Jump to content

AMR/L players not closing down or tracking back at all.


Recommended Posts

Something I have been noting in recent games is that players the AMR or AML positions do not track back or close down much at all, even when you have set them to have 'much more closing down'. I have noticed that this is particularly applicable to my IF(A) role. When my team is not in possession he will just stand in his position and not move from it, even if the ball is relatively close to him. It is also a nightmare because he will never, ever track back. Whilst I understand that he has a role and mentality that should see him up the pitch, his role is not one such as a raumdeuter, who you would expect to be more passive defensively (like a wide trequartista, essentially). I have definitely noticed that the W(S) closes down more, but still is positioned very far up the pitch.

I compare this to, say, CF(S) or DLF(S), who are frequently dropping into midfield and closing down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Closing Down in FM happens more where the ball is in front of the player. The advanced positioning of any AML/R player means that this isn't a terribly frequent occurrence, which is why on the Tactic Forum we often advise people to use ML/R players instead to increase pressing effort. For me, this is not a bug, but more about the way FM interprets how players perform from certain base positions.

EDIT - Of course, tracking back can be synthetically forced via Specific Man Marking Duties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was reluctant to post this as a bug, because obviously an IF(A) should not particularly focused on defending anyway. The main reason I did so was the behaviour was a little odd to me, with the player just standing around on the left flank not actually participating at all in the defensive phases of play. It looked odd, I will upload a pkm this evening when I am at home with an example, and if it is not something considered a bug I will change up how I am playing. To me it just feels odd.

Man marking is what I have always done with AMRL players if the opposition full back is proving a specific threat to my team. Perhaps I am just misreading the game here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Closing Down in FM happens more where the ball is in front of the player. The advanced positioning of any AML/R player means that this isn't a terribly frequent occurrence, which is why on the Tactic Forum we often advise people to use ML/R players instead to increase pressing effort. For me, this is not a bug, but more about the way FM interprets how players perform from certain base positions.

EDIT - Of course, tracking back can be synthetically forced via Specific Man Marking Duties.

I can't believe this is still the case in FM 15. This was one of the most important (tactical) debates on FM 14, the whole german research introduced ML/MR tactics for the Bundesliga teams on their own, with all other leagues still using AML/AMRs mostly. And in FM 15... nothing changed at all?! It's not like wingers defend in Germany only...

Huge disappointment. They could have either made AML/AMRs track back naturally (with a check box or something for the rare manager who wants his wingers to stay forward all times) OR merge AMLRs and MLRs alltogether (my favourite solution). But to just leave it as it is - broken, as most human managers will want their wingers to track back, but all non-german AI teams still play with AML/Rs - is just embarassing. And no, I don't want to use ML/MRs while all my AI opponents use AML/AMRs, even though they most probably would want to have their wingers defend like IRL. And no, specific man marking every match is not only tedious (it's like having to click a checkbox every match "defenders do defend"), but also just not what "tracking back" does mean, because he should mark a specific zone, and if the opponent full back stays back, he should help to press the opponent winger.

Sorry for the angryness, but are you really telling me that nothing has changed regarding the defensive behaviour of AML/Rs AT ALL? It's not like it's a special tactic or something, it is absolutely normal for all non-strikers to actively track back and defend IRL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry for the angryness, but are you really telling me that nothing has changed regarding the defensive behaviour of AML/Rs AT ALL? It's not like it's a special tactic or something, it is absolutely normal for all non-strikers to actively track back and defend IRL.

That's your tactical approach and oppinion. I consider my AML/R an attacker contributing to my offense. His quality in the defense is the level of hazard last season - be happy he just stays in front.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's your tactical approach and oppinion. I consider my AML/R an attacker contributing to my offense. His quality in the defense is the level of hazard last season - be happy he just stays in front.

He doesn't just stay upfront. Even a super offensive AML like Hazard defends. Never happens in FM.

6pai175vguvd.png

This should be an tactical option at least, and no, using LM/RM is not what i meant. I want my AML/R defensively to be in one line with my midfield and to cover the pass options, they don't need to tackle. And in the offense they should be IF.

Imo there should be defensive formations in FM. IRL managers do that, they have a clear concept where there players have to be when in offense or defense. And it's not covered by Roles/Duties.

I would even say no big team plays there AML/R like they do in FM, because they would never have a chance of winning the champions league this way. (against teams like Bayern, Barcelona, Madrid, Dortmund they have to defend)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents on that mate, take a different approach:

You try to create a game from the offense. Turn it around and start with defensive position and roles first and create your defensive tactic first. It's much easier to get players further forward than backwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add something here, guys : The formation you set on the tactics pitch is the Defensive shape. The Offensive/Attacking shape is determined largely through duties (and roles).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just my 2 cents on that mate, take a different approach:

You try to create a game from the offense. Turn it around and start with defensive position and roles first and create your defensive tactic first. It's much easier to get players further forward than backwards.

But still it leaves the AML/R role in my opinion missinterpreted by SI. The role is there and the AI uses it. There players are still upfront chilling on the field when there team is under heavy pressure.

And the discussion is about flaws of AML/R in FM, using ML/MR is not a solution to this imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add something here, guys : The formation you set on the tactics pitch is the Defensive shape. The Offensive/Attacking shape is determined largely through duties (and roles).

But thats counterintuitive. There is no IF duty for the ML/MR for example. Somebody who wants to play IF will most likely choose AML/R and get stuck with 2 extra strikers in the defense. Roles should at least have some basic similarities IRL, but the AML/R role hasn't, at least in the defense. No team plays there wingers like this, maybe only if they are behind and overload.

Another problems are the positions of players, if a real life winger hasn't ML/MR set as accomplished or natural i have to retrain him to do what he does in real life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Inside Forwards on Support duty will track back quite a bit.

You can easily create an Inside Forward role by modifying the Wide Midfielder role. :)

In my opinion this has several problems:

- Not all wingers can play ML/MR, you have to retrain them.

- AI doesn't do this

- People new to the game will use AML/R like there team IRL does

It's not that big of a problem, as the AI has the same stupid wingers, it's just that the game often looks a little strange with them sitting upfront like strikers. They don't even try to follow the wing back when he attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion this has several problems:

- Not all wingers can play ML/MR, you have to retrain them.

- AI doesn't do this

- People new to the game will use AML/R like there team IRL does

It's not that big of a problem, as the AI has the same stupid wingers, it's just that the game often looks a little strange with them sitting upfront like strikers. They don't even try to follow the wing back when he attacks.

I don't agree: Teams IRL do that - I remember van Gaal train Ribery and Robben to be ML and MR. Also, Teams IRL started playing 4-1-4-1 instead of 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 for a while already.

It's also easy to say your argument is invalid because - but I'm sorry, people new to the game ruined alot of fun in all major titles in the past years, don't let that happen to FM!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In FM14 I found the Defensive Winger role in AML/R useful in certain games - unfortunately this option has been removed for FM15 with defensive winger only being an option in ML/R positions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a database issue imo. Far more players should be familiar and/or natural with MR/L because the attacking winger is represented in the match engine by those midfield strata positions.

In-game AMR/L is some niche lazy ultra attacking wide striker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue, as RTH hinted at, is that pressure from the forward line is lacking both when the ball is ahead and behind the strikers. AMLR are generally supposed to stay forward and help press from the front while offering an outlet on the counter, but without multi-directional pressure between the lines, this means players operating in the forward line are not as effective defensively as they could be.

Also, for AM players, you do not necessarily want them tracking back behind the ball without good reason or your striker will be left isolated.

I can't believe this is still the case in FM 15. This was one of the most important (tactical) debates on FM 14, the whole german research introduced ML/MR tactics for the Bundesliga teams on their own, with all other leagues still using AML/AMRs mostly. And in FM 15... nothing changed at all?! It's not like wingers defend in Germany only...

If you look around the database, a lot more managers use MLR now. However, there are a lot of researchers and it's up to each one to individually decide how to best represent their clubs' tactics.

and if the opponent full back stays back, he should help to press the opponent winger.

In certain contexts, yes, but the key distinction I would expect between MLR and AMLR is that MLR will drop behind the ball as a rule when defending in their own half whereas you would expect an AMLR or wide forward to keep an advanced position unless specific triggers are met.

Link to post
Share on other sites
- People new to the game will use AML/R like there team IRL does

IRL, most teams tend to be fairly flexible with their formation and make frequent use of wide midfielders. Inside forwards also aren't quite as common as people think. In FM, any attack duty wide player will make runs at goal, so it's really a question of initial off the ball positioning and on-the-ball movement.

Even with larger sides, there seems to be a misconception that they all play ultra-attacking pressing styles when containment-based 4-5-1s are the most common systems. Generally, top level play is actually quite defensive with top European teams like Real and Chelsea being based more on solid, compact defending combined with fast transitions from deep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does make sense that an IF(A) would not track back so much, he is meant to be forward. This much has always been the case, if you wanted to get an IF(A) to track back 100% of the time you have always had to get him to man mark the full back. This makes sense, and it likely means I need to rethink how I am setting up my team. I will play around with this anyway.

I think perhaps on reading what has been said here, it is the way the game treats wide players that has changed, with things being much more geared towards having MRL rather than AMRL as a standard balanced formation. In which case I will alter my strategy accordingly. Never too old to learn new tricks, thanks for the feedback.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IRL, most teams tend to be fairly flexible with their formation and make frequent use of wide midfielders. Inside forwards also aren't quite as common as people think. In FM, any attack duty wide player will make runs at goal, so it's really a question of initial off the ball positioning and on-the-ball movement.

Even with larger sides, there seems to be a misconception that they all play ultra-attacking pressing styles when containment-based 4-5-1s are the most common systems. Generally, top level play is actually quite defensive with top European teams like Real and Chelsea being based more on solid, compact defending combined with fast transitions from deep.

You are right, but still many of those teams press hard when the other teams plays wide, as the options there are limited. And when this happens the AMR/L needs to close passing options. And those teams apply lots of pressure with passive pressing, i.e. leaving the central midfielder only passing options to the sides, and then they press hard and effectivly. You won't win against big teams by just sitting back (ok maybe chelsea did in the final against bayern, but it depends to much on luck).

And if you have to play LM/RM to simulate RL Wingers, then why the AMR/L position is so often used by the AI? I don't know one team IRL that plays like this.

if you wanted to get an IF(A) to track back 100% of the time you have always had to get him to man mark the full back. This makes sense, and it likely means I need to rethink how I am setting up my team.

It doesn't for me, i don't want him to manmark somebody, i want him to defend the space. Doesn't matter what the other full back does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right, but still many of those teams press hard when the other teams plays wide, as the options there are limited. And when this happens the AMR/L needs to close passing options. And those teams apply lots of pressure with passive pressing, i.e. leaving the central midfielder only passing options to the sides, and then they press hard and effectivly. You won't win against big teams by just sitting back (ok maybe chelsea did in the final against bayern, but it depends to much on luck).

Yeah, you'll see a lot of teams take a mixed approach based on contextual triggers, and that's an area that will hopefully see more refinement down the line.

And if you have to play LM/RM to simulate RL Wingers, then why the AMR/L position is so often used by the AI? I don't know one team IRL that plays like this.

It's not as common as MLR but it's not altogether rare either. Barcelona plays an outright 4-3-3, France used one at the World Cup, Everton have done so quite a bit recently, as do many of the dominant teams in the smaller domestic leagues. A lot of teams also play 4-3-1-2 which is a narrow variation on a 4-3-3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not as common as MLR but it's not altogether rare either. Barcelona plays an outright 4-3-3, France used one at the World Cup, Everton have done so quite a bit recently, as do many of the dominant teams in the smaller domestic leagues. A lot of teams also play 4-3-1-2 which is a narrow variation on a 4-3-3.

i watched some short videos and you are right. Still i wished there would be an option for my AMR/L so they drop deeper when i defend, without having them to play as MR/L and to train them on this position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this debate continues to rage on doesn't it lol :lol:

I do think most teams in real life that we say play a "4-3-3" really play a 4-1-4-1. The positioning of the wide midfielders is always going to be a topic of debate as long as the AI tactics continue to incorporate AMLR's who are basically wide strikers and don't offer much else.

In terms of what you the user can do, I would just prefer to keep my wide players on the ML/MR spots. Granted, this is all depending on what team you manage and the players at your disposal. But generally speaking if I'm managing a team with 4 typical wide players (2 wide defenders, 2 wide mids) then I like to just use the full back and wide mid spots. It feels a lot more defensively stable, and you really don't lose any of your attacking strength.

The only thing I would say in favor of the AMLR over an ML/MR is that the AMLR's will be positioned higher up the pitch by default to start those nasty counter attacks. So maybe a good tactic for AMLR is to utilize the counter attack via direct football? I've seen smaller sides like West Ham do this against bigger clubs and it's worked nicely, especially in FM14.

I haven't used the "wide playmaker" role yet, but I imagine it would be really useful to mention in this discussion. And like others have said, you can simply instruct a wide midfielder to cut inside more often. And any wide player with "attack" duty is going to try to make runs at the box anyway.

Just a final note. In FM14 in my last save I was managing Dortmund, using Marco Reus as a wide midfielder on the left flank. He was a total beast, and I didn't need to give him 100 different instructions. Just cuts inside more and dribble more, as I wanted to utilize his individual quality. If the overall team's approach is solid, then whatever place on the field you decide to line your guys up on should be fine. Chances are if you're struggling to use ML/MR vs AML/AMR then there's something else tactically going wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IRL, most teams tend to be fairly flexible with their formation and make frequent use of wide midfielders. Inside forwards also aren't quite as common as people think. In FM, any attack duty wide player will make runs at goal, so it's really a question of initial off the ball positioning and on-the-ball movement.

Even with larger sides, there seems to be a misconception that they all play ultra-attacking pressing styles when containment-based 4-5-1s are the most common systems. Generally, top level play is actually quite defensive with top European teams like Real and Chelsea being based more on solid, compact defending combined with fast transitions from deep.

While I see where you're coming from I don't think you can possibly claim that Real Madrid's current setup uses MR/L. It's definitely AMR/L. Bale and Ronaldo have very high starting positions on the pitch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, this debate continues to rage on doesn't it lol :lol:

I do think most teams in real life that we say play a "4-3-3" really play a 4-1-4-1. The positioning of the wide midfielders is always going to be a topic of debate as long as the AI tactics continue to incorporate AMLR's who are basically wide strikers and don't offer much else.

In terms of what you the user can do, I would just prefer to keep my wide players on the ML/MR spots. Granted, this is all depending on what team you manage and the players at your disposal. But generally speaking if I'm managing a team with 4 typical wide players (2 wide defenders, 2 wide mids) then I like to just use the full back and wide mid spots. It feels a lot more defensively stable, and you really don't lose any of your attacking strength.

The only thing I would say in favor of the AMLR over an ML/MR is that the AMLR's will be positioned higher up the pitch by default to start those nasty counter attacks. So maybe a good tactic for AMLR is to utilize the counter attack via direct football? I've seen smaller sides like West Ham do this against bigger clubs and it's worked nicely, especially in FM14.

I haven't used the "wide playmaker" role yet, but I imagine it would be really useful to mention in this discussion. And like others have said, you can simply instruct a wide midfielder to cut inside more often. And any wide player with "attack" duty is going to try to make runs at the box anyway.

Just a final note. In FM14 in my last save I was managing Dortmund, using Marco Reus as a wide midfielder on the left flank. He was a total beast, and I didn't need to give him 100 different instructions. Just cuts inside more and dribble more, as I wanted to utilize his individual quality. If the overall team's approach is solid, then whatever place on the field you decide to line your guys up on should be fine. Chances are if you're struggling to use ML/MR vs AML/AMR then there's something else tactically going wrong.

I'm assuming you tweaked the wide midfielder attack to replicate an inside forward attack for Reus. How would you go about replicating an inside forward support? Same thing but WM(s)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Reus was played as a WM-A. On the other side of the pitch I would use either WM-S or DW-S. If I wanted a player to cut inside but not be as aggressive going forward, then I'd use WM-S with "cuts inside more" Simple solution yeah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add something here, guys : The formation you set on the tactics pitch is the Defensive shape. The Offensive/Attacking shape is determined largely through duties (and roles).

Makes sense. But actually most teams IRL that are considered 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 defend in a 4-4-2 with two banks of four and the attacking midfielder joining the striker to press the two centre backs. Like Dortmund or Chelsea with Kagawa and Oscar. So strictly speaking I'd have to set them in a 4-4-2 because that's their defensive shape. Not really ideal imo.

Generally about the MLR vs AMLR discussion: Most 4-2-3-1 teams play with MR and ML. The only exception I can really think of is Mourinho's Madrid with Ronaldo actually playing the AML position. There were many discussions about how there was so much space to exploit between him and the left back Marcelo or Coentrao so I'm fairly certain about that. With 4-3-3 teams it's a bit more blurred. Because they have a real holding player they can afford to have the two wingers closer to the striker, like Barcelona and Bayern who certainly are 4-3-3 (4-5-1 with AML/R in FM terms).

But the thing is that (a) most FM teams not from the Bundesliga play the 4-2-3-1 Denmark, also (b) the "inside forward" role only being available for AML/R so the average FM player won't use the ML/R position despite being able to recreate it with a "wide midfielder" and © most wingers are natural in the AML/R slot but not ML/R. I do have seen much more natural AML/R players being at least competent as ML/R in this year's edition but the fact that most people think players have to be natural or at least accomplished in their position doesn't really seem to help either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While I see where you're coming from I don't think you can possibly claim that Real Madrid's current setup uses MR/L. It's definitely AMR/L. Bale and Ronaldo have very high starting positions on the pitch.

In Real's 442, Ronaldo typically plays as a striker next to Benzema with some combination of Rodriguez, Bale and Isco in wide midfield.

In any case, in FM, formation primarily controls own half defensive shape while team shape, role and duty will influence basic positioning in other phases of play including the team shape as they initially press in the attacking half (assuming they press). When possession is lost and the team doesn't press, more attacking players will still tend to stay a bit forward to delay a quick advance before dropping back into shape (you'll see this when players don't really pressure but just slowly back track ahead of the player in possession as the ball moves forward, never turning their back on the ball). When Real are fully pushed back into the defensive half, the wide players fall into line with the midfield in a standard 442 shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes sense. But actually most teams IRL that are considered 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 defend in a 4-4-2 with two banks of four and the attacking midfielder joining the striker to press the two centre backs. Like Dortmund or Chelsea with Kagawa and Oscar. So strictly speaking I'd have to set them in a 4-4-2 because that's their defensive shape. Not really ideal imo.

Pressing shape should be different, and while it's not always consistent in FM due to the current limitations with forward pressing, a team that presses in the attacking third will typically commit 2-3 players even if they're AMC, MC or MLR. You normally have the first defender pressuring directly while the second and third defenders try to cut out the lateral options while simultaneously closing in on the player in possession. Similarly, if you watch a 4-3-1-2 or any diamond system, it usually presses high as more of a 4-3-3 with the strikers splitting and the AMC moving up in the middle (though this can shift around a bit in practice).

For formation, you want to look at full blown defence phase shape, and in some cases, that might be difficult as some high pressing teams may never actually be in that position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion this has several problems:

- Not all wingers can play ML/MR, you have to retrain them.

Just because a player doesn't have a certain position as one of his preferred positions does not mean that he can't play there.

My best central midfielder was originally just a MR, I didn't wait until he had retrained as a CM.

I think sometimes people think they have to rigidly stick to the information shown on FM. Take Gareth Bale for (an extreme) example.

If you're talking in FM terms, early in his career he would have been a DL/WBL/ML maybe AML. He quite obviously has the ability to play a free role across the middle behind a striker, hell he could probably even play as a striker himself!

It's more about "does he have the attributes to play this position/take on the duties I want him to have" rather than trying to accomodate them simply based on what position they are 'natural' or 'competent' in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright so I gave it a shot and changed my 4-1-2-2-1 into a 4-1-4-1. I've won 3 in a row, scoring 10 and conceding 0. Safe to say it's made a massive difference defensively and we clearly haven't lost our attacking threat. In fact we look a more dangerous team because with the ML/R I'm now able to press the opposition effectively. My defensive shape is much better so I feel comfortable using close down more as a TI, something I couldn't really do because the AML/R didn't help at all and if I pressed with that formation it was too easy for teams to play through me.

Instead of an IF-S I'm using a wide playmaker attack on that side. Atm I have him dribbling more as a PI and it's working well. I'll try it without that and see if there's a noticeable difference but Tadic is a good dribbler so I think I'll stick with that PI.

'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright so I gave it a shot and changed my 4-1-2-2-1 into a 4-1-4-1. I've won 3 in a row, scoring 10 and conceding 0. Safe to say it's made a massive difference defensively and we clearly haven't lost our attacking threat. In fact we look a more dangerous team because with the ML/R I'm now able to press the opposition effectively. My defensive shape is much better so I feel comfortable using close down more as a TI, something I couldn't really do because the AML/R didn't help at all and if I pressed with that formation it was too easy for teams to play through me.

Instead of an IF-S I'm using a wide playmaker attack on that side. Atm I have him dribbling more as a PI and it's working well. I'll try it without that and see if there's a noticeable difference but Tadic is a good dribbler so I think I'll stick with that PI.

'

It's a small sample, but I applaud you for having a go and finding out the potential benefits of this change for yourself.

It baffles me that people can form such hyperbole laden strong opinions for / against playing a player at ML/R rather than AML/R. Maybe I'm just getting too old, but it is just a game after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Inside Forwards on Support duty will track back quite a bit.

This is my experience as well. There's a big difference in the defensive behaviour of the IF(s) and how the IF(a).

If you want an AML to track back, try putting him on Support duty. If you feel he's not offensive enough when in possession, try giving him the "get further forward" personal instruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame there isn't at least an option to ask the AML and AMR to track back more though. I mean as far as I know (still playing 14) ML and MR you can ask to get further forward so an option for an instruction to track back for the AM positions would allow managers to tailor their strategy accordingly. I still think Hazard is a perfect example of an AML/R who Jose has got tracking back more this season but he still plays pretty high up.

Also playing players as a flat midfield four makes life difficult does it not if you only play one up and want to have the lone forward on an attack duty (again basing this on 14). With a 433 with AML and AMR the gaps were covered but it would still have been nice to have the cover from the high up wings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking the AML/AMR to track back more doesn't always make sense though. I think players in those positions are better suited to stay higher up the pitch and provide outlets for quick counter attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Asking the AML/AMR to track back more doesn't always make sense though. I think players in those positions are better suited to stay higher up the pitch and provide outlets for quick counter attacks.

No it doesn't always make sense but for instance if you were playing a high pressing game wanting an AMR and AML to really press the full backs it also doesn't make sense if the full back beats your AM that the AM just gives up the chase. Hence why I think an option in the PI's would give you just that, an option. Obviously as some say the man marking option is there but I think that is too much as you don't want them man marking all the time or they will never be in space to receive the ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a small sample, but I applaud you for having a go and finding out the potential benefits of this change for yourself.

It baffles me that people can form such hyperbole laden strong opinions for / against playing a player at ML/R rather than AML/R. Maybe I'm just getting too old, but it is just a game after all.

Er... Could be shot right back at those holding the other opinion to be honest. It's a game, people play based on what they understand of it. Does the game explain the formation is the defensive shape? Does the game explain the AML/R slots are 'forwards' and nothing more, nothing less? Does the game explain that in general most clubs play the 4-1-4-1 instead of the AM type formations?

Furthermore, does the game imply in any way via the researchers the concept of positional strength? No, because the overload of natural AMR/L opposed to natural MR/L influences the player to go that route.

I don't think it's "hyperbole laden" opinion, when the game literally influences the player in that direction, and provides no explanation for usage of certain positions. It is explained outside of positional aptitude that a player can be thrown in any position and its only attributes and decision making that affects his performances?

Furthermore, there's no reason to resist the idea of advanced wide players tracking back, if the 'ideal solution' is to drag players back and modify the role to act somewhat like the advanced positions, then there's no reason to work backwards from there and do the same for the advanced positions.

Personally, I'm in favour of AM/RL positions tracking back, but only as a further tactical option. I might want one advanced wide player involved in the pressing game and tracking back while the other sits on his arse giving the opposition fullback something to think about. I don't see that as hyperbole laden strong opinions. =/

For the record:

On 15, I witness my AM/RL tracking back on IF/A. They tend to do so when the team is deep and compact and the opposition full back pushes ahead and they recognise that there is a real danger of the flank being exposed. It does the job for me at the moment. FWIW I play on counter/flexible strategy and am happy with it. But the extra tactical option is always a nice thing to have available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also playing players as a flat midfield four makes life difficult does it not if you only play one up and want to have the lone forward on an attack duty (again basing this on 14). With a 433 with AML and AMR the gaps were covered but it would still have been nice to have the cover from the high up wings.

You really shouldn't be playing a lone striker on an attack duty to begin with unless you have an AMC behind him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How the raumdeuter behave in defense?

As far as I'm aware he doesn't do much defending. Instead I think he looks for space to launch counter attacks. However I'm yet to play FM 15, so not too sure. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really shouldn't be playing a lone striker on an attack duty to begin with unless you have an AMC behind him.

I personally don't but some may with two IF's but that's an example of a knock on effect. If you are a football manager you should have all the options and instructions at your disposal so you should have an option to force your AML/AMR to track back. If their stats prevent them from doing that properly then fine but I think the option should be there. I have seen a lot of the "move back to ML or MR if you want them to track back" advice in the last few versions and IMO it's basically a workaround for something that could be solved with the addition of a managerial option.

Personally I have never got the attacking intent at ML and MR although that may have changed with FM15, but it's just the option to be able to ask your players that's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How the raumdeuter behave in defense?

Occasionally trots towards the full back but doesn't much like going too far beyond the half way line. You'll need to make allowances for him if you choose to use the role.

My personal opinion on the topic at hand - I don't know why they removed the STL/STR positions, when if implemented properly they could make both camps happy. IMO they should have left those positions but given STL/STR stay high behaviour, and AML/AMR track full backs behaviour. Makes sense to me - if you play someone as a wide striker they act like a striker, if you play someone as a wide attacking midfielder, they act as a midfielder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally don't but some may with two IF's but that's an example of a knock on effect. If you are a football manager you should have all the options and instructions at your disposal so you should have an option to force your AML/AMR to track back. If their stats prevent them from doing that properly then fine but I think the option should be there. I have seen a lot of the "move back to ML or MR if you want them to track back" advice in the last few versions and IMO it's basically a workaround for something that could be solved with the addition of a managerial option.

Personally I have never got the attacking intent at ML and MR although that may have changed with FM15, but it's just the option to be able to ask your players that's all.

The issue with that is that it contradicts the point of the AMLR. They are essentially wide forwards who stay up the pitch. Teams that play a "pure" 4-3-3 don't really need those players to constantly track back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really encourage everyone to just try dropping their AML/AMR's to ML/MR (assuming you're struggling of course!). Obviously if things are going well then just keep on keepin' on.

But if you want to experiment and try something new, I highly recommend this. A lot of team in real life that play "4-3-3" are really playing a "4-1-4-1" in FM terms. The formation we see on the screen is really the base defensive shape. That point has to be hammered home so people understand. When you adjust roles/duties/instructions that's what's going to morph the base shape into something else.

I've been using a 4-4-1-1 base shape for a long time now and I love it. When we press, it looks like a 4-2-3-1, and when we defend it looks like 4-5-1. It's very tempting to assume that you can stick a player at AMLR as an inside forward, and you'll have the next Ronaldo. Not true though. Not to say you CANT make it work, but it's not this magical goal scoring position.

Also, please please please trust me (and others saying this) that playing someone out of position in this context, (an AM at WM) is not a big deal. I've got Alexis Sanchez with Arsenal at right mid. He's technically supposed to be a natural at AMR. Well, playing him at RM isn't causing any issues. If anything, it hurts the other team more because he's a threat starting from deep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Er... Could be shot right back at those holding the other opinion to be honest. It's a game, people play based on what they understand of it. Does the game explain the formation is the defensive shape? Does the game explain the AML/R slots are 'forwards' and nothing more, nothing less? Does the game explain that in general most clubs play the 4-1-4-1 instead of the AM type formations?

No, no and no to those questions in game. However, all the answers have been explicitly stated in this forum repeatedly over the past couple of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding was always that the player suffered a tactical penalty when playing out of position and that he may not perform as expected tactically as he is unfamiliar with the tactical position you are giving him eg AMR being played as MR. Is this the case and if so how much of a penalty does he suffer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding was always that the player suffered a tactical penalty when playing out of position and that he may not perform as expected tactically as he is unfamiliar with the tactical position you are giving him eg AMR being played as MR. Is this the case and if so how much of a penalty does he suffer?

His decision making is lowered as he's not familiar with the role. That's not to say he can't play the role and excel at it, it just means at times he might get caught out of position more than usual or find himself on the wrong side of his marker etc compared to his preferred role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There really is a wealth of knowledge on the tactics forum that I believe should be collated into a single Tactics Bible volume. For me, I always get very excited when I see a new serious thread started by Cleon. I have drawn much knowledge from his threads and gone from just assembling players in exciting looking roles and duties to creating a structure that inter plays well. I have always avoided any tactics with wings and focused on dominating the central midfield as I always struggled defensively with the AMRL type tactics. I will probably give this another go using MRL type wide men and see how it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...