Wide Player Defensive Positioning Discussion

[themadsheep2001]

21 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

I don't understand if we change this ME it becomes a new ME!! im just saying we cant change this ME based on one set of rules because it just opens the same argument. If we take the original picture and all agreed 100% that they are too wide... _> change the ME so they go narrower... -> I can post all of these back 6s and say the ME is buggy the wide players are too narrow.

So leave the ME as it is until they can actually give us power to choose our defensive strategy. I'm not saying its an easy overnight change.

I don't really get where you stand on the current ME if you are telling me "I wouldn't want a back 6" and telling babic "not everyone plays a narrow 4"... and then saying "but I don't want to talk about an ME in which you have the ability to choose"... what do you think about the current ME and how would you change it without opening yourself up to the counter argument of whatever you suggest?

I'm talking about whether we are seeing flaws within this ME (ie in this current version and it's limitations, is the wide defence doing what it's supposed to, and if not is that something that can be looked at in this iteration) vs future and long term changes in the next iterations of the game, and how we can expand that side as a whole. Short term vs longer term.

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, Äktsjon Männ said:

Except the style in FM isn't one or the other. It's not a back 6 (which, btw in a 442 and two strikers who don't drop below half way line would be more than suicidal) and it isn't two banks of four (which is how 442's actually defend). It's narrow defensive line that doesn't shift enough, narrow midfield that closes down the same areas and then it's the wingers man marking the full backs + strikers doing nothing. The problem with this is that the AI playing 442 against the user is absolutely helpless, as shown in various screenshots and pkm examples. It's better than full backs topping the assist charts season after season and Hector Bellerin sweeping the Ballon D'or awards but it's still quite a problem.

it's a myth that 442s "actually" defend as two banks of four. Some managers have their wingers fill the wide defensive position. some encourage the opposition to play wide and then shift (your two bank theory). There definitely isn't an "every manager does this... " approach

I do agree however, that yes this ME is better than 16. By far.

[themadsheep2001]

6 minutes ago, Äktsjon Männ said:

Except the style in FM isn't one or the other. It's not a back 6 (which, btw in a 442 and two strikers who don't drop below half way line would be more than suicidal) and it isn't two banks of four (which is how 442's actually defend). It's narrow defensive line that doesn't shift enough, narrow midfield that closes down the same areas and then it's the wingers man marking the full backs + strikers doing nothing. The problem with this is that the AI playing 442 against the user is absolutely helpless, as shown in various screenshots and pkm examples. It's better than full backs topping the assist charts season after season and Hector Bellerin sweeping the Ballon D'or awards but it's still quite a problem.

I've not played 4-4-2 or 4-1-4-1 since FM16, but I intend to now to specifically access just this point. We are seeing one shot screenshots here and there, what I'd like to deliver is PKM after PKM, watching the shape develop.

[Äktsjon Männ]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I've not played 4-4-2 or 4-1-4-1 since FM16, but I intend to now to specifically access just this point. We are seeing one shot screenshots here and there, what I'd like to deliver is PKM after PKM, watching the shape develop.

That accomplishes nothing. Instead watch a match where AI uses 442 and then overman them in midfield.

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, Äktsjon Männ said:

That accomplishes nothing. Instead watch a match where AI uses 442 and then overman them in midfield.

Actually it does, as the match engine is exactly the same. I can already watch the AI. I want to assess it from a playing standpoint as well.

[westy8chimp]

8 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I've not played 4-4-2 or 4-1-4-1 since FM16, but I intend to now to specifically access just this point. We are seeing one shot screenshots here and there, what I'd like to deliver is PKM after PKM, watching the shape develop.

PKM after PKM.. wont really help the discussion as we can all see it happen in our games. PKM it if you think its a bug and add it to the 'wingers too wide thread'. But my fear is if too many people think that narrow is the only way to defend.. that is what we will get... and we will be at FM16 crossing-gate all over again.

I think you yourself created this thread and aptly named it "wide player defensive positioning discussion" which surely encourages discussion around whether or not we find them too wide or too narrow or just right... and as a result the common consensus is ... it's ok but could be better, but to allow for all of us to act as individual managers we need more ability to affect the way our team defends. But you are crushing that line of thought with an iron fist. If we all agree... maybe SI will prioritise giving us a new tactic creator platform. (which would be a far greater enhancement than adding things such as social feed).

[themadsheep2001]

18 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

PKM after PKM.. wont really help the discussion as we can all see it happen in our games. PKM it if you think its a bug and add it to the 'wingers too wide thread'. But my fear is if too many people think that narrow is the only way to defend.. that is what we will get... and we will be at FM16 crossing-gate all over again.

I think you yourself created this thread and aptly named it "wide player defensive positioning discussion" which surely encourages discussion around whether or not we find them too wide or too narrow or just right... and as a result the common consensus is ... it's ok but could be better, but to allow for all of us to act as individual managers we need more ability to affect the way our team defends. But you are crushing that line of thought with an iron fist. If we all agree... maybe SI will prioritise giving us a new tactic creator platform. (which would be a far greater enhancement than adding things such as social feed).

Nothing has actually been crushed. You've ignored the fact that I've actually said that's something needed for the future, both in instructions and ME development.

I'll leave you to your thoughts and pass mine on to SI when I get the chance.

[Äktsjon Männ]

10 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

PKM after PKM.. wont really help the discussion as we can all see it happen in our games. PKM it if you think its a bug and add it to the 'wingers too wide thread'. But my fear is if too many people think that narrow is the only way to defend.. that is what we will get... and we will be at FM16 crossing-gate all over again.

I think you yourself created this thread and aptly named it "wide player defensive positioning discussion" which surely encourages discussion around whether or not we find them too wide or too narrow or just right... and as a result the common consensus is ... it's ok but could be better, but to allow for all of us to act as individual managers we need more ability to affect the way our team defends. But you are crushing that line of thought with an iron fist. If we all agree... maybe SI will prioritise giving us a new tactic creator platform. (which would be a far greater enhancement than adding things such as social feed).

The problem with that is that they will not give us a new tactical platform in FM17, no matter how much we agree or disagree. What they need to do right now is to focus on making a 442 not defend in a manner as hapless as it currently does. 

 

Basically anything to avoid this

[westy8chimp]

@Äktsjon Männwhat you said earlier about Fbs getting all the assists and Bellerin winning Ballon D'or every year is the biggest thing to avoid. in FM 16 the ME was so bad I could play 532 with Wing backs and win with any team... regardless of the players ... Haidara at Newcastle 30 assists win the league.. Robertson at Hull 30+ assists win the league.. it was unplayable. At least with this one you can dominate one formation (442) but then have to change your tactic against other teams ... I've found it harder to just 'plug-and-play' I have to really think of the strategy for a particular team. I couldn't take over Burnley and win the league in my first couple of seasons on this ME.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Well I'd like to think there is a happy medium.

I'm not even sure what specifically is the root cause of either of those extremes making an appearance. What changed from FM14/15? Can't remember how the defenses shaped up in those two games and prior but it sure as hell wasn't like this. Did they introduce the narrow defensive line/central midfield in 16?

[MBarbaric]

never said all the teams defend in two banks of four. however, 90% do. when they do defend with 6 at back that is for certain reason. mourinho was indeed desperate for draw with liverpool and he kept back the wingers to deal with wide full backs. that way he had 4 defenders against Firmino, Mane and CF plus 3v3 in midfield.

what i am saying is that there is a fundamental principle behind defending and that is that teams don't defend individualy but as a unit. They cover the dangerous spaces leaving the weak side alone as it is presumed well.. less dangerous. They shift ball wise as unit and disregard the weak side. what we have in the game is as far as you can get. You don't defend as a team, you don't shift ball side... it simply isn't what one woud expect to see in football manager. even fifa does that part better.

[Cougar2010]

1 hour ago, Äktsjon Männ said:

Basically anything to avoid this

When one side outnumbers the other in the centre by 3 to 2 its a mismatch and there will always be a spare man.  Generally the supporting ST would drop back to pressure the DM but even if he does (Which mine do) it leaves a DC open.

The only alternative is for one of the DCs to push out and one of the MCs to push onto the DM but this isn't something I would want.

For me its not a major issue its simply the way the two formations line up against each other.  Whenever you have two formations that don't line up man for man each side will have a mismatched zone which gives them an advantage and a mismatched zone where they are at a disadvantage.

[Svenc]

29 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

For me its not a major issue its simply the way the two formations line up against each other.  Whenever you have two formations that don't line up man for man each side will have a mismatched zone which gives them an advantage and a mismatched zone where they are at a disadvantage.

That's what I previous thought too and why I had comparably little qualms about it, even when playing against AI who never say would encourage a forward tracking back by marking the deepest midfielder (as I would often have done). Yes, the midfield duo was easier overloaded than the case in real football as forwards rather reluctant to join in all that defending unfun placed an extra burden on them. But it could have been argued that sitting the two up top naturally also has a benefit, as they are immediately available way up for a break. [I always watched out for any AI switch to a 3-central-forward-formation mid-match, personal nemesis, heh].

However the wide midfielders now often simply isolate that duo, which previously was not the case at all. If those are overloaded, the centre backs step up. Any opposition no matter how mismatched has it easy to control the central spaces, and right with it the flow of the match. Again I ask the question: Does anybody really don't have any issue with that? This happens semi-regularly, the full backs are not even pushing up, the wide midfielders literally don't do anything, a much worse opposition is all over the pitch simply because a choice in formation. This is nought to do with customization, or anything, this is simply how things are. Is that right? Is that how things are supposed to look like? I'm going to post it again.
 

The problem is that sometimes I've seen matches where this isn't quite as pronounced, so there must be something that triggers it or doesn't. Certain opposition width? Formations?  Or as you argued the width of the pitch? On this match however, it basically was like that all the time. Like the wide midfielders anticipating forward runs of full backs that never come, at 0:20 you'll even see the RM starting to shift inside, only to let go and reverting to his new-found FM 2017 starting defensive default position, sitting there not doing anything, as the opposition winger is marked by the full back and no attempt made of the opposition full back to at all push up. Naturally in the centre of the pitch it's bunny hunting supreme, with the 2 CMs being comically chased all around like in a wholly separate training match that nobody at all else seems to want to join in. That is with the exception of the centre backs, breaking the last line whenever one of the two CMs has closed down the DM and is thus out of position, opening the most vulnerable passing channels there could be on the pitch.

[Äktsjon Männ]

It basically looks like hard coded man marking. If you only watch the wingers on the defending team they are basically constantly following the movement of the full backs even if there is a distance of 20+ yards between them. If I still had FM16 installed I would fire that up to see what would happen if I specifically marked the opposing full backs with my wide midfielders. I would bet it looks almost exactly like this video.

[Cougar2010]

@Svenc

I watched the PKM you uploaded in the bugs forum earlier and I would agree in that example they were far wider than I've seen so far in any of my matches.

If what you say is right and its intermittent then we should be trying to identify the trigger which causes it.

[Svenc]

8 minutes ago, Äktsjon Männ said:

It basically looks like hard coded man marking. If you only watch the wingers on the defending team they are basically constantly following the movement of the full backs even if there is a distance of 20+ yards between them. If I still had FM16 installed I would fire that up to see what would happen if I specifically marked the opposing full backs with my wide midfielders. I would bet it looks almost exactly like this video.

It looked like that to me too when I first saw this when the Beta hit (on Let's play videos on Youtube). But this seems a bit different, I mean both wide guys at times don't even mark the player and just sit miles in front of them, I mean the RM pretty much does that from about 0:23 onwards.

@Cougar2010 I agree. :-) The problem is that I've been trying for a while now to gauge whether that is actually acknowledged a possible issue or whether it's not, and whether such extremes at all would be "fixable" or whether they are just limitations we have to  live with. Thus: Would this be worth watching out for and reporting or wouldn't it? Unfortunately SI seem very tight-lipped and with mods oft involved with the internal Beta it's a bit tip-toeing around the thing and vague too (NDA stuff likely). But if nobody knows why look out for it, lock and report it?

[FestyF]

We are talking about zonal 4-4-2 here, not man-to-man. That's why the zonal system was invented in the first place - to eliminate the need of man to man coverage by reducing time and space through organisation. That's how teams like Leicester and Atletico won leagues using 4-4-2 despite most of the teams in their leagues packing the center midfield area and playing one up top.

Now compare that to the only possible way to use 4-4-2 in the current ME, which is wide players always staying out wide. Not saying it is not the right way to defend but it is currently the only way to defend.

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, Cougar2010 said:

@Svenc

I watched the PKM you uploaded in the bugs forum earlier and I would agree in that example they were far wider than I've seen so far in any of my matches.

If what you say is right and its intermittent then we should be trying to identify the trigger which causes it.

Actually wanted to add to that.

West Brom in that match had a terrible game, that in itself I thought was worthy of SI taking a look at. 

I suspect it was a mix of several possible causes:

A) As the higher ranked team did they rotate?

B) Were the players fully fit & match sharp?

C) Poor team talk/bad morale?

D) Players familiar with the formation & tactics?

 

With the above in mind I also suspect it played a role in the wider players being wider than you would expect.

[FestyF]

Correct me if I'm wrong but what also doesn't seem right currently is that when I specifically set the opposition DR and DL marking to 'Never', my wingers are still far too concerned about them and always stay in the close proximity to them. The winger positioning never change.

[Svenc]

13 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Actually wanted to add to that.

West Brom in that match had a terrible game, that in itself I thought was worthy of SI taking a look at. 

I suspect it was a mix of several possible causes:

A) As the higher ranked team did they rotate?

B) Were the players fully fit & match sharp?

C) Poor team talk/bad morale?

D) Players familiar with the formation & tactics?

 

With the above in mind I also suspect it played a role in the wider players being wider than you would expect.

They also played a lot of youngsters too I guess, to be fair. I think there may have been a buggy goal too arguably (probably involving one of the instances where the wide midfielders marks his man and lets him go in the final third). Aside of the actual scoreline, goals scored, what contributed to the general play (Millwall dominating possession/the pitch) also seemed to be that West Brom gave the ball away rather quickly by employing a Target Man apparently, unless I am mistaken, which above the play is always revealed by the final match stats (a Target Man typically by the end of a match has a hugely increased amount of header challenges displayed in the stats hugely sticking out, like 20+).  Add to that the typically risk-averse mentalities underdog AIs typically seem to pick in Millwall (more backwards and sideways passes), and them channeling the play through that centre as the full backs are on conservative duties alongside to that. But I agree, generally the positioning, it makes it really easy for them to control the ball just all around.

This is probably thus the most pronounced you can possibly have this, aside of having an additional man in the centre of the pitch rather than the 3 perhaps. NOt sure though! The pkm initially wasn't uploaded first not by me, but by MHovel in a seperate thread, initially meant to report a high scoring game. [Credit to whom credit is due!]

[Cougar2010]

Someone asked me earlier for a pic of my formation when the ball was in the central third so this one is from my next match.  The opposition are also using a 442 formation but as you can see my ML (Yellow 20) is nowhere near as wide as some of the examples others have uploaded.  I am very comfortable with his position, I wouldn't want him any further infield with a winger on the outside with a fullback possibly moving forwards as well.  Likewise I feel he is narrow enough that should a MC be beaten he could close the gap and engage the runner.  You can also see that both my STs are actually closer to the opposition MCs than the DCs. 

[westy8chimp]

i just spent the last hour on a utd save playing 4411 .. this is the first match where the team are now fully familiar with the tactic. its pretty inconclusive as in the first screen shot im fairly happy with the shape. in the second screen shot there are clearly 1 player... a wide man doing nothing... full backs a bit too wide.. and my midfield 4 are woefully separated, altho on an individual basis I am happy with 3 out 4 positions.

im finding success with the 4411 ... and as illustrated either centrally or out wide the opponents have no clear options in attacking third

this is just for observations sake.. I haven't used PI at all. my TI width is balanced with high line and high press

[westy8chimp]

as far as average positions... its fairly nice tactically ... they don't exactly make a bank but both the full backs and wingers are reasonably more  narrow without the ball than with the ball.

 

rojo is on wbl (a) which is why his average position is out of line.. and herera is dlp (d) which is why hes deeper in the midfield line.

 

[Svenc]

10 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

Someone asked me earlier for a pic of my formation when the ball was in the central third so this one is from my next match.  The opposition are also using a 442 formation but as you can see my ML (Yellow 20) is nowhere near as wide as some of the examples others have uploaded.  I am very comfortable with his position, I wouldn't want him any further infield with a winger on the outside with a fullback possibly moving forwards as well.  Likewise I feel he is narrow enough that should a MC be beaten he could close the gap and engage the runner.  You can also see that both my STs are actually closer to the opposition MCs than the DCs. 

Agreed. But to get a fully picture, videos are a must. Not aimed purely at you, mind (I know I have posted screenshots before too, but realistically, if there is scenarios that could trigger weird behavior, we can't lock anything down to a very specific frame of time during build-up/transitioning). This is a snapshot of a very specific scenario, the opposition are just starting their build-up with the ball still in their own half. That is about the height the forwards for instance would always stay at roughly (if they don't happen to track some). The half way line is their "natural FM zone", naturally whoever still sits there would be covered by them, if transitioning is over that is typically the CBs. Also what happens if play goes through the middle, rather than going down a specific flank (left in this case), the opposition wingers have advanced enough that the backs would cover them rather than still sitting deep, and what are the RM/LM generally doing then. Do they adjust to what the opposition is doing here, e.g. full backs actually pushing up, etc.  :-) And IF they do or in some combinations don't, is there a possible issue to be found.

It's the same in my vid, had I just posted captures, it might have shown how there's always a centre mid completely free to kick it around, but what it would not have shown what the actually implications are when put into action. The two cms being pushed around between the three (sometimes four with the deeper coming forward) of them, and every time they would be dragged out of position thus the centre backs closing down the opposition midfielders instead, breaking the last line for good. It's important to not developing a bias here in a misguided attempt to prove anybody right or wrong just cause, as their must be some combos that make this look as pronounced, same as I too saw Leicester looking pretty okay-ish tight on occasion in their typical 4-4-2 in-game.


Then on the other hand, why should anybody bother if it isn't clear whether that at all may be technically flagged an issue?  Playing the game itself is quite time-consuming enough. :-) As far as I know, some mods have already responded to some with basically posting "that's the way WMs are currently meant to defend in FM", which may hint at internally this may already be covered in whichever way (and if it is a limitation currently in there, or intentionally positioning -- SI can code this however they want, the crucial bit is that it would be affecting all teams either way, however I'm not comfortable with 2 central midfield formations every time they look closer to what I captured, for instance). Rather than listening to players purelly, ideally I'd have them get their football contacts involved into everything ME as much as can.

 

edit: Re: Forwards, I had FM 2013 installed again a couple days ago. It all becomes a blur after a while, but I found it interesting that on this one, the deepest forward would pretty much always track back pretty deeply into the own half, with only the more advanced one staying forward to hold the ball upon intercepting. Totally had forgotten about that!

[Svenc]

To me the simply trick of fielding a midfield trio still pronounces the weakening of 2 central midfields the most. At first I'd thought the more narrow formations would toy with this, but it's the fact that a simple DM even by hard working top flight forwards is rarely pushed, likely also depending on role and mentality, which means the AI mans would be actually needed to be given some awareness of whether a player is under no pressure simply because their forwards don't put overly much of a foot in. May be hard to code that in.

The midfield trio once the ball is inside then naturally doesn't have much of a problem as in prior iterations, as the wide midfielders clearly are coded to anticipate a possible forward surge by the full backs, sitting out wide -- I had my wide mids both on Wide Midfielder /Attack roles which makes them immediately push forward plus encouraged them to further sit inside, making the new "default" defensive position of the wide midfielders stick more out. Whereas in the infamous Millwall pkm it looked as if they would look to position mainly accordingly to the backs they are meant to support, it's more apparent that they are coded primarily to anticipate opposing full backs surging forward. Even if, as here in my case too, this never comes.

Which means, the wider the opposition backs sit, which is subject to change depending on the width of the pitch and the opponents' pick in mentality, TIs and PIs, the more disconnected from the central areas the wide midfielders anticipating their forward movement may become. Up to the point that they basically never move inside to close down or to mark. [In case you're wondering why I started young Bola here as LB, it's precisely because he's one of like two at best wide players in the Arsenal suqad that isn't given the Lucio PPM of "gets forward at every opportunity" -- what's the deal with those? There's nothing with them that can't be achieved with tactics, to me it's still the definition of tactically ill-discipline as per the game).

 

Not giving any ideas, but if you ever come up against a 4-4-2 AI, you should never much fear of them staging any comeback if you know how to set up. They won't get the ball if you don't want to anyway, even away from home, and your own players are challenged this little that fantasy pass completion rates throughout the team are achievable.



Didn't count the passes, but this sequence lasted a good while longer, there's one sequence I tried to record where they didn't lose the ball for over a minute, but that exceeds the in-game function's time limit of exactly that.
 

 

[westy8chimp]

you will notice the passing is never a danger though, and you are only seeing it because it's full match. if your wingers came inside to a narrow bank of 4... the ball would go straight out wide and result in a cross.

(probably a mishit cross going wide of the near post that the keeper would tip wide for a corner).

[Cougar2010]

What I have noticed from watching my matches over the weekend is that there seems to be a trigger point where the wider players will suddenly move infield to a narrower position.

It seems to be a horizontal trigger point approx halfway inside your own half (Maybe say final third).  When the opposition pass that point the wider players will make a concerted effort to move narrower and pick up the infield players.

[Svenc]

May be, Cougar. Obviously things are dynamic, including opponents such teams face every week, which is why such behavior can produce unintentionally knock-ons. I'm yet trying to gauge whether that actually is one such or whether it is intentional [officially].

23 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

you will notice the passing is never a danger though, and you are only seeing it because it's full match. if your wingers came inside to a narrow bank of 4... the ball would go straight out wide and result in a cross.

It would not as the full backs never push up and the wide midfielders on attack are given a TI that makes them sit inside rather than "play wide", making this act more akin to a 4-3-3 with 3 central forwards as you can see. Therefore the wide midfielders are anticipating forward movement even when that is never in danger of becoming a reality. As I previously put it more bluntly on FM 2017, they are sitting out wide for sitting out wide -- for  the heck of it, so to speak. Technically, in the game, that possibly forward movement were the case if the wide backs would be either a) given at least a support duty or b) have a PPM that makes them surge forward some regardless of a manager's job given to them [see my questioning of why some research, German one excluded, hand these out as if it where the norm that players would engage in forward movement regardless, can't see Wenger assembling such an illdisciplined squad tbh -- their only positionally "disciplined" natural left back is a 18 years old from the reserves].

Also, naturally you are "only" seeing this because it's full match. It doesn't matter how you view your matches though, that is second by second what's going on. Naturally I "exploited" it as I sat on an actually lead, away from home against the current champions of England. They never got the ball and never could stage a comeback thereafter. In the Millwall West Brom pkm uploaded too it is apparent what this behavior means for the centre backs too, as they are pulled all over the shop once the two centre mids are overloaded, which opens passing channels in central areas (shortest distance to goal) , rather than out wide so it's not as if doesn't carry any defensive implications above a side endlessly able to recycle the ball as its players are barely pushed.
 

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, Svenc said:

May be, Cougar. Obviously things are dynamic, including opponents such teams face every week, which is why such behavior can produce unintentionally knock-ons. I'm yet trying to gauge whether that actually is one such.

It would not as the full backs never push up and the wide midfielders on attack are given a TI that makes them sit inside rather than "play wide", making this act more akin to a 4-3-3 with 3 central forwards as you can see. Therefore the wide midfielders are anticipating forward movement even when that is never in danger of becoming a reality. Technically, in the game, that were the case if the wide backs would be either a) given at least a support duty or b) have a PPM that makes them surge urge regardless of a manager's job given to them [see my questioning of why some research, German one excluded, hand these out as if it where the norm that players would engage in forward movement regardless, can't see Wenger assembling such an illdisciplined squad tbh -- their only positionally "disciplined" natural left back is a 18 years old from the reserves].

Also, naturally you are "only" seeing this because it's full match. It doesn't matter how you view your matches though, that is second by second what's going on. Naturally I "exploited" it as I sat on an actually lead, away from home against the current champions of England. They never got the ball and never could stage a comeback thereafter. In the Millwall West Brom pkm uploaded too it is apparent what this behavior means for the centre backs too, as they are pulled all over the shop once the two centre mids are overloaded, which opens passing channels in central areas (shortest distance to goal) , rather than out wide so it's not as if doesn't carry any defensive implications above a side endlessly able to recycle the ball as its players are barely pushed. I don't buy the full release each year but for the time being I've personally went with Tyranny (wanted to play this anyway, oldschool RPG goodness) and wait whether some of this is being acknowledged a possible issue or not. :-)
 

but still the fact is the defence is compact - and never in danger... it lasted a minute then you lost possession without causing any harm. You are also suggesting that the opposition know that your full backs are on defend duty. The AI cannot just leave a player completely unmarked or an area unmarked because you have put the wide players on a certain setting. They have to play to their formation. In real life you wouldn't give Rashford and Young massive areas to walk into because you think Mourinho has given them a defensive duty that day.

by showing a minute of harmless passing are you not providing evidence that the defensive shape is working? if I was Leicester in that game I may just change one of my midfielders into a bwm with higher pressing. But otherwise I'd be happy to keep Arsenal at bay passing infront of a packed defence. Albeit you are 1-0 up you say, but I'd keep it at that and try and hit back in the final 20 mins. You are in the first half with one of the best passing squads on the game... and as you say you are exploiting a slow passing possession game. If I was managing Arsenal and had TIs to pass short and keep possession and slow tempo etc... I'd be raising it as a bug if I couldn't keep the ball for a series of passes..

I play 4411 primarily and I'm happier with my defensive shape on this ME than on the previous. And I notice the same thing as Cougar... in certain areas my wingers do drop back and narrow, or track a full back. It's not a set rule that they just stand out wide or just mark thin air or man mark full backs...

[Svenc]

23 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

 You are in the first half with one of the best passing squads on the game... and as you say you are exploiting a slow passing possession game. If I was managing Arsenal and had TIs to pass short and keep possession and slow tempo etc... I'd be raising it as a bug if I couldn't keep the ball for a series of passes..

 

The point is and has been for me that far worse sides are doing it. Which isn't to do with their amazing skills, but their players [in certain combinations] getting barely pushed, most crucially the central areas which make sides control the pitch in the game too, inevitably. Which also causes the centre backs to then step out of their lines, etc. I.e. the Millwall example. They played defensively from the start, but still were all over their opposition from higher tiers. They never had a chance to much stage a comeback likewise.

Given that this only happens in certain combos, and that Rashidi advocates he knows how to make forwards track back hugely, AI would needed to be given actually awareness when such were happening (which may be really hard to code), and what those combinations are, and I doubt that they tie in with the way AI mans work.  Nothing in the above is logical in any football way, anyway, in my book. They could have gone more attackingly in their 4-4-2 in the last ten minutes, it wouldn't have mattered. Actually, the way FM is set up the forwards would then even less likely to put a foot in (higher mentalities under the hood), and the ball is more quickly given away, leading to further recycling of the ball. It could put one of the centre mids, both of them on BWM roles, that's still 2 guys wholly isolated in central areas hapless to chase the ball.

[westy8chimp]

so this is a typical situation from your post - the full backs have come very central to make a compact line due to the fact your wide men are sitting inside. the midfield 4 are all behind the ball for Leicester, albeit not narrow. There can be reasons; 1) they are holding width to counter if the team win the ball back or 2) they simply have to cover the space so not to encourage your full backs forward 3) they are providing some cover for the wider forward players moving into channel.

you can almost guarantee from this view that the AI are defending deep, low pressing. I'm sure if you were up against a higher line with higher press block it would not be as easy to pass around. It would be more 'buggy' if the non-pressing side were hassling the ball carrier all the time. we have to be able to distinguish between those TI.

[westy8chimp]

correct me if im wrong but you think the AI wide players should be somewhere more like this (pardon my crude stick men) ? just leaves far too much space for my liking. If your fbs were on attack??

I think we agree that currently it is hard coded to work one way for a given set of criteria... i.e. if ball is in the middle third, a 442 standard TI/PI the wide men stay wide... then in final third they track back or maybe cut a bit narrower... but there is one set of standard rules?

then you cannot use the fact that your full backs are on defend to say that these wide men should leave space.

we are in agreement that we need more TI/PI or different style of tactic creator to make the teams play more to our individual preference as well as being more flexible during the game.

But as it currently is, you would really prefer them to overload the centre?

[MBarbaric]

there is absolutely no reason for such horrible defensive shape from tactical point. the ball is in central area of middle third and those wide players on blue team have no business staying so wide. just look at the space between CMr and RW. if the ball carrier passes to RW the defence is one pass away from having to deal with one on one situation outside of the box in central area. absolutely horrendous. can't understand how this can be defended.

[DavyDepuydt1]

On 11/17/2016 at 10:30, shirajzl said:

That tactic is actually a recreation of the same from FM 16, which was one of the best downloadable tactics out there. It works on more or less the same principles. Deep and congested at the back and going forward just to exploit the crosses plus the lack of real closing down in the ME which makes keeping the ball too easy. If you add dodgy defending as we have it in FM 17, you get bonus through balls seemingly out of nothing.

On top of all that, the '17 version of the tactic uses extensive OI; closing down on all players bar the defensive midfielders and central midfielders. It takes the ball quickly and then retains it again, waiting for the aforementioned cross or through ball.

@shirajzl do you recall what the original tactic for FM16 was called or who made it? I'd like to give it a shot.

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

there is absolutely no reason for such horrible defensive shape from tactical point. the ball is in central area of middle third and those wide players on blue team have no business staying so wide. just look at the space between CMr and RW. if the ball carrier passes to RW the defence is one pass away from having to deal with one on one situation outside of the box in central area. absolutely horrendous. can't understand how this can be defended.

because the ball is no threat in the middle in the video provided. you would have the wide men chase inside overloading the middle... what happens when they pass it out wide? Chase again? Run around like headless chickens? What happens when Leicester win the ball and they have 8 players within 10m radius all in the middle? Just hoof it and give possession back? The wide men are providing the counter threat whilst covering space... I don't see what you want as an alternative.

[MBarbaric]

5 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

correct me if im wrong but you think the AI wide players should be somewhere more like this? just leaves far too much space for my liking. If your fbs were on attack??

I think we agree that currently it is hard coded to work one way for a given set of criteria... i.e. if ball is in the middle third, a 442 standard TI/PI the wide men stay wide... then in final third they track back or maybe cut a bit narrower... but there is one set of standard rules?

then you cannot use the fact that your full backs are on defend to say that these wide men should leave space.

we are in agreement that we need more TI/PI or different style of tactic creator to make the teams play more to our individual preference as well as being more flexible during the game.

But as it currently is, you would really prefer them to overload the centre?

those red full backs are no threat to defending team, at least not to a degree the pass between CMr and RW is. in this situation defending team needs to worry about the through ball down that channel that will get red RW 1on1 against blue LB in central position outside of the box. 

red full backs so deep and wide are no threat to defending team compared to those central players and blue winger would absolutel need to leave them alone in order to keep the gap in the center narrower.

[Svenc]

Currently encoding another video package, will be updated and uploaded here. This was from the last minutes of the match, where the AI inevitably went more attacking (off their 4-4-2). Sequence 1+4 include dangerous stepping out of the centre backs then to engage successfully overloaded central players, which can contribute to actually scoring chances, and more aggressive defensive behavior can actually pronounce this (closing down, higher lines adding space in behind to exploit). I also included an instance where the forward tracked back hugely to put a foot in, which is, and has always been in that match, the rare occurance rather than the norm. (second sequence). Given that I had made experiments on previous editions (Urawa Bayern video), and that hugely editor nerfing off work rate determination, etc. attributes could lead to entire sequnces like this, this naturally ain't but tactics (opponents and own), but also player traits in parts.

 

 

So here's it.

 

 

 

The most baffling is the behavior of the wide midfielder in sequence two however, where our right back off an attacking throw in is on the left side of the pitch, and look where the left left midfielder goes after the throw and our back is not yet in his position again.

Again those guys are coded in parts to stick out wide for the hell of it, there are given no positionally awareness [occasionally?] if there  is actually possibly danger or not. They immediately retreat to their default defensive position out wide, and here it happens immediately (or at least, too quickly). That may to be seen as a separate issue, as it's off an attacking set piece rather than open play, but at 0:36 the wide mid leaves one of my players unmarked centrally in front of goal to retreat to his wide FM 2017 default defensive position. Are such instances intentionally, are they buggy, are they under review? Bear in mind I've never argued such formations to be unplayable and that they couldn't defend, technically. I don't engage in hysterics. I'm personally just often happy when I come up against it, and some dynamics in certain combinations are... questionably. And yes, my main argument has been that this has much more severe possible knock ons than previous wide area issues, as it is the central space that a) lets teams control the pitch and b) it's the shortest distance to goal in a computer sim too. This would always be a balancing act. However,  this is really important,  those guys absolutely need some awareness which apparently they don't have as else things just seem a bit... daft.

[FestyF]

27 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

there is absolutely no reason for such horrible defensive shape from tactical point. the ball is in central area of middle third and those wide players on blue team have no business staying so wide. just look at the space between CMr and RW. if the ball carrier passes to RW the defence is one pass away from having to deal with one on one situation outside of the box in central area. absolutely horrendous. can't understand how this can be defended.

Have to agree with Leicester's left full-back just one pass away from one-on-one situation with Arsenal's RW.

And what if I know opposition full-backs are crap and not good at crossing/attacking? In this situation I would like my wide players to stay in shape defending central areas zonally. This again comes down to the lack of TI/PI for defensive phase imo.

[westy8chimp]

7 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

those red full backs are no threat to defending team, at least not to a degree the pass between CMr and RW is. in this situation defending team needs to worry about the through ball down that channel that will get red RW 1on1 against blue LB in central position outside of the box. 

red full backs so deep and wide are no threat to defending team compared to those central players and blue winger would absolutel need to leave them alone in order to keep the gap in the center narrower.

I think I agree with you on the resolution, you are in favour of the narrow bank of four that is more central and close together, and the unit shifts if/when the ball moves out wide... and that the way to do this is give us more tactical freedom.

however, if we accept that it has to be coded one way or another ... I would not, as a rule, want my wide players to congest the middle and leave so much space out wide. in this situation the full backs are no threat because Svenc has them on defend duty. What if it was Alves and Marcelo on WB Attack duty.. you would lose 10-0 giving those guys acres to run into.

[MBarbaric]

2 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

because the ball is no threat in the middle in the video provided. you would have the wide men chase inside overloading the middle... what happens when they pass it out wide? Chase again? Run around like headless chickens? What happens when Leicester win the ball and they have 8 players within 10m radius all in the middle? Just hoof it and give possession back? The wide men are providing the counter threat whilst covering space... I don't see what you want as an alternative.

ball in the central position is always a bigger threat than in wide position. simply because wide positions are by the touchline and player has 180 degree of movement while in center he has 360. therefore it is easier to defend. When the ball is passed out wide the whole defensive unit slides to that direction leaving the opposit flank open (that's why it is called weak flank). that is not chasing like headless chicken but defending. pass through the middle in current situation would call for chasing as headless chichens precisely because the defending team is in wrong positions to defend it.

What happens when Leicester wins the ball and have 8 players in radius of 10 meters all in the middle? depends on situation and how manager organized transition, Usually ball is played to nearest free player which shouldn't be that hard as you have more players than opposition in vicinity. this gives time for the team to spread out.

those wide players are covering space that isn't important. the threat in that situation isn't down the flanks but in the middle due to 10-15m gap between the CMr and RW.

[westy8chimp]

1 minute ago, MBarbaric said:

 When the ball is passed out wide the whole defensive unit slides to that direction leaving the opposit flank open

this is the crux of the matter... we are arguing for the same thing. this is the perfect solution. in a utopia world where SI can give us the power to defend both centrally and wide based on where the ball is. this was covered 5000 posts ago  

this is a sub debate on whether or not, if it can only be done wide or central, which is better for the ME.

[FestyF]

23 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

I think I agree with you on the resolution, you are in favour of the narrow bank of four that is more central and close together, and the unit shifts if/when the ball moves out wide... and that the way to do this is give us more tactical freedom.

however, if we accept that it has to be coded one way or another ... I would not, as a rule, want my wide players to congest the middle and leave so much space out wide. in this situation the full backs are no threat because Svenc has them on defend duty. What if it was Alves and Marcelo on WB Attack duty.. you would lose 10-0 giving those guys acres to run into.

If it has to be coded one way or another, it should be depended on opposition tactics. If a team has Alves and Marcelo as wingbacks running up and down the wing, the AI should be able to instruct the wide players to defend wide and ask one of the forwards to help in the middle if needed. If opposition is overloading the middle with Iniesta, Messi, Suarez, Neymar running circles around your midfield on the other hand, the AI should be able to instruct the wide players to help in the middle.

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, FestyF said:

If it has to be coded one way or another, it should be depended on opposition tactics. If a team has Alves and Marcelo as wingbacks running up and down the wing, the AI should be able to instruct the wide players to defend wide and ask one of the forwards to help in the middle if needed. If opposition is overloading the middle with Iniesta, Messi, Suarez, Neymar running circles around your midfield on the other hand, the AI should be able to instruct the wide players to help in the middle.

that is not one way or the other... that's wide if such and such... narrow if such and such... that's both ways. Which is exactly what we all want and have requested more TI/PI tactical flex...

go to the first post on page 2 ... I was arguing the same laboured point as you and mbarbaric ... and the moderator focussed the debate onto the current ME

 

[westy8chimp]

Lets imagine  SI read all the bug reports 'wingers too wide' and decide "ok lets change it and hard code the wide men to play more narrow" ... but still don't change the tactic creator to give us more PI/TI then would we be in a better position or worse? I would say worse. Because whilst we can exploit some possession passing in the middle, it is not really a danger. Whereas if they hard code the wide men to play narrower, I could post a video showing that I could exploit the wings with full backs and wingers and then it wouldn't be a minute of harmless passing ... it would be cross after cross after cross going into the box. FM16 was diabolical because full backs were getting 40+ assists a season and winning the ballon d'or.

Yes - changing the tactics is the ultimate solution

No - changing the current ME from wide to narrow will not be better

[FestyF]

22 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

that is not one way or the other... that's wide if such and such... narrow if such and such... that's both ways. Which is exactly what we all want and have requested more TI/PI tactical flex...

go to the first post on page 2 ... I was arguing the same laboured point as you and mbarbaric ... and the moderator focussed the debate onto the current ME

 

I'm not talking about TI/PI. I'm talking about giving the current AI code more intelligence to decide when to defend wide and when to defend narrow. We all agree the solution shouldn't be 'always wide' or 'always narrow'.

[HUNT3R]

11 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

go to the first post on page 2 ... I was arguing the same laboured point as you and mbarbaric ... and the moderator focussed the debate onto the current ME

 

And I did that because it was in the feedback thread, which is feedback ON the current game.

Adding TIs/PIs etc will be feature requests for a future version.

Pointing out if there are situations when the wingers are wide when there's not a need to be and other issues like that, is possible to change in this ME, but it also depends on the seriousness of the issue etc.

[MBarbaric]

13 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

Lets imagine  SI read all the bug reports 'wingers too wide' and decide "ok lets change it and hard code the wide men to play more narrow" ... but still don't change the tactic creator to give us more PI/TI then would we be in a better position or worse? I would say worse. Because whilst we can exploit some possession passing in the middle, it is not really a danger. Whereas if they hard code the wide men to play narrower, I could post a video showing that I could exploit the wings with full backs and wingers and then it wouldn't be a minute of harmless passing ... it would be cross after cross after cross going into the box. FM16 was diabolical because full backs were getting 40+ assists a season and winning the ballon d'or.

Yes - changing the tactics is the ultimate solution

No - changing the current ME from wide to narrow will not be better

i really don't care how or what SI needs to do. I have no idea about coding. however, being tactics analyst I know how football is played and examples in this thread are showing the defensive organiation of teams that no team I've ever watched employs. i absolutely agree you don't need to agree with me, but try to find someone else who deals with tactics on deeper level than just watching the game on tv and please ask them.

 Since it is supposed to be a simulation, I am simply pointing out that defending examples in this game should have no place in the game.

the problem isn't that SI is giving us one way of defending and I want another added to have some choice. Those examples shouldn't at all be in the game, it is horrible. no coach in their right mind would defend like that intentionally. 

I've already posted this link and I really encourage anyone to see how the text book defending works. There simply isn't other approach to it. Do yourselves a favour and go through it. Then go and check the links within the article to see what is man marking defending.

http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/06/01/zonal-marking-zonal-coverage/

 

[westy8chimp]

1 minute ago, HUNT3R said:

And I did that because it was in the feedback thread, which is feedback ON the current game.

Adding TIs/PIs etc will be feature requests for a future version.

Pointing out if there are situations when the wingers are wide when there's not a need to be and other issues like that, is possible to change in this ME, but it also depends on the seriousness of the issue etc.

Lol I know!!! But we all agreed we want more flex so want SI to change... no one has countered that. after being told to focus on current ME I've purely been arguing that actually I prefer it as it is now, better than FM16... if we aren't going to get additional options then leave it be. I passionately do not want SI to read the copious feedback about wingers too wide and make a sweeping change sending us back to all the issues we had in 16. for the most part it is very good at the moment!

[westy8chimp]

2 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

i really don't care how or what SI needs to do. I have no idea about coding. however, being tactics analyst I know how football is played and examples in this thread are showing the defensive organiation of teams that no team I've ever watched employs. Since it is supposed to be a simulation, I am simply pointing out that defending examples in this game should have no place in the game.

the problem isn't that SI is giving us one way of defending and I want another added to have some choice. Those examples shouldn't at all be in the game, it is horrible. no coach in their right mind would defend like that intentionally. 

I've already posted this link and I really encourage anyone to see how the text book defending works. There simply isn't other approach to it. Do yourselves a favour and go through it. Then go and check the links within the article to see what is man marking defending.

http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/06/01/zonal-marking-zonal-coverage/

 

but for every screen shot you have backing up your theory of the 2 banks of four, I've posted a screen shot of a teams wingers dropping back, staying wide,  to make a back 6. so the fact is there is another approach to it.

[MBarbaric]

13 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

but for every screen shot you have backing up your theory of the 2 banks of four, I've posted a screen shot of a teams wingers dropping back, staying wide,  to make a back 6. so the fact is there is another approach to it.

don't want to turn in circles. there is reason why you'd put back six, i never said there is only two banks of four and nothing else. back six in liverpool man utd game were mourinho's reaction to attacking full backs from liverpool and him desperately needing some kind of result. to understand how manutd defended that match you should really watch three midfielders and not six at the back. counter intuitive but there you go.

However, the principle behind defending is the same. six, five, four or three at the back. 

again http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/06/01/zonal-marking-zonal-coverage/

before you jump to the last sentence, as no doubt someone will, he is talking about variations and how to employ them due to compexity of the game. What is important part in simplified FM context is the main body of text.