team shape - in english, please!

[EuanDewar]

Sorry if I'm being annoying with these questions. I just think there are things that need clearing up and haven't been quite yet even with the numerous posts that have been written about them down the months.

[pedrosantos]

1 hour ago, EuanDewar said:

What does an attackers mentality dropping mean though? What effect does that have?

Mentality is a risk measuring stick, so a lower mentality will have the player doing less risky actions.

and please lets make an effort for not taking the thread into things like "what's a risky action ?"

[EuanDewar]

30 minutes ago, pedrosantos said:

Mentality is a risk measuring stick, so a lower mentality will have the player doing less risky actions.

and please lets make an effort for not taking the thread into things like "what's a risky action ?"

Well I understand that bit already. I'm not sure what it had to do with me asking about attacking players defending though. 

No need for that second line. I'm just asking. 

[Rashidi]

2 hours ago, EuanDewar said:

What does an attackers mentality dropping mean though? What effect does that have?

Alright I want you to stop thinking of attacking mentality = attacking firstly.  Mentality is just a risk barometer. When a player is dropping his attacking mentality, he will take fewer risks moving forward, playing passes etc. Shape affects how this risk tolerance gets distributed, so a team with a very fluid mentality will see more players likely to take risks, then a team that has a structured shape. Now within those shapes you have duties, attacking, support and defend. Attacking players will concentrate on attacking, support will support and defend will stay back. Sometimes when I am playing a top side and I just want them to get the win, no nonsense football, I play structured shapes. When I decide I need something out of the box, I go fluid, but I never ever play defensive/fluid.  I will have issues on the counter

[Rashidi]

2 hours ago, EuanDewar said:

Sorry if I'm being annoying with these questions. I just think there are things that need clearing up and haven't been quite yet even with the numerous posts that have been written about them down the months.

Actually they have been cleared up, the guide herne has put up is pretty much enough. When you are talking about defending, you need to remember the time it takes attacking players to transition back. Remember that a player on an attacking duty will always be further ahead than a player on support and even further away from a defend duty. So when you are looking at players to come back to defend, those with an attacking duty will have the lowest priority in a transition.

[EuanDewar]

11 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Alright I want you to stop thinking of attacking mentality = attacking firstly. 

I wasn't. I didn't ask about that, I'm not sure why it was brought up. I think you think I'm asking different things than I actually am.

My understanding is that fluid/very fluid will encourage your attacking players to get more involved in defending. Is that true? And if so, what do you do if you want that within structured?

[Rashidi]

28 minutes ago, EuanDewar said:

I wasn't. I didn't ask about that, I'm not sure why it was brought up. I think you think I'm asking different things than I actually am.

My understanding is that fluid/very fluid will encourage your attacking players to get more involved in defending. Is that true? And if so, what do you do if you want that within structured?

I have already answered it!

[EuanDewar]

I'm sorry but I don't see where you did. If you're referring to " So when you are looking at players to come back to defend, those with an attacking duty will have the lowest priority in a transition." that's about transition. I'm asking about in the defensive phase, having strikers drop and press deeper players. 

48 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I have already answered it!

 

[forzalazio87]

Can someone explain roaming from position to me? The impression I have got from using it is that it has to do with vertical and diagonal movement, nothing to do with shape or vertical starting position. Is this why you can use structured with roam from position in tandem? Is roam from position just a ti that increases movement rather than directly creativity? I sometimes play with structured and roam from position and it seems to be similar to playing on fluid spatially, but with worse positioning and less creativity (especially with my center backs and half back)

[pedrosantos]

32 minutes ago, EuanDewar said:

I'm sorry but I don't see where you did. If you're referring to " So when you are looking at players to come back to defend, those with an attacking duty will have the lowest priority in a transition." that's about transition. I'm asking about in the defensive phase, having strikers drop and press deeper players. 

 

Have them with support duty, this will make them come a little deep.

If you mean the players at the striker slot, you have a couple of roles that by default drop and you also have a Defensive Forward. If you mean the wingers slot, you can either use support duties or use them in midfield slot with customized instructions.

[pedrosantos]

On 04/08/2016 at 11:39, herne79 said:

We've already said that what you are looking at is incorrect and a very poor sample size.  

However, if you want to see something else, try the following from FM13.  Whilst the ME has obviously evolved, the same basic principles still apply.  The three screenshots below show the individual player settings ("under-the-hood" as you are after) for the Fullback (support) role/duty which I chose at random.  Nothing changes between each screenshot apart from the Team Shape setting.

Screenshot 1 = Very Structured (called Very Rigid in FM13).

Screenshot 2 = Flexible (aka Balanced)

Screenshot 3 = Very Fluid

Note how the only major change to any of the player settings is for Creative Freedom - pretty low for Very Structured; mid-range for Flexible; and quite high for Very Fluid.  As I said before, it's a simple step change as you go through the Team Shape settings and not how you believe you are seeing things.

The only other minor changes are: mentality slightly increases between Very Structured and Flexible; and Closing Down slightly changes.  That's it.

These are very important images because they illustrate something that was possible in fm13 and now its not and I think it could be very helpful knocking down the misinterpretations. In FM13 it was possible to stand at some player PI and change team shape at the same time allowing to really see how affects the player. Unfortunately this was something removed.

[Rashidi]

On 5 August 2016 at 02:28, forzalazio87 said:

Can someone explain roaming from position to me? The impression I have got from using it is that it has to do with vertical and diagonal movement, nothing to do with shape or vertical starting position. Is this why you can use structured with roam from position in tandem? Is roam from position just a ti that increases movement rather than directly creativity? I sometimes play with structured and roam from position and it seems to be similar to playing on fluid spatially, but with worse positioning and less creativity (especially with my center backs and half back)

Yes Roam from position is a tool that makes a player move around spaces more. Whether or not he is doing this intelligently will depend on his attributes and the movement of other players. While some players use this instruction with a structured team shape, this can be very demanding since the factors that make it successful will largely depend on the attributes of your players. While some use it, any of my videos will show that I hardly ever use it. I have endeavoured to show users that there are simpler ways of playing.

There are some "under the hood" factors and I hope that users don't get fixated on these. The game can be simple if you follow these steps:

a. Create a system but be aware of who is coming back to defend and who is going up to attack
b. Ensure that the "support" players have good physicals so they can meet the demands of the game
c. Minimise the use of roles that you are unclear about, if you have a role that you want to try, then look at the PIs. These PIs do enough to give you a clue about the most important things he will do : Play risky passes, Close down, Get Forward, Tackling. Each of these PIs affect his movement, aggression, passing and defending. These imho are the most important Player Instructions that will help you spot flawed transitions

 

WHY ARE TRANSITIONS IMPORTANT FOR SHAPE

Transitions are how a team moves from one phase to another. A team can move from defending to consolidation, and then to attack. And a team  can go from attacking to defending. A lot of users I have coached, seem fixated on how the ball is moving around the pitch. And that is when I stop them and get them to spot things in PKMs. You need to see whether your players are moving at the right time. Each duty behaves differently during a transition. I can't be bothered about roles half the time, and tbh, sometimes I treat role choices with a bit of trial and error. And I always observe how a new role or a player with a new role adapts to these transitions. 

Fluid creates a team with distinctive mentalities, however the differences between duties is minimal, as compared to more structured systems. This means that regardless of what happens "under the hood", a team on structured shape will be more orderly in a transition as compared to one that is fluid. Furthermore, during these transitions the structured ones are more suited to exploit spaces than the fluid ones. Try this on for size : take a defensive system and play very fluid. You will discover that your team tends to clear the ball hopelessly more often than one on structured. The attacking duties on a more structured system will move forward in a transition "earlier" than a very fluid one.

Personally I haven't bothered with anything under the hood since, 03/04. There is absolutely no need, and this is coming from one who used to do thousands of iterations simulating tactics.  The game is now fundamentally simple, and there are now a whole new generation of players who don't have the experience of playing with the older versions. To a large extent that should be a godsend. Why? Its going to be a lot more harder to make unique roles work. Earlier versions of FM were simple to the point of being pointless, I would get bored playing the game after 6 months and I would disappear into a cave waiting for the beta. I hope that people can try and look at the game the way its meant to be. Keep things simple.

The fundamentals of the game have remained unchanged since 1998.  Find the right player for the right tactic. Then make sure the tactic is balanced. Make the necessary changes to adapt during the game. Rinse and repeat. What will make you a better player isn't knowing whats under the hood, but being able to identify why a team is not playing well. And that inevitably boils down to matching the right player to the right role and making the right choices in the tactical creator. We may have been able to do more in previous versions of the game. tbh it created a layer of complexity that was unnecessary. The challenge now moving forward is to make sure players understand the interrelationship between the elements of the tactical creator, and there are only these that you need to concern yourself with:

Mentality/Shape, Roles and Duties and choosing the right players. If you want players to defend more, then you have two choices, either have more support duties or reduce the efficacy of your system by getting some of your attackers to track back via man marking. I hate the latter option, and use the former successfully.

[mikcheck]

 

 

Hello all.

Some good info here in this thread.

Rashidi, can you please give me your opinion about the shape, roles/duties and  instructions i use for my team please? Thanks

 

 

 

[Rashidi]

4 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

 

 

Hello all.

Some good info here in this thread.

Rashidi, can you please give me your opinion about the shape, roles/duties and  instructions i use for my team please? Thanks

 

 

 

That;s for FM 15 right? if it is then shape doesn't play such a big role there. Just looking at your duties I would be concerned about the left flank. I am more inclined to play someone on support there and making sure one striker is on an attack duty like a CF.  TBh I haven't played FM15 in a while, but it was a lot easier than FM16

[mikcheck]

Thanks for the reply.

Yes it itSFM15, i've never played FM16 yet, but i will in a near future. I will try that and see how it goes, i think it makes sense because sometimes i feel the need of a striker more present in the box. Do you think it would be better to use the forward with  attack duty in fron of the BBM or CM(a).

[pedrosantos]

On 01/08/2016 at 17:29, Dr. Hook said:

That is how I use it as I found the same thing, but you can use structured also to great effect as Cleon did. I'd have to go back and read his thread again and see what his reasoning was for structured. Using it a Lecce are you finding it works for you? I used a very fluid possession style with Gloucester City in my current save and had the same experience as your describing. I did turn creative freedom down in the team instructions though to minimize the overly ambitious stuff. I also believe you could use very fluid and play a more direct game and make it work just fine. It comes down to how you want your side to play (and whether they can pull it off of course). Keep in mind too that as I mentioned to EuanDewar above, shape isn't a mega effect thing on the level of strategy, so if you used structured but a defensive strategy (which I did with a Buckie Thistle team) you can get great possession football also. S

Dr., I'm wondering when playing more compact (fluid team shapes) it can be useful applying more split player duties (defend / attack) to create space; when playing more far apart (rigid team shapes) it can be useful applying more compact player duties (support) to reduce space.

What do you think ?

[Dr. Hook]

5 hours ago, pedrosantos said:

Dr., I'm wondering when playing more compact (fluid team shapes) it can be useful applying more split player duties (defend / attack) to create space; when playing more far apart (rigid team shapes) it can be useful applying more compact player duties (support) to reduce space.

What do you think ?

If I wanted to do what I think you are saying, I might just use flexible and get the same effect and use TI/PI to set creative freedoms where I wanted them.

[pocketspace]

Is Team Shape the difference between a decent tactic and a very good tactic?

[pedrosantos]

46 minutes ago, Dr. Hook said:

If I wanted to do what I think you are saying, I might just use flexible and get the same effect and use TI/PI to set creative freedoms where I wanted them.

Well, my logic here was:

1- My team is more compact (fluid team shapes), so I will choose a few split player duties to set players a little bit apart from each other;

or

2- My team is less compact (rigid team shapes), so I will choose some extra support duties to reduce space;

 

Flexible would leave the decision to the players, either to narrow space or increase it, right ? Kind of Defensive Line being set to normal and it drops or goes higher according to players.

[pedrosantos]

13 minutes ago, kristalshards said:

Is Team Shape the difference between a decent tactic and a very good tactic?

No, it doesn't work that way. Anything can make the difference.

[Dr. Hook]

2 minutes ago, pedrosantos said:

Well, my logic here was:

1- My team is more compact (fluid team shapes), so I will choose a few split player duties to set players a little bit apart from each other;

or

2- My team is less compact (rigid team shapes), so I will choose some extra support duties to reduce space;

 

Flexible would leave the decision to the players, either to narrow space or increase it, right ? Kind of Defensive Line being set to normal and it drops or goes higher according to players.

Flexible just means that the mentality distribution of your players is unchanged by the shape, so whatever the default mentality assigned by the role and duty is what it remains. In this case, you could manage space by simply choosing roles and duties that would do this, and I don't feel that mentality comes into it at all as what you choose for strategy will set your mentality baseline. Remember that mentality is not really a space management tool so much as it is a risk management tool in the way that it handles mentality splits.

[pocketspace]

5 minutes ago, pedrosantos said:

No, it doesn't work that way. Anything can make the difference.

Sure, but say you've got good duty allocation and the right mentality, then does Team Shape make a difference?

[summatsupeer]

14 minutes ago, pedrosantos said:

Well, my logic here was:

1- My team is more compact (fluid team shapes), so I will choose a few split player duties to set players a little bit apart from each other;

or

2- My team is less compact (rigid team shapes), so I will choose some extra support duties to reduce space;

 

Flexible would leave the decision to the players, either to narrow space or increase it, right ? Kind of Defensive Line being set to normal and it drops or goes higher according to players.

It depends what your goals are, there's not really a "right" answer.

I recommend picking your roles+duties to fit the style of play your after.  Most attack duties have "More Forward Runs" but if your playing with "Retain Possession" which is looking for more passes to feet you might limit your players passing options.  But picking lots of support roles could leave your team (depending on your formation) playing less risky than you would think for the mentality.

ie. 433 DM Wide on Control with Very Structured will increase the mentality of the ST, AML and AMR so if they are all support you get more depth and risk from them without making them look for more forward runs.  Your back 4 will play a bit safer to, so if thats where you have an attack duty to add some variety he will play a bit safer than if on flexible, so whilst looking for more forward runs and crosses (FB-A) he will still consider the riskiness when deciding what to do.

If you had 4141 on Control with Very Structured your only increasing the mentality of the ST.  Your ML and MR won't have there mentality increased like they did in AML/AMR.  Your back 4 plus DM will all play safer so you've effectively got 3 players with lower mentality due to the formation + team shape selected (assuming duties are unchanged). 

[pedrosantos]

52 minutes ago, Dr. Hook said:

Flexible just means that the mentality distribution of your players is unchanged by the shape, so whatever the default mentality assigned by the role and duty is what it remains. In this case, you could manage space by simply choosing roles and duties that would do this, and I don't feel that mentality comes into it at all as what you choose for strategy will set your mentality baseline. Remember that mentality is not really a space management tool so much as it is a risk management tool in the way that it handles mentality splits.

Thanks

[pedrosantos]

56 minutes ago, kristalshards said:

Sure, but say you've got good duty allocation and the right mentality, then does Team Shape make a difference?

Only makes a difference in creative freedom and reducing vertical space (and player mentality), its a long way for turning decent into very good. Opponents play differently, so a possible solution to a match might not be a solution at all for another match.

[pedrosantos]

51 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

It depends what your goals are, there's not really a "right" answer.

I recommend picking your roles+duties to fit the style of play your after.  Most attack duties have "More Forward Runs" but if your playing with "Retain Possession" which is looking for more passes to feet you might limit your players passing options.  But picking lots of support roles could leave your team (depending on your formation) playing less risky than you would think for the mentality.

ie. 433 DM Wide on Control with Very Structured will increase the mentality of the ST, AML and AMR so if they are all support you get more depth and risk from them without making them look for more forward runs.  Your back 4 will play a bit safer to, so if thats where you have an attack duty to add some variety he will play a bit safer than if on flexible, so whilst looking for more forward runs and crosses (FB-A) he will still consider the riskiness when deciding what to do.

If you had 4141 on Control with Very Structured your only increasing the mentality of the ST.  Your ML and MR won't have there mentality increased like they did in AML/AMR.  Your back 4 plus DM will all play safer so you've effectively got 3 players with lower mentality due to the formation + team shape selected (assuming duties are unchanged). 

Nice ideas

[pocketspace]

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

It depends what your goals are, there's not really a "right" answer.

I recommend picking your roles+duties to fit the style of play your after.  Most attack duties have "More Forward Runs" but if your playing with "Retain Possession" which is looking for more passes to feet you might limit your players passing options.  But picking lots of support roles could leave your team (depending on your formation) playing less risky than you would think for the mentality.

ie. 433 DM Wide on Control with Very Structured will increase the mentality of the ST, AML and AMR so if they are all support you get more depth and risk from them without making them look for more forward runs.  Your back 4 will play a bit safer to, so if thats where you have an attack duty to add some variety he will play a bit safer than if on flexible, so whilst looking for more forward runs and crosses (FB-A) he will still consider the riskiness when deciding what to do.

If you had 4141 on Control with Very Structured your only increasing the mentality of the ST.  Your ML and MR won't have there mentality increased like they did in AML/AMR.  Your back 4 plus DM will all play safer so you've effectively got 3 players with lower mentality due to the formation + team shape selected (assuming duties are unchanged). 

So basically in other words, Very Structured/Structured increases the mentality of more advanced players and decreases the mentality for deeper players? I thought Fluid increases the mentality and structured decreases it.

What happens in more defensive mentalities with Structured/Fluid?

[pedrosantos]

17 minutes ago, kristalshards said:

So basically in other words, Very Structured/Structured increases the mentality of more advanced players and decreases the mentality for deeper players? I thought Fluid increases the mentality and structured decreases it.

What happens in more defensive mentalities with Structured/Fluid?

Depends if players are defensive or attacking. Fluid shapes reduce the split between defensive and attacking players, structured increases. Player roles and duties also have an impact, as Dr. Hook said, the team can be compact playing a balanced team shape and just by setting the player roles and duties.

[herne79]

Honestly I think there is a little over thinking things here with regards to player mentality and the affect Team Shape has on it.  

An Attack duty player is still going to be attack minded regardless of what Team Shape we happen to assign.  It's just that he'll be a little more or less attack minded depending on the Team Shape selection.  The same goes for support and defend duty players.

Personally when I select my Team Shape setting I don't give player mentality any thought at all.  To me, Team Shape is simply about space and creative freedom.  Much simpler.

[pocketspace]

49 minutes ago, pedrosantos said:

Depends if players are defensive or attacking. Fluid shapes reduce the split between defensive and attacking players, structured increases. Player roles and duties also have an impact, as Dr. Hook said, the team can be compact playing a balanced team shape and just by setting the player roles and duties.

Rashidi wrote this in another thread.

 

You have got the general flow, however, how many players get up and attack also depends on your duties. So while you have identified what generally happens, the specific players involved in transitions will be those that are "support" duties. So a defensive/structured system with say 5 players on support and 1 on attack, would see 5 drop back to defend leaving one forward, whilst one with 2 on support and 5 on attack, would have a different result..

There are so many things at play here...but all you need to understand is what does mentality affect and what does shape affect, for instance.

In an attacking mentality - a defender will look to play more direct passes occasionally, and support players may play more direct passes because of their risk appetite

On defensive mentality - a defender may look to play safer passes or punt the ball, and support players may look to play safer passes and won't be looking to generate an attack every moment.

On structured shapes the distinction is clear, however on fluid shapes, because players are likely to share the same mentality and have have higher creative freedom, you would see a more disorganised mass heading back to defend on transitions. The same would not be true for Structured shapes. The compactness of shapes plays a big part here.

Not all roles and duties have high risk, some roles are hardcoded to approach a game with low risk. To check this look at a Player Instructions, if the Play Less Risky Passes option is locked out, hovering over it will let you know what kind of passes he will make. On a fluid system everyone on the team will have one creative setting, however those whose roles have more risky passing, are more likely to have higher creative freedom hardcoded too.

Defensive/Very Fluid will always struggle to work, because your team is already playing a deep defensive line, taking less chances, but you are opting to get them to play very fluid, which doesn't give the time much spatial options.

Defensive/Structured makes more sense, since there is more distinction, a team will have players who depending on the duty split will approach things in varied ways. More support duties will encourage camping, forward roles with attack duties would place high demands on good players to find space and others to play the ball to them. And this would help set up nice counter systems.

When looking at mentality you are addressing a team's passing, width and general risk appetite. Shape commands a team to create distinctions in duties. Every problem I have noticed on the forums with respect to tactics that don't work, have a problem with either duty selection or shout choices.

 

Personally I consider Player Roles/Duties > Formation > Mentality > Team Shape when it comes to tactical priorities (importance). I might be wrong but this is how I see it. My question was concerning the support players, because they are more involved in transitions and that could have more impact on the defensive game/attacking phase of the game.

[summatsupeer]

 

4 hours ago, kristalshards said:

So basically in other words, Very Structured/Structured increases the mentality of more advanced players and decreases the mentality for deeper players? I thought Fluid increases the mentality and structured decreases it.

What happens in more defensive mentalities with Structured/Fluid?

The team mentality is the starting point for working out the players individual mentality.  The players mentality is then modified by his duty.  Finally the team shape can further modify this depending on the setting and the players position in the formation.

Very Structured and Structured increase the spread of the mentality, with advanced players being increased and deeper players being lowered.

Very Fluid and Fluid decreases the spread of the mentality, with advanced players being decrease and deeper players being increased.

 

3 hours ago, herne79 said:

Honestly I think there is a little over thinking things here with regards to player mentality and the affect Team Shape has on it.  

An Attack duty player is still going to be attack minded regardless of what Team Shape we happen to assign.  It's just that he'll be a little more or less attack minded depending on the Team Shape selection.  The same goes for support and defend duty players.

Personally when I select my Team Shape setting I don't give player mentality any thought at all.  To me, Team Shape is simply about space and creative freedom.  Much simpler.

I definitely over think things, in other games i'd be called a "min/max" player.   I fully agree the simplest way to think of Team Shape is space and freedom.

I've just been trying to gather some numbers, to try to better understand how things work together. Using Standard Team Mentality and very unscientifically by eye.

WB-S in DL:

• Very Structured is about 6 / 20
• Very Fluid is about 10 / 20

WB-A in DL:

• Very Structured is about 11 / 20
• Very Fluid is about 12 / 20

IF-S in AMR:

• Very Structured is about 12 / 20
• Very Fluid is about 10 / 20

IF-A in AMR:

• Very Structured is about 16 / 20
• Very Fluid is about 12 / 20

This appears to me that the Team Shape affects how much the players duty modifies his mentality.  This would make sense with Very Fluid keeping players closer to the set team mentality whilst Very Structured makes them spread out and play as there role+duty dictates.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Team Shape is an area of the game I find really fascinating and one of the most important components of creating a successful tactic.

I have most experience playing with Fluid and Very Fluid shapes, and they're fairly easy to explain.

Very Fluid

Key points:

• Players attack and defend as a single unit
• Free-flowing football with high creative freedom

What does this mean in FM?

• Players individual mentalities have a low deviation from the team mentality
• Every player is given high creative freedom

What are the implications for the rest of your system?

• Be wary of unbalanced mentalities - selecting attack / defend will give all players attacking / defensive mentalities. For example, a DC(D) in a Very Fluid & Attacking system has a higher mentality than a DC(D) in a Flexible & Attacking system.
• You need players with well-rounded attributes. Defenders must be comfortable on the ball and attackers must be hard working to help defence.
• You don't necessarily need many / any playmakers as your entire team has higher creative freedom so shares the burden. (see wwfan's TT&F guide)

Synergies:

• Very fluid is a nice compact system and your attackers help in defence so it works particularly will with high pressing.
• Standard mentality helps add balance to a very fluid system. This is where I'd recommend starting, if you're struggling.
• For me, Very Fluid & Attack is suicide and Very Fluid & Defend/Counter is van Gaal.

Real life examples:

• Dutch / Ajax Total Football
• Pep Guardiola's Barcelona / Bayern.
• Arrigo Sacchi's Milan

 

Fluid

Key points:

• Your team is now divided into broad attacking and defensive units with the entire team contributing to the transition.
• As with Very Fluid, you play free-flowing football with high creative freedom.

What does this mean in FM?

• Your team is less compact but you now have separate units responsible for attacking or defending.
• You still have a high creative freedom.

What are the implications for the rest of your system?

• Dividing the team into two units opens up a broader range of mentalities such as attack, control, defend or counter because you can assign players into the attack or defensive unit to balance the system.
• Individual player roles (particularly duties) become more important.
• Players on support roles are assigned an individual mentality based on your team mentality.
• You'll still want generally well-rounded players but can perhaps afford a few specialists now - playmakers, ball winners etc.

Real Life examples:

• Lots. Any team playing a group of attacking players balanced by a defensive core.
• Arsene Wenger's Invincibles (more recently Arsenal have rather unsuccessfully moved towards Very Fluid)
• Many famous Brazil teams
• Real Madrid's galacticos

Both of these play great football, but I hope the above can show the differences. Very Fluid uses Team Mentality to create balance whereas Fluid uses player duties.

I am not really in a position to comment on the other team shapes as my understanding is not as clear.

[ianscousemac]

Ö-zil to the Arsenal!  I really enjoyed the way your have wrote about the fluid and very fluid team shape.  I think its really useful when being able to compare them to real life teams.  Thanks for your input.

[sacchi]

Are those mentality bars on the player instruction screen correct?

I did crazy stuff. Sticked a ruler to my screen and measured every position's in all 3 duties on all combinations of mentality/shape. Wish there would be another bar for CF! :-D

I'm unable to sleep well until I figure this stupid team-shape thing out!

[pedrosantos]

7 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

 

Can we please have some more of that ?

[Tyballs]

2 hours ago, sacchi said:

Are those mentality bars on the player instruction screen correct?

I did crazy stuff. Sticked a ruler to my screen and measured every position's in all 3 duties on all combinations of mentality/shape. Wish there would be another bar for CF! :-D

I'm unable to sleep well until I figure this stupid team-shape thing out!

What were your findings?

I have previously asked if there is some skin that has numbers written on the bars. Anyone knows if other things like passing length, get further forward etc that changes when shape is changed?

[summatsupeer]

Just be aware sacchi that some roles might affect the mentality.  In the old versions when you could see the numbers, Treq had maxed mentality + CF, playmakers had a lower mentality with extra CF, BBM also had slightly lower mentality with more CF (compared to a CM-S).  I would assume DF-S has a lower mentality than other ST roles, did you use him for the Strikers Support numbers?

[sacchi]

24 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Just be aware sacchi that some roles might affect the mentality.  In the old versions when you could see the numbers, Treq had maxed mentality + CF, playmakers had a lower mentality with extra CF, BBM also had slightly lower mentality with more CF (compared to a CM-S).  I would assume DF-S has a lower mentality than other ST roles, did you use him for the Strikers Support numbers?

Roles make no difference on the bar.  ('Look for overlap' or 'Exploit ***' does tough for certain positions)

Correct or not, I have no idea. I just gave numbers to what the bar shows.

 

To be honest, it doesn't make sense that all roles have the same mentality, and only duty and position affects it.

[pedrosantos]

Can you check if those numbers are the same when WBs are at the DM strata ?

[sacchi]

10 minutes ago, pedrosantos said:

Can you check if those numbers are the same when WBs are at the DM strata ?

Yes, same. There is no difference between the DM strata and the D strata anywhere. 

(So, where there is a 'Defense' line the numbers for the DM strata are in that line, and not in the 'Midfield' line!)

[pedrosantos]

Thanks Sacchi

[herne79]

@Sacchi - what are all these numbers you are posting?  Where are you getting them from?

[sacchi]

5 hours ago, herne79 said:

@Sacchi - what are all these numbers you are posting?  Where are you getting them from?

The length of the mentality bar from the player instruction screen.

[herne79]

9 minutes ago, sacchi said:

The length of the mentality bar from the player instruction screen.

From which version of FM and where are you getting the numbers from?

[sacchi]

52 minutes ago, herne79 said:

From which version of FM and where are you getting the numbers from?

fm16, and I measured it (LOL). But explained it above...

[herne79]

50 minutes ago, sacchi said:

fm16, and I measured it (LOL). But explained it above...

ok I was afraid of this.

I've hidden that post.  Measuring a bar with a ruler and posting results in a thread can do more harm than good.  There is a reason we moved away from 1-20 slider scales after FM13, so lets not go back to it please .

People looking at defined scales of numbers and don't realise those numbers are merely an opinion based on a ruler placed on a computer screen could get the wrong idea.  You can't come up with numbers and then present them de facto into a thread.

Some of you are still spending far too much time worrying about minute player mentality changes as Team Shape changes.  Unless you are seriously into min/maxing (in which case you really don't need such numbers anyway), these small movements are largely irrelevant.  I've said it before in this thread - Team Shape affects creative freedom and space.  Forget about player mentality and you'll have a much easier time.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

On 09/08/2016 at 18:38, herne79 said:

To me, Team Shape is simply about space and creative freedom.  Much simpler.

Same way I approach it, basically how compact I want to be. I think 16 is the first time I've deviated from WWFAN's 12 steps suggestions, on the one hand I want the players doing what their roles are, on the other hand, the fluidity settings help my system work better (in my head anyway).

[pedrosantos]

Would it be out of logic separating creative freedom from vertical space in team shape ??? If I want my team to be very compact, I will also get lots of creative freedom; if I want to create space between lines, players will be "robots". Okay, I could be use Be More Disciplined when using fluid team shapes, or Be More Expressive with structured team shapes but these TI only make a small adjustment, correct ?

Hummmm, what about a PI be more disciplined / be more expressive ? Never understood why this option is missing.

 

[kevin3]

58 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I've said it before in this thread - Team Shape affects creative freedom and space.  Forget about player mentality and you'll have a much easier time.

In previous FMs, player mentalities altered space and team shape. How does this work in FM16 if not by changes in player mentalities? 

[kevin3]

25 minutes ago, pedrosantos said:

Hummmm, what about a PI be more disciplined / be more expressive ? Never understood why this option is missing.

I agree. Also, there's no indication from the UI on the variance of creative freedom between each player depending on position, role and duty.  In the feature request forum, I made a suggestion for this to be included.