for example it's often to also help your midfielder as he moves upfield in possession.

Defensive line only works when you don't have the ball.

[higgins]

This is not true, in real life teams play with different defensive line width, it's a manager choice.

Yesterday Juve-Galatasaray game showed that well, Mancinu asked his flat back four to stay very narrow to cover Pogba & Vidal cutting into the box, even if doing that their full backs left a lot of room to be exploited by Juve wing backs.

Once again, in real life it's a choice.

This was supposed to be a reply to thomit post.

[ZdlR]

Defensive line only works when you don't have the ball.

So, with ball the positioning is down to mentality?

[ZdlR]

Drop deeper - Stand off opponents - Stay on feet . With a contain strategy, with full backs on defend, and wide midfielders on defend.

Maybe that is as close as you can get to it.

Contain isn't interested in counter-attacking, though.

[Spart]

Defensive line only works when you don't have the ball.

Fair enough. What is it that governs whether a defensive line looks to push up in support of the rest of the team?

[thomit]

So its an area in FM that could be improved then.

thomit did say though that teams do not set defensive width in real life.

They don't. If Chelsea's defense appeared to play narrow in defense against Barca, it was a result of them playing deep, adapting to a Barca team that mainly attacks in the centre. Not worrying about crosses from out wide translates to telling the Chelsea full backs to not close down aggressively. The "narrowness" of the Chelsea defense is still a result of adapting to Barca's attack. I'm quite confident that the Chelsea manager did not tell his defenders to stay narrow no matter what, but may have told his full backs to be carefull about rushing out to close down Barca's wide men. Telling the defense to stay narrow whatever happens, is still pretty suicidal, and something Barca would pounce on and exploit with vigour have they seen that happen.

You could argue that a manager should have an option to tell his defense to mind the gaps centrally, ie between the full backs and central defenders and between the cd's extra carefully, at the expense of ignoring the threats from wide players somewhat, but that would still not translate to a manager "setting" a defense width, as such, but has more to do with closing down instructions, specially for the full backs/wing backs.

[RTHerringbone]

This is not true, in real life teams play with different defensive line width, it's a manager choice.

Yesterday Juve-Galatasaray game showed that well, Mancinu asked his flat back four to stay very narrow to cover Pogba & Vidal cutting into the box, even if doing that their full backs left a lot of room to be exploited by Juve wing backs.

Once again, in real life it's a choice.

This was supposed to be a reply to thomit post.

As a slider man, can you confirm for me if (and how) this sort of set up was achievable with sliders?

With FM14, I'm imagining (hoping) that we can ask our fullbacks to Stay Wider or Stay Narrower to achieve the same result.

[gechal]

Contain isn't interested in counter-attacking, though.

Yep. Chelsea did a good job of that in the end. Shows how hard it is to set up exactly as you would like defensively on FM.

[Spart]

They don't. If Chelsea's defense appeared to play narrow in defense against Barca, it was a result of them playing deep, adapting to a Barca team that mainly attacks in the centre. Not worrying about crosses from out wide translates to telling the Chelsea full backs to not close down aggressively. The "narrowness" of the Chelsea defense is still a result of adapting to Barca's attack. I'm quite confident that the Chelsea manager did not tell his defenders to stay narrow no matter what, but may have told his full backs to be carefull about rushing out to close down Barca's wide men. Telling the defense to stay narrow whatever happens, is still pretty suicidal, and something Barca would pounce on and exploit with vigour have they seen that happen.

You could argue that a manager should have an option to tell his defense to mind the gaps centrally, ie between the full backs and central defenders and between the cd's extra carefully, at the expense of ignoring the threats from wide players somewhat, but that would still not translate to a manager "setting" a defense width, as such, but has more to do with closing down instructions, specially for the full backs/wing backs.

But in the real football of football, you don't set a width in attack of defence. Telling your defence to mind the gaps centrally would be a real life version of the gamified controls/terms we're all stumbling over. If I were using shouts, I wouldn't want to specifically changed defensive width, even if that is something I would want to change. The command would be, "stay narrow, drop deep" not "a few clicks to width bar, lads!". Makes sense to me, as does the move towards the TC and only the TC. It's more football-like.

To respond to your first paragraph, are you saying that managers do nothing but hope their defenders can organise themselves without the ball and/or under pressure depending on what they're being faced with? Sounds a bit odd to me.

[gechal]

Fair enough. What is it that governs whether a defensive line looks to push up in support of the rest of the team?

I think it would be strategy, player roles/mentality and marking/closing down intructions.

[thomit]

But in the real football of football, you don't set a width in attack of defence. Telling your defence to mind the gaps centrally would be a real life version of the gamified controls/terms we're all stumbling over. If I were using shouts, I wouldn't want to specifically changed defensive width, even if that is something I would want to change. The command would be, "stay narrow, drop deep" not "a few clicks to width bar, lads!".

To respond to your first paragraph, are you saying that managers do nothing but hope their defenders can organise themselves without the ball and/or under pressure depending on what they're being faced with? Sounds a bit odd to me.

Well yes, basically. The manager "sets" some aspect of defense of course, like depth, aggression, shape, general positioning - but he has to leave it to his defenders to know how to keep gaps minimal while keeping an eye on the threats. If during the play he notices one of his defenders not keeping his focus in his lateral positioning, he can of course shout at him. Literally. But lateral movement and positioning must to a large extent be kept to the individual defender's judgement. But that whole aspect of defending is learned through training, and is polished with experience. Not something a manager would be inclined to "tell" his players how to do before a match, other than to remind them what they have already learned, and tell them to focus. Again, unlike most other aspects of defending, how wide your defenders should be positioned between themselves while defending, is and will always be a product of what the other team does in attacking. A defensive line's width will inevitably shorten and widen with the ebb and flow of the match. They have already learned through training how and when to shift from side to side while keeping an eye on the gaps, and keeping and eye on the attacking wide men on the opposite side from where they're shifting to. It's always a calculated risk, that.

[RTHerringbone]

thomit's posts for me are bang on the money of what the mindset needs to be for the TC generally, in FM13 and beyond.

I'm sure, certain even, that people will suggest it's too simplistic or that not enough control is there, but this for me is precisely how we need to think about the post-slider era.

I always felt that sliders strangled the human element of the game, and you could pretty much homogenise how players played in specific positions.

As thomit has suggested, you need to be able to trust your players to judge certain circumstances.

[higgins]

As a slider man, can you confirm for me if (and how) this sort of set up was achievable with sliders?

With FM14, I'm imagining (hoping) that we can ask our fullbacks to Stay Wider or Stay Narrower to achieve the same result.

It wasn't, not sure about what FM14 will bring in this area though.

Off topic, this thread is really interesting cause I'm realizing there are a lot of people who don't understand anything about real football, funny.

[RTHerringbone]

Off topic, this thread is really interesting cause I'm realizing there are a lot of people who don't understand anything about real football, funny.

On the assumption that you do know about real football and nobody else does?

What specifically irks you? I recall this:

Some people simply don't understand that instructions define roles in real football, not vice versa.

In FM if we can't see instructions we can't understand roles.

Could you elaborate please?

[gechal]

It wasn't, not sure about what FM14 will bring in this area though.

Off topic, this thread is really interesting cause I'm realizing there are a lot of people who don't understand anything about real football, funny.

Can you expand on that last paragraph? Football is subjective enough as it is, without trying to translate it into what it means in FM.

[higgins]

On the assumption that you do know about real football and nobody else does?

What specifically irks you? I recall this:

Could you elaborate please?

No assumptions, but if I read that how wide your players defend on the pitch is a product of what the other team does in attacking, well, this is simple a nonsense, or a very limitative understanding of how real football works.

Meanwhile the sentence you qouted seems quite self explanatory to me, managers tell players what they want from them, movements, marking instructions, position etc.

[RTHerringbone]

No assumptions, but if I read that how wide your players defend on the pitch is a product of what the other team does in attacking, well, this is simple a nonsense, or a very limitative understanding of how real football works.

Meanwhile the sentence you qouted seems quite self explanatory to me, managers tell players what they want from them, movements, marking instructions, position etc.

I don't think we are actually far adrift of a common ground, it's just the semantics of interpreting the written word.

Ultimately, your team defends with a principle in mind, but it (has to) respond to the attacking shape of your opponent. Yay or nay?

[Spart]

Well yes, basically. The manager "sets" some aspect of defense of course, like depth, aggression, shape, general positioning - but he has to leave it to his defenders to know how to keep gaps minimal while keeping an eye on the threats. If during the play he notices one of his defenders not keeping his focus in his lateral positioning, he can of course shout at him. Literally. But lateral movement and positioning must to a large extent be kept to the individual defender's judgement. But that whole aspect of defending is learned through training, and is polished with experience. Not something a manager would be inclined to "tell" his players how to do before a match, other than to remind them what they have already learned, and tell them to focus. Again, unlike most other aspects of defending, how wide your defenders should be positioned between themselves while defending, is and will always be a product of what the other team does in attacking. A defensive line's width will inevitably shorten and widen with the ebb and flow of the match. They have already learned through training how and when to shift from side to side while keeping an eye on the gaps, and keeping and eye on the attacking wide men on the opposite side from where they're shifting to. It's always a calculated risk, that.

I think we're actually in more agreement than it may appear then. After all, shouts in FM aren't necessarily shouts in a literal sense, since we can use them at the start of a match to refine how we want our tactics to play out. In that sense, they may as well be drills and exercises that have been prepared in training well before games.

So while I think it's actually fair enough to seek to alter a team's "defensive width", for lack of a better term, using shouts I mean that in the same way I may use other shouts before kick-off. That's something I think real life managers do actually do, especially those that prefer to take a more reactive approach to opposition teams.

A week before a game, a manager may seek to slightly tweak how his defenders should react in response to a specific threat. In FM, a similar approach would have to be taken using shouts to focus our tactical intentions in such a way.