I really don't think I understand Mentality and Fluidity

[jjtile]

I've read the stickys, re-read the entries on guidetofootballmanager.com and poured over the stuff on "Mentality Ladders" (the latter just completely confused me) but I'm still really struggling to understand Mentality and Fluidity. Just when I think I've got my head around it, I read a thread or see a discussion that proves otherwise.

Can anyone help me out?

[Confused Clarity]

What in particular are you struggling with?

[jjtile]

What in particular are you struggling with?

Honestly - everything. Don't think I've even got the basics down.

I think my basic understanding is that as you move up through defensive -> counter -> standard -> control -> attacking, all things being equal:

- team plays wider

- team plays higher

- players pass shorter

- tempo gets higher

- players close down more

Not sure if that is right (or if it's exhaustive) and also not clear on how that relates to players "getting forward"/how they position themselves in didifferent circumstances.

[bababooey]

Basically yes.

I try to think of the different mentalities as different levels of risk that we're going to take. The more risk we take, the more aggressive we are and thus the more space we will leave behind us.

So maybe it would help you to think in terms of risk, as well as in terms of space. The lower mentalities will position your team closer to your own box, and vice versa. So the space that is available to play in will change accordingly.

For Fluidity help, I would read the stickied posts here. Generally speaking it's all trial and error. If you want players to use their freedom and flair go more fluid. If you want players being much more disciplined and adhering to exactly what you say, go more rigid.

[jjtile]

Basically yes.

I try to think of the different mentalities as different levels of risk that we're going to take. The more risk we take, the more aggressive we are and thus the more space we will leave behind us.

So maybe it would help you to think in terms of risk, as well as in terms of space. The lower mentalities will position your team closer to your own box, and vice versa. So the space that is available to play in will change accordingly.

For Fluidity help, I would read the stickied posts here. Generally speaking it's all trial and error. If you want players to use their freedom and flair go more fluid. If you want players being much more disciplined and adhering to exactly what you say, go more rigid.

Thanks bababooey - maybe I get mentality slightly better than I thought.

On fluidity though, I'm pretty lost. You mention about that it's about creativity but I've also seen it described as the number of phases of play different positions take part in or the way in which individual mentality is distributed across the team. I've also read that it's affected by the team mentality you set (i.e. fluidity means something different depending on whether you're playing, say, counter or control).

I'd previously understood it as "at higher fluidity settings, individual players' mentalities will cluster more around the overall team mentality". i.e. if I set the team's mentality to "counter" and set a high fluidity setting, the attacking and midfield players' individual mentalities would be reduced ('towards' the more defensive team mentality) with the defenders' individual mentalities remaining roughly the same - leading to a team that was, overall, more defensive (because more players would have a more defensive mentalities than at a less fluid setting). However, what you said above about being 'adventurous' and losing shape seems to contradict what i thought.

Any help understanding where I'm going wrong in my thinking would be appreciated.

[imabearlol]

On fluidity though, I'm pretty lost. You mention about that it's about creativity but I've also seen it described as the number of phases of play different positions take part in or the way in which individual mentality is distributed across the team.

It's both. The more creative freedom a player has, the more likely he is to contribute to more phases of play.

Let me explain phases of play first. In football you have 3 main states:

1. Defending without the ball is fairly self explanatory, the opposition has the ball under control and you are trying to win it back.

2. Transition phase occurs when you just win the ball back. At this stage the opposition is still in their offensive shape and has likely commited many men forward, leaving lots of space behind them. What you do in the next 5-10 seconds after winning the ball back can determine whether you exploit this space or not. Counter attacking football developed to maximise the effectiveness of play during this phase.

3. In possession of the ball. Here you have the ball under control and are attacking the opponent who are in their defensive shape.

Let's say you play with a Highly Structured mentality because you want players to do what you tell them to. They will not have much creative freedom assigned so they will focus solely on their job. That means when you tell someone to Defend, that is what they will do, and nothing else. Now in a Very Fluid system, he has much more license to do what he wants. So if he sees some space open up ahead of him, he may ignore his instructions to defend and roam forward. If you apply this theory to the phases of play, you will see that the more creative freedom a player has, the more license he has to contribute to more than one phase. A defender may not only contribute in the defensive phase, he may help transitions or even attacking moves.

About the "clustering" at higher fluidity settings, this happens precisely due to the fact that every player has more creative freedom. This means that in each phase, more people are contributing to more phases of play, so naturally they will be closer together. Taking this to the extreme, they may even crowd each other out if their mental attributes are not high enough as they will not have the intelligence to know where to be. In a Very Fluid system, if a Defender does decide to join the attack, another player must have the intelligence to cover his position. An attacker may also help defend, so this brings the team closer together.

[jjtile]

@imabearlol - I think this is the point at which I get confused

Does what you say above imply that a tactic with high fluidy is:

- *more* vulnerable to counter attack during a transition from attack to defense, as there's a chance that defenders will have roamed forward and be caught high up the pitch

- *more secure* in the defensive phase as, in addition to the defenders getting back behind the ball, attacking players will also join in the defence

Ive got a feeling this isn't right - but am not sure why

[imabearlol]

@imabearlol - I think this is the point at which I get confused

Does what you say above imply that a tactic with high fluidy is:

- *more* vulnerable to counter attack during a transition from attack to defense, as there's a chance that defenders will have roamed forward and be caught high up the pitch

- *more secure* in the defensive phase as, in addition to the defenders getting back behind the ball, attacking players will also join in the defence

Ive got a feeling this isn't right - but am not sure why

It really depends on how you've setup elsewhere, because you can't think of this in a vacuum!

In a sense though, the first can be true if your players do not have the intelligence to play a fluid style of football.

For the second one it depends on your mentality. If you are playing a defensive mentality, then yes this may be the case as all of your players will be on more of a defensive mindset. But then again with higher creative freedom and a more attacking mentality, they may decide not to defend as you have given them the freedom to decide this, and through their attacking mentality your whole team will be looking to take more risks.

[THOG]

It's best to just think of the mentality setting as default styles of play. You can apply TIs to modify those styles (you don't have to though), but they're essentially tactical presets that you can take and run with if you like. The main area of complication here is how different styles of play adapt to different opponents, so for example, you have to consider that telling a team to play on the counter against an opponent shutting up shop as opposed to a team pouring numbers forward will end up looking very different in play since opportunities to break forward at pace will be few and far between.

The fluidity/team shape setting is most easily understood as a way of adjusting how the team takes shape in the build up phase before final third attacks are executed. Highly Structured/Structured will have the team operating in more distinct lines adhering more to the team's formation/defensive stance. Fluid/Very Fluid will encourage more close support and interplay between the lines, though in the case of Fluid, you have the team divided into two distinct units with the defensive line and holding midfielders generally more inclined to stay deeper than the more attacking players. Flexible works on an individual level according to duty, so this is the most complex setting that will require you to think a bit more about how who will be pushing up and who will be staying/dropping deeper.

Beyond that, it also affects player improvisation on the ball, so unless you use the "Be More Expressive"/"Be More Disciplined" TIs, more structured tactics will lead to more methodical and precise use of the ball whereas more fluid tactics will see the player in possession show more willingness to play with style and ambition (or, depending on your perspective, idiocy).

Together, this means more structured tactics will tend to adhere to more predictable patterns of play, especially in terms of who is expected to create chances and who is expected to actually convert them, whereas more fluid tactics will encourage more variation, though this may call for more versatility on the part of certain players. Flexible can give you any degree of variation depending on how you line up.

[bababooey]

^ If only we had insight like this in the game! Or some sort of documentation that came with it!

[Font Tomasso]

Posted this as a reply in the 12 step guide earlier today, but saw this discussion also, and it seemed quite relevant to what I'm trying to gather:-

1.) I understand that changing your fluidity/style alters the template patterns in which mentalities are assigned to players, whilst also raising creative freedom (the latter in a structured rising scale as you go more fluid). If you keep your fluidity/style the same but switch mentalities up or down, I understand this raises/lowers each player's individual mentality within the pattern or framework defined by you fluidity setting. Does switching your mentality also raise/lower your creative freedom, or can this only be achieved by changing your fluidity, or by using the 'be more expressive/disciplined' T.I.?

2.) From what I've read, I see that creative freedom is lower by default in more rigid styles. So the reason why employing more specialist roles in more rigid styles is that these roles will automatically have more creative freedom assigned to them, making up for the shortfall across the team in general and thus ensuring that more rigid sides don't suffer from a net lack of creative freedom compared to more fluid ones, it's just that it's distributed less evenly (much more going to the specialists than the rest).

However I'm sure I've seen it stated that if you do introduce a specialist into your side, the creative freedom of players in generic roles around them decreases. Is this true? And if it is, then does this mean that there is no net gain in creative freedom by introducing specialists into your side?

I'm looking to employ a balanced style of football. Having read both the fantastic 'beat the wizard' sticky, and fantastic sub thread here by Steve Odom, I've come to understand the how fluidity affects mentality templates. And I've realised that if duties are used well, you can produce a great end result.

However, there's no getting away from the fact that creative freedom is lower by default than fluid or very fluid. And I do like wwfan's theory of bridging that gap by employing specialists (2-3 as a rough guide for a balanced style). This is why I'm after clarification on point 2, as if there is no net gain in creative freedom by doing this (as generic role cf is lowered in turn), then what's the point?

Any guidance here greatly appreciated.

[jjtile]

It really depends on how you've setup elsewhere, because you can't think of this in a vacuum!

In a sense though, the first can be true if your players do not have the intelligence to play a fluid style of football.

For the second one it depends on your mentality. If you are playing a defensive mentality, then yes this may be the case as all of your players will be on more of a defensive mindset. But then again with higher creative freedom and a more attacking mentality, they may decide not to defend as you have given them the freedom to decide this, and through their attacking mentality your whole team will be looking to take more risks.

So a defensive mentality with high fluidity is - all things being equal - likely to be the most successful defensive combination of mentality and fluidity?

[jjtile]

The fluidity/team shape setting is most easily understood as a way of adjusting how the team takes shape in the build up phase before final third attacks are executed.

This has confused me even more. So fluidity doesn't affect the defensive, attacking or attacking-to-defending transition phases of play? Just the defending-to-attacking phases of play?

Highly Structured/Structured will have the team operating in more distinct lines adhering more to the team's formation/defensive stance.

I'm afraid I don't know what this means

Fluid/Very Fluid will encourage more close support and interplay between the lines, though in the case of Fluid, you have the team divided into two distinct units with the defensive line and holding midfielders generally more inclined to stay deeper than the more attacking players.

I'm not sure what you mean by "close support" here

Flexible works on an individual level according to duty, so this is the most complex setting that will require you to think a bit more about how who will be pushing up and who will be staying/dropping deeper.

Does this mean that the fluidity settings (very fluid -> fluid -> flexible -> structured -> very structured) aren't a spectrum? That flexible works in a completely different way to the other four - rather than being a bit less fluid than fluid and a bit less structured than structured?

[janbak]

I had the same problem ... until I watched my matches with cameras set on "3D" ... but since I started to watch my matches with "2D" setting everything is sharper

2D ... give it a try

[Dr. Hook]

I had the same problem ... until I watched my matches with cameras set on "3D" ... but since I started to watch my matches with "2D" setting everything is sharper

2D ... give it a try

That is a great point. I watch 3d, but use 2d a lot on replays and trying to figure out what went right or wrong. It is very helpful as you get a much better since of positions on the pitch and your shape in various phases. I would concur with Janbak: give it a try at least when you're doing your diagnosis of a match. I think you will get a clearer picture of the different fluidities and mentalities.

[Torskus77]

I stopped over thinking fluidity some time ago, it drives you insane trying to understand every little detail. You can just simplify it for yourself, I believe having 10 good outfield roles and duties that combine well are far more important that the fluidity settings, although they will have some affect obviously, most peoples downfall is nothing to do with fluidity, but poorly thought out roles and duties, and even more so over using team instructions.

I believe it is not a spectrum, I think this has been mentioned before. I think this is why the names of them have changed slightly to encourage people to stop thinking this way, as it was with Balanced bang in the middle of it all, it seemed very much like a scale, which I don't believe is the case.

I think of it like this you have different types of managers. Some like every player to have a job within the team, preferably that plays them to their strengths, that combined together makes a well oiled machine. Other managers will be less focused on individual jobs within the structure, and expect players to contribute to more than one job.

Flexible is a strange beast. technically speaking you can be as structured or as fluid as you want with this set up. In my experience you just have to get your roles and duties right here, otherwise you can get in to all kinds of trouble, at the same time you can create a beautiful masterpiece of a tactic if you get it spot on.

There are a few threads knocking around about this, there is one in the stickies which is fantastic, with one problem in my opinion (nothing against the poster, it's a fantastic job) it encourages you to think about things in terms of sliders, and in all honesty it is best to get away from that thinking now, and focus on the roles and duties more so. FM has come a long way, since the days when I used to sit their fiddling about with sliders, copying from a guide to get team settings and player settings to replicate real life. Now all the roles are simply there for us to select, without any hassle at all.

Anyway, this post isn't as useful as some of the above in terms of getting to understand it all, but I would say, don't let it take over your game, I honestly just set up a tactic in terms of roles and duties based on how I want to play, and use the 12 step guide to choose fluidity (I usually avoid flexible so will choose the closest after that if needs be) It seriously can stop your enjoyment of the game if you over think it. Just my opinion on it all anyway.

[jjtile]

That is a great point. I watch 3d, but use 2d a lot on replays and trying to figure out what went right or wrong. It is very helpful as you get a much better since of positions on the pitch and your shape in various phases. I would concur with Janbak: give it a try at least when you're doing your diagnosis of a match. I think you will get a clearer picture of the different fluidities and mentalities.

I watch in 2D already

[THOG]

This has confused me even more. So fluidity doesn't affect the defensive, attacking or attacking-to-defending transition phases of play?

Not in the sense that players will flat out refuse to contribute to one or the other. It's best to think of its effect as indirect in the sense that the way you build up play is obviously going to have some ramifications for the situations in which you'll be defending and attacking the final third.

I'm afraid I don't know what this means

It means the team will build up more in line with the shape you've set as the formation (which is primarily how your team lines up to defend in your own half) as opposed to having players quickly moving between the lines of the formation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "close support" here

It means being closer to receive a pass and combine with a player moving up from a deeper position. Support basically means providing reasonably accessible passing options to the player in possession. More fluid settings put a greater emphasis on offering support across the pitch.

Does this mean that the fluidity settings (very fluid -> fluid -> flexible -> structured -> very structured) aren't a spectrum? That flexible works in a completely different way to the other four - rather than being a bit less fluid than fluid and a bit less structured than structured?

Yes, flexible is its own thing. In regards to the others, it's not a smooth spectrum in terms of every detail, even between the structured and fluid settings.

[CamillePunk]

I think my basic understanding is that as you move up through defensive -> counter -> standard -> control -> attacking, all things being equal:

- players pass shorter

Defensive players pass shorter as the mentality increases, attacking players pass more direct as the mentality increases.

[xinsomniacboix]

Honestly - everything. Don't think I've even got the basics down.

I think my basic understanding is that as you move up through defensive -> counter -> standard -> control -> attacking, all things being equal:

- team plays wider

- team plays higher

- players pass shorter

- tempo gets higher

- players close down more

Not sure if that is right (or if it's exhaustive) and also not clear on how that relates to players "getting forward"/how they position themselves in didifferent circumstances.

If this is true, does this mean that overusing shouts usually indicates that you wanted a different mentality to begin with?

For example, my control tactic has push higher up, close down more, pass shorter, but lower tempo. Is this basically equivalent to attacking but only with much lower tempo shout?

[THOG]

If this is true, does this mean that overusing shouts usually indicates that you wanted a different mentality to begin with?

For example, my control tactic has push higher up, close down more, pass shorter, but lower tempo. Is this basically equivalent to attacking but only with much lower tempo shout?

Even with all those shouts, players will still be slightly less adventurous, particularly in terms of attempting forward passes. Pass shorter and Control will also see build up play concentrated slightly more in central areas (assuming all else is equal).