TT&F IV: New Strategies and Theories for '07

[welshwebwizard]

I agree with Pete S.

But thanks and all the best.

[Guest]

It sounds to me that to reap the full benefit of these tactics you have to at least play a good 10 games so that your team can adapt.

Dont forget that the players would be acustomed to your style and it will take time. Im going to give these tactics a real whirl next season.

[ronaldo175]

I'm creating a tactic for tough away games against generally better teams.

This is my mentality settings

Team - 8

GK - 7

DR - 6

DC - 5

DC - 5

DL - 6

MR - 10

MCd - 7

MCa - 10

ML - 10

FCd - 13

FCa - 16

Creative Freedom - 5

Passing Style - 13

Tempo - 13

Width - 13

Closing Down - 14

Time Wasting - 7

Defensive Line - 12

Tackling - Hard

Focus Passing - Mixed

Defenders - man marking

Others - zonal marking

Counter Attack on.

I'm a little worried that the MCa, FCd and FCa are too far apart, but I don't want them to be too defensive.

The idea of the settings are based on some previous notes that I have seen by wwfan. Trying to spoil the opposition and then counter attack.

[celtic2006]

i need help man, i read some of your thing but i aint gonna read all of it as it makes me go dizzy and gives me a sore head, i just want help with tacitcs liek undersrtanding them and what player tactics and team tactics for home and away games etc etc

[paz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i need help man, i read some of your thing but i aint gonna read all of it as it makes me go dizzy and gives me a sore head, i just want help with tacitcs liek undersrtanding them and what player tactics and team tactics for home and away games etc etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offence but if your attention span is too low to read a few paragraphs, your attention span is going to be too low to succeed at this game. Go and play Solitaire, or something.

[stonkin]

Exellent job WWfan

Short, slow and narrow/Direct, fast and wide

Obviously going down these two roots are proving effective but I also think your defensive line should be considered in relation to your passing, tempo and width.

Lets consider the home framework. You have a high defensive line and higher closing down from your midfielders along with high mentality across the board forcing the game to be played in the opponents half, this is fine for the direct/fast/wide tactics but I dont beleive this to be the case for the short/slow narrow team but why?

Your opposition will more than likely be playing deep and narrow, and with you team playing high and narrow your team will more than likely find it extremely tough to find a way through(lack of space) meaning most of your attacks will be broken up before a clear goal scoring opportunity is created. Playing wider will give your players more space.

The opposite can bee said for the away frameworks. When playing direct/fast/wide along with deep defensive line can cause problems as you will be giving the opposition to much space.

I have found it much more effective keeping the passing and tempo linked short/slow, direct/fast and linking width and defensive line deep/narrow, high/wide.

[kevtrev]

Closing Down

Is this a measure of

a) the aggression with which a player will close down

b) the range from which he will close down

c) or both?

Assuming that b) is true, let's consider a DMC with CD 15. Suppose the opposition has possession on the right flank within the CD radius of said DMC. The MR is in position to cover, so will the DMC leave his position and close down too, or will he choose to stay and protect the back 4? Will this depend on his decisions and CF (making him less likely to CD)? Or on his teamwork and workrate (making him more likely to close down)? Or his mentality?

These questions are prompted by Arsenal71's tactics, which have both DCs closing down often, one notch more than the DR and DL. When I saw it I was sceptical, but it works, especially in how it brings the defensive line up, avoiding gaps between defence and midfield. Perhaps this is a way to set up an effective offside trap.

Any thoughts?

[stonkin]

I think closing down works similarly to defensive line, a player with say 4 closing down will not close down until he is in a very deep position in or just outside his box, they will be looking to keep in good position until they decide(Deicisions & Team Work) its the right to close down space or make a challenge(this is not to say he wont make challenges higher up the pitch) and the opposite would be true for a player with very high closing down.

If you had Alan Smith and Nicolas Anelka as your strike force would you notice a difference if you gave them both high closong down.

YES. Alan Smith has high Work Rate and Team Work and will be much more effective than Anelka. These two attributes are essential if your defending from the front along with stamina and aggression.

[AndyPipkin]

Sticking with wwfan's original formula, based around the strengths of my team I am still having impressive success with Newcastle United.

I'm leading the Premiership, leading 1-0 against Valencia (away) in the last 16 of the Champions League and in the quarters of the FA Cup... but the happiest I've been yet while using this tactic has just occured in the Carling Cup Final against my nemesis team, Spurs...

3-1 down at half-time I accept it was my own fault for picking too-defensive a formation. Spurs were free to attack from all angles and my only goal had come from a trademark Aurelio freekick... switching to the "Home" tactic did the business as I triumphed with a dodgy penalty and an offside Emre header, with an Okaka header and a Diop thunderbolt to round it off.

I'd just like to thank wwfan again for reigniting my enjoyment of this game with his theorum. For me, it works a treat, but I have spent ages tailoring his ideas to my team. I play narrow, low-ish tempo and stretch my passing longer in wet weather/away games.

I've hit a bit of a rocky patch lately where I'm dominating games, but not killing teams off, though I think that's just me being too conservative instead of having the balls to go for the kill.

Cheers man, let's hope the rest of the season keeps going so well!

[Gabi80]

Andy

sorry to out of topic, but i love your skin. Where i can find it?

Ps. Someone know where played this guys:

Dzudsak,Andreolli,Palacio.

[crazy gra]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stonkin:

Exellent job WWfan

Short, slow and narrow/Direct, fast and wide

Obviously going down these two roots are proving effective but I also think your defensive line should be considered in relation to your passing, tempo and width.

Lets consider the home framework. You have a high defensive line and higher closing down from your midfielders along with high mentality across the board forcing the game to be played in the opponents half, this is fine for the direct/fast/wide tactics but I dont beleive this to be the case for the short/slow narrow team but why?

Your opposition will more than likely be playing deep and narrow, and with you team playing high and narrow your team will more than likely find it extremely tough to find a way through(lack of space) meaning most of your attacks will be broken up before a clear goal scoring opportunity is created. Playing wider will give your players more space.

The opposite can bee said for the away frameworks. When playing direct/fast/wide along with deep defensive line can cause problems as you will be giving the opposition to much space.

I have found it much more effective keeping the passing and tempo linked short/slow, direct/fast and linking width and defensive line deep/narrow, high/wide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I believe, width only takes effect when your team is in possession. I took quite a few screenshots in different situations, which seemed to conclude it for me and means it won't make for a tighter defence except in cases such as mistakes or very quick counters.

Due to width being only effective when in possession, it should be the same as passing so that players are a similar distance away from each other to match how far they'll usually pass.

[crazy gra]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kevtrev:

Closing Down

Is this a measure of

a) the aggression with which a player will close down

b) the range from which he will close down

c) or both?

Assuming that b) is true, let's consider a DMC with CD 15. Suppose the opposition has possession on the right flank within the CD radius of said DMC. The MR is in position to cover, so will the DMC leave his position and close down too, or will he choose to stay and protect the back 4? Will this depend on his decisions and CF (making him less likely to CD)? Or on his teamwork and workrate (making him more likely to close down)? Or his mentality?

These questions are prompted by Arsenal71's tactics, which have both DCs closing down often, one notch more than the DR and DL. When I saw it I was sceptical, but it works, especially in how it brings the defensive line up, avoiding gaps between defence and midfield. Perhaps this is a way to set up an effective offside trap.

Any thoughts? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say it was b) that is true. The radius theory will come into effect here, in that a player with low CD will only CD when a player is close to him, and vice versa with a high CD.

As for whether a DM would leave his position to CD an oppenent who is already marked, then this would be determined by his CF: the less you give him then the more likely he is to close down the opponent, but if you give him more CF then you need him to have a decent decisions stat.

The extent to how aggressive a player is when closing down will be determined by their aggression and work rate stats.

[AndyPipkin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gabi80:

Andy

sorry to out of topic, but i love your skin. Where i can find it?

Ps. Someone know where played this guys:

Dzudsak,Andreolli,Palacio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The skin is simply Flexion with my own NUFC background installed... also I have a lot of graphics packs from here applied to make it look smarter.

Andreolli starts out at Inter and often moves to Chelsea for big money on my games, he's top-class.

Palacio is one of my favourite players throughout FM and he starts at Boca Juniors, usually has work-permit problems early in the game.

Don't know about Dzudsak, sorry!

If you wanna ask anything else, PM me!

[FourThreeThree]

One of the most improved tune up I did to my 4-4-2 was to set my wingers on normal mentality and my attacking MC to a more attacking set up, forward runs and attacking mentality just under "ATTACKING". Intrestingly it provided a good intermediate BASE OF THREE to attack and defend for the defensive MC with the two wingers while the wingers won't squeeze their position into the opposition full-backs (less interception by opposition). This base of three would contribute highly to the strikers and MC(attack minded).

I got this intermidiate idea (actually its basic midfield as eveyone knows but just not overly splitting them) as everyone was trying the 5-5 (5 attack 5 defend) or 6-4 or even 8-2(targetman a.k.a Houlliers Heskey & Owen). I am testing 5-3-2 concept on a 4-4-2 formation. that being 5 defensive minded, 3 intermediate (wing, MC) and two SC's. It has strengthened my tactics considerably.

[Nick A]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyPipkin:

Didn't realise HTML doesn't work...

Tactics:

Home

Away - Ultra Attacking Away - Attacking Away - Defensive Away - Ultra Defensive </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've tried most of these pretty extensively now and I have to say the home and away ultra attacking are superb. Got me promoted to the championship as Ialmost exclusively used these two, no matter what the odds against the opposition.

Less success on attacking away and defensive away as these to just seem to invite lots of pressure and chances. I have never scored using either and conceded quite a few before either changing to utra attack away or just losing horriby.

One factor may be that my average age is 21 though with many teenagers in it. I'm hoping I can keep a few of these to test the tactics out when a whole range of players are in their prime instead of 2 or 3 now.

[Cleon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Having reread the manual after Cleon's post on how they are different, I'm still not convinced whether a) they are, or b) the manual is very badly written and thus makes it seem as if they are, but in fact one still overrides the other. I don't think it is clear either way. Having had experience in trying to teach software engineers how to write, my faith in the manual is always taken with a pinch of salt anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Team Mentality - Tells the players how to play and act.

Individual Mentality - Tells the players how agressive to be with tackles, closing down etc and what position on the pitch to take up.

If you mess around with both in game, the effects are clearly visible. Thats why players with high mentalities should have high closing down, as it forces more errors.

[ronaldo175]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ronaldo175:

I'm creating a tactic for tough away games against generally better teams.

This is my mentality settings

Team - 8

GK - 7

DR - 6

DC - 5

DC - 5

DL - 6

MR - 10

MCd - 7

MCa - 10

ML - 10

FCd - 13

FCa - 16

Creative Freedom - 5

Passing Style - 13

Tempo - 13

Width - 13

Closing Down - 14

Time Wasting - 7

Defensive Line - 12

Tackling - Hard

Focus Passing - Mixed

Defenders - man marking

Others - zonal marking

Counter Attack on.

I'm a little worried that the MCa, FCd and FCa are too far apart, but I don't want them to be too defensive.

The idea of the settings are based on some previous notes that I have seen by wwfan. Trying to spoil the opposition and then counter attack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This appears to be working well, just beat Chelsea and Arsenal with it

[aston_martin]

earlier i said that the tight marking on DC's was a good thing, but i have changed my mind becuase even though my DC's have high marking and anticipation sometimes they go for an interception and miss allowing the FC space behind my backline.

not sure if this is becuase i am playing a slightly higher d-line than before though, will do some testing soon

[Seagulls Forever]

I correct my earlier suggestions that this doesn't work. It does, so long as you use zonal marking and set the team mentality right.

[crazy gra]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by celtic2006:

what a bunch of geeks fukin no life jakebaws </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Because no-one would explain it to you in simple terms that a baby could understand?

[bflaff]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aston_martin:

earlier i said that the tight marking on DC's was a good thing, but i have changed my mind becuase even though my DC's have high marking and anticipation sometimes they go for an interception and miss allowing the FC space behind my backline.

not sure if this is becuase i am playing a slightly higher d-line than before though, will do some testing soon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What team/individual mentalities are your dc's on? (And is their decisionmaking respectable?) If Cleon's right about mentalities, then a high individual mentality for dc's may make them more aggressive than you'd want with tackling, closing down, etc.

[SOSeven]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

Team Mentality - Tells the players how to play and act.

Individual Mentality - Tells the players how agressive to be with tackles, closing down etc and what position on the pitch to take up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If "how to play and act" doesn't cover aggression, closing down and position, what exactly does it cover? Surely team and individual mentality do exactly the same thing, only individual mentality does it on an individual basis as opposed to a team basis?

[aston_martin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aston_martin:

earlier i said that the tight marking on DC's was a good thing, but i have changed my mind becuase even though my DC's have high marking and anticipation sometimes they go for an interception and miss allowing the FC space behind my backline.

not sure if this is becuase i am playing a slightly higher d-line than before though, will do some testing soon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What team/individual mentalities are your dc's on? (And is their decisionmaking respectable?) If Cleon's right about mentalities, then a high individual mentality for dc's may make them more aggressive than you'd want with tackling, closing down, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'e tried the DC's mentality from 6-11 and every time the same thing happens

and desicion making is both 16+

[aston_martin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by celtic2006:

what a bunch of geeks fukin no life jakebaws </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, those people who come on to one of the best tactical threads in the forum and try to ruin it sure are... oh wait thats you isn't it?

[bflaff]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aston_martin:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aston_martin:

earlier i said that the tight marking on DC's was a good thing, but i have changed my mind becuase even though my DC's have high marking and anticipation sometimes they go for an interception and miss allowing the FC space behind my backline.

not sure if this is becuase i am playing a slightly higher d-line than before though, will do some testing soon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What team/individual mentalities are your dc's on? (And is their decisionmaking respectable?) If Cleon's right about mentalities, then a high individual mentality for dc's may make them more aggressive than you'd want with tackling, closing down, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'e tried the DC's mentality from 6-11 and every time the same thing happens

and desicion making is both 16+ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Getting muscled off the ball by stronger forwards? Tackling on hard? (The latter, if I understand tackling properly, makes players take more chances in tackling, whereas rare (?) tackling ensures that they only attempt a tackle when their chances of winning are (in their determination) high.)

[FourThreeThree]

One thing that would confirm FM7.0.1, a home and away game is very diferrent. Here are two tactics that you guys can tear the technique off. I am having home success with this and not doing to bad away with this. Tactics needs tweaking a little.

[crazy gra]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SOSeven:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

Team Mentality - Tells the players how to play and act.

Individual Mentality - Tells the players how agressive to be with tackles, closing down etc and what position on the pitch to take up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If "how to play and act" doesn't cover aggression, closing down and position, what exactly does it cover? Surely team and individual mentality do exactly the same thing, only individual mentality does it on an individual basis as opposed to a team basis? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a theory in 06 that mentality was an indicator of doing an attacking move. i.e. a high mentality would mean that a player will attempt to do an attacking move most of the time.

[Millie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SOSeven:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

Team Mentality - Tells the players how to play and act.

Individual Mentality - Tells the players how agressive to be with tackles, closing down etc and what position on the pitch to take up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If "how to play and act" doesn't cover aggression, closing down and position, what exactly does it cover? Surely team and individual mentality do exactly the same thing, only individual mentality does it on an individual basis as opposed to a team basis? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's quite difficult to put into words.

The first thing to say is: try it. Play everyone on 10 individual mentality in a friendly, then see how your team behaves on 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 team mentalities. (Best to do in a pre-season friendly against a very poor side so you don't lose anything by it).

A simple explanation could be team mentality + individual mentality = behaviour, if we consider mentality to be out of 40 rather than 20. But though this simplistic formula is sufficient in generally putting over the point that they complement rather than are in conflict with each other, it doesn't quite explain it properly.

Suffice to say, there is a difference in a team playing with 5 team mentality and with 15 team mentality, regardless of idividual settings. Actually explaining exactly how it works or why it works is a mystery, but I have tested it and its effects aren't just something that I've imagined. As it's the basis of Cleon's thread on Sheffield United also it cannot just be coincidence.

Again, it's explaining it properly that's incredibly difficult. You'll just have to trust me and give it a go yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazy gra:

There was a theory in 06 that mentality was an indicator of doing an attacking move. i.e. a high mentality would mean that a player will attempt to do an attacking move most of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be getting closer to the point. Individual mentality affects the individual's willingness to attack/defend whereas team mentality tells the whole team that you need a goal, need to sit back etc. This explanation is also problematic, however, because one would assume that an individual on high mentality would not come and help the defence even if the team mentality were low, yet with a low team mentality the team seem to get behind the ball more and look more to protect the goal than come forward.

For now, I'm just happy accepting that it works. However, if we could get to the heart of why it works I think it would even further strengthen wwfan's frameworks as it would allow even greater variation to encompass all teams of all abilities.

[aston_martin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aston_martin:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aston_martin:

earlier i said that the tight marking on DC's was a good thing, but i have changed my mind becuase even though my DC's have high marking and anticipation sometimes they go for an interception and miss allowing the FC space behind my backline.

not sure if this is becuase i am playing a slightly higher d-line than before though, will do some testing soon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What team/individual mentalities are your dc's on? (And is their decisionmaking respectable?) If Cleon's right about mentalities, then a high individual mentality for dc's may make them more aggressive than you'd want with tackling, closing down, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'e tried the DC's mentality from 6-11 and every time the same thing happens

and desicion making is both 16+ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Getting muscled off the ball by stronger forwards? Tackling on hard? (The latter, if I understand tackling properly, makes players take more chances in tackling, whereas rare (?) tackling ensures that they only attempt a tackle when their chances of winning are (in their determination) high.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think thats it becuase its usually againsy quick strikers where my CB goes for an interception and gets beaten to it and then the striker uses his pace to become fully clear, anyway it doesn't matter now lol its sorted i took the tight marking off, didn't concede in 3 games and them the computer crashed

[Barca4ever]

Testing the Theories in Lower Leagues

Now, that are a couple of things that I agree with that are a must in every tactic. Especially in Lower Leagues. I think that regardless of the ability of you players you must have a mentallity of no bigger than even between the DC and the Forwards. You also must match that passing with the mentallity for each player to equall 20. I mean, you just cant ask the player to be one thing and ask him to do another. It just doesnt work. It confuses him especially in lower leagues where the players are an inch away from being football retarts. So that will stay.

But, there are a couple of strage assumption that you made that I think need some testing. Such as the Closing Down versus Creative Freedom. I think you said that should equall 20. But ti doesnt make sense. Because youre saying that if Im some crappy lower league team tipped to relegation, and Im sitting back in my half all season on lowe closing down for defenderd. Lets say 3. Than I should give them 17 CF? Not if my life depended on it. So my assumption is that maybe in Lower Leagues its different. For now in my tactics that I prepared for the forthcoming season(will all be covered later on)I have creative freedom and closing down on the same number. It just makes more sense.

Another thing that seemed odd in my mind is your Passing, Width, and Tempo assumption. I think that it would entirely different based in your side's quality. I think higher quality teams in the premiership can afford to play a high tempo at home, or low quality sides in the Prem should do the same away. But in lower leagues hihg tempo seems illogical because these players cant think. So maybe we need a different summption for that. As far as width and passing. I really dont think you have to adjust your width to you passing style. I think that the width is something that needs to be played with untill it works for your team. Because if I have a slow defender, and I'm sitting back, by following your guide strikers kept on getting fed right through the middel of my defense. Because I was too wide. So I had to abandon the assumption and make my defense more tight. It was all fixed. Passing was still very direct and we still had descent possesion and scored goals.

My Tactics

So anyway lets talk about how Im planning to answer my own questions here. So what we want to find out is how closing down and creative freedom should work in Lower Leagues. And if Passing, Tempo, and Width have anything to do with each other.

I started unemployed and after a season I ended up with Nocerina in Serie C2/C. A mediocre team. So we are predicted to finnish mid-table. This tells me that I will probably need to use every single of the four tactics at least once. The away tactic against the good teams. The Home tactics against the bad teams. The Attacking Away tactics against teams if my qualit away. And I created a fourth tactic to suit the teams of my quality when I play at home. You said you dont need a second home tactic but I disagree. When I play these teams of my quality at home and Im slight favorite I dont want to attack so much. So I want the mentallity to run from 10-17. I called it Defending Home.

So heres a run down of my tactic.

Home(Versus bad teams at home only)

GK: 13

DC: 14

FB: 15

DM: 16

M/LR: 17

AM: 18

Fd: 19

Fa: 10

Tempo: 3(= passing of DM)

Width: 15

TimeWaste: 3

Def Line: 15

Away(Versus Good sides Away only)

GK: 1

DC: 2

FB: 3

DM: 4

MLR: 5

AM: 6

FC: 7(Both)

Tempo: 6(= mentallity of AM)

Width: 3(= Closing down of DM)

Time Waste: 6

Def Line: 4 (=Mentallity of DM)

Defending Home (Versus Medicore Sides Home/Bad sides Away).

GK: 10

DC: 11

FB: 12

DM: 13

MLR: 14

AM: 15

Fd: 16

Fa: 17

Tempo: 5(= passing of DM)

Width: 10

Time Waste: 5

Def Line: 13

Attacking Away

GK: 3

DC: 4

FB: 5

DM: 6

MLR: 7

AM: 8

Fd: 9

Fa: 10

Tempo: 6

Width 7/8

Time Waste: 6

DefLine: 6

Thats basically it. I'll play a season with these and give you some feedback on what I think of those assumptions above. What do you think?

And is there anything else anyone would like to know about the tactics that I didnt mention?

[Barca4ever]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Barca4ever:

Testing the Theories in Lower Leagues

Now, that are a couple of things that I agree with that are a must in every tactic. Especially in Lower Leagues. I think that regardless of the ability of your players you must have a mentallity of no bigger than seven between the DC and the Forwards.

But, there are a couple of strange assumption that you made that I think need some testing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

here, I fixed a few typos.

[crazy gra]

Millie: What team mentality settings do you use for different situations then?

[Millie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazy gra:

Millie: What team mentality settings do you use for different situations then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have probably 4 or 5 settings for mentality and 4 or 5 for passing, and I use a combination of the two depending on the opposition, venue and weather.

For mentality I tend to use:

1: last notch of defending for teams I expect to be beaten by away from home

2: two notches down for games away from home where I'm not favourite

3: dead centre for away games I expect to win

4: first notch of attacking for home games where I'm not favourite

5: third notch of attacking for home games where I am favourite

In extreme situations I'll move it well into attacking or well into defensive.

It works well, however I am seriously coming undone in away games where I'm not favourite (option 1. I think it worked early on because I was so far "un-favourite" that I had no alternative. Now Manchester United aren't considered that much better than me, I have a problem. In fact, so far this season the league has changed from a "Big 4" to a "Big 6" (Tottenham and Aston Villa (my team) have joined the club). I've won only one game against the other five teams this season and got beaten easily by Milan and Celtic away in the Champions League.

The important thing is that if I start off playing with option 4: and move to option 5: you can tell the difference in the way the team plays. The wingers get forward more, the strikers look for the goal as if it's attainable rather than shooting from distance so much and the full backs get forward more. I can usually hold a game from moving from 5: to 4: or 3: to 2: and not be worried about my 1 goal lead being flimsy.

Like I say, if it could be established why/how this works I think it could help strengthen these frameworks. Obviously in my case I need a new defensive plan, but for attack I don't seem to have many problems.

[Millie]

>> I should probably add that I've only lost two games to teams outside the "Big 6", and only 10 in all competitions (7 in the league). It's the end of February.

[Guest]

I read it, I applied it, it worked for 3 matches then it only caused my team to lose.

[daleuk8]

can somebody help, my keep is playing really poorly and keeps missing balls

[crazy gra]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 1: last notch of defending for teams I expect to be beaten by away from home

2: two notches down for games away from home where I'm not favourite </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These seem quite similar. I assume you mean for the first one the odds will be stacked against you?

[Mike McG]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

Introduction

I hope SI forgive me for saying so, but as of yet their arguably unparalleled simulation of football management fails in one respect to live up to the real thing. It is not yet sophisticated enough tactically. I know that some of you who are struggling with the game may sit with gaping mouths when reading this and think my brain has become addled, but I’ll explain.

In the modern game of football it is next to impossible to come up with a tactical formation that top clubs boasting experienced managers and quality players are unable to outperform with some degree of consistency. If it could happen then by now a smaller side would have won the Premiership via sheer tactical nous alone. Yet it hasn’t happened and is increasingly unlikely to. Why? Simple. Money and quality always, always outperforms lack of quality. Tactical mistakes from big sides (picking the wrong player for the match, being too attacking, too defensive) may allow a small side to win the odd match, but it won’t happen with regularity. Witness Man Utd’s return to the 4-4-2 that has been the cornerstone of their success and the required ditching of a work-shy goal poacher to accommodate it. Did Ferguson make tactical errors over the last two years? Undoubtedly he did. Did he buy the wrong players? Indisputably. Has he learned from his mistakes? Seems he has. Did Man Utd finish outside the top four in those 4-5-1 days, a position most fans of small clubs would die for? Not once!

The FM tacticians still have a serious advantage over real life managers. They can exploit tactical weaknesses in general terms that don’t exist in the real world. A new system of play can undermine the carefully thought out logic of the game-engine and allow a user team to outperform the AI despite a serious quality gap in personnel. That rarely happens in real life. A team will only get promoted if its squad is among the better squads in the division. Yes, the best team may not win the title and tactical variations can give slight advantages, but they are slight only. Until this version of FM this has not been the case in our virtual world. Many tactics have outperformed the AI in ways that could never happen in real life, with Diablo being the most notable. SI obviously want to eliminate this, as a simulation’s main intention is to successfully mimic real life. So, each version of the game sees a battle between developer and tactical guru, as one tries to build a more and more realistic system of play and the other tries to undermine it with creative tactical innovations. So far, the gurus have always won.

Both FM06 and FM07 began their shelf-lives with constant criticism from consumers. ‘The game is too hard’, ‘tactics are too complex’, ‘it’s unrealistic that I can’t get Chelsea to win the title in my first season’ are common complaints. These should read ‘the game is hard because it is more realistic and thus bad user tactics get ripped apart by AI managers that know what they are doing’ and ‘I can’t get Chelsea to win the title in my first season because I’m a newbie manager who really doesn’t know what he is doing which is realistic in the extreme.’ In ’06 the tactical gurus then kicked in and new ways of tactic creation were explained and implemented and the SI forums went quiet. Some of the theories and tactics, as in previous versions, went on to have seminal status. In ’07 these have yet to arrive.

Have SI finally defeated the tactical gurus and developed a tactical system that constantly prevents user systems from outperforming the game-engine? I think they are close, but they are not there yet. I’m still performing much better than my player quality would suggest I should, although I haven’t reached the comfort zone I achieved in ’06 in which I could sit back and relax after 10 minutes of a game in 95% security I would get a draw at least. I have to remain focussed all game. But, I believe I am outperforming the game-engine, and am within touching distance of cracking it. I will certainly dominate divisions with players equal to or above the divisional average, which is what we are all trying to do.

The rest of this article/thread discusses the whys and wherefores of tactical methodologies, their strengths and limitations and argues that a whole new mind-set is required when designing tactics in ’07. Finally, it offers the beginnings of some theories and frameworks that will, hopefully, allow users to create solid tactics and reduce their frustrations.

Three Philosophies of Tactic-Building

There are many individual philosophies concerning tactic building in the T&TT Forum. Some ‘gurus’ prefer highly complex methodologies consisting of tactics for every situations. Others prefer simplified approaches that require little tweaking or adjustment. Others still try to construct weird asymmetrical formations that confuse the AI and take advantage of engine weaknesses. This opening section will analyse the intricacies of the different approaches.

Complex

I would be regarded as a ‘complex guru’. My tactics and threads take into consideration the minutiae of the tactical settings and require considerable building and setting up before game-play begins. I demand individual mentality settings for each player and different home and away settings for individuals and the team as a whole. My theories have been criticised as being too anal and determent on constant minor tweaks before coming to fruition.

These criticisms have always rankled. My own take on my approach is that I try to build a logical mentality framework that can be adjusted to suit any formation, within which individual settings can be manipulated to produce the required results. The framework I devised in ’06 did that exceptionally well and allowed me, towards the end of 06’s shelf-life, to be able to showboat, switching between formations as and when I pleased with no detrimental affect on performance. The football was fluid and effective, capable of scoring goals and keeping things tight defensively. At no point did I believe it was over complex or reliant on slight slider tweaks. The mentality framework was logical, as were the home and away settings, and I rarely thought about minor slider adjustments. Once it was right, it was right.

Yet, I became a victim of my own success. Within 10 minutes of any game I would be able to see if my chosen tactical-flavour was the right one and either leave the game to run, or switch to another system before the opposition had too many chances and win the match in the second half. I only lost 5 or 6 games in total in all competitions over my last four seasons. My interest waned as the game became too easy and I began to play half-heartedly. Although it is fun winning there does need to be a challenge. When ’07 came out I hoped it would answer said challenge and it has not disappointed. I will further this discussion later in the ‘Demise’ of the Rule of Two.

Simple

The archetypal ‘simple’ approach is the Slider Apathy favoured by Asmodeus. It is based (or was based in ’06) on a dual mentality setting which linked strikers to defenders by use of a high defensive line. This enabled the team to remain compact whilst ensuring five players defended and five attacked at all times. Other settings were left to user preference as to their judgement of player ability. It produced a different style of play than the Rule of Two system I was using, but was equally effective. Unlike myself, Asmodeus has never been accused of over-complexity and his ideas and system, although theoretically and intellectually sound, offered effective tactics for the more casual game-player. Like myself, Asmodeus built tactics that out-performed the game engine (and here’s the rub, to be discussed later).

Asymmetrical

The asymmetrical ‘gurus’ build tactics that rely on formations that would be unthinkable in real-life football. Four-three-threes with weird side-arrows are the most common variant but there are others. I would also place Diablo, with its long-farrowed MC, in this category even though it is not asymmetrical, as a midfielder constantly sprinting half the length of the pitch to become an auxiliary centre-forward is highly unrealistic. These tactics all work(ed) because they challenged the logistics of the game-engine and took advantage of scenarios unimagined by the programmers. Another example of the AI failing to deal with unrealistic tactical plans is the ‘everyone at the back post’ corner routine which warped any testing of ’06 tactics as it guaranteed too many goals from set-pieces.

It is easy to write off the asymmetrical tactical gurus as game-engine hackers who search for bugs and errors within the engine and exploit them. Their tactics have little to do with real football and a lot to do with the difficulties of programming a football simulation that can cope with unrealistic and unexpected systems of play. These tactics have their place, as they will help SI develop an understanding of where their game-engine holes are located so they can fill them. They are also the result of highly creative thinking and analysis and should be commended. However, that doesn’t stop me from hoping that they all fail. Once asymmetrical tactics fail to out-perform the engine then a greater level of realism will have been reached than ever before. I think ’07 may well have reached this plateau.

Before I am attacked by the asymmetrical gurus, I wish to state here and now that I also regard my and Asmodeus’s systems as ones that took advantage of inadequacies in the game-engine and should be as equally open to criticism as asymmetrical tactics. The following section will explain why I have come to think this way.

The ‘Demise’ of the Rule of Two and Slider Apathy

Demise is too strong a word. The Rule of Two still works and, judging from Asmodeus’s New Year resurrection of Slider Apathy, so do his theories. However, they are seriously challenged by the new engine and nowhere near as effective as before. Rule of Two still over-performs in terms of results but not in terms of possession, chance creation and fluidity of play. It would be relatively easy to remain on the Rule of Two bandwagon and still do quite well. But ‘well’ is not enough. I want to be able to dominate possession, play pretty football, score well worked goals and win in some style and the Rule of Two does not do this. I’ll try to explain why and how I think its dominance has been challenged.

Defensive Line and Mentality

Arguably, the reprogramming of the defensive line and increased mentality differentials have been the undoing of both the Rule of Two and dual mentality frameworks. In ’06 employing a high defensive line kept both types of formation tight and allowed for solid defence and fluid attack. The user had the best of both worlds. His team could be both defensive and attacking at the same time. The game-engine couldn’t cope with this and both systems out-performed to a huge degree. In this respect they are no different to the asymmetrical tactics I challenged before, with the exception that they were built on logical frames that the game designers hadn’t foreseen, rather than exploiting holes and gaps with weird arrows and positions.

The reworking of the defensive line, so that it only kicks in when a team loses possession, is one of the key elements that have forced an alteration of approach for the tactical gurus. Any formation that relies on heavily split mentalities will struggle with the gaps in and behind the defence that a high line leaves with low mentality defenders or a low line leaves with high mentality midfielders. The defence retreats more quickly than the midfield so there is too little cover in front of it and the defenders becomes horribly exposed. This affect is minimised by working out the average mentality for the team and then giving the defensive line the same slider setting, but this still fails to combat the other main issue of heavily split mentalities, which is player confusion.

Mentality has been reworked so that on field mentality differences are more acute than previously. Thus, a heavy mentality split will produce a loose formation that offers a lot of space that a tight, (near) global mentality system then exploits. This weakness of this type of tactic is accentuated by player confusion as to where they should be passing. A player with a low mentality is unlikely to play a risky ball to a high mentality player up the pitch and instead will pass to a player with similar mentality settings, which leads to lots of aimless passes between the back four and a defensive mentality midfielder. Eventually possession is lost as the opposition closes them down and the team is under pressure. The risk of such play is minimised by employing defensive midfielders who sit in front of the back four and protect it from counters whilst still being high mentality enough to launch attacks of their own. The best Rule of Two tactical set I have seen employs one or two defensive midfielders in all its flavours. However, it seems next to impossible to build a fluent 4-4-2 using the Rule of Two framework.

Width

Although not as influential as the defensive line and mentality, width has also been reworked in ’07 and requires a different outlook. In ’06, to get the full-backs into space to cross and defeat the 3-3-2-1-1 you were required to give them short-farrows. In ’07 as long as you have a normal width and mixed forward runs on the full-backs they will overlap and support the attack. As goals per game have decreased dramatically, overlapping full-backs are necessary to defeat tight AI formations and they only do so with low split mentalities and a reasonably wide formation.

Conclusion

Both the Rule of Two and Slider Apathy theories took advantage of game-engine weaknesses, albeit in a logical manner, that the developers hadn’t foreseen. As in previous generations of FM, these weaknesses have been largely wiped out by reworking the engine, thereby reducing their effectiveness. Neither of them are toothless but they are more frustrating than in ’06 and both almost certainly require DMCs to function. Neither will adapt comfortably to the most common formation in football, the 4-4-2, and therefore their validity must be questioned. Hence, a strategic rethink is required.

Apologies to Asmodeus if his Slider Apathy is working as well as it was in ’06. According to his posts and my assumptions it shouldn’t be, but I haven‘t tried it and am basing my arguments on observation of the match engine and his own comments on the validity of his theory

Rethinking Strategy

As I stated previously, my Rule of Two tactics were overachieving in terms of results, but not in terms of style. My original post in ’06 suggested that the match engine was flawed and that it was impossible to make a decent 4-4-2. I disproved my own argument over a period of intense experimentation and constructed a solid 4-4-2 which eventually evolved into a diamond. It became more complex as I began to better understand the game and resulted in the Tactical Theorems and Frameworks thread that ran to three incarnations prior to this one. Hopefully, this thread will be as popular and useful as its predecessors.

Unfortunately, or fortunately in real terms as my life is considerably more fun and interesting than it was in late 2005, I don’t have as much time to devote to Football Manager as I did. Come January 2007 I am only 9 matches in to my 5th season. Therefore, I don’t have as much time to experiment with tactics as I did previously and thus my approach has been different. In ’06 I downloaded and rejected a series of so-called super tactics before embarking on a mission to design a logical framework. This required a huge amount of testing and game-play. For ’07, much of this testing has been carried out by others (Supersaint, El Padre, crazy gra, Beevster, The New Diaby, thegooner spring to mind) and for that I thank them. From their writings and observations I was able to build a reasonably complex theoretical picture of how the game worked which allowed me to circumnavigate a lot of the testing. The following is a rough guide to my thought processes in terms of re-imagining tactical excellence in ’07. As in ’06, I was working entirely towards producing a solid 4-4-2 that could perform above the ability of the AI. Also, as in ’06 my testing team was a team that had been promoted to a Regional Conference division the previous season (Maidenhead in ’06, Blyth in ’07), so was low in terms of quality.

For a long time I remained trapped in the Rule of Two approach to mentality. I adjusted many tactical elements of the game in trying to get RoT working well. All of them failed on one count. I could get results but not the performance I wanted. Possession was low, shot count was low. The one thing that stood in its favour, and the element that SI has still failed to resolve in dealing with heavy split mentality systems, was the percentage of goals scored per shot on target. Rule of Two still guarantees a few really good chances every game as the high mentality split forces the odd overload of the AI’s defence, but it happens with much less frequency than in ’06. Eventually, I became frustrated with the system (exactly paralleling my experiences in ’06 as I gained promotion in the play-offs first season but wasn’t happy with playing style) and began to play around with different mentality settings.

For a while I played around with the Ro3, in which each stratum of the team (defence, midfield, attack) operated on the same mentality split by three from the stratum above it. Thus, defence would be 6, midfield 9, attack 12. However, there were no perceivable benefits and I scrapped it. I also experimented with Supersaint’s take on the Rule of Two in which attacking systems would start with the central defence on 10 and defensive ones with the central defence on 2 with adjusted defensive line and closing down for each system. There was some improvement, but not to the extent I wished. At this stage I began to get frustrated and played around with global mentalities and slightly split mentalities, but I still couldn’t get things working the way I wanted. Finally, as I was about to permanently dent my forehead from constantly bashing it on a wall, I came across a thread offering a different perspective.

I hope he won’t mind me saying this, but the majority of this user’s threads and comments are less than sophisticated and generally limited in their worth. This one, however, offered me the building blocks for a series of mentality frameworks that finally got my team performing in the manner I wanted. Titled simply ‘Experiment’, this thread by PAGEY124 revolutionised my thinking, and were it not for its existence I doubt I would be writing this thread right now. Implementing its mentality settings, although not his other suggestions, immediately produced the requisite quality change in playing style and the mentality frameworks I had been searching for.

As in ’06, once I had a mentality framework I was happy with, it became relatively easy to build a decent 4-4-2. I tend to build from defence, first concentrating on preventing goals and then scoring them. As soon as I implemented the new mentality frameworks my defence tightened immeasurably. Indeed, my early versions of the tactics were so defensively sound I only conceded through defensive errors (exasperating but something you have to live with) or via set-pieces. I was conceding circa 0.3 a game which is a decent record when you are predicted to come 17th in the Conference National. Unfortunately, I wasn’t scoring many goals, with most matches being 1-0, 0-1, 1-1 or 0-0. I was happy with that short-term but needed to improve the attacking variations and quality in order to be entirely satisfied. I won the Conference by 3 points and readied myself for further experimentation the next season.

In my RoT tactics in the first two seasons of ‘07 I used a tall target man who was undisputedly my best player in terms of performance if not attributes. I had stopped using one after he retired but felt that as it was so effective in the Conference North it should be equally effective with a slightly better target man in L2 (two promotions in three seasons), so I splashed out my first significant outlay (16 grand) on a target man who had been solid if unspectacular in the Conference National to see if I could get him working in L2. Initially, I used balls to head to get him winning flick-ons to the left-winger and the other centre-forward, but they were failing due to my short passing system. In order to get more out of him I switched to direct passing for my defenders, and shortly afterwards mixed for my central midfielders, and he exploded into life. My goal-scoring rocketed (in relative terms) from being less than 1 a game to circa 1.7 a game by the end of the season. This may not sound like much but was in the top three performers in the division, with my defensive record being far and away the best.

I now had a system I was reasonably satisfied with. It was defensively solid, offered enough chances both home and away to grab wins or draws in most matches, and the target man was the form player in the division. Player weakness (I was predicted to come 24th) stopped it from being all it could be, but I ended up winning the division by circa 20 points. It was a little one-dimensional, but ready for upload. I tested it out with a supporting thread in another forum and after a few good responses linked to it in Tactical Theorems and Frameworks to see how it fared. Again, the reaction was positive. Another user whose opinion I trust implicitly (The Next Diaby) has also reworked the framework into a diamond and pronounced it equally valid in that formation. I have since tweaked it some more, but the basic settings remain. So, after a long journey, often paved with jagged stones, I am ready to write a new set of Theorems and Frameworks, which takes me up to this thread and my next heading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Mike McG]

OOOPS!

As a novice I wanted to respond to WWFAN but haven't figured out the icons!

If by accident more people see the excellent and detailed (work deserving a Phd) post, good!

What I wanted to say is if I can be of any help prunning the trees that spoil your view, I'm more than happy to bring my saw.

It's the least anyone could do for the professor of Game Psycholgy.

Thanks WWFAN. Brilliant stuff.

[Cleon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SOSeven:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

Team Mentality - Tells the players how to play and act.

Individual Mentality - Tells the players how agressive to be with tackles, closing down etc and what position on the pitch to take up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If "how to play and act" doesn't cover aggression, closing down and position, what exactly does it cover? Surely team and individual mentality do exactly the same thing, only individual mentality does it on an individual basis as opposed to a team basis? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It tells them to be attacking or defensive, if you check out my sheff utd project you'll understand more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Suffice to say, there is a difference in a team playing with 5 team mentality and with 15 team mentality, regardless of idividual settings. Actually explaining exactly how it works or why it works is a mystery, but I have tested it and its effects aren't just something that I've imagined. As it's the basis of Cleon's thread on Sheffield United also it cannot just be coincidence.

Again, it's explaining it properly that's incredibly difficult. You'll just have to trust me and give it a go yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, its too hard to put into words for me. How ever you can see them better if you try it in game.

[Millie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazy gra:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 1: last notch of defending for teams I expect to be beaten by away from home

2: two notches down for games away from home where I'm not favourite </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These seem quite similar. I assume you mean for the first one the odds will be stacked against you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Sometimes the odds can be against you, but you would expect to be able to get something from the game (as the odds seem to change on a form basis as much as an ability one).

[wwfan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mikegilbert9:

Great post wwfan, just one question though,

Why should a target man have forward runs on rarely and maybe not on mixed, because if use a target man, is job is to win you headers for your other players to latch onto and if he wins a header just outside the penalty box for example, and he heads it to the wings and winger beats the defender and then crosses it into the box.

Your target man won't be there to head home because you've told not to get forward. Yet i thought one of the roles of target man who was told to win headers should get forward and get goals from crosses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my observations of how he performs, he would keep up with the attacking line when the winger has possession but not break through the line to pick up a through ball. Thus, he is unlikely to be in position for deep crosses but should be after a flick on, as long as he stays on his feet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete S:

Sorry WWfan, but implementing any of the 4 variants of this tactic has made my team (small championship side) much, much worse.

Ok at home but can't score too many and always seem to concede as well.

Away - absolutely appalling and thrashed in most games.

I appreciate what you are trying to do and am pleased that it works for you but as this and some other posts show, this is not a strong tactic that can be applied to all divisions/teams.

Will now revert to using my own tactics. These are not great but at least the results and performances are more realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting you say that as I’m now top of the Championship with my small Blyth Spartans team and, against all my pre-season expectations, it looks like I will probably come first. I have now played variations of the tactics, with individual tweaks to incorporate specific incoming players, from Conf North through to Championship, and, apart form my keeper, all personnel have changed. You and a few others seems to be having issues with the away tactic, which, due to short-odds becoming more and more common, I have ceased using outside of cup games against Premiership opposition. I now use the AttAway almost exclusively and have had a couple of 3-0 wins and a 5-0 in recent matches. As suggested in the original posts, I always ‘Wish Luck’ and either use ‘Pleased’ or ‘We can win this’ at half-time.

As Millie posted in GQ (and thanks for the defence), despite my advice being as comprehensive as I can legitimately make it, I can’t replicate my decisions game in game out for those trying to implement my frameworks. My players are generally never below ‘Very Good’ in morale at any point in the season, and the few times a player drops to ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’ a positive full-time team talk seems to do the trick. I have had problems with the frameworks when I have had a player way below divisional standard operating in a key position (FC, GK) but, if you match the passing to the ability of your MCs, and don’t get players to do things they can’t do (RWB for an FB with dribbling of 4) then you should get consistent performances.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stonkin:

Exellent job WWfan

Short, slow and narrow/Direct, fast and wide

Obviously going down these two roots are proving effective but I also think your defensive line should be considered in relation to your passing, tempo and width.

Lets consider the home framework. You have a high defensive line and higher closing down from your midfielders along with high mentality across the board forcing the game to be played in the opponents half, this is fine for the direct/fast/wide tactics but I dont beleive this to be the case for the short/slow narrow team but why?

Your opposition will more than likely be playing deep and narrow, and with you team playing high and narrow your team will more than likely find it extremely tough to find a way through(lack of space) meaning most of your attacks will be broken up before a clear goal scoring opportunity is created. Playing wider will give your players more space.

The opposite can bee said for the away frameworks. When playing direct/fast/wide along with deep defensive line can cause problems as you will be giving the opposition too much space.

I have found it much more effective keeping the passing and tempo linked short/slow, direct/fast and linking width and defensive line deep/narrow, high/wide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can’t offer a definitive answer to this. I play with the width slider at 10 in all my formation flavours as I prefer to have passing midfielders (17-20). Basically, if it works for you then stick with it. However, as crazy gra said, width only seems to kick in when you have the ball and d-line when you don’t, so tying them together may be risky.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Barca4ever:

Testing the Theories in Lower Leagues

Now, that are a couple of things that I agree with that are a must in every tactic. Especially in Lower Leagues. I think that regardless of the ability of you players you must have a mentallity of no bigger than even between the DC and the Forwards. You also must match that passing with the mentallity for each player to equall 20. I mean, you just cant ask the player to be one thing and ask him to do another. It just doesnt work. It confuses him especially in lower leagues where the players are an inch away from being football retarts. So that will stay.

But, there are a couple of strage assumption that you made that I think need some testing. Such as the Closing Down versus Creative Freedom. I think you said that should equall 20. But ti doesnt make sense. Because youre saying that if Im some crappy lower league team tipped to relegation, and Im sitting back in my half all season on lowe closing down for defenderd. Lets say 3. Than I should give them 17 CF? Not if my life depended on it. So my assumption is that maybe in Lower Leagues its different. For now in my tactics that I prepared for the forthcoming season(will all be covered later on)I have creative freedom and closing down on the same number. It just makes more sense.

Another thing that seemed odd in my mind is your Passing, Width, and Tempo assumption. I think that it would entirely different based in your side's quality. I think higher quality teams in the premiership can afford to play a high tempo at home, or low quality sides in the Prem should do the same away. But in lower leagues hihg tempo seems illogical because these players cant think. So maybe we need a different summption for that. As far as width and passing. I really dont think you have to adjust your width to you passing style. I think that the width is something that needs to be played with untill it works for your team. Because if I have a slow defender, and I'm sitting back, by following your guide strikers kept on getting fed right through the middel of my defense. Because I was too wide. So I had to abandon the assumption and make my defense more tight. It was all fixed. Passing was still very direct and we still had descent possesion and scored goals.

? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the Closing Down/Creative Freedom mirroring was for the Rule of Two stuff and then only for the home version. The Rule of One frameworks have no real guidance on Creative Freedom.

The manual states that passing, width and tempo are linked. However, there is no absolute ‘best’ setting. I link them together as it provides a starting position for designing a tactic that I like and is easy to explain. However, tweaking and adapting them to suit a specific set of players is absolutely something I would support.

As for your tactic sets, I’ll await feedback with interest.

Counter-Attacking

Now I’m playing at against better AI managers who regularly try to shut up shop from the word go against me, I have had to abandon counter-attacking at home for some matches. I untick it and switch the FBs’ FWRs from mixed to often, and then revert to the standard counter-attacking system either a) when I score or b) when the other team is obviously being to play more aggressively, depending on how I feel the game is going.

The two clues as to when you shouldn’t counter-attack from the start are:

1) Pre-match odds being heavily in your favour

2) In match commentary suggesting the AI is time wasting (the earliest I have seen it is when the AI takes its time over a free kick 30 seconds in)

If you see either of these, start with a more aggressive, non-counter-attacking formation.

Marking

I still concede very few games using the man-marking system I suggested. To reiterate, I man-mark with 8 players away (defence and midfield), all tight, with all bar the wingers having low CD. At home I only man-mark with the defence and the whole midfield and attack has high CD. I have had some correspondence form The Next Diaby recently, in which he suggests man-marking works best against continentalesque formations whereas the 4-4-2 is best combated with zonal. I can’t verify this, but it could be worth trying for those who are struggling.

Set-Pieces

I am not particularly interested in talking about set-pieces, but they absolutely do need to be right in FM07. The number of games, particularly away, I have won 1-0 with a goal from a corner or a free-kick is quite astonishing. For those struggling away, search through the forums for some good suggestions on designing set-pieces and you should see considerable improvement.

[wwfan]

Speak of the devil.....

Justified's Set-Pieces Thread

[wwfan]

Speak of the devil.....

Justified's Set-Pieces Thread

[SOSeven]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cleon:

It tells them to be attacking or defensive... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words how aggressive to be and what position on the pitch to take up? Sorry, I'm just not seeing any distinction here. :/

[crazy gra]

Just change some mentality settings during a game that's not important and watch it on full match for a few minutes each time.

[SOSeven]

Just played a half with the team mentality on twenty and the back four on one. As I expected the back four appeared to play as they would have if the team mentality had been set at one, i.e. hanging back and generally playing more conservatively, while the rest of the team pushed up and attacked. But maybe I missed something.

Incidentally went in at half time 1-0 up despite the huge gap between the midfield and defense. heh

[thedribbler]

Just thinking aloud here, but maybe setting the team mentality at the mid point of the mentality of the individuals (most likely the MCs in practice) would focus the mentality of the team towards the intended purpose of the tactic? At the moment, in the framework as posted, the team mentality seems to work counter to the intent of the tactic to a degree.

[crazy gra]

Therefore according to wwfan's theories, that would have the team mentality at the same level as the d-line.

[filipe_fonseca]

Regarding the alleged link between team mentalities and individual mentalities, there's an in game "tip" which states very clearly that players will follow team instructions unless their individual instructions are ticked.

So I guess the obvious approach was the correct one: there is no link between team and individual mentalities, although team mentality will override individual ones when either one of its extremes are used (1 or 20).