Change your tactic/roles based on starting 11 (particularly your partnerships)?

[abyss616]

I'm a relative novice with tactics, so I'm somewhat winging it here, trying to assimilate as much knowledge as I can.

I'm using a 4-2-3-1 with a Trequarista at the AMC spot and a Poacher at ST. I have three possible strikers that I rotate: 1) best role is AF or TM, 2) best equipped for six different roles, but I've been using him mostly as a Poacher, 3) best role is AF.

My question is this: should I change the role of my striker based on who is playing? All the guys I use as my Trequarista are best equipped for that role, so no real need to change that, unless another role would work better with my changing ST role.

[Dr. Hook]

I tend not to do change the role at all. I am sure many do, but in my case, and maybe yours, I have thought out how I want the team to play and designed the tactic around the idea. Changing roles can really disrupt the whole machine, so I don't like to do it. I'd rather stick a less effective player in the role I want as I believe most times the job it does in the tactic is more beneficial than a slightly weaker player doing it, if that makes sense. I think in this case, you could interchange an AF and Poacher and not see a great deal of difference. The target man, though, would be a role that would change how your team plays- players will look to lump it in to him, so I wouldn't use that unless that is what you want or could envision it fitting into the bigger picture.

[RTHerringbone]

I'm with the Doc here. A system is built around combinations of Roles and Duties, so to change one of those key elements just to incorporate a player who is "better" in another Role could cause the whole system to break.

It's better to make a player adapt to a Role, than it is to compromise the whole system to accommodate him in his preferred Role.

[WhyMe]

I'm generally in agreement with Doc and RT here but it can occasionally work, sometimes even to your advantage. For example, I play a 4-2DM-2-1-1 formation which has a WM-s (set up like an inside forward) on the left and a W-a on the right. However, I recently signed a young left sided player who is a slightly ropey WM but an excellent winger. I thought about how the change would effect my system and decided I'd just give him a go as a winger. I actually kept the PI's on that I had but some of them are not valid for a winger so they aren't used. I decided that as I had 3 central midfield players and a striker that this change would simply mean that my system had more width and would stretch the play differently. It still works but it attacks in a slightly different way which can be a huge advantage. Therefore, I wouldn't completely rule it out but you have to think about how it will effect your overall system and if you may need to modify other roles to compensate. For example, I could change the wingback attack behind the left sided player to a CWB-a to compensate for the lack of goal threat from a winger support compared to a WM-s cutting inside. Sometimes a different player means a different role to get the best out of them which always changes your system but it can be in a good way, I.E. your normal system isn't getting any joy so you sub on the other player swap the role and therefore attack in a different way getting the breakthrough.

[Dr. Hook]

. . .

You make a great point, here, in that adaptation is necessary at times. I would do it (and have done) if I saw a deficiency in a particular match that I needed to deal with. I think that doing it as a rule to accommodate certain players is what can disrupt a system, so as a starting point for a tactical novice I would advise getting the system and play style down as a base

[abyss616]

Thanks for the insight. My main issue dealt with just slight changes (changing from poacher to advanced forward), but I'll keep the larger issues on my mind for other positions. I thought about going with two IF-s and two FB-a instead of just one on the left side now that I've found a RB that can perform the attack role. Should I look into making the change or just stick with what I've got?

[Dr. Hook]

Should I look into making the change or just stick with what I've got?

Again, you want to ask yourself what you are trying to achieve (other than win of course ) in terms of your system and how you want the tactic to play. If having two FBs on attack suits what you want, then go for it. Be aware that you will have to adapt your tactic to account for having both FBs bombing upfield.

[abyss616]

I guess my question is based more around, does that make any sense tactically and am I accomplishing anything? My issues with tactics have less to do with coming up with a vision of how I want to play, and more with, are the instructions/roles conflicting with each other/my overall style of play? If I decide to tell a player to do X, is that helping me or actually hurting me?

[Dr. Hook]

I guess my question is based more around, does that make any sense tactically and am I accomplishing anything? My issues with tactics have less to do with coming up with a vision of how I want to play, and more with, are the instructions/roles conflicting with each other/my overall style of play? If I decide to tell a player to do X, is that helping me or actually hurting me?

That's where you have to watch the matches and see what they are doing. If you know what you *think* a player should be doing, then watch and see if he does it. While it often isn't fun, this is what it takes until you are familiar with how the roles perform and the players. What I did, which sucked, but set up a test save where I ran out different tactics and watched players in different roles.

[Flohrinho]

I play a 4-2-3-1 as well as my main tactic and the only time I change the roles is if I face formations that occupy a lot of people in the center. The 4-1-2-1-2 for example or any three defender setup. I usually have my AMC as an Enganche or an Advanced Playmaker but if I meet a team with that occupies the center very heavily I want to exploit the wings a lot more and having a playmaker role the AMC slot will be counter productive to that. So I usually change that player to an Attacking Midfielder and give my FBs/WBs more attacking duties.

So basically I always have two different versions of the 4-2-3-1 in mind. One that attacks through all channels but makes heavy use of my skilled AMCs and one that mainly attacks down the wings.

[howard moon]

Interesting discussion.

I've always tended to change roles slightly depending on the player, following what I think Ferguson used to do - playing different players in different roles depending on the opposition. For example, on the left wing Park Ji-Sung would be a defensive winger, Nani an outright winger and Giggs perhaps a wide midfielder.

Reading this though, I wonder whether that is the best way to represent this flexibility tactically, and whether I should stick to one role, and let the player's attributes and PPMs differentiate how they interpret it?

[Dr. Hook]

Reading this though, I wonder whether that is the best way to represent this flexibility tactically, and whether I should stick to one role, and let the player's attributes and PPMs differentiate how they interpret it?

The beauty of FM is that there is no one right way to do things . In your case, I think slight role changes are fine as far as preserving system integrity. In my current save, for example, I swap between a DLF and a DF depending on what I am facing or what I am seeing happening. I think the larger problems happen when you make a significant role change- like a DLF for a target man, or a Winger for a wide playmaker etc. Then you often get fairly drastic different behavior that can disrupt everything.

[Sussex Hammer]

I agree with the Doc. I play a 4132 and originally felt that I didn't have the players to play as a CF. I had one DLF S and basically needed a goal scorer. I tried various roles but found that a poacher didn't really help out defensively in any way. An Advanced Forward was just that but too far forward for my liking, always offside and never contributing to moves. Already had one DLF so didn't want another so went with a CF A and things just clicked even though I could play different players in that role who didn't necessarily have all the attributes to do everything. The one thing FM seems to lack is a Centre Forward (basic forward) who does a little bit of everything but doesn't need to be a master of any so to me a CF is the best role if you aren't certain of a players strengths.

Enner Valencia for me has 9 goals, 7 assists in 12 games as a CF and whilst some of his stats are good they aren't all fantastic but he didn't do well as a poacher of AF and certainly didn't pitch in with assists. Same with my other strikers they didn't do that well as a specific role but do ok as a CF.

Not saying you shouldn't change roles but IMO it can change the way your tactic plays in a big way.