How to Play FM: A Twelve Step Guide

[wwfan]

Hi wwfan,

would you give me permission to translate this great guide for the german community on meistertrainerforum.de?

Perfectly happy for it to be translated and disseminated.

[wwfan]

But Schalke is a good team, we are probably the 2nd or 3rd best team in the league. So I wanted to play a counter attacking tactic which is generally attacking. I will try without the shouts you wrote and we'll see how it goes.

If it is opening season, I'd interpret the Bundesliga as having two great teams (Munich and Dortmund) plus a bunch of good ones who are much of a muchness, within which Schalke fits. You should expect to dominate at home but work hard for points away. You won't be good enough to dominate teams away, but you will be good enough to stop them playing and take advantage of that.

[iMan]

A question on match prep.

Is 10% enough? I have Balanced Low with individual focus high. Rest before and After.

Once the tactic is fluid is 10% match prep enough to get the bonus or would it be better to increase and give my players only 1 day rest?

[Arab]

Problem I'm having and it seems to be more than previous years is conceding justafter I've scored or alternatively I concede last minute goals. Have tried using shouts of shorter passing retain possession get stuck in lower tempo or at times have gone to counter or defensive mode but nothing seems to work.

[Babak G]

How much does it matter when you create an unorthodox formation of sorts whereas full backs are both in WB positions In a 4-4-2 let's say and they are both natural FBs rather than WBs. If the player has the stats for it will his lac of "stars" in the new given position matter as much?

[isignedupfornorealreason]

Problem I'm having and it seems to be more than previous years is conceding justafter I've scored or alternatively I concede last minute goals. Have tried using shouts of shorter passing retain possession get stuck in lower tempo or at times have gone to counter or defensive mode but nothing seems to work.

Sometimes, going defensive is the 'wrong' thing to do. Example; Spurs early last season were conceding winners or late equalisers because they dropped back and the opposition pushed forward in an attempt to score which, resulted in them failing to get out of the box. The added pressure and the retreating back line might make a congested box but it leaves the team open to the risk of a late goal.

I personally don't go defensive unless I'm in the lead by 3 goals or it's the very final few minutes. If you really need to hold on to a lead or wind down the clock you could try;

Defensive, Waste time, much lower tempo, shorter passing, retain possession, clear balls to flanks

The result being (for me), that they hold onto the ball at all costs, but won't be afraid to hoof it away to the flanks if they get caught short.

[Arab]

Hadn't tried the clear balls to flanks. I'll give that a go. Thanks for the response

[NakS]

Here is a french translation, feel free to use it if you need it

Avant-propos:Le football peut s'appréhender de manières très différentes. Certains pensent que le manager doit toujours reconduire le même système tactique, peu importe l'adversaire, les conditions de jeu ou le contexte de la rencontre. Au contraire, d'autres pensent que c'est le travail du manager d'adapter sont système de jeu autant que possible, par exemple jouer plus direct par temps de pluie, demander un marquage individuel sur une menace adverse, ajuster sa formation en fonction des forces et des faiblesses de l'adversaire, etc, etc. Dans FM, ses 2 approches radicales ainsi que toutes les positions intermédiaires, sont possibles à implémenter. Les conseils ci-dessous sont prodigués dans le seul but d'aide et d'informer les utilisateurs sur les bases de la tactique, permettant ensuite d'implémenter et d'imposer leur style de jeu préféré. Pour ceux qui ont déjà parcouru l'édition FM13, il y aura finalement très peu de nouveautés même si j'ai ajouté quelques éléments ça et là. Pour ceux qui découvrent ce guide pour la première fois, j'espère que cela stimulera votre matière grise et vous permettra d'apprécier FM14.

Les 12 étapes

1. Comprendre les concepts clés:

Approches de jeu: Les approches de jeu sont des structures de mentalité et des niveaux de liberté créative. Une approche très rigide sera très structurée avec peu de liberté créative tandis qu'une approche très fluide sera très peu structurée avec beaucoup de liberté créative. Une interprétation permettant de synthétiser serait la suivante.

Très rigide : Chaque joueur est chargé d'appliquer très précisément les instructions données par le manager et ne doit pas y déroger. (Généralement, 5+ rôles différents dans l'équipe)

Rigide : Les joueurs sont chargés d'animer et de participer à certaines phases du jeu. (défense, défense et transitions, transitions et attaque, attaque)

Equilibrée : Les joueurs se concentrent sur leurs tâches. (défense, soutien, attaque)

Fluide : On demande aux joueurs de se concentrer soit sur la défense, soit sur l'attaque.

Très fluide : Les joueurs contribuent à tous les aspects du jeu.

Comme vous pouvez le constater, chaque approche réduit le degré de spécialisation. En très rigide, il y 5 rôles particuliers ou plus, en rigide 4 responsabilités, en équilibrée 3 tâches, en fluide 2 groupes et en très fluide un seul collectif. Dans les philosophies rigides, le manager attend des ses joueurs qu'ils suivent avec application les consignes données, il peut donc spécialiser les rôles des joueur. Dans les philosophies fluides, le manager encourage la prise d'initiative à travers toute l'équipe, ce qui signifie que spécialiser les joueurs n'est pas d'un grand intérêt.

Je considère les rôles suivants comme spécialistes :

- Attaquant pivot

- Renard des surfaces

- False 9

- Pivot excentré

- Attaquant de soutien

- Enganche

- Meneur de jeu avancé

- Meneur de jeu en retrait

- Regista

- Milieu récupérateur

- Milieu sentinelle

- Libéro

Ces 4 rôles peuvent appartenir à l'un ou l'autre des groupes, suivant votre interprétation.

- Attaquant complet

- Attaquant défensif

- 9 en demi

- Ailier défensif

- Milieu polyvalent

- Arrière latéral complet

- Défenseur relançeur

Et, je considère donc les rôles suivant comment étant génériques :

- Attaquant avancé

- Attaquant en retrait

- Milieu offensif

- Attaquant intérieur

- Ailier

- Milieu axial

- Milieu latéral

- Milieu défensif

- Demi-centre

- Arrière latéral offensif

- Défenseur latéral

- Défenseur latéral strict

- Défenseur central

- Defenseur strict

- Libéro défensif

Je n'inclue pas les gardiens, bien que l'on puisse considérer le gardien libéro comme étant un spécialiste.

Je suggère généralement de suivre le conseils suivants sur le nombre de spécialistes par approche.

Très rigide : 4-5 spécialistes

Rigide : 3-4 spécialistes

Equilibré : 2-3 spécialistes

Fluide : 1-2 spécialites

Très fluide : 0-1 spécialiste

Gardez bien à l'esprit que mes interprétations ne sont pas des règles obligatoires et immuables. Si vous n'êtes pas d'accord ou souhaitez être plus inventif, n'hésitez pas.

2. Adapter le rôle au joueur. Vous remarquerez que beaucoup de rôles ne correspondent pas parfaitement aux forces et aux faiblesses d'un joueur. Utilisez alors les instructions individuelles pour affiner le rôle au profil du joueur. Si vous vous rendez compte que vous modifiez la totalité des instructions disponibles, il se peut que ce que vous souhaitez ne corresponde pas au rôle que avez choisi, ou que que ce rôle ne correspond pas du tout au profil du joueur. Ne faîtes pas aveuglément confiance à votre assistant! Jugez par vous même. Maintenant que les rôles sont liés aux joueurs, vous pouvez avoir un MOD en tant qu'ailier/attaque, mais un autre joueur au profil plus créatif sera en meneur de jeu avancé/soutien. Vous n'être plus limité à choisir un seul rôle et à l'adapter à chaque joueur à chaque match par l'intermédiaire de changements contraignants.

3. Ne prenez pas pour argent comptant le nom des stratégies. Les stratégies défensives attaquent encore sur les contres, tandis que les stratégies offensives peuvent quand même être solides défensivement. A part les 2 stratégies extrêmes (contenir et surnombre), chaque stratégie défend et attaque à sa manière. Une bonne astuce est que si vous voulez jouer avec beaucoup de milieux bas et un jeu de passe court, choisissez une stratégie moins offensive, tandis que si vous voulez avoir des ailiers hauts et percutant dans un style direct, choisissez une stratégie plus offensive.

4. Concentrez-vous sur les rôles et tâches et leur combinaisons. Soyez certain que vous avez un tâche attaque en défense, généralement mais pas nécessairement associée à une tâche de soutien (note, cela inclue les joueurs de couloir les plus reculés de votre formation si vous n'utilisez pas de joueurs en arrière latéral dans votre formation), une tâche attaque et une tâche défense au milieu, et une tache de soutien (ou Trequartista or F9) en attaque. Ce type de structure favorise les mouvements entre les lignes, ce qui est absolument vital pour dynamiser une attaque et créer différents types d'occasions de but. Cela assure également une défense collective plutôt qu'une défense désorganisée. Si vous jouez avec un seul attaquant de pointe, préférez une tache de soutien (ou Trequartista ou F9) pour le faire décrocher alors que d'autres rôles plus offensif pourrait l'isoler, l'empêchant ainsi de contribuer au jeu et en comptant uniquement sur des occasions compliquées ou des buts de raccroc. Par contre, il y a une exception lorsque vous jouer avec une milieu offensif central juste derrière lui. En effet, dans de telles formations, vous pouvez souhaitez que votre attaquant de pointe joue haut et sur toute la largeur du terrain pour étirer et créer des espaces dans lesquels opérera le MOC, donc un attaquant avancé/attaque ou un attaquant complet/attaque peut être une meilleure option. Soyez sûr d'avoir au moins un milieu à vocation défensive pour récupérer le ballon, casser les contre-attaques et fournir une solution de passe simple pour garder la possession du ballon. Si vous souhaitez utiliser un meneur de jeu, réfléchissez à la meilleure position pour qu'il soit réellement menaçant pour l'adversaire, sinon il sera isolé ou sous un marquage adverse serré. Si vous souhaitez utiliser un attaquant pivot, soyez sûr que ses déviations et prises de balle soient soutenues par un coéquipier.

5. Analysez la comparaison d'équipe pour déterminer quelles sont les forces et les faiblesses de votre équipe par rapport à la moyenne de la division. Pensez à utiliser les consignes collectives pour en tirer avantage ou pour compenser. Par exemple, si vous avez une équipe très peu mobile ou peu active, pressez-moins, tandis que s'ils sont rapides et travailleurs, pressez plus. Bien que cela devienne moins important au fur et à mesure que vous façonnez votre équipe à un style de jeu particulier, les informations obtenues en analysant ses avantages et faiblesses relatifs de votre équipe par rapport à sa division pourraient se révéler vitales lors de votre prise de fonction dans un nouveau club.

6 Utilisez les consignes collectives pour développer et pérenniser un style de jeu favori, qui doit donc nécessairement correspondre aux forces et aux faiblesses de votre équipe. Par exemple, une équipe très technique peu jouer bas et contre-attaquer rapidement, donc utiliser garder le ballon, passez dans les espaces, prenez l'adversaire de vitesse avec une stratégie de contre peut s'avérer payant. Une équipe moins technique mais plus physique pourrait vouloir s'imposer d'une autre manière, donc pensez à utiliser un jeu de passe plus direct, des centres, tacles durs avec une stratégie offensive. Il y a tout un tas de manière de faire adhérer votre équipe à un style de jeu particulier. Parfois, vous aurez un effectif suffisamment doué dans tous les compartiments du jeu pour choisir parmi de nombreux styles, en revanche vous n'aurez parfois pas d'autres options que de choisir un style particulier qui vous sera alors plus ou moins imposé par votre effectif. Vous pouvez décider d'adapter votre style de match en match suivant la configuration adverse. A chacun sa méthode, il n'y a pas une seule façon de procéder. Il faut simplement essayer de garder une certaine logique dans vos choix de combinaisons.

7. Avant chaque match, analyser les conditions climatiques et la formation adverse afin de choisir votre plan d'attaque pour ce match. Il peut-être très difficile de contre-attaquer sur un terrain lourd et boueux, donc vous devrez peut-être abandonner votre style préféré et jouez de manière plus efficace et pragmatique. Vous pouvez profiter des joueurs de couloir uniques de certaines formations en choisissant des consignes du banc de touche comme utilisez les ailes ou dédoubler pour tirer avantage de cette faiblesse adverse. Vous pouvez aussi être satisfait de votre système initial. Bien que ça soit au final votre propre décision de vous adapter en fonction des circonstances, prenez garde qu'un manque de flexibilité pourrait parfois vous pénaliser.

8. Analyser la formation adverse ou la condition / forces des joueurs et envisagez d'utiliser les consignes d'oppositions (OI) pour les contrer. Vous pouvez utiliser les OI pour essayer de neutraliser les joueurs dangereux ou limiter les centres dans votre surface de réparation, viser les joueurs en mauvaise condition physique, lent ou peu courageux. Prenez garde cependant à ne pas trop utiliser les OI car cela pourrait désorganiser complètement votre collectif.

9. Réagissez pendant le match. Pendant la rencontre, n'hésitez pas à modifier votre approche en utilisant les consignes collectives ou les stratégies si vous vous rendez compte que le match vous échappe. Faite-le de manière simple et logique plutôt qu'au petit bonheur la chance. Par exemple, penser que choisir une approche plus offensive créera plus de buts peut-être un mauvais calcul, particulièrement si l'adversaire joue bas et regroupe ses joueurs dans les 30 derniers mètres. Si vous identifiez un tel scénario, vous pourrez constater que jouer plus bas en utilisant une stratégie plus patiente produira plus d'opportunités de buts que de tenter le tout pour le tout, car cela aspirera l'adversaire vers l'avant un peu plus, créant ainsi des espaces offensifs pour votre équipe. Dès que vous aurez marqué, il faudra soit décider de continuer à essayer de marquer soit protéger cet avantage en modifiant / conservant votre approche. Au fil du temps et l'expérience s'accumulant, vous apprendrez à faire confiance à vos décisions en match et à développer un système qui fonctionne pour votre équipe. Vous saurez quoi modifier, quand le faire et comment va réagir votre équipe.

10 Prendre conscience que les causeries sont contextuelles. Les causeries d'équipe ne sont pas uniquement en relation avec le score, mais plutôt en relation avec le score attendu par rapport à la qualité / réputation de l'adversaire et du jeu que vous avez proposé sur le terrain. Parfois, vous pourrez être très satisfait d'un 0-0, dans d'autres circonstances, si vous avec un avantage immérité de 2-0 avec un jeu très pauvre face à une équipe faible, mettre en garde contre un excès de confiance est nécessaire. Réagissez en fonction du résultat produit par rapport à vos attentes, plutôt qu'uniquement par rapport au résultat. Il est aussi utile de rappeler que bien que les causeries et les interactions dans les médias n'ont pas une influence majeure sur le cours et l'issue d'un match, elles ont tout de même un impact. Parfois, une stratégie de motivation efficace aura pour conséquence qu'un de vos joueurs proposera le match de sa vie, ou inversement. Du coup, il peut s'avérer utile de préparer minutieusement votre manière de motiver vos troupes avant les matchs cruciaux, car cela pourrait apporter ce petit coup de pouce vital pendant les guerres psychologiques!

11. Apprenez, toujours. Dernièrement, j’ai enfin compris pourquoi ma stratégie de passes dans les espaces ne fonctionnait tout simplement pas avec une stratégie offensive. En regardant à nouveau un match après un triste 0-0, il m’apparut alors évident que les déplacements offensifs de mes joueurs dans le mur défensif adverse conduisait à ce que mes sources de créativité basses sur le terrain étaient en fait mon milieu récupérateur et mon défenseur latéral. Pas franchement optimal. Cependant, avec une stratégie moins agressive, mes principales sources de créativité basses devenaient mon meneur de jeu avancé et mon ailier-soutien, ce qui collait mon plan initial. Du coup, j’ai rapidement abandonné la stratégie offensive et j’ai utilisé la stratégie de contre comme mon choix stratégique standard, jouant sur les rôles et les consignes du banc de touche si jamais je décidais d’adopter une posture plus agressive (en général, à cause de la météo ou de l’état du terrain). Si les choses ne se passent pas comme prévu, il y a toujours des indices si vous les chercher bien.

12. Dernière chose, si vous n’arrivez à rien et devenez frustré, plutôt que de poster votre énervement, venez visiter le forum tactique et expliquez votre problème. Du moment que vous êtes clair et fournissez des détails sur votre système de jeu, vous serez aidé et guidé hors de cette impasse.

Bonne chance et bon jeu. Souvenez vous, nous sommes ici pour vous aider. Nous souhaitons que vous touts appréciez FM14, autant que nous le faisons.

[Erwin Holland]

Thanks for this guid . I hope it will help because the way i see it now SI games has lost me as a customer for next FM's.. I will keep trying though and this guide is a big help.

[tomtuck01]

Thanks for this guid . I hope it will help because the way i see it now SI games has lost me as a customer for next FM's.. I will keep trying though and this guide is a big help.

Why is that?

[Erwin Holland]

Because the game is no longer about building a good tactic but playing with top money spenders so that you can buy the best their is. Last FM's you could build good teams and with a nice tactic you gould become champion with Swansea in your 3 season for example. Now it just about buying the best guys . With big clubs like real madrid en Juventus i dominaded my leage easy but when for example you play with a lesser team like tottenham you cant become it because you cant buy every the player is. No matter how long you build on your tactic.

I dont play a football manager game to buy every good player for 50 million and then have a chanche at succes, I wanna build a good team with a good tactic, Only because now only the indivudial quality of players matters thats gone, its no longer about tactics.

[gmbrann]

You should add 15. number to the list:

Number 15: Filters need to stay open during team-selection.

[tomtuck01]

Because the game is no longer about building a good tactic but playing with top money spenders so that you can buy the best their is. Last FM's you could build good teams and with a nice tactic you gould become champion with Swansea in your 3 season for example. Now it just about buying the best guys . With big clubs like real madrid en Juventus i dominaded my leage easy but when for example you play with a lesser team like tottenham you cant become it because you cant buy every the player is. No matter how long you build on your tactic.

I dont play a football manager game to buy every good player for 50 million and then have a chanche at succes, I wanna build a good team with a good tactic, Only because now only the indivudial quality of players matters thats gone, its no longer about tactics.

I'm sorry, but all of that is simply not true.

[Fond Foat]

Because the game is no longer about building a good tactic but playing with top money spenders so that you can buy the best their is. Last FM's you could build good teams and with a nice tactic you gould become champion with Swansea in your 3 season for example. Now it just about buying the best guys . With big clubs like real madrid en Juventus i dominaded my leage easy but when for example you play with a lesser team like tottenham you cant become it because you cant buy every the player is. No matter how long you build on your tactic.

I dont play a football manager game to buy every good player for 50 million and then have a chanche at succes, I wanna build a good team with a good tactic, Only because now only the indivudial quality of players matters thats gone, its no longer about tactics.

The game is probably the opposite of that whole statement.

[soma]

Because the game is no longer about building a good tactic but playing with top money spenders so that you can buy the best their is. Last FM's you could build good teams and with a nice tactic you gould become champion with Swansea in your 3 season for example. Now it just about buying the best guys . With big clubs like real madrid en Juventus i dominaded my leage easy but when for example you play with a lesser team like tottenham you cant become it because you cant buy every the player is. No matter how long you build on your tactic.

I dont play a football manager game to buy every good player for 50 million and then have a chanche at succes, I wanna build a good team with a good tactic, Only because now only the indivudial quality of players matters thats gone, its no longer about tactics.

The reason I play FM is because it is the exact OPPOSITE of what you just said!

[bennymc]

Football isn't only about tactics though, Erwin Holland, the world's greatest tactician wouldn't stand a chance in football if he's not able to motivate his players, operate within a budget and get his team to play better than the sum of its individual parts.

[bennymc]

Thanks for writing this guide, wwfan. I was having big problems with my tactics in this year's edition and I've been playing the series since the CM2 days! It makes me wonder if my tactics in the past were based more around accidental ME exploits than actual tactical nous.

Anyway, your guide has really helped me and I hope everyone struggling will take the lessons on board.

[greekgeorge]

Very useful stuff wwfan.

I've started using a regista in a 4-3-2-1 asymmetric formation (4 defenders, 1 DMC, 1 ML, 1 MC, 1 AMC, 1 AMR, 1 SC) with a balanced style and he has been really useful in breaking down the opposition, especially when they play 4-4-2 which was quite difficult for me to play against.

I still haven't found the best way to attack. I'm currently playing wide, exploit the middle because i'm trying to use my AMC and my AMR (inside forward), however most of the time i have trouble creating chances. I'm thinking of using the AMR as a winger and try to play a bit wider, but that would only leave my SC (Target Man) up front. If i'm applying wwfan's guide correctly, i would have to play possession football, with short passes and float crosses in the area, so that my AMC and my Box to Box MC will have the time to join my SC in the attack.

[Str0aK]

I know this is a stupid question but my game just updated to version 14.1.1. Is this the full version or still considered BETA? I thought the game wasn't out until the 31st?

[isignedupfornorealreason]

I know this is a stupid question but my game just updated to version 14.1.1. Is this the full version or still considered BETA? I thought the game wasn't out until the 31st?

These are general tips applicable to the whole game beta or full I would reckon.

[peleJunior]

Do individual instructions still override team one's? I'd imagine so but just want clarification.

[llama3]

Do individual instructions still override team one's? I'd imagine so but just want clarification.

Am sure they do, otherwise there would be no point in their existance.

[Str0aK]

These are general tips applicable to the whole game beta or full I would reckon.

No what I meant was if the 14.1.1 update is the version that will come with the full release or if there will be more updates before the 31st.

[giventofly77]

wwfan - I've tried incorporating the main points of your post in my save with Liverpool. I'm playing a rigid 4231 deep, using two saved tactics - one with counter and one with control. I can't upload any pictures, so I'll post my tactics in text-form. I'm really struggling with both of these, especially the control one in "easy games" at home.

Halfway through the season I'm at 14th place. Even playing at home against relegation contenders I'm dominated, they'll create twice or even three times as many chances as me. I hardly get a shot in, and the majority of my finishes are off target. The team's familiarity with the tactics is almost full, and my players are fit - I just don't see why this tactic would be this bad??

Players-wise I've tried changing to Sturridge up front and Suarez as the Inside Forward, without luck. I tried restarting a new game and experimenting with a regular 4231 with 2 MCs instead of 2 DMC, utilizing different players, etc., but it's the same story.

4231 Deep - Rigid - Counter

Team shouts: Play into space, More direct passes, Clear ball to flanks. (I've tried turning some or all of these off at times)

Player shouts: None.

.............................Suarez

...............................AFa

Sterling/Moses........Coutinho..........Massimo Bruno

......IFa......................APs...................Ws

...............Sven Bender.......Lucas Leiva

...................BWMd..............DLPd

J.Enrique........Agger.............Skrtel..........Johnson

...WBa............BPDd..............CDd...............WBs

.............................Mignolet

...............................GKd

Here I feel I've withheld the "rules" of your post:

Using Rigid -> 3-4 specialist roles. Here I've got the two DMC's and the AMC as specialist, plus a "half" one in the Ball Playing Defender.

One attack duty in defense, and at least one attack/support/defend duty in midfield.

My second tactic is this:

4231 Deep - Rigid - Control

Team shouts: Hassle opponents (not constantly on), Drill Crosses.

Player instruction: DL/DR run wide with ball, GK Distribute to defenders.

.............................Suarez

...............................AFa

Sterling/Moses........Coutinho..........Massimo Bruno

......IFa......................APs...................Ws/a

...............Sven Bender.......Lucas Leiva

...................BWMd..............DLPd

J.Enrique........Agger.............Skrtel..........Johnson

...WBs............CDd................CDd............CWBa

.............................Mignolet

...............................SKd

Again, Rigid --> 3-4 specialist = 2 DMCs and the AMC, and a half one in the DRC.

One attack duty in defense, and at least one attack/support/defend duty in midfield.

I feel that the players are pretty well suited for this tactic. The GK and DCs are pretty much ok for any tactic. My fullbacks are good offensively, which is good. My two DMC's are perfect for both the tactic and their roles, the way I see it. Suarez is a top-class striker, and Coutinho a great playmaker. The weak spots would be the two wide attackers, and maybe my combination of roles and duties for my front four.....

So, bottom line.....any help appreciated

[llama3]

On your first tactic your selection of roles and duties in the wide men are not especially logical. Behind your W(S) you would be better having an "Attacking" Defender, although a Wing Back is probably not the best way to go, so in that instance a Full Back (Attack). On the left flank you have 2 attack duties, perhaps you should give your Wing Back a Support duty?

[peleJunior]

4231 Deep - Rigid - Counter

Team shouts: Play into space, More direct passes, Clear ball to flanks. (I've tried turning some or all of these off at times)

Player shouts: None.

.............................Suarez

...............................AFa

Sterling/Moses........Coutinho..........Massimo Bruno

......IFa......................APs...................Ws

...............Sven Bender.......Lucas Leiva

...................BWMd..............DLPd

J.Enrique........Agger.............Skrtel..........Johnson

...WBa............BPDd..............CDd...............WBs

.............................Mignolet

..............................GK

Liverpool players are quiet on the small side so more direct passing may not suit them, also, clear ball to flanks made alot of players passing set to long in FM13 especially defenders and I would imagine it is the same this year. Shorter passing may be the way to go with Liverpool.

[giventofly77]

Liverpool players are quiet on the small side so more direct passing may not suit them, also, clear ball to flanks made alot of players passing set to long in FM13 especially defenders and I would imagine it is the same this year. Shorter passing may be the way to go with Liverpool.

Hm, i always figured counter-attacking and direct passing went hand-in-hand, but my interpretation of direct was that it was not necessarily high long balls, but rather looking to get the ball up front quickly. Now that there's the Play into space shout I guess that's the one I'm looking for here?

[wwfan]

Pass into space and higher tempo might work. The advice you've already been given is solid, so I'll wait on the results of your changes before offering anything else of my own.

[lennon67]

I am looking to play a 4-3-1-2 & 4-1-3-2 formation and I want to make myself hard to beat, like I want to be quite a defensive manager and would rather win games 1-0 than win games 3-2,4-3. I was thinking about starting with rigid - standard, would this be a good starting point for this? Not the best with tactics so any advice apprieciated.

[giventofly77]

Pass into space and higher tempo might work. The advice you've already been given is solid, so I'll wait on the results of your changes before offering anything else of my own.

Thanks, I will try that out on the counter-attacking one. Any thoughts on the control tactic, though? That's the one that's been giving the most headache...

I'm now a little confused about whether or not More direct passing is suited for a counter-attacking team with smaller players. The tool-tip on More direct passing says "instructs players to adopt a style of play based around quicker transition from back to front, with the ball covering long distances in a quicker amount of time". That would seem to be the core idea of a counter-attacking tactic, no?

[Pafeu]

So, tactical masterminds, please tell me what's wrong with my current Saints system? Something is clearly wrong as I played 11 games including 2 Capital One Cup tiers. Won 2 (with lower league team and Sunderland), drew 2, lost 7. And I just got fired for humiliating defeat 0-3 with Aston Villa at St Mary's.

GKd; distribute to defenders

CWBa; stay wider, run wide with ball

CDd; mark tighter

CDd; mark tighter

WBs; stay wider, run wide with ball

DMd; mark tighter

DMs; mark tighter, more risky passes

AMs; rom from position

APs

AMa; roam from position

CFa; roam from position, move into channels

Control, fluid;

retain posession, work ball into box, drill crosses.

[van purdie]

So, tactical masterminds, please tell me what's wrong with my current Saints system? Something is clearly wrong as I played 11 games including 2 Capital One Cup tiers. Won 2 (with lower league team and Sunderland), drew 2, lost 7. And I just got fired for humiliating defeat 0-3 with Aston Villa at St Mary's.

GKd; distribute to defenders

CWBa; stay wider, run wide with ball

CDd; mark tighter

CDd; mark tighter

WBs; stay wider, run wide with ball

DMd; mark tighter

DMs; mark tighter, more risky passes

AMs; rom from position

APs

AMa; roam from position

CFa; roam from position, move into channels

Control, fluid;

retain posession, work ball into box, drill crosses.

I'm no mastermind. In fact, I'm struggling right now! That said, if you don't 'push higher up' then there is probably a big gap between your DM's and your AM's. Your more offensive players are also roaming, whereas your DM's are marking tightly which could encourage an even bigger gap. When you're short passing this gap can create a lack of options. Hope that's helpful.

[Str0aK]

Yeah, I'd imagine your AMs might be too far away from your DMs making it difficult for effective interplay. I would either push the DMs up to CM or push the defensive line higher up like van purdie suggested.

I'm also not too sure about having the centre backs on tight marking. What do the more seasoned tacticians think about that?

[THOG]

Great guide, wwfan. I certainly wish this had been around when I started fumbling about in the TC.

FWIW, here are some comments/observations on a few issues that tend to frustrate and confuse new players (and certainly frustrated/confused me when I was a new player):

a) Mentality Affects Style's Central Point of Reference

The TC's descriptions of the various styles aren't entirely accurate. Specifically, attacking players in more fluid styles become less inclined to contribute to defensive and transition play as you use more aggressive mentalities whereas defensive players in more rigid styles become more inclined to contribute to other phases of play as you use more aggressive mentalities. The reverse is also true. Defensive players in more fluid styles become more rigidly defensive as mentality gets less aggressive just as attacking players in more rigid styles become more willing to contribute in transition play as mentality gets less aggressive.

In other words, it doesn't always hold that all players will contribute to all phases of play in a very fluid system nor does it always hold that players will necessarily be restricted to one phase of play in a rigid system. Mentality affects the point of reference that determines the phases of play to which each unit will contribute. You note that the mentality settings are more plastic than their names imply, and this is also true of fluidity. A very fluid Contain tactic, for example, will not have defenders getting forward. Rather, it will have the whole team focused on implementing a Contain strategy at the expense of attacking and, to a lesser extent, transition play. With this in mind, it may be more helpful to think of style in terms of the player's willingness to contribute to the core strategy. For example, players in a very fluid system will all focus on carrying out the basic strategy (be it defending, controlling, attacking, etc.) whereas attacking and defensive players in a more rigid system will be less inclined to focus on the basic strategy (but also won't necessarily be solely focused on just defending or just attacking).

To this extent, it's important to emphasize that style and mentality interact in ways that may contradict the basic descriptions in the TC. For example, while the description of Control says that fullbacks will generally only get forward in risk-free situations, it ignores the fact that a fullback in a Rigid Attack tactic operates at the same mentality setting as a fullback in a Very Fluid Control tactic and a lower mentality setting than an attack-duty fullback in a Balanced Control tactic. Again, the TC glosses over these subtle interactions, and especially with the new tactics system, it's important for new players to understand how mentality affects each style's point of reference.

b) Mentality/Strategy Defines Your Basic Passing Structure

While new players tend to assume that "Shorter Passing" and "More Direct Passing" defines the sum of their passing style, the fundamental structure is actually defined by mentality. There are three basic passing structures in the game: Counterattacking, Flexible/Balanced and, for lack of a better term, Overpowering. Contain to Counter utilizes Counterattacking which involves more direct passes from the back and more precise, technical interplay among attacking players. Standard utilizes Flexible/Balanced which cuts the difference between Counterattacking and Overpowering. Control to Overload uses Overpowering which involves more patient build-up play from the back and more direct, physical play from the attacking players. As you note in your Barcelona thread, this means certain mentalities are a better fit for certain types of players, even if we normally associate those players with "attacking football" outside of the game.

c) Not All Formations Are Suitable for Each Style

In keeping with the specialist/generalist approach, players should keep in mind that the structure of certain formations may make them inherently more specialized. 4231 is a good example as it has 4 players in the attacking and striker strata. This means that, with a rigid or very rigid style (or a poorly implemented balanced style), such formations can be extremely disjointed and imbalanced. Accordingly, players who prefer Rigid styles should be wary of formations that utilize more than one midfield player in the attacking midfield or defensive midfield strata. Otherwise, you will often find your midfield or defence overrun as all those more advanced players refuse to track back as often as they should.

d) Aggressive Fullbacks Are a Key Aspect of Contemporary Tactical Systems

This is largely an extension of step #4, but persistent grumbling about long shots indicates why this needs more clarification. Before FM13, you could keep a four-man defensive line back at all times and rely on your strikers and inside forwards to "ghost walk" onto passes through the middle. Now, teams need width to be successful, and this means you also can't get away with an unrealistically rigid 4231 on either the defensive or offensive side of things. 4231s and 433s that utilize inside forwards or wide playmakers, in particular, rely on fullbacks to consistently get forward to stretch the defence and prevent compact defences from forcing an endless series of frustrated long shots. Thus, even on lower mentalities, fullbacks shouldn't just both be set on automatic (despite what assmen always say), and to accommodate their forward runs, players shouldn't shy away from assigning two defend duties in midfield. If you have good inside forwards who can penetrate a defence with the ball at their feet, you don't actually need (or necessarily want) a lot of through balls.

[wwfan]

@ THOG: Good post, sir.

[peleJunior]

Great guide, wwfan. I certainly wish this had been around when I started fumbling about in the TC.

FWIW, here are some comments/observations on a few issues that tend to frustrate and confuse new players (and certainly frustrated/confused me when I was a new player):

a) Mentality Affects Style's Central Point of Reference

The TC's descriptions of the various styles aren't entirely accurate. Specifically, attacking players in more fluid styles become less inclined to contribute to defensive and transition play as you use more aggressive mentalities whereas defensive players in more rigid styles become more inclined to contribute to other phases of play as you use more aggressive mentalities. The reverse is also true. Defensive players in more fluid styles become more rigidly defensive as mentality gets less aggressive just as attacking players in more rigid styles become more willing to contribute in transition play as mentality gets less aggressive.

In other words, it doesn't always hold that all players will contribute to all phases of play in a very fluid system nor does it always hold that players will necessarily be restricted to one phase of play in a rigid system. Mentality affects the point of reference that determines the phases of play to which each unit will contribute. You note that the mentality settings are more plastic than their names imply, and this is also true of fluidity. A very fluid Contain tactic, for example, will not have defenders getting forward. Rather, it will have the whole team focused on implementing a Contain strategy at the expense of attacking and, to a lesser extent, transition play. With this in mind, it may be more helpful to think of style in terms of the player's willingness to contribute to the core strategy. For example, players in a very fluid system will all focus on carrying out the basic strategy (be it defending, controlling, attacking, etc.) whereas attacking and defensive players in a more rigid system will be less inclined to focus on the basic strategy (but also won't necessarily be solely focused on just defending or just attacking).

To this extent, it's important to emphasize that style and mentality interact in ways that may contradict the basic descriptions in the TC. For example, while the description of Control says that fullbacks will generally only get forward in risk-free situations, it ignores the fact that a fullback in a Rigid Attack tactic operates at the same mentality setting as a fullback in a Very Fluid Control tactic and a lower mentality setting than an attack-duty fullback in a Balanced Control tactic. Again, the TC glosses over these subtle interactions, and especially with the new tactics system, it's important for new players to understand how mentality affects each style's point of reference.

b) Mentality/Strategy Defines Your Basic Passing Structure

While new players tend to assume that "Shorter Passing" and "More Direct Passing" defines the sum of their passing style, the fundamental structure is actually defined by mentality. There are three basic passing structures in the game: Counterattacking, Flexible/Balanced and, for lack of a better term, Overpowering. Contain to Counter utilizes Counterattacking which involves more direct passes from the back and more precise, technical interplay among attacking players. Standard utilizes Flexible/Balanced which cuts the difference between Counterattacking and Overpowering. Control to Overload uses Overpowering which involves more patient build-up play from the back and more direct, physical play from the attacking players. As you note in your Barcelona thread, this means certain mentalities are a better fit for certain types of players, even if we normally associate those players with "attacking football" outside of the game.

c) Not All Formations Are Suitable for Each Style

In keeping with the specialist/generalist approach, players should keep in mind that the structure of certain formations may make them inherently more specialized. 4231 is a good example as it has 4 players in the attacking and striker strata. This means that, with a rigid or very rigid style (or a poorly implemented balanced style), such formations can be extremely disjointed and imbalanced. Accordingly, players who prefer Rigid styles should be wary of formations that utilize more than one midfield player in the attacking midfield or defensive midfield strata. Otherwise, you will often find your midfield or defence overrun as all those more advanced players refuse to track back as often as they should.

d) Aggressive Fullbacks Are a Key Aspect of Contemporary Tactical Systems

This is largely an extension of step #4, but persistent grumbling about long shots indicates why this needs more clarification. Before FM13, you could keep a four-man defensive line back at all times and rely on your strikers and inside forwards to "ghost walk" onto passes through the middle. Now, teams need width to be successful, and this means you also can't get away with an unrealistically rigid 4231 on either the defensive or offensive side of things. 4231s and 433s that utilize inside forwards or wide playmakers, in particular, rely on fullbacks to consistently get forward to stretch the defence and prevent compact defences from forcing an endless series of frustrated long shots. Thus, even on lower mentalities, fullbacks shouldn't just both be set on automatic (despite what assmen always say), and to accommodate their forward runs, players shouldn't shy away from assigning two defend duties in midfield. If you have good inside forwards who can penetrate a defence with the ball at their feet, you don't actually need (or necessarily want) a lot of through balls.

Fantastic stuff there, you know you read something good when ideas start flooding through your head, inspirational.

[kandersson]

Great guide, wwfan. I certainly wish this had been around when I started fumbling about in the TC.

FWIW, here are some comments/observations on a few issues that tend to frustrate and confuse new players (and certainly frustrated/confused me when I was a new player):

a) Mentality Affects Style's Central Point of Reference

The TC's descriptions of the various styles aren't entirely accurate. Specifically, attacking players in more fluid styles become less inclined to contribute to defensive and transition play as you use more aggressive mentalities whereas defensive players in more rigid styles become more inclined to contribute to other phases of play as you use more aggressive mentalities. The reverse is also true. Defensive players in more fluid styles become more rigidly defensive as mentality gets less aggressive just as attacking players in more rigid styles become more willing to contribute in transition play as mentality gets less aggressive.

In other words, it doesn't always hold that all players will contribute to all phases of play in a very fluid system nor does it always hold that players will necessarily be restricted to one phase of play in a rigid system. Mentality affects the point of reference that determines the phases of play to which each unit will contribute. You note that the mentality settings are more plastic than their names imply, and this is also true of fluidity. A very fluid Contain tactic, for example, will not have defenders getting forward. Rather, it will have the whole team focused on implementing a Contain strategy at the expense of attacking and, to a lesser extent, transition play. With this in mind, it may be more helpful to think of style in terms of the player's willingness to contribute to the core strategy. For example, players in a very fluid system will all focus on carrying out the basic strategy (be it defending, controlling, attacking, etc.) whereas attacking and defensive players in a more rigid system will be less inclined to focus on the basic strategy (but also won't necessarily be solely focused on just defending or just attacking).

To this extent, it's important to emphasize that style and mentality interact in ways that may contradict the basic descriptions in the TC. For example, while the description of Control says that fullbacks will generally only get forward in risk-free situations, it ignores the fact that a fullback in a Rigid Attack tactic operates at the same mentality setting as a fullback in a Very Fluid Control tactic and a lower mentality setting than an attack-duty fullback in a Balanced Control tactic. Again, the TC glosses over these subtle interactions, and especially with the new tactics system, it's important for new players to understand how mentality affects each style's point of reference.

b) Mentality/Strategy Defines Your Basic Passing Structure

While new players tend to assume that "Shorter Passing" and "More Direct Passing" defines the sum of their passing style, the fundamental structure is actually defined by mentality. There are three basic passing structures in the game: Counterattacking, Flexible/Balanced and, for lack of a better term, Overpowering. Contain to Counter utilizes Counterattacking which involves more direct passes from the back and more precise, technical interplay among attacking players. Standard utilizes Flexible/Balanced which cuts the difference between Counterattacking and Overpowering. Control to Overload uses Overpowering which involves more patient build-up play from the back and more direct, physical play from the attacking players. As you note in your Barcelona thread, this means certain mentalities are a better fit for certain types of players, even if we normally associate those players with "attacking football" outside of the game.

c) Not All Formations Are Suitable for Each Style

In keeping with the specialist/generalist approach, players should keep in mind that the structure of certain formations may make them inherently more specialized. 4231 is a good example as it has 4 players in the attacking and striker strata. This means that, with a rigid or very rigid style (or a poorly implemented balanced style), such formations can be extremely disjointed and imbalanced. Accordingly, players who prefer Rigid styles should be wary of formations that utilize more than one midfield player in the attacking midfield or defensive midfield strata. Otherwise, you will often find your midfield or defence overrun as all those more advanced players refuse to track back as often as they should.

d) Aggressive Fullbacks Are a Key Aspect of Contemporary Tactical Systems

This is largely an extension of step #4, but persistent grumbling about long shots indicates why this needs more clarification. Before FM13, you could keep a four-man defensive line back at all times and rely on your strikers and inside forwards to "ghost walk" onto passes through the middle. Now, teams need width to be successful, and this means you also can't get away with an unrealistically rigid 4231 on either the defensive or offensive side of things. 4231s and 433s that utilize inside forwards or wide playmakers, in particular, rely on fullbacks to consistently get forward to stretch the defence and prevent compact defences from forcing an endless series of frustrated long shots. Thus, even on lower mentalities, fullbacks shouldn't just both be set on automatic (despite what assmen always say), and to accommodate their forward runs, players shouldn't shy away from assigning two defend duties in midfield. If you have good inside forwards who can penetrate a defence with the ball at their feet, you don't actually need (or necessarily want) a lot of through balls.

very interesting, though this also means most of the time I cannot trust the TC and its descriptions... well at least that explains while I'm strugglin MIGHTLY esp with my very rigid 4-2-3-1...

Things I've successfully implemented in my FM14 tactics: 1) halfback working very well as a deep playmaker/extra-defender 2) attacking full-back/inside forward partnership 3) errr that's all folks

[Faultless]

I've been having great success with using my fullbacks with a defensive strategy, low risk passing and dribbling rarely, I tend to convert cb's to play in these positions as it basically gives me 4 cbs.

I then use a DM as an anchor man who doesn't close down and clears high balls, a box to box midfielder and a ball wining midfielder and then 2 inside forwards (attack) and a false 9.

This means I only have 2 players in my whole squad with attack duty and I'm averaging 60% possession and having around 20 shots per game with around 60% accuracy.

Any idea why this works as it seems to go against the proposed guidelines?

This is a fluid system on attack duty.

Also I've found short corners to be overpowered currently as the receiver isn't closed down and so is free to shoot or cross at will.

[wwfan]

I've been having great success with using my fullbacks with a defensive strategy, low risk passing and dribbling rarely, I tend to convert cb's to play in these positions as it basically gives me 4 cbs.

I then use a DM as an anchor man who doesn't close down and clears high balls, a box to box midfielder and a ball wining midfielder and then 2 inside forwards (attack) and a false 9.

This means I only have 2 players in my whole squad with attack duty and I'm averaging 60% possession and having around 20 shots per game with around 60% accuracy.

Any idea why this works as it seems to go against the proposed guidelines?

This is a fluid system on attack duty.

Also I've found short corners to be overpowered currently as the receiver isn't closed down and so is free to shoot or cross at will.

Yes. THOG's point 3. Your FBs will push up anyway with Fluid/Attack.

[Faultless]

excellent cheers

[kandersson]

Yes. THOG's point 3. Your FBs will push up anyway with Fluid/Attack.

I don't see much point using rigid/very rigid style then, if you want to play possession-oriented, attacking football? The logic behind 'my' rigid 4-2-3-1 was having CB's, right FB and CM's focused on defensive duties, with one attacking left FB (paired with IF/support) and three 'rigidly creative' players in the AM strata (IF-AP-W from left to right) behind AF. Failing miserably right now...

[THOG]

I don't see much point using rigid/very rigid style then, if you want to play possession-oriented, attacking football? The logic behind 'my' rigid 4-2-3-1 was having CB's, right FB and CM's focused on defensive duties, with one attacking left FB (paired with IF/support) and three 'rigidly creative' players in the AM strata (IF-AP-W from left to right) behind AF. Failing miserably right now...

Rigid styles are intended to be efficient and promote a quick transition from defence to attack. A key aspect of this is the idea that you quickly move the ball through the various units to a goalscoring forward who is poised to take advantage of any space available at the back. The benefit of this is that you create your chances more quickly while making it easier to regroup into your defensive shape, but the downside is that your attack becomes very one dimensional. And if you're setting up the rest of your team to play possession football, you're conceding time to the opposition to organize their defensive shape then asking your goalscoring forward to push beyond your attacking midfielders to break it down by himself. This isn't going to work well unless your forward is operating at an astronomically higher skill level than the opposition.

Fluid is designed to accomplish what you're trying to do, but it works by closing that gap between the more attacking midfielders and the forwards. The idea is that, while your attacking unit as a whole is fairly isolated, they're working together and relying on more than one player to be the goalscoring focal point of build-up play. Of course, the somewhat paradoxically rigid structure of Fluid (one defensive unit and one attacking unit each with a fairly specialized focus) means that it will produce a lot of draws if you don't have the talent for it since there is less movement between the lines (on the other hand, you will maintain a tighter defence against counterattacking sides), but it should result in more interplay between the forward and attacking midfielders... which is crucial if you want a possession system to produce goals.

I've been having great success with using my fullbacks with a defensive strategy, low risk passing and dribbling rarely, I tend to convert cb's to play in these positions as it basically gives me 4 cbs.

I then use a DM as an anchor man who doesn't close down and clears high balls, a box to box midfielder and a ball wining midfielder and then 2 inside forwards (attack) and a false 9.

This means I only have 2 players in my whole squad with attack duty and I'm averaging 60% possession and having around 20 shots per game with around 60% accuracy.

Any idea why this works as it seems to go against the proposed guidelines?

This is a fluid system on attack duty.

Also I've found short corners to be overpowered currently as the receiver isn't closed down and so is free to shoot or cross at will.

You've essentially turned your very fluid system into a fluid system. Fluid systems work by having an entrenched, disciplined defence give multiple, highly talented attacking players the freedom to work together to break down the opposition. In many ways, fluid is something of a rule-bending system, but as I noted above, this has its weaknesses. Namely, with your attacking unit relatively isolated, you need technically gifted players to make it work, and if just one of them has a particularly bad day at the office, a good defence should have no trouble shutting it down.

As I said above, the mentality structure of fluid is actually quite rigid on the whole, but it attempts to balance out the weaknesses of a rigid system by promoting more interplay between the forwards and attacking midfielders. Personally, if I were going to name the style settings, I would refer to fluid as "balanced" with very fluid being "fluid" and balanced being "asymmetric" (particularly since balanced can be used to set up systems more fluid than very fluid).

[voe2012]

As I said above, the mentality structure of fluid is actually quite rigid on the whole

OK, here you just lost me:rolleyes: I enjoy your wel presented ideas and they generally make sense, however I fail to graps this. what's next? Defensive systems are actually attacking? Left wingers actuallay play on the right side all the time?

On a serious note, what you are writing is in sharp contrast with the descritions in the TC and also to some extent with wwfan's posts. He advocates defensive rigid styles for shorter possesion bases styles, more direct atttacking styles for quick "british" attacking football. (of course, being dutch I take that with a pinmch of salt:D).

I am not saying you are wrong by any means, only pointing at some inconsistencies between your and wwfan's ideas. Both can't be right at the same time it appears.

[kandersson]

Rigid styles are intended to be efficient and promote a quick transition from defence to attack. A key aspect of this is the idea that you quickly move the ball through the various units to a goalscoring forward who is poised to take advantage of any space available at the back. The benefit of this is that you create your chances more quickly while making it easier to regroup into your defensive shape, but the downside is that your attack becomes very one dimensional. And if you're setting up the rest of your team to play possession football, you're conceding time to the opposition to organize their defensive shape then asking your goalscoring forward to push beyond your attacking midfielders to break it down by himself. This isn't going to work well unless your forward is operating at an astronomically higher skill level than the opposition.

Fluid is designed to accomplish what you're trying to do, but it works by closing that gap between the more attacking midfielders and the forwards. The idea is that, while your attacking unit as a whole is fairly isolated, they're working together and relying on more than one player to be the goalscoring focal point of build-up play. Of course, the somewhat paradoxically rigid structure of Fluid (one defensive unit and one attacking unit each with a fairly specialized focus) means that it will produce a lot of draws if you don't have the talent for it since there is less movement between the lines (on the other hand, you will maintain a tighter defence against counterattacking sides), but it should result in more interplay between the forward and attacking midfielders... which is crucial if you want a possession system to produce goals.

aaargh, you're clearing things up a lot but also confusing me a lot

so a rigid style cannot work well with instructions like 'pass short' play out defence', 'retain possession', which is what I've done so far...

I do want my team to make quick counter/transition play when opportunity arises, but mainly want to keep the ball and play creative football with the AM strata when attacking, with defensive-minded players (DR, DC's, MC's) focusing mostly on defence... Thought rigid would help me achieve just that (as explained by TC...) but the 'somewhat paradoxically rigid structure of Fluid' actually sounds much closer to what I'm trying to do... will give it a go tonight!

thanks a lot, I've been a 'slider guy' until very last day of FM13 (though I like the idea of new instructions system better) and now I have to understand/trust TC almost from scratch... lots of things to learn here...

[THOG]

OK, here you just lost me:rolleyes: I enjoy your wel presented ideas and they generally make sense, however I fail to graps this. what's next? Defensive systems are actually attacking? Left wingers actuallay play on the right side all the time?

On a serious note, what you are writing is in sharp contrast with the descritions in the TC and also to some extent with wwfan's posts. He advocates defensive rigid styles for shorter possesion bases styles, more direct atttacking styles for quick "british" attacking football. (of course, being dutch I take that with a pinmch of salt:D).

I am not saying you are wrong by any means, only pointing at some inconsistencies between your and wwfan's ideas. Both can't be right at the same time it appears.

The TC descriptions are a major source of confusion, and this is because it has to present the basic theory and basic theory doesn't always pan out as you'd quite expect in practical terms, especially when you have so many theoretical components interacting with one another. IMO, especially with the underlying mechanics now hidden, I think an in-game wiki with more comprehensive explanations of the history and concepts behind each general setting and role would be very useful.

As for your specific points... yes, I don't think fluid is actually fluid in the sense that most people think. It's a compromise system that balances a fluid attack with a disciplined defence. In terms of the mechanics, in a fluid system, the CM-D and everyone behind the CMs is operating on the same mentality setting as the centrebacks in a very rigid system. This means, for example, that most fullbacks will be significantly more conservative than they are in a balanced system and slightly more conservative than they are in a rigid system. This results in an overall average shape that is actually quite rigid, but unlike outright rigid systems, it relies on a more dynamic attacking unit with multiple goalscoring and creative threats. Again, I think of it as the "balanced" setting and that calling it "fluid" is the source of a lot of unintended mistakes in tactical construction (it certainly was for me).

As for wwfan's Barca tactic, he advocates Balanced which can be extremely fluid or extremely rigid depending on how you set it up. In this case, it's designed to have a centre forward who stays in the hole to play the ball forward to IFs and wingbacks who persistently get forward to create more of a 2-3-5 in possession... that's not rigid in any sense.

As for defensive systems being attacking... well, that Barca counter tactic demonstrates that it does depend on how you define attacking football. But that's essentially my main point. The TC is a complex and nuanced tool, and while the basic theory makes it all sound rather straight forward, the details are just inundated with devils. This is both a good and bad thing. On the one hand, it's very versatile if you have a comprehensive grasp of how it all works, but on the other, it can be confounding and overwhelming if you don't.

[THOG]

so a rigid style cannot work well with instructions like 'pass short' play out defence', 'retain possession', which is what I've done so far...

I wouldn't say that. Those instructions can be useful for nearly any team depending on the specific context. In general, I don't think rigid, very rigid or fluid are ideal styles for a highly technical, possession-centric system since you'll want more players pushing up out of defence and dropping out of attack to help focus on maintaining possession and these styles will lead to defenders who are either too quick to just clear it out from the back or midfielders/forwards who are eager to move play into the final third. You can set up good systems with those styles that will produce a lot of possession, but it'll be more based on winning the ball back promptly rather than passing it around patiently.

As far as passing short is concerned, you can certainly have a rigid system that involves moving the ball forward along the ground and setting up chances for smaller, more technical attackers. It may be problematic against teams that sit deep with lots of defenders, but it could be very effective against rigid and physical teams that get stretched in attack and leave lots of space in midfield. Ultimately, any set-up will be stronger against some sides and weaker against others.

[wwfan]

I terms of the debate around THOG's post, try to think of things as tendencies rather than absolutes. This thread is to guide thinking, not to set hard and fast rules. The important thing is to get your team playing in the way you visualise. That might mean changing your fluidity to get your passing patterns right, or it might mean adjusting some passing settings in a more rigid setup. No right and wrongs.

[THOG]

Absolutely. In terms of setting up a possession-centric or any kind of system that is unusually focused on doing one thing at the [potential] expense of everything else, you can do it with any style but each style will introduce different demands and may call for different kinds of players. In general, as a guideline for finding your footing, I would argue that Very Fluid and Balanced are the way to go since they allow you to get more players focused primarily on carrying out a very specific strategy. This is implied by the generalist/specialist reasoning. Just as rigid/very rigid have individuals focused on a multitude of specific tasks and fluid has two groups of players focused on a pair of specialized tasks, very fluid has the whole team focused primarily on a specific, individual task. And balanced, being more flexible, allows you to set up as much of your team around an individual task as you please.

Accordingly, since the whole team (or much of the team) is focused primarily on the task in question, there is less of a burden on any individual to carry out the team's primary function and less chance of a given player breaking from the team's main focus. Moreover, since the whole team is focused primarily on one task, individuals don't need to be particularly exceptional at what they do to keep the system working as a cohesive whole. Of course, the flipside of this is that they also need to be collectively good enough at everything else to ensure they actually get the scoreline they want. Again, the rigid vs. fluid dichotomy ultimately comes down to efficiency/stability vs. variety/unpredictability, and while possession-centric systems generally tend to thrive more when they have a lot of options going forward, there may be circumstances where you have individual players who are good enough at what they do to be the exception to the rule.

[lennon67]

Wwfan, I am looking to play a 4-3-1-2 & 4-1-3-2 formation and I want to make myself hard to beat, like I want to be quite a defensive manager and would rather win games 1-0 than win games 3-2,4-3. I was thinking about starting with rigid - standard, would this be a good starting point for this? Not the best with tactics so any advice apprieciated.

[kandersson]

I terms of the debate around THOG's post, try to think of things as tendencies rather than absolutes. This thread is to guide thinking, not to set hard and fast rules. The important thing is to get your team playing in the way you visualise. That might mean changing your fluidity to get your passing patterns right, or it might mean adjusting some passing settings in a more rigid setup. No right and wrongs.

would be nice to have a clue about what's right and what's wrong though, just to get things started... the fluid vs rigid discussion is very interesting and gives me a lot to think about.. but in the end I'm like :confused: just like my AMC ...