Mechanics of a DMC or AMC on overall team shape?

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Hola, Amigos!

I have a question, I am hoping someone can help out with. You join me as I prepare for the 2017/18 season with Ajax, thinking about how best to set up my team for the coming season.

Looking at various formations, I noticed that when playing a formation with a player in the Defensive Midfield strata it causes the rest of midfield to shift forward into more advanced positions. Conversely, positioning a player in the Attacking Midfield strata cases the rest of the midfield to sit in a deeper position. The defence also pushes up slightly more without a DM in place, creating a far more compact shape.

For the sake of clarity I have attached screenshots comparing various versions of a 3-6-1 formation.

The same applies with a 4-4-2 diamond, or in fact any shape I played with.

Now my question - does this actually effect the mechanics of the match engine or is it simply a graphical representation?

It makes a reasonably big difference because I would like to play a Defensive Midfielder for the extra defensive cover but the team actually looks much more defensively solid without a Defensive Midfielder.

Interestingly - if you look at the diamond variants, the formation DM formation looks like an aggressive attacking shape and the AM formation looks like a more solid defensive shape despite the same roles, mentality, fluidity etc.

[thomit]

Well, with the previous editions of FM, putting a player in the DMC position would shift the d-line lower. When we had the sliders we could atually see it. I assume this stil happens, albeit with no way to know for sure.

I am not sure what happens otherwise - maybe it's just a graphical (spacing) issue with the formation overview, or perhaps the players' mentalities are actually slightly adjusted. Someone will know.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Interesting. Thanks for the insight.

Upon further reflection it does make sense that if you have 3 midfielders then they'll share the defensive responsibility. If you add a DMC then he will take responsibility for more of the defence so the others can go forward more. Conversely if you add an attacking midfielder there is less space for them to advance into.

[Mitja]

Of course it affects the hole match process it's not a grafical representation. Just like every role, duty, player attributes, ppms do play a part of your system.

It's a bit of a number game really. For example I preffer to play with 3 MCs in 4-3-3 (with central being MCd) formation especially if my goal is to close down the opposition. The only time I put a player in DM slot is against really strong opposition playing with 2 strikers or any team with 2 strikers and a AM. I don't like DMs in no one's land which happens against 433 or 4231. Flat 3 midfield produces much more agressive defending and closing down. Central defenders deal with opponents forward duo or lone striker. Prefferably with stopper duty if I can afford.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Slight correction - AMC vs no AMC seems to make no difference. It's only the presence of a DM that makes a change.

Interesting that you could be playing a tight match, decide to bring on a holding midfielder to tighten things up and actually push your entire midfield forward and increase the space between defence and midfield.

[Cleon]

Well, with the previous editions of FM, putting a player in the DMC position would shift the d-line lower. When we had the sliders we could atually see it. I assume this stil happens, albeit with no way to know for sure.

I am not sure what happens otherwise - maybe it's just a graphical (spacing) issue with the formation overview, or perhaps the players' mentalities are actually slightly adjusted. Someone will know.

It still happens yeah, using a DMC makes the d-line naturally deeper than normal.

Using a DMC doesn't push the midfield up, it's just a graphical thing because it wouldn't fit the DMC position on the screen if not. However a players role and duty does push the player higher or lower up the pitch depending on what you use.

How a player is positioned on the overview is set by 3 things and 3 things only, mentality, role and duty. Your mentality is the biggest decider on a players starting position then his role and duty adjust this accordingly. It doesn't matter if you use all the same roles but in one use a DMC and in the other tactic you don't, the players will still have the same mentality etc in both systems.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Thanks for the explanation Cleon. So to be clear, assuming the same mentality structure and fluidity and MC(S) is an MC(S) regardless of whether a DMC is behind them or not?

How a player is positioned on the overview is set by 3 things and 3 things only, mentality, role and duty. Your mentality is the biggest decider on a players starting position then his role and duty adjust this accordingly. It doesn't matter if you use all the same roles but in one use a DMC and in the other tactic you don't, the players will still have the same mentality etc in both systems.

When you say overview are you referring to the tactics screen? If so please note that the screenshots above the MC(S) do have the same mentality, role and duty but the positioning on the tactics screen is different.

In this case - the 4-1-3-2 version of the diamond looks like quite an attacking shape given the current roles and responsibilities. Reminds me a bit of the 2004 Czech side. Am I correct in thinking that this just looks more attacking due to the graphical representation of the DM position?

[Cleon]

Thanks for the explanation Cleon. So to be clear, assuming the same mentality structure and fluidity and MC(S) is an MC(S) regardless of whether a DMC is behind them or not?

Yes his settings won't alter.

When you say overview are you referring to the tactics screen? If so please note that the screenshots above the MC(S) do have the same mentality, role and duty but the positioning on the tactics screen is different.

Yes it's just so it can fit the DMC in, so the midfield is slightly more advanced or it would severely overlap.

In this case - the 4-1-3-2 version of the diamond looks like quite an attacking shape given the current roles and responsibilities. Reminds me a bit of the 2004 Czech side. Am I correct in thinking that this just looks more attacking due to the graphical representation of the DM position?

Indeed it is

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Awesome. Cheers, boss.