Using a Trequartista in a Single Striker Formation

[kilowatt44]

Looking for some understanding on how to best use a Trequartista upfront on a single striker formation.

I have dabbled with a few tweaks on a front 3 using both the AML & AMR positions and can't really seem to find a balance and am wondering if anyone has been able to use it to great success upfront and if so, are they a primary goal scorer or primary creator?

Here are a few questions I have.

• What is the best way to build a trio when having your striker as a Trequartista? I have tried IF(s) and W (a) but my IF doesn't seem to want to get into the action enough and IF(a) seems to aggressive
  
• What are the benefits to using the individual instruction of hold up ball for the trequartista? I figure this would help them oversee the play better and make better decisions for players running behind
  
• Are there certain PPI that would benefit Trequartista's upfront? I would think comes deep for the ball but this is something only learned through tutoring (I believe)
  

Hoping to generate some discussion around this roles and the benefits over using it versus a DLF.

[THOG]

If you play a trequartista, you will usually want both of your wide forwards on attack duties since the treq will stay deep and look to play in other attackers. An IF(S) is arguably redundant with a treq since he'll look to cut inside and do the same thing.

If you tell a treq to hold up the ball, he will be more likely to try to shield it while other players move forward as opposed to making an immediate pass back or trying to play his way out of trouble. For a forward with this PI, you'll generally want a player with decent Strength and Balance.

[Corner]

- If you have a lone striker dropping deep and opening up space (which of course a treq will do) then I think it makes sense for the IF to be aggressive. I know you said you feel it's too aggressive, but you need someone making runs beyond the defence. Personally, I've always liked the comination of IF(A) - Treq / CF(S) / DLF(S) - W(A). It creates different problems for the defence. You could mix it up even further with a CM(A) making runs as well (assuming you're intending to play 4-3-3). The idea is to attack in different ways so you're not predictable. You want the defence to keep guessing.

- I'm not sure about hold up ball for a Treq, I've never tried it to be honest. If you have a striker who's strong enough to hold up the ball and is creative on top of that, then you could try CF(S). It's a demanding role but if you have a player capable of it then definitely give it a try.

- I would imagine the obvious roles such as 'Comes Deep to Get Ball' and 'Tries Killer Balls Often' would help. 'Comes Deep to Get Ball' can be learned through training, not just through tutoring.

[yonko]

I've had success using a Treq with 2 IF-A. I don't know what do you mean by too aggressive.

[aderow]

I've had success using a Treq with 2 IF-A. I don't know what do you mean by too aggressive.

Was just going to say the same thing.

As far as Treq vs DLF, I feel like the DLF position is one that is tailored to a wide variety of striker/forward. But the Treq is a very specific kind of player. And depending on the PPMs he has, he can be a one man wrecking crew.

[kilowatt44]

As far as Treq vs DLF, I feel like the DLF position is one that is tailored to a wide variety of striker/forward. But the Treq is a very specific kind of player. And depending on the PPMs he has, he can be a one man wrecking crew.

Which specific PPMs would be beneficial?

[kilowatt44]

If you play a trequartista, you will usually want both of your wide forwards on attack duties since the treq will stay deep and look to play in other attackers. An IF(S) is arguably redundant with a treq since he'll look to cut inside and do the same thing.

If you tell a treq to hold up the ball, he will be more likely to try to shield it while other players move forward as opposed to making an immediate pass back or trying to play his way out of trouble. For a forward with this PI, you'll generally want a player with decent Strength and Balance.

Would this set up still generate a sufficient press without hassle opponents?

[THOG]

A Treq won't be inclined to close down unless he has high Aggression or you use Hassle. On default settings, attack duty wide forwards aren't going to be any less inclined to close down than support duty wide forwards if that's what you mean.

[yonko]

Which specific PPMs would be beneficial?

Look at Messi's PPMs for reference - comes deep, tries through balls often, runs with ball often, places shots, plays one-two's.

[yonko]

Was just going to say the same thing.

As far as Treq vs DLF, I feel like the DLF position is one that is tailored to a wide variety of striker/forward. But the Treq is a very specific kind of player. And depending on the PPMs he has, he can be a one man wrecking crew.

Not really. Look at the required attributes, most of them overlap. It's just a question of how much freedom and defensive responsibility you want to give to your single ST.

[aderow]

Not really. Look at the required attributes, most of them overlap. It's just a question of how much freedom and defensive responsibility you want to give to your single ST.

What I was trying to get across is that there are fewer players you'd want to give that level of freedom too. Fewer players that are good enough mentally to warrant it.

If I'm wrong in saying this ignore me. I'm usually wrong

[Corner]

@aderow - I don't think you're wrong at all. I think it's just a preference or stylistic choice. Personally, I don't like the Treq role unless the player has high aggression. I just can't stand lazy players, but that's just me. I prefer hard-working geniuses.

[kilowatt44]

Would a Trequartista work better with 2 AMCs behind? Say like AM(a) working the channels?

[aderow]

@aderow - I don't think you're wrong at all. I think it's just a preference or stylistic choice. Personally, I don't like the Treq role unless the player has high aggression. I just can't stand lazy players, but that's just me. I prefer hard-working geniuses.

Me too. I've never liked lazy attackers in my teams.

[Cleon]

Treq is hard working and does closedown as much as anyone else even with low aggression and no hassle opponents. Not sure why people think they are lazy when it comes to defending as that's not true.

[Lyssien]

Treq is hard working and does closedown as much as anyone else even with low aggression and no hassle opponents. Not sure why people think they are lazy when it comes to defending as that's not true.

Cleon, the Treq in-game description says explicitly that he is lazy defensively.

Having said that, I am sure you are right and the description is wrong. I mean, he even has "Close Down Less" unavailable.

[Cleon]

Cleon, the Treq in-game description says explicitly that he is lazy defensively.

Having said that, I am sure you are right and the description is wrong. I mean, he even has "Close Down Less" unavailable.

I know that's what the description says but if anyone watches a game where they use one, they'll see he is anything but lazy. The description is very misleading and needs changing but anyone using one should be able to see he isn't lazy instantly if they watch any part of a game

People can see in my thread just how hard working a Treq really is;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/391083-The-School-of-the-Defensive-Arts

[lam]

@aderow - I don't think you're wrong at all. I think it's just a preference or stylistic choice. Personally, I don't like the Treq role unless the player has high aggression. I just can't stand lazy players, but that's just me. I prefer hard-working geniuses.

Aggression has very little to do with how hard your TQ will work.

I have Eriksen at Spurs who players as a TQ behind two strikers and aside from my CWB's he covers the most distance in any match and he has an aggression stat of 5.

[Torskus77]

Not used one for a while, having to much fun using my F9 and Shadow Striker combo. When I did use one up top, I found the PI " Dribble More" made them more attack minded. I've had mixed success with a TQ as a striker, very much depends on the player you use, PPMs change the role dramatically from my experiences. It's still a great role though, if it fits in with your set up. The TQ does really drift and try and find space, and it depends a lot on where that space is to where he goes.

[kilowatt44]

Not used one for a while, having to much fun using my F9 and Shadow Striker combo. When I did use one up top, I found the PI " Dribble More" made them more attack minded. I've had mixed success with a TQ as a striker, very much depends on the player you use, PPMs change the role dramatically from my experiences. It's still a great role though, if it fits in with your set up. The TQ does really drift and try and find space, and it depends a lot on where that space is to where he goes.

With the "dribble more" option, did they still create or did they try and find more solo runs.

I wonder as well if "more direct passing" would help the TQ create as well...

Do certain PIs operate in any sense of priority? e.g. if I have dribble more and more direct passes, in what situations would they lean to do either?

[Torskus77]

With the "dribble more" option, did they still create or did they try and find more solo runs.

I wonder as well if "more direct passing" would help the TQ create as well...

Do certain PIs operate in any sense of priority? e.g. if I have dribble more and more direct passes, in what situations would they lean to do either?

Well I have always used quite intelligent players in the TQ role, with the dribble more, they didn't just get the ball and run every time, but it certainly gives them another edge. As for the passing, something to think about is your team instructions. If you are using an attacking mentality then attacking players will have a more direct passing anyway, where as a more defensive one they will have shorter passing. That is unless the TQ qualifies as a playmaker (not sure) then they will have mixed passing by default. I honestly don't know the answer to that one, I am sure Cleon will. I wouldn't really want my TQ to be to direct to be honest, but I guess it comes down to what you are trying to achieve as a team.

[THOG]

I know that's what the description says but if anyone watches a game where they use one, they'll see he is anything but lazy. The description is very misleading and needs changing but anyone using one should be able to see he isn't lazy instantly if they watch any part of a game

People can see in my thread just how hard working a Treq really is;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/391083-The-School-of-the-Defensive-Arts

The treq's default closing down is set to the minimum setting, so there is a difference, albeit a minimal one on a defensive mentality where that setting is already low. Any AM will help cover space and defend against a player running directly through his area, especially on defensive mentalities, but he is less inclined to go chasing after the ball. This doesn't mean he isn't hard working, just more disciplined with his positioning. The part about him drifting around when out of possession is inaccurate though, but then, a lot of the TC descriptions are outdated at this point.

Aggression has very little to do with how hard your TQ will work.

I have Eriksen at Spurs who players as a TQ behind two strikers and aside from my CWB's he covers the most distance in any match and he has an aggression stat of 5.

Aggression affects a player's willingness to close down and get stuck in, so it does matter but it's less a question of being lazy and more a question of what you want from the player. An AM who doesn't go chasing the ball will more reliably cover the area between the opposition's defence and midfield, discouraging back passes. He also won't tire himself out needlessly.

Also, if you use Hassle Opponents, it will override the treq's default closing down instructions.

[llama3]

Treq is hard working and does closedown as much as anyone else even with low aggression and no hassle opponents. Not sure why people think they are lazy when it comes to defending as that's not true.

I know that's what the description says but if anyone watches a game where they use one, they'll see he is anything but lazy. The description is very misleading and needs changing but anyone using one should be able to see he isn't lazy instantly if they watch any part of a game

People can see in my thread just how hard working a Treq really is;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/391083-The-School-of-the-Defensive-Arts

Aggression affects a player's willingness to close down and get stuck in, so it does matter but it's less a question of being lazy and more a question of what you want from the player. An AM who doesn't go chasing the ball will more reliably cover the area between the opposition's defence and midfield, discouraging back passes. He also won't tire himself out needlessly.

I felt when I went back to a Trequartista recently with Ozil that he can drift easily into good positions to intercept the ball, he dropped back quickly enough too

[Cleon]

The treq's default closing down is set to the minimum setting, so there is a difference, albeit a minimal one on a defensive mentality where that setting is already low. Any AM will help cover space and defend against a player running directly through his area, especially on defensive mentalities, but he is less inclined to go chasing after the ball. This doesn't mean he isn't hard working, just more disciplined with his positioning. The part about him drifting around when out of possession is inaccurate though, but then, a lot of the TC descriptions are outdated at this point.

My point was people keep saying they are lazy and don't do any defending at all when its not true in the slightest. People who think they do nothing or don't do any kind of defending clearly have never watched any part of their match (and are just taking the descriptions word on what the role actually does) when they've used one or they'd see it wasn't true. They still close down as its all relevant to the position they take up but even your own post above in post 8 is misleading to people as you claimed a treq wouldn't be inclined to close down unless he had an attribute of 15 for aggression, which again is not correct and gives people the wrong idea imo. Because you and I know full well that even though they have a low closing down setting they'll still close people down.

Your posts initially suggest that they wouldn't do that unless they had high aggression, its posts like this what really confuse people because its simply not true at all. It's proximity that matters which determines if he closes down or not. Aggression will help him wanting to involve himself in everything but it doesn't have to be high at all to make him close down because its the position that matters. In your example of the 15 in the attribute, that suggest someone with a low aggression will just let the player waltz past him 10 yards away because he's got 5 aggression and not 15....

[THOG]

My point was people keep saying they are lazy and don't do any defending at all when its not true in the slightest. People who think they do nothing or don't do any kind of defending clearly have never watched any part of their match (and are just taking the descriptions word on what the role actually does) when they've used one or they'd see it wasn't true. They still close down as its all relevant to the position they take up but even your own post above in post 8 is misleading to people as you claimed a treq wouldn't be inclined to close down unless he had an attribute of 15 for aggression, which again is not correct and gives people the wrong idea imo. Because you and I know full well that even though they have a low closing down setting they'll still close people down.

Your posts initially suggest that they wouldn't do that unless they had high aggression, its posts like this what really confuse people because its simply not true at all. It's proximity that matters which determines if he closes down or not. Aggression will help him wanting to involve himself in everything but it doesn't have to be high at all to make him close down because its the position that matters. In your example of the 15 in the attribute, that suggest someone with a low aggression will just let the player waltz past him 10 yards away because he's got 5 aggression and not 15....

But it does influence a player's decision-making just as the closing down instruction influences a player's decision-making. He will close down, but his inclination is the minimum for any role, less so if he has certain mental attributes. Now, I didn't say a "treq will never, under any circumstance, close down unless he has high aggression," I said he wouldn't be inclined to do so in the sense that his tendency to close down will be vastly reduced... which is true. He'll be more inclined to hold position/keep shape.

Here are two screenshots. In both, I'm playing a 4-4-1-1 with a treq on Counter and the team told to push up. Both screens depict very similar situations.

In the first, I'm using a relatively low Aggression player (el Shaaraway). Rakitic has been holding up the ball and Shaaraway just holds position, better protecting space but not in any hurry to put pressure on Rakitic. Eventually, Pirlo steps out to close him down:

Now, the second, I'm using a very high Aggression player (Osvaldo). Rakitic has barely had a moment on the ball and Osvaldo is already all over him, forcing the pass:

As you and I know, any player can do anything if the virtual dice fall correctly, so it's never a question of Role X will never do Y. That's absolutely true, but there are differences in tendency and, in the treq's case, the tendency leans strongly towards "standing off" as opposed to "hassling."

I assume you also know that I didn't suggest 15+ as an absolute as opposed to a general guideline, but I can see how that could be misleading for some so your point is taken and I'll edit the post on your advice.

EDIT: To clarify, I agree 100% that a treq shouldn't be described as lazy; I just don't think it's accurate to say he closes down as much as any other role.

[lam]

Aggression 5.

There are no team instructions around tackling or closing down (all default).

Personally I think it's more about their off the ball stats and anticipation + how deep you might play as they will make up ground to attack + PPM's.

[llama3]

Aggression 5.

There are no team instructions around tackling or closing down (all default).

Personally I think it's more about their off the ball stats and anticipation + how deep you might play as they will make up ground to attack + PPM's.

Very interesting to see Ozil - a very clear example of a Trequartista having covered such a huge amount of ground. Especially given his work rate, aggression, determination etc are average to low.

[THOG]

...

It doesn't mean he isn't far less inclined to close down compared to other roles though. As I said, an AMC treq doesn't just stay forward with the striker and drift around, he will move back with the team in his defensive position, so if the team as a whole is playing end to end (and the fact that you have seven players in the top 13 suggests that's the case), he absolutely can cover a lot of distance. However, the same player in another role or a player with higher Aggression will have a much stronger inclination to break shape and close down. How big an effect that would have on this stat (especially given the way closing down works in FM), I don't know, but that's not really the point. The fact that the treq also moves around a lot in possession is also likely a significant factor in terms of this stat.

Very interesting to see Ozil - a very clear example of a Trequartista having covered such a huge amount of ground. Especially given his work rate, aggression, determination etc are average to low.

He's followed closely by two other Arsenal AMs though. AI Wenger plays a very high tempo, very attacking style with a porous formation, so the AM-line players will end up covering a huge amount of distance regardless of their role or attributes. The in-game role recommendations also seem to suggest that the team selector probably prefers Ozil as an advanced playmaker.

EDIT: To clarify things further and hopefully find some middle ground of mutual understanding where I don't think there's really much disagreement, I do absolutely think Closing Down settings should not be thought of as controlling how defensively "hard working" a player is compared to how defensively "lazy" he is. The setting obviously should not be understood as affecting tracking back which is controlled primarily by a combination of position and individual mentality.

Rather, just to dissect and lay out my personal understanding of the setting, closing down instructions should be thought of as controlling bias between two distinct defensive techniques: closing down/pressuring (in FM's terms, "hassling") and containment (in FM's terms, "standing off"). In the former, a defending player attempts to minimise space between himself and the ball carrier while actively threatening to challenge with the aim of quickly dispossessing the attacker or forcing an immediate error, and in the latter, a defending player attempts to merely dissuade or steer movement/passing through his zone with the aim of forcing the opposition to play the ball into a less dangerous area, only directly challenging the opponent on the ball if he tries to take him on or a spare defender is immediately available to provide cover for the challenge. A player with a stronger inclination towards closing down/pressuring will show a greater willingness to deviate from his defensive position at the risk of over-committing in the press. A player with a stronger inclination towards containment will try to help keep the team's shape at the risk of giving the opponent too much time on the ball, only venturing far out of position if the player on the ball is wholly unmarked (as you might see if you use "Stand Off Opponents" with a narrow formation and an opposition fullback gets the ball in the final third).

In the case of the treq, he's heavily biased towards containment. This does not mean he doesn't defend. He will still help defend in the exact way the team as a whole defends if you use the TI "Stand Off Opponents." The key difference here is that he will not be inclined to actively engage a player with a view towards dispossessing/tackling him unless absolutely necessary.

Aggression further influences the player's bias in this respect. An aggressive player will tend to attempt more challenges than a less aggressive player because he is naturally biased towards a closing down/pressuring style. A non-aggressive player will tend to attempt less challenges than a more aggressive player because he is naturally biased towards a containment style.

Now, I think the area of misunderstanding is that you can define "closing down" more broadly as engaging an opponent in your zone with either defensive technique. That's a totally valid point and perhaps indicates an area where FM and the TC can use a more precise and less ambiguous term.

So with that all put out there in painstaking detail, do you have any objections to that outline?

[Cleon]

It doesn't mean he isn't far less inclined to close down compared to other roles though. As I said, an AMC treq doesn't just stay forward with the striker and drift around, he will move back with the team in his defensive position, so if the team as a whole is playing end to end (and the fact that you have seven players in the top 13 suggests that's the case), he absolutely can cover a lot of distance. However, the same player in another role or a player with higher Aggression will have a much stronger inclination to break shape and close down. How big an effect that would have on this stat (especially given the way closing down works in FM), I don't know, but that's not really the point. The fact that the treq also moves around a lot in possession is also likely a significant factor in terms of this stat.

He's followed closely by two other Arsenal AMs though. AI Wenger plays a very high tempo, very attacking style with a porous formation, so the AM-line players will end up covering a huge amount of distance regardless of their role or attributes. The in-game role recommendations also seem to suggest that the team selector probably prefers Ozil as an advanced playmaker.

EDIT: To clarify things further and hopefully find some middle ground of mutual understanding where I don't think there's really much disagreement, I do absolutely think Closing Down settings should not be thought of as controlling how defensively "hard working" a player is compared to how defensively "lazy" he is. The setting obviously should not be understood as affecting tracking back which is controlled primarily by a combination of position and individual mentality.

Rather, just to dissect and lay out my personal understanding of the setting, closing down instructions should be thought of as controlling bias between two distinct defensive techniques: closing down/pressuring (in FM's terms, "hassling") and containment (in FM's terms, "standing off"). In the former, a defending player attempts to minimise space between himself and the ball carrier while actively threatening to challenge with the aim of quickly dispossessing the attacker or forcing an immediate error, and in the latter, a defending player attempts to merely dissuade or steer movement/passing through his zone with the aim of forcing the opposition to play the ball into a less dangerous area, only directly challenging the opponent on the ball if he tries to take him on or a spare defender is immediately available to provide cover for the challenge. A player with a stronger inclination towards closing down/pressuring will show a greater willingness to deviate from his defensive position at the risk of over-committing in the press. A player with a stronger inclination towards containment will try to help keep the team's shape at the risk of giving the opponent too much time on the ball, only venturing far out of position if the player on the ball is wholly unmarked (as you might see if you use "Stand Off Opponents" with a narrow formation and an opposition fullback gets the ball in the final third).

In the case of the treq, he's heavily biased towards containment. This does not mean he doesn't defend. He will still help defend in the exact way the team as a whole defends if you use the TI "Stand Off Opponents." The key difference here is that he will not be inclined to actively engage a player with a view towards dispossessing/tackling him unless absolutely necessary.

Aggression further influences the player's bias in this respect. An aggressive player will tend to attempt more challenges than a less aggressive player because he is naturally biased towards a closing down/pressuring style. A non-aggressive player will tend to attempt less challenges than a more aggressive player because he is naturally biased towards a containment style.

Now, I think the area of misunderstanding is that you can define "closing down" more broadly as engaging an opponent in your zone with either defensive technique. That's a totally valid point and perhaps indicates an area where FM and the TC can use a more precise and less ambiguous term.

So with that all put out there in painstaking detail, do you have any objections to that outline?

I do agree with what you are saying yeah but I don't agree with your view of aggression as it doesn't make someone less or more inclined to play a containment game as that would make the attribute more powerful than all the other attributes and make it more influential than it actually is. Yes the player does involve himself more in the game but this doesn't mean he might close down more, an aggressive player might see more tackles as you'd expect but it doesn't mean he's more inclined to close down aggressive at all imo. Someone with a high aggression attribute doesn't mean he'll close down higher or more aggressive because we all know other attributes come into play like decision making, work rate, team work etc. This all have a massive bearing on when the aggression is used and how its used. I can show you many examples of a low aggression player doing exactly what you do in your screenshot because he has the other attributes that make him realise he needs to close down more aggressive even though he lacks this as an attribute. Aggression isn't linked to closing down directly because all it means is the player will look to involve himself more and be assertive. It doesn't mean he is less disciplined positionally than someone with a lower one as the other attributes determine all of this and not aggression. In fact I'd even argue that in your screenshots the reason why el Shaaraway holds position better is because he has high work rate, team work and pace so knows he can deal with the situation should it come more problematic. Now look at Osvaldo he closes down because he lacks team work and work rate which makes him less disciplined so he just goes and closes down. It's not that aggression has made him do it its that teamwork and workrate are low which is making him move around more and be less disciplined.

I agree with what you are saying in principle but aggression doesn't make you lose shape like you said, that's what I'm disagreeing with.

When I get time (hopefully tomorrow) I'll do a proper thread about this with examples and footage to better illustrate the points and show what I mean.

[THOG]

Not trying to be argumentative here, genuinely think this is an interesting discussion :

I agree that, in any instance, a decision is going to be a product of multiple attributes (as well as player motivation) and that the tendency/mental attributes work by making certain actions appear more preferable over others, so the question for me, then, is what sort of actions does Aggression further prioritise. In the case of closing down itself, the instruction clearly isn't as simple as having a high setting make a player just run all over the place willy-nilly entirely irrespective of the team's shape and the position of the d-line. The explosion of the general use of Hassle with FM14 is testament to this and I've argued that defensive style settings could be more diverse and further separated from general mentality (though, as you know, I still don't like Hassle as it works now because of the way it affects central defenders and fullbacks).

Now, based on my experience on top of the official documentation, I consider Aggression to be a sort of style attribute broadly representing a player's physicality and willingness to challenge for the ball in various situations. This aligns with how I read the closing down instruction which, again, is less "Player X will always close down a player in Area Y if Closing Down is set to Point Z" (which is one of the more misleading aspects of the old slider) and more "Player X will have an increased tendency to move in tight and look to challenge a ball carrier in his defensive zone." And that itself gets back to understanding the instruction as controlling the balance of two defensive techniques as opposed to automatically forcing a player to individually apply pressure when it would be wholly irrational.

[Cleon]

Not trying to be argumentative here, genuinely think this is an interesting discussion :

Me neither. It's good to have someone to discuss attributes with and what they do, when I did my massive thread on them years ago it was me and Sfrazer but since then no-one really talks about attributes and what they do anymore

I agree that, in any instance, a decision is going to be a product of multiple attributes (as well as player motivation) and that the tendency/mental attributes work by making certain actions appear more preferable over others, so the question for me, then, is what sort of actions does Aggression further prioritise.

I think this is where we differ. We are both in a roundabout way agreeing with what each others says but come at it differently from this point on. You see it as aggression prioritising things where as I see it as something that is always active therefore I can't see it the same you do. I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes much sense but it does to me?! . It's about everything the player does and how he tackles, how he involves himself in the match (along with his other mental's and hidden attributes obviously) rather than where he chooses to tackle a player, where he chooses to close down, where he decides to be restrained in his positioning etc. For me this is all governed by other attributes and are influenced by that rather than his aggression.

I've run a lot of tests on attributes over the years but didn't think anyone else would be interested in getting into a deep discussion about them. Looks like I might have been wrong about that and this discussion is making me want to revieve the SI Sports thread I did and discuss them again. Hmm if only I had the time

The explosion of the general use of Hassle with FM14 is testament to this and I've argued that defensive style settings could be more diverse and further separated from general mentality (though, as you know, I still don't like Hassle as it works now because of the way it affects central defenders and fullbacks).

I agree. I still hope that sometime in the future how a player attacks or defends is down to a players personality and preferences. I know this is going to take some time but I think ever single player should defend different even if similar attributes to someone else. Because on FM atm every top attacker or defender basically does the same thing and there isn't anything that separates them or makes them different. The game basically treats Messi and Ronaldo the same when it should portrait them as different individuals. I believe this would solve a lot of the issues with things like defensive styles etc.

Now, I consider Aggression to be a sort of style attribute broadly representing a player's physicality and willingness to challenge for the ball in various situations.

This is definitely the point we think differently. You see it like that but I see it as how much the player wants to involve himself in situations and with how much conviction. I also don't tie it to challenges, someone more aggressive can influence how they run or how they cover space and so on.

Do you have the ingame editor? You can see some very interesting end results if you change a players aggression, team work and workrate. You can see the relation and how it corresponds with certain aspects of the players game. Just changing them ever so slightly has a huge influence with both in possession and without in determining what the player actually does.

I know to many people it will look like I'm being argumentative but I really am enjoying this discussion and not being an arse on purpose

[RTHerringbone]

I still hope that sometime in the future how a player attacks or defends is down to a players personality and preferences. I know this is going to take some time but I think ever single player should defend different even if similar attributes to someone else. Because on FM atm every top attacker or defender basically does the same thing and there isn't anything that separates them or makes them different. The game basically treats Messi and Ronaldo the same when it should portrait them as different individuals. I believe this would solve a lot of the issues with things like defensive styles etc.

This would be brilliant [/butting Back Out]

[Cleon]

This would be brilliant [/butting Back Out]

As the match engine develops and improves then if something like this isn't added then it will hold the game back as it will all be pointless if players aren't more dynamic. I'm not saying use my idea or that I have all the answers but I think they'll already have their own idea of how they'll tackle this and represent it in a future FM imo.

[RTHerringbone]

As the match engine develops and improves then if something like this isn't added then it will hold the game back as it will all be pointless if players aren't more dynamic. I'm not saying use my idea or that I have all the answers but I think they'll already have their own idea of how they'll tackle this and represent it in a future FM imo.

How do you reckon they will be able to show this dynamism in the ME? What factors outside Personality should influence that uniqueness?

Whilst graphically the game continues to evolve very well, it's still far from the point where it will be able to represent subtle, stylistic personality traits. In order for personality to shine through, those traits would need to be pretty significant in order to be visible.

I muddy this with PPMs, which I sort of consider to be personality traits, although that is somewhat blurred by the fact that you can train PPMs in any personality.

But, using PPMs as an example, is the visibility of all PPMs obvious enough in the ME?

I think some of them certainly are, but I'd be interested to hear other peoples' views.

[aderow]

I'd agree with that. Some are certainly visibly more obvious than others right now. In some ways, it will always be like that imo.

[Cleon]

How do you reckon they will be able to show this dynamism in the ME? What factors outside Personality should influence that uniqueness?

Whilst graphically the game continues to evolve very well, it's still far from the point where it will be able to represent subtle, stylistic personality traits. In order for personality to shine through, those traits would need to be pretty significant in order to be visible.

I muddy this with PPMs, which I sort of consider to be personality traits, although that is somewhat blurred by the fact that you can train PPMs in any personality.

But, using PPMs as an example, is the visibility of all PPMs obvious enough in the ME?

I think some of them certainly are, but I'd be interested to hear other peoples' views.

That's a good question. Not sure I have all the answers but I'd start first with making players personalities have more impact on everything and having those influence how he plays. Personality now is quite black and white especially with player development so it makes sense to start here first imo and lay the foundations. Allow players to be more dynamic by allowing preferences to have a baring on how he plays. I'd tie personality more with training and tactics by making the player have some kind of tendencies for the tactical aspects maybe?. So you might instruct someone to close down for example yet the player in question has a tendency that stops him from being any good at this, like Ronaldo in his earlier years. He had no interest in tracking back or anything. But over time it can change because its dynamic. Maybe you can do some extra training and ask him to work on this or learn him new PPM's that make him better at it? PPM's shouldn't be tactical instructions that are already available, this would be a good start.

Certain personality types shouldn't be able to to train some PPM's as that's not realistic.

I'd like to see more tactical concepts or game plans come under training with extra catergories and all of this should be tied to personality some how. I see no reason why we shouldn't be able train tactic concepts like defensive movement or faster transitions and rather than making it something that sticks for every game, it should be something we can focus our training for the build up to a game rather than it being included as a shout.

We could even take it further and expand training to make the players more unique. Maybe via some kind of 4x4 or 6x6 drills that focus on different types of attributes that you choose and again these influence how the players plays and could make him better at short intricate passing along with his technique.

In short it comes down to this for me;

• Personality should control everything
  
• Personality and training and tactics need to be better linked some how. This means more focus on smaller training sessions etc
  

I'm not sure how they can make the ME show this variety and make top players really stand out and I won't pretend I know how easy/hard it is to do, but it needs to be something they figured out if they want the game to keep evolving. I'm sure they'd have ways in which they can make it possible somehow. Not sure what though.

I know I've probably gone on a bit much and changed the subject slightly but its all linked for me, you can't have one without the other. Basically what I'm getting at is the way you train a player, his personality type, his PPM's, his attributes and so on should all make him different and stand out from the other players somehow.

[THOG]

I think this is where we differ. We are both in a roundabout way agreeing with what each others says but come at it differently from this point on. You see it as aggression prioritising things where as I see it as something that is always active therefore I can't see it the same you do. I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes much sense but it does to me?! . It's about everything the player does and how he tackles, how he involves himself in the match (along with his other mental's and hidden attributes obviously) rather than where he chooses to tackle a player, where he chooses to close down, where he decides to be restrained in his positioning etc. For me this is all governed by other attributes and are influenced by that rather than his aggression.

Could you provide an example of how you think that manifests in the game? I might be missing your point, but this seems to be approaching a level of fine detail that doesn't really seem to be all that relevant. In my case, I prefer high Aggression players for a high pressing approach not because the high Aggression literally creates the high press in terms of the basic behavioral framework but fleshes it out in encouraging players to actually get in there to try to win the ball or throw opposition players off their game, as opposed to just closing off options and restricting space high up. FWIW, my read of aggression started years ago when experimenting with different players in the treq role. I used Craig Bellamy in the role and it was a total revelation with how he harried the opposition's defensive line compared to players with similar ratings in other relevant attributes. Tests I've done since then seem to reinforce that, though obviously, perception bias could be coming into play there.

I agree. I still hope that sometime in the future how a player attacks or defends is down to a players peronality and preferences. I know this is going to take some time but I think ever single player should defend different even if similar attributes to someone else. Because on FM atm every top attacker or defender basically does the same thing and there isn't anything that separates them or makes them different. The game basically treats Messi and Ronaldo the same when it should portrait them as different individuals. I believe this would solve a lot of the issues with things like defensive styles etc.

Yeah, team-wide "roles" (in a sense) that control attacking and defensive patterns is at the top of my wishlist, and I think that you could then tie those to individual players so elements of different styles would show up in a player's game even if he's operating under a different instructed style.

Personally, I hate the PPM system to the extent that it overlaps with fundamental tactical instructions and is so inflexible, yet doesn't actually create a distinct style... they just tend to muddle the player's role. My sense is that they were intended to be roles before roles, but they're largely redundant now and appear to hamper performances for a number of teams (for example, Barca and Arsenal perform much better when they don't have 5 or 6 players looking to constantly play killer balls).

This is definitely the point we think differently. You see it like that but I see it as how much the player wants to involve himself in situations and with how much conviction. I also don't tie it to challenges, someone more aggressive can influence how they run or how they cover space and so on.

That's so vague though and seems like it would be something you might want for a playmaker or any number of roles. But when you look at how aggression is linked to roles, you have the target man, ball-winner and stopper. To me, that clearly implies an emphasis on challenging for possession either in aerial duels (target man, stopper) or just the player's eagerness to harass an attacker and make something happen on the defensive end. I've previously likened Aggression to Flair in this respect.

I know to many people it will look like I'm being argumentative but I really am enjoying this discussion and not being an arse on purpose

I hate it when we fight.

[Cleon]

Could you provide an example of how you think that manifests in the game? I might be missing your point, but this seems to be approaching a level of fine detail that doesn't really seem to be all that irrelevant. In my case, I prefer high Aggression players for a high pressing approach not because the high Aggression literally creates the high press in terms of the basic behavioral framework but fleshes it out in encouraging players to actually get in there to try to win the ball or throw opposition players off their game, as opposed to just closing off options and restricting space high up. FWIW, my read of aggression started years ago when experimenting with different players in the treq role. I used Craig Bellamy in the role and it was a total revelation with how he harried the opposition's defensive line compared to players with similar ratings in other relevant attributes. Tests I've done since then seem to reinforce that, though obviously, perception bias could be coming into play there.

Originally in this thread though you said high aggression encourages the closing down for example. That's what you said further up the thread. If now you are saying its more about the player actually getting stuck in and not initiating the closing down (using your example further up the thread) then we are in agreement. You was saying it started moves which I don't agree with.

That's so vague though and seems like it would be something you might want for a playmaker or any number of roles. But when you look at how aggression is linked to roles, you have the target man, ball-winner and stopper. To me, that clearly implies an emphasis on challenging for possession either in aerial duels (target man, stopper) or just the player's eagerness to harass an attacker and make something happen on the defensive end. I've previously likened Aggression to Flair in this respect.

Come off it, you can't use the descriptions to try and prove a point or the highlighted attributes the game highlights when you've been strongly opposed to them in other threads and disagree with a lot of them . There are lots of attributes highlighted for roles that shouldn't be and vice versa, important ones for roles that are left off. You've been championing this yourself ffs

I never said aggression doesn't help when someone is going to be challenging for the ball. However its not solely linked to those jobs it just makes sense to look for that as an attribute as you want someone who isn't going to shy away from getting his foot stuck in and the roles you mentioned are all aggressive ones, so its logical aggression should be a highlighted attribute. However that doesn't mean that's its only use or the only time its useful. There is a word missing from my quote I notice which is an error on my part, I put I also don't tie it to challenges when it should have said I also don't solely tie it to challenges.

We actually agree on everything except you think it makes the player instigate moves and I don't. I believe it influences how the players asserts himself in situations.

We are just going around in circles though. So once I have the time (after all the bloody hospital appointments etc) I'll show some clear examples to show you why I believe it works like I say hopefully tomorrow maybe.

[Corner]

I was under the impression that agression has nothing to do with getting stuck into challenges? I thought that was linked to bravery rather than aggression?

[THOG]

Originally in this thread though you said high aggression encourages the closing down for example. That's what you said further up the thread. If now you are saying its more about the player actually getting stuck in and not initiating the closing down (using your example further up the thread) then we are in agreement. You was saying it started moves which I don't agree with.

Conceptually, drawing from various coaching manuals, I draw a distinction between pressing (a collective team action that aims to limit the total playable area) and individual pressuring (moving in to challenge or provoke miscontrol of the ball). Admittedly, I'm not careful about the terminology when we're talking about things casually on here, but if we're going to get all technical and specific, that's an important distinction to make in my understanding. Closing down mainly concerns the latter, though the two obviously work together to some extent (though not as rigidly as they do in the TC... hence, why I'd like more control over defensive style). My observations/experiments have led me to think Aggression will encourage a player to move in to challenge and apply individual pressure. As with closing down, it won't have the player crossing the pitch and putting 50m between himself and the midfield, but my read is that it does encourage a player to step out of shape to force a turnover of possession sooner.

I'll clarify here that I accept that I certainly could be wrong and look forward to your more detailed posts on the subject (and best of luck with the hospital).

Come off it, you can't use the descriptions to try and prove a point or the highlighted attributes the game highlights when you've been strongly opposed to them in other threads and disagree with a lot of them . There are lots of attributes highlighted for roles that shouldn't be and vice versa, important ones for roles that are left off. You've been championing this yourself ffs

I can and I will. My issue is when key attributes match the concept/tooltip but not the actual instructions or basic positional behaviors. I still think you can look at the role concept and key attributes to infer what function an attribute would support in the abstract. For example, you wouldn't need Stamina for a limited midfielder who just sits and does one thing, but the Central Midfielder is not a limited role in practice. The key attributes match the concept but not the execution. I'm not saying this is conclusive proof one way or the other, just another thing to note in the bigger picture.

I never said aggression doesn't help when someone is going to be challenging for the ball. However its not solely linked to those jobs it just makes sense to look for that as an attribute as you want someone who isn't going to shy away from getting his foot stuck in and the roles you mentioned are all aggressive ones, so its logical aggression should be a highlighted attribute. However that doesn't mean that's its only use or the only time its useful. There is a word missing from my quote I notice which is an error on my part, I put I also don't tie it to challenges when it should have said I also don't solely tie it to challenges.[/Quote]

Sure, I can accept that its influence might have a wider reach and I can certainly think of instances where aggression in the sense of tenacity/physicality would have an attacking element. I'm just struggling to understand how your explanation in terms of not being factor in decision-making would work in practice. To me, even if you go by the vague definition of encouraging a player to assert himself, an increased inclination to force the issue in defence would stand out to me as the most obvious example of a player asserting his influence and getting involved. Meanwhile, such a broad definition would seem to suggest the attribute could apply to all sorts of players that have low aggression in the database. Cristiano Ronaldo has Aggression 8 but he certainly likes to be at the heart of the action if we're speaking very generally. Obviously, the data isn't perfect and maybe you think that's a case where the attribute should be higher, but I don't see where we draw the line if the attribute is defined in such broad strokes.

EDIT: Apology for adding the edits. I don't want to do two consecutive posts but I'm getting interrupted by pressing IRL nonsense.

[Cleon]

I was under the impression that agression has nothing to do with getting stuck into challenges? I thought that was linked to bravery rather than aggression?

Bravery is how far someone is willing to put their body on the line. So high bravery will give them a 'I don't care about my body type attitude' and someone with low bravery might think 'wait a minute I'm not risking injury here'.

[Lyssien]

I've run a lot of tests on attributes over the years but didn't think anyone else would be interested in getting into a deep discussion about them. Looks like I might have been wrong about that and this discussion is making me want to revieve the SI Sports thread I did and discuss them again.

Bring it on! Attributes are a core part of the game, I am actually extremely surprised that FM fans don't seem to care about them.

[Torskus77]

Bring it on! Attributes are a core part of the game, I am actually extremely surprised that FM fans don't seem to care about them.

Indeed, I think a lack of understanding how attributes work is a key part of why some people struggle (myself included) I'm not quite as bad as I used to be years back " Oooo he has 18 for finishing he should score at least 30 a season" I do try and really take a good look at a players full set of attributes now. The highlighted attributes for each role are a help for sure, but a deeper understanding of attributes can only be helpful.

[Cleon]

I'll not post anymore about this subject now until I've got examples to show what I mean as its pretty pointless without them. Time is pretty much none existent for me at the moment but I did spend a good 3 hours writing the beginning of the new thread I'll be creating earlier. The most time consuming aspect of this will be grabbing the screenshots and doing the clips that is needed to support what I'll be writing. Hopefully I can have it finished by the weekend maybe, even if it isn't finished I'll still most likely post it up due to sparking debate and there should be enough info in to get across my opinions or for others to chip in with their own views etc.

So thought I'd let everyone know what I was doing in case I didn't post in here again, I didn't want people to think this great discussion had suddenly stopped or that I was avoiding providing the screenshots and clips that I said I would. Far from it, it just takes time to put it all down and get from the game . I should also point out that I hope to do this for all the attributes but that's more long term than short term

[DrizzitD]

Absolutely brilliant discussion!

I cant personally add anything to a discussion on attributes, but I love reading threads like this as it helps me every so slowly to understand all the small things that goes on in the background of FM.

I really do hope SI takes the time to read threads like this and realize how many descriptions ingame needs an update sometime soon. I realize its not easy to put an accurate description on everything but as you all mention some of them are just plain wrong on simple things and it makes people complain about things that might actually be working as it should just that the description is wrong.

Anyway keep it up guys and thank you for making it easier for the rest of us to learn!

[DeathJester]

Was pleased to see this thread on trequartiista as a single striker. I have a couple questions. What's the main difference between a trequartiista and a false nine?

I'm considering a false nine as the lone striker backed up by a cm with attack, a amr as inside forward attack and a winger on attack in the aml position.

Would this work well? Any advice you can give on this?

I play a short quick passing game, very rigid style, high defensive line. I use two complete wing backs and a half back and deep lying playmaker.

[Deego619]

Was pleased to see this thread on trequartiista as a single striker. I have a couple questions. What's the main difference between a trequartiista and a false nine?

I'm considering a false nine as the lone striker backed up by a cm with attack, a amr as inside forward attack and a winger on attack in the aml position.

Would this work well? Any advice you can give on this?

I play a short quick passing game, very rigid style, high defensive line. I use two complete wing backs and a half back and deep lying playmaker.

Was about to ask the same question.

I wish there was more guidance on what roles actually do. Cleon has already proved that the descriptions are misleading.

I currently use a F9 in an attacking trio of IF/S and W/A and have started the season unbeaten. Fluid short passing system on counter. I have noticed my F9 needing more aggressive running from the IF/S at times, but my IF has been in great form scoring some amazing individual goals from picking up the ball from deep. The F9 I think tends to stick more to position (dropping deep) than the Treq, who goes wherever he feels like (forward and deep depending on his OTB attribute). This is just my assumption but as I said before, I think SI needs to make it more clear, or at least change the in game descriptions of what roles actually do.

[THOG]

99% sure on the following:

Trequartista

- Closes down very non-aggressively

- Given maximum creative freedom

- Drifts wide

- Playmaker (teammates will look to get the ball to him quickly)

- Less inclined to make off the ball runs

False Nine

- Default closing down and creative freedom settings

- Stays more central

- Possibly has an instruction like Target Man - "Supply to Feet," encouraging teammates to look for him in the final third (I know, official documentation needs to be more clear)

- Looks to shoot more often than a playmaker role

- More likely to drop deeper into midfield on Balanced or if used in a two striker system (compared to a treq)

[PhroX]

99% sure on the following:

Trequartista

- Closes down very non-aggressively

- Given maximum creative freedom

- Drifts wide

- Playmaker (teammates will look to get the ball to him quickly)

- Less inclined to make off the ball runs

False Nine

- Default closing down and creative freedom settings

- Stays more central

- Possibly has an instruction like Target Man - "Supply to Feet," encouraging teammates to look for him in the final third (I know, official documentation needs to be more clear)

- Looks to shoot more often than a playmaker role

- More likely to drop deeper into midfield on Balanced or if used in a two striker system (compared to a treq)

Interesting summary

Don't suppose you could so the same for the other supporting striker roles (DLF(s), CF(s) and TM(s))?

[Cider Ed]

99% sure on the following:

Trequartista

- Closes down very non-aggressively

- Given maximum creative freedom

- Drifts wide

- Playmaker (teammates will look to get the ball to him quickly)

- Less inclined to make off the ball runs

False Nine

- Default closing down and creative freedom settings

- Stays more central

- Possibly has an instruction like Target Man - "Supply to Feet," encouraging teammates to look for him in the final third (I know, official documentation needs to be more clear)

- Looks to shoot more often than a playmaker role

- More likely to drop deeper into midfield on Balanced or if used in a two striker system (compared to a treq)

Dont suppose you could do the same with every position in the game x