Wide Player Defensive Positioning Discussion

[Svenc]

That's in parts a different topic, defending in the game has never fully replicated real football, in parts also due to technical limitations [it's only comparably recently that players in and on themselves are being recognized as something approaching to be a "physical presence", for a start, and there's also a reason why SI are always tightly monitoring their tackling stats]

I also wholly sympathize with everyone who was tired of FM 2016's wide issues. However this in part still seems a rather suspicious workaround with the wide midfielders, as that's isolating of central spaces due to onoccasion no to little positional behavior and awareness of where the pitch is overloaded, which in combination is neither that great in football nor is it in FM. Should they retreat to FM 2016? No. Should they try to infuse some added intelligence to the wide midfielders? Yes.

[HUNT3R]

11 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

I passionately do not want SI to read the copious feedback about wingers too wide and make a sweeping change

That won't happen, don't worry.

[FestyF]

23 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.

You only posted one screenshot of Liverpool Man United game and even that doesn't tell the real story. Man United wingers were man marking Liverpool full backs in that game hence the back 6. That screenshot doesn't show the full area of the pitch. The Liverpool full backs were very high and were in line with Man United's back 4.

[westy8chimp]

9 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

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/

 

this is just a fans blog? of his interpretation of how a select few managers pressed as a unit. If you watch football, not every team plays the same way. You'd like your team to push the opposition out wide, I'd like my team to keep some width so I can counter as long as I have more central defenders behind the ball (full backs coming inside, not my wingers).

[MBarbaric]

2 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

this is just a fans blog? of his interpretation of how a select few managers pressed as a unit. If you watch football, not every team plays the same way. You'd like your team to push the opposition out wide, I'd like my team to keep some width so I can counter as long as I have more central defenders behind the ball (full backs coming inside, not my wingers).

yes a fans blog of one of the best tactics analysts in europe... and a coach and ... well who cares if it doesn't go along with your opinion.

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, FestyF said:

You only posted one screenshot of Liverpool Man United game and even that doesn't tell the real story. Man United wingers were man marking Liverpool full backs in that game hence the back 6. That screenshot doesn't show the full area of the pitch. The Liverpool full backs were very high and were in line with Man United's back 4.

read through, I also showed Sunderland and Scotland. that's 3 screen shots clearly showing a 442 change to a 631 when the opposition have the ball in the final third. I personally wouldn't choose to defend that way, I just grabbed a few examples to show that IRL managers make their own decisions and in FM we cannot make our own decisions as it is coded whether or not the 4 midfielders play narrow or wide. currently if I wanted to do as mourinho and have rashford and young drop into a flat back 6... I couldn't do it, at best I would have to have flat back 4 with 2 defensive wbs just infront. But then when attacking those defensive wing backs would not become wingers/inside forwards like they do for mourinho. it was all an illustration on why we need PIs that allow us to tell wingers where to defend based on which zone they are in. Everyone agreed we need more choices tactically... we then moved onto in the current ME ... should it be changed i.e. is it a bug that they are wide. Well it's not a bug if the only alternative is to have them narrow Or wide (not both which relies on conditions)

[FestyF]

21 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

read through, I also showed Sunderland and Scotland. that's 3 screen shots clearly showing a 442 change to a 631 when the opposition have the ball in the final third. I personally wouldn't choose to defend that way, I just grabbed a few examples to show that IRL managers make their own decisions and in FM we cannot make our own decisions as it is coded whether or not the 4 midfielders play narrow or wide. currently if I wanted to do as mourinho and have rashford and young drop into a flat back 6... I couldn't do it, at best I would have to have flat back 4 with 2 defensive wbs just infront. But then when attacking those defensive wing backs would not become wingers/inside forwards like they do for mourinho. it was all an illustration on why we need PIs that allow us to tell wingers where to defend based on which zone they are in. Everyone agreed we need more choices tactically... we then moved onto in the current ME ... should it be changed i.e. is it a bug that they are wide. Well it's not a bug if the only alternative is to have them narrow Or wide (not both which relies on conditions)

Rashford and Young man marking Milner and Clyne. Look at the positioning of Milner and Clyne and try to understand why there was a back 6 situation.

[MBarbaric]

5 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

read through, I also showed Sunderland and Scotland. that's 3 screen shots clearly showing a 442 change to a 631 when the opposition have the ball in the final third. I personally wouldn't choose to defend that way, I just grabbed a few examples to show that IRL managers make their own decisions and in FM we cannot make our own decisions as it is coded whether or not the 4 midfielders play narrow or wide. currently if I wanted to do as mourinho and have rashford and young drop into a flat back 6... I couldn't do it, at best I would have to have flat back 4 with 2 defensive wbs just infront. But then when attacking those defensive wing backs would not become wingers/inside forwards like they do for mourinho. it was all an illustration on why we need PIs that allow us to tell wingers where to defend based on which zone they are in. Everyone agreed we need more choices tactically... we then moved onto in the current ME ... should it be changed i.e. is it a bug that they are wide. Well it's not a bug if the only alternative is to have them narrow Or wide (not both which relies on conditions)

completely agree on this. apart the last sentence of course since wingers would have no business staying so wide while the ball is in the middle. at least not until we have an option to get on of the strikers back into the line with defenders i.e. in other words more options in defensive phase. till then, the defending in these situations remain broken. if it is working as intended, then it really isn't a bug but that makes things even worse.

[westy8chimp]

exactly my point in this case both players dropped back to deal with both wing back threats. barbic and his blogging friend suggest EVERY team just shift across to cover the side where the ball is ... if it is switched they all shift as a unit to the other side. This clearly shows that is not the case. The ball is in the centre of the field, yet they are marking the wide threat.

[FestyF]

19 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

exactly my point in this case both players dropped back to deal with both wing back threats. barbic and his blogging friend suggest EVERY team just shift across to cover the side where the ball is ... if it is switched they all shift as a unit to the other side. This clearly shows that is not the case

They had the man marking instructions otherwise they would not have stayed that far back. You can replicate a back 6 like that in current ME which you said wasn't possible. I just want to prove it is possible.

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, FestyF said:

They had the man marking instructions. You can replicate a back 6 like that in current ME which you said wasn't possible.

in what planet is rashford man marking milner? He's 10 yards away! nobody is being man marked they are defending zonally. this is man marking ... also see the feet at the top of the screen... that is a man utd player just hovering in the wide defensive position ... not shifting across to the middle.

[FestyF]

27 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

in what planet is rashford man marking milner? He's 10 yards away! nobody is being man marked they are defending zonally. this is man marking ... also see the feet at the top of the screen... that is a man utd player just hovering in the wide defensive position ... not shifting across to the middle.

 

It's fair to say that your knowledge of marking systems is pretty limited. There are multiple ways of man marking in general. Strict man marking, flexible man marking, space oriented man marking, situational man marking, marking key players, man-marking certain positions or zones etc. See this for details: http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/05/29/man-coverage-man-to-man-marking/

In any case you don't need to worry about SI going to back to FM16 ME version as pointed out by HUNT3R above.

[westy8chimp]

20 minutes ago, FestyF said:

It's fair to say that your knowledge of marking systems is pretty limited. There are multiple ways of man marking in general. Strict man marking, flexible man marking, space oriented man marking, situational man marking, marking key players, man-marking certain positions or zones etc. See this for details: http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/05/29/man-coverage-man-to-man-marking/

In any case you don't need to worry about SI going to back to FM16 ME version as pointed out by HUNT3R above.

ah that blogger again.. so you can man mark a zone hahaha ... thanks so much for your input, can you send me the screenshot of how I set Rashford to man mark a zone in FM17. I have absolutely no knowledge so need your help. haha.

 

you've misunderstood the blog completely ... what he means is ... (using the man utd example) rashford wont man mark milner if he is on the half way line... but he will man mark him if he's in the final third. BUT when he does man mark him.. it will be tight 'man marking' not standing 10 yards away...

incidentally if you read any of my posts from further back you will see this is exactly what I have been asking SI for... the ability to press/mark zonally so I can have my team press in the middle (not all over the pitch) and man mark when certain opposition are in specific areas (not man mark through the whole game all over the pitch).

Variant 3: The space-oriented man coverage

This last variant, the space or zone-oriented man coverage is still used sometimes in the Bundesliga; by Dieter Hecking at his former club1. FC Nuremberg and others.

Here the team is often in a position-oriented spatial coverage, which we will cover in another article. From their positions they have a certain amount of space to cover. If an opponent strays into in this space, then he will be man-marked.

[MBarbaric]

rashford isn't man marking milner as he is a part of mixed zonal defence. the middle four are space oriented while rashfor and young are man oriented. in normal circumstances that would mean rashford and young would mark tightly their men once they enter their zone. However, that doesn't happen often as liverpool is attacking down the middle most of the time and high full backs primarely serve as a tool to stretch the spaces between the defenders in last line so the central players (Firmino/Mane/Sturridge and two attacking CM's) can explot it. Mourinho didn't put those wingers so deep to really defend those two high full backs since they aren't the main threat. He put wingers back to avoid the gaps in the defensive line and liberate the central four so they can focus on area where liverpool is really dangerous. It is really too advanced and particular concept even in real football for FM to replicate.

What FM should replicate is the principle why all this worked for United. That is the whole part from "that blogger" that you fail to recognize despite accepting him when you believe "the blogger" agrees with you. 

2 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

in what planet is rashford man marking milner? He's 10 yards away! nobody is being man marked they are defending zonally. this is man marking ... also see the feet at the top of the screen... that is a man utd player just hovering in the wide defensive position ... not shifting across to the middle.

legs of "man utd player hovering in the wide defensive position"....  isn't wide at all. If you look closer you see he is just out of the center circle. If you look closely, he is not much wider than chelsea and man utd player on the other side of the circle. That might be as far as 30-40 meters from the touchline which makes him perfectly positioned within the zonal defence.

his positioning tells that it is zonal defence but it is difficult to judge what kind of without a context. this kind of man marking occurs when there is some kind of pressing trigger going on. Either goal kick, clearance, man utd lost ball, or most probably, utd had a pressing trigger on ball entering the touchline zone. would be interesting if you could provide the date and year when the match was played so we can see the context. 

 

[westy8chimp]

29 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

rashford isn't man marking milner as he is a part of mixed zonal defence. the middle four are space oriented while rashfor and young are man oriented. in normal circumstances that would mean rashford and young would mark tightly their men once they enter their zone. However, that doesn't happen often as liverpool is attacking down the middle most of the time and high full backs primarely serve as a tool to stretch the spaces between the defenders in last line so the central players (Firmino/Mane/Sturridge and two attacking CM's) can explot it. Mourinho didn't put those wingers so deep to really defend those two high full backs since they aren't the main threat. He put wingers back to avoid the gaps in the defensive line and liberate the central four so they can focus on area where liverpool is really dangerous. It is really too advanced and particular concept even in real football for FM to replicate.

What FM should replicate is the principle why all this worked for United. That is the whole part from "that blogger" that you fail to recognize despite accepting him when you believe "the blogger" agrees with you. 

legs of "man utd player hovering in the wide defensive position"....  isn't wide at all. If you look closer you see he is just out of the center circle. If you look closely, he is not much wider than chelsea and man utd player on the other side of the circle. That might be as far as 30-40 meters from the touchline which makes him perfectly positioned within the zonal defence.

his positioning tells that it is zonal defence but it is difficult to judge what kind of without a context. this kind of man marking occurs when there is some kind of pressing trigger going on. Either goal kick, clearance, man utd lost ball, or most probably, utd had a pressing trigger on ball entering the touchline zone. would be interesting if you could provide the date and year when the match was played so we can see the context. 

 

he may not be hugging the touch line. nor has he 'shifted across with the unit' that's  by the by... I was just showing Festy what man marking is compared to Zonal as he seemed to think the Utd back 6 was due to man marking. It wasn't it was zonal, which you agree. And we agree it can't be replicated in FM. same as your shifting unit cannot be replicated. So we each would like more options in the tactical setup.

I neither agree nor disagree with 'the blogger', I've never met him or spoken to him or discussed his opinions of FM17 - but he would hate to see his ideas misused as Festy was trying to suggest the idea of zonal man marking meant players marked zones... when in fact that wasn't what his blog was saying, they mark players when they enter zones. It is annoying when people shove 3rd party blogs in your face to illustrate their point (you). Especially when they don't even seem to understand that 3rd party blog (Festy)

[MBarbaric]

10 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

he may not be hugging the touch line. nor has he 'shifted across with the unit' that's  by the by...

who? the legs man of united? if it is him then he is shifting most certainly.

" Festy was trying to suggest the idea of zonal man marking meant players marked zones... when in fact that wasn't what his blog was saying, they mark players when they enter zones. "  

well, there is such thing as man oriented zonal marking where men do mark  a zone. meaning they aren't oriented to the space or ball but man and, consequently, opponent entering that zone. as opposed to i.e. space oriented zonal marking that is denying certain area of pitch. so there has to be some misunderstaniding or something lost in translation here.

Anyway, the utd-liverpool example isn't good here as Milner and Clyne had little intention to enter the zone with the ball. their principal purpose in klopps setup is to stretch defence. Mourinho reacted to that by putting wingers there so defence would rest untouched and central liverpool players ineffective in little space they had.

i believe you are both saying the same thing in different words. seems the fact that there is man oriented zonal marking as well as man marking and combinations of two is confusing us here  however, man marking is strictly used in specific situations. zonal marking, however, is what 99% of teams use and they all follow the same sliding principle.

. It is annoying when people shove 3rd party blogs in your face to illustrate their point

it is also annoying when you refuse the source because it is a blog, neglecting the fact that the man is a coach with red bull and one of the most prominent tactics theorist in europe as well.

[westy8chimp]

1 minute ago, MBarbaric said:

.

. It is annoying when people shove 3rd party blogs in your face to illustrate their point

it is also annoying when you refuse the source because it is a blog, neglecting the fact that the man is a coach with red bull and one of the most prominent tactics theorist in europe as well.

 but it was a blog written before this discussion for a different intention. it's irrelevant to this specific topic. It is a guide to some tactical principles. may be good may be bad... I don't care.

this thread is going nowhere.. we all agree the same thing and still managing to argue about it. ive shown fact that managers drop wide men to make a 631 from 442... you've shown fact that other managers keep a 442 but narrow and shift. im sure others turn their 442 into a 541 and so on so forth... and we agree that we cannot currently replicate any of this accurately in the current ME because it isn't flexible enough.

not only do we agree that the midfield shape needs to be better, in line with our own preferences, but also that strikers need to drop back deeper too. For once I think even some of the mods agree.

even though we all agree nothing will be done. so other than being more interesting than doing work, this is pointless

 

[MBarbaric]

written before this discussion for a different intention. it's irrelevant to this specific topic. 

well, since it is explaining how defence in football works and we agree it doesn't work well in the game, then it is relevant. it says how it should work.

can't argue with the rest 

however, i don't think SI won't do anything. they will do something, i'd rather it being something that replicates how real life defending works since this is supposed to be a simulation.

[Cougar2010]

2 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

well, since it is explaining how defence in football works and we agree it doesn't work well in the game, then it is relevant. it says how it should work.

The problem is that saying "This is how X works in football" is wrong.

There is no "correct" way to play football.

If there were then there wouldn't have been the developments in systems & approaches we have seen over the last 100 years.

People like Guardiola & Klopp wouldn't exist because they challenge these systems with fresh/rehashed ideas.

I was just watching a video the other day regarding Conte and how teams are having to find new ways of dealing with Chelsea's shape.

[HUNT3R]

A truly constructive post would be in the feature requests section with ideas about when to press, ie what triggers it etc.

 

I think the majority knows how it works now, most of us agree it can be improved, but the question is what and how.

[MBarbaric]

1 hour ago, Cougar2010 said:

There is no "correct" way to play football.

If there were then there wouldn't have been the developments in systems & approaches we have seen over the last 100 years.

there absolutely is a correct way to play football. the correct way to mark a player when he is alone against only one defender, when there is one attacker against two defenders or two attackers and one defender... you might not believe me, but there is also a correct way how to run as a defender, correct way to look or be oriented on the pitch, as much as there is a correct way to properly and wrongly perform a header.

i understand what you mean with klopp and guardiola examples. however, i'd challenge you to think how many coaches you know who enhanced offensive organization, and how many could you name that have revolutionized the defensive organization? the latter ones are far less, right?

it is because since football slowly abandoned man marking during the middle of 20th century we have quite stable defensive approach with last big revolution being in early 90s. it doesn't change because it works most of the time and it doen't involve wingers marking opposite full back while the ball is on other flank. however, what changed is mainly the pressing which is more a form of attacking than defending nowadays.

my personal hero is the unknown guy in FIFA, or wherever, who banned goalkeepers to take a backpass in hands. now, that was a revolution that made possible guardiola as much as pressing that came with it.

[MBarbaric]

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

A truly constructive post would be in the feature requests section with ideas about when to press, ie what triggers it etc.

 

 

 

i really don't think SI was making the game without knowing these things. I am absolutely sure they know how a defence should behave and what priorities it should have. more I think of it, more i believe they simply can't make it due to other things that go on within the ME.

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

A truly constructive post would be in the feature requests section with ideas about when to press, ie what triggers it etc.

 

I think the majority knows how it works now, most of us agree it can be improved, but the question is what and how.

This would only be viable if SI think there is something off.  As far as I can tell there is zero response, and some mods reply too "that's just the way things are" in different shapes and forms. Anybody checked the video I posted on the last page by the way? The sequence after the attacking throw, where the wide midfielder just completely lets go off a player sitting unmarked centrally in front of the goal to "revert to his new-found defensive position out wide". Completely nonsensical. That seems more bug than intentional behavior anyways.

It might be worthwile considering the forwards, given how much time apparently was spend considering how the wide players sit. Their lack of tracking proved a burden on two central midfields before, which are all that's between the d-line and an opponent in the central spaces. However if it was like in older iterations, that is at least one forward actually tracking back deeply sort of by default (was like that on FM 2013ish), then that would a) fix possible AI issues as really with the dynamics of such formations they'd needed an awareness of them getting overloaded (good luck coding that). And yes, I consider what I am doing toying with AI 4-4-2, it's not just sitting on the ball, there is space and opportunity created also as the centre backs as a knock-on naturally are over the place as well once the centre two is (easily) overloaded (last vid). It fields like playing chess against a two years old who never spots the most basic of things, like his hapless midfield unable to cover and never get ahold of the ball (nor being able to spot and react that his centre backs step up out of their line multiple additionally times each match). One forward dropping deeper would get somebody to be involved in defending there in general, and would guarantee some pressure on the deepest midfield player who as of know is being closed down by the central midfielderse as well (which leads to the overload / CBs stepping out of their line -- there#s always always somebody unmarked most of the time). It's not ideal, but then nothing ever is. Still remember this? 

Technically it was/is possible to have some customization, though naturally back then that proved catastrophe as every single attacking position was affected (and several AI teams as well just couldn'T defend if there was several a duties in there in certain AI formations). Just as reminder that all of this were technically possible, and it's only fairly recently that the natural zones of the forwards kind of is the half-way line. I know that Rashidi argues he gets the both of his tracking back deeply but then he's like to the ME what Neo is for the Matrix, which means he doesn't count (not for your average FM'er, and it could be argued certainly not for your average AI manager).

[HUNT3R]

9 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

i really don't think SI was making the game without knowing these things. I am absolutely sure they know how a defence should behave and what priorities it should have. more I think of it, more i believe they simply can't make it due to other things that go on within the ME.

They'll definitely be aware of the current flaws and limitations. The reason I said it is that it'll just help give ideas on what to do in future and how. The what to do is clearer (IMO) than how to though.

[FestyF]

3 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

They'll definitely be aware of the current flaws and limitations. The reason I said it is that it'll just help give ideas on what to do in future and how. The what to do is clearer (IMO) than how to though.

Without knowing the current limitations in the ME code, it's difficult to suggest how to implement the ideas. The best solution imo is for the teams to preserve horizontal compactness and move as a unit from side to side. This hasn't been implemented due to some limitations in the ME. Another solution is to give the players defensive intelligence so they can recognize the overloads and dangers, and defend accordingly but seems like this is also hard to implement otherwise would have been done by now. I'm sure SI has access to top level tactical experts and know all these solutions but without knowing the coding limitations, it would be difficult (not impossible but difficult) for any member in this forum to suggest what should be done.

By the way, I'm sure this wasn't an issue before FM16. Yes we had other issues regarding tracking back, full-backs defending etc.. but what else has changed since FM15?

[MBarbaric]

3 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

They'll definitely be aware of the current flaws and limitations. The reason I said it is that it'll just help give ideas on what to do in future and how. The what to do is clearer (IMO) than how to though.

as @FestyF says, they most certainly have access to tactical expertise, and as you've said, they are aware of current flaws together with an idea what should be done. they could just ask a favour from watford or everton data analyst team to go through few matches and get the info. in fact, i'd bet they already did long time ago. at least i know i'd do it if i was making the game.

i think the problem is that, what should be done, seems too difficult to implement without completely breaking the game at this moment. 

[herne79]

I just want to play devil's advocate here for a moment.

There is much discussion about the defensive positioning of wide players, especially when placed in the ML/R positions.  I agree that sometimes this can look odd.

However - and here's the devil's advocate part - I don't see any discussion relating to results and their cause.  I see plenty of successful tactical systems that use wide players, so to the people commenting in this thread, how are your results?

Further, if your results aren't that good, are those poor results actually caused by bad ML/R defensive positioning, or is there something else going on in your tactical systems that may be causing those results?  It can be easy to point the finger of blame at something that looks obvious, but the cause may be something more subtle.

So, if you are seeing long term poor results, how many of those lost matches and goals conceded are a direct result of poor positioning from your ML/R players?  If it's high, then I'd suggest that's exactly the type of analysis that SI could be interested in.  If it's low then you perhaps have more tactical issues than just the ML/R players.

Dodgy ML/R defensive positioning is one thing, dodgy results "could" be something else entirely.

[westy8chimp]

6 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I just want to play devil's advocate here for a moment.

There is much discussion about the defensive positioning of wide players, especially when placed in the ML/R positions.  I agree that sometimes this can look odd.

However - and here's the devil's advocate part - I don't see any discussion relating to results and their cause.  I see plenty of successful tactical systems that use wide players, so to the people commenting in this thread, how are your results?

Further, if your results aren't that good, are those poor results actually caused by bad ML/R defensive positioning, or is there something else going on in your tactical systems that may be causing those results?  It can be easy to point the finger of blame at something that looks obvious, but the cause may be something more subtle.

So, if you are seeing long term poor results, how many of those lost matches and goals conceded are a direct result of poor positioning from your ML/R players?  If it's high, then I'd suggest that's exactly the type of analysis that SI could be interested in.  If it's low then you perhaps have more tactical issues than just the ML/R players.

Dodgy ML/R defensive positioning is one thing, dodgy results "could" be something else entirely.

fair point well made. However, I'm having vast success with a 4-4-1-1 formation... but it's not just about winning. I'd like to implement my own preferences and feel like I can imprint a tactical personality on the team. Rather than the generic feel to it. Particularly for multiplayer - over the years my brother and I always end up battling for the same signings because certain positions are (possibly) slightly overpowered or easier route to success within current limitations. if there was more tactical flexibility it would open up a wider range of positions/players we individually favour.

going forward I'd like to see a bit of an overhaul on the tactic creator. Split the pitch into 6 zones (2 wide 3 deep) and be able to set TI/PI within those zones ... from a more extensive set of TI/PI. The reason for this is that I'd like to let the opposition play out from the back, I would want my pressing unit on the half way line so that the defensive line is deep enough to stop long balls, but my midfield 4/5 really hound the ball when it comes to the centre of the pitch (Rodgers Liverpool). Where another manager might prefer the two banks of four shifting approach with a higher line... they should be able to choose that... other managers may want to be really defensive and have their wingers form a back 6 when the opposition play out from defence..

 

unfortunately I lost my cm discs so cannot check this before I say it... but I'm sure going back you could set player positions based on where the ball was on the pitch. I have played hundreds of football games though and I'm going back 20 years so it could have been Fifa, PES, ISS Soccer.. player manager etc.

[Svenc]

54 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I just want to play devil's advocate here for a moment.

There is much discussion about the defensive positioning of wide players, especially when placed in the ML/R positions.  I agree that sometimes this can look odd.

However - and here's the devil's advocate part - I don't see any discussion relating to results and their cause.  I see plenty of successful tactical systems that use wide players, so to the people commenting in this thread, how are your results?

 

 

For the, whilst I've never deemed this to be unplayable in any formation, for the time being I don't play any 2 centre midfielder formations, simple as that (certainly not without one of the two forwards encouraging to man mark the deepest opposition midfielder, but then I did so on previous already). If that gained you an edge in previous editions compared to AI who played 4-4-2 and similar (who never did this), it should certainly be more pronounced here. 4-4-2 are weakened in particular, as to be expected if 2 central midfielders are isolated, not only from the players in front of them, but additionally as of FM 2017, those out wide too. That may depend on how the opponent lines up, the size of the pitches, the players a little, but in general I stand by that. That does not mean you can't win stuff with it. But what's happened has happened. It's not the wide players in isolation, it's what's happening all around.

For me (and for SI neither) this shouldn't be purely about human players. The human player is vastly outnumbered in any save, a coherent world sim has always been another target of theirs. I.e. AI Millwall running AI West Brom ragged in big parts simply because they can control the pitch unchallenged, again this isn't simply about retention, the centre backs can be all over the place and additionally step out of their lines opening passing channels and leaving forwards unmarked as it is one of two centre midfielders who constantly has to close down a DMish. AI is and likely will never be able to "spot" such, which makes for awkward match dynamics both of the AI vs AI kind and about players, myself borderline "exploiting"  4-4-2 too to the point that even after AI switch to more attacking after going behind, they rarely get the ball anymore and can't make that comeback.

If i'd have the editor, I'd actually give the majority of say the EPL managers a formation that has 3 centrally players, and but the three, four top sides a 4-4-2 (preferably deep). My current tests aren't reliable, as I applied to those top teams, set up the 4-4-2 deep formation (which pronounces the space in between the CMs and FWDs) and holidayed, making the assistants stick to that formation (they never took over the roles and duties). Out of 4-5 atttempts, there wasn't one where he didn't underperform, and we're talking levels where the likes of Liverpool and Spurs were hovering around the relegation zones by November/December, or Arsenal and City hovering around 10th place. Though naturally that can be caused by poorly picks of roles etc. in particular as in possession, that gap between centre midfield and centre forwards isn't that easy to close in the 4-4-2 deep. I've always considered that to be a bit of a specialty formation in FM thus, as it's arguably best used as some kind of counter attacking tool [others may have a different outlook].

[westy8chimp]

@Svenc agree we need to also think about the AI teams/formations. whilst we can use some fairly ugly work arounds to compensate it seems the AI cannot.

I raised another discussion along the lines that it doesn't matter which team are the opposition, only which formation they play. I can hammer Man City every time, with my 4411, with a lesser team like Derby by exploiting their tactic. But also the AI vs AI results are definitely an issue. High scoring games where minnows consistently best the better sides. The Millwall vs West Brom example you use does show this.

[FestyF]

Can they be coded to stay narrower in formations with 2 central players (4-4-2) and to stay wide like they are doing currently in formations having 3 or more central players (4-4-1-1, 4-5-1, 4-1-2-3 DM Wide, 4-1-4-1, 4-2-3-1 Wide etc..)? This applies to both human and AI teams. This should balance the ME a bit imo.

[Bunkerossian]

I have had issues with wide men only when encountering 4-3-1-2. Somehow, the lone full back was getting space to cross and find the strikers. against other formations, there was no such issue- the wide MF-s and full backs were doing reasonably well. Does this issue fall under the ME problem label, or is there another explanation?

[FestyF]

38 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I have had issues with wide men only when encountering 4-3-1-2. Somehow, the lone full back was getting space to cross and find the strikers. against other formations, there was no such issue- the wide MF-s and full backs were doing reasonably well. Does this issue fall under the ME problem label, or is there another explanation?

Something seriously wrong with your tactics. May be you should post it in tactics forum so someone can help you.

[fmfan74]

I have been facing teams using 2DM's.  I just set my wingers as inside forwards and have my WB'S in attack mode with one central AM.  I play short and sometimes either flexible or structured.  Using 2 strikers to chase through balls.  I always find holes, always.  If I see them using 2 DM'S you can Bett your bottom dollar I will punish them.  Like svenc said it can be seen as an exploit as well.