Jump to content

Another thread about Team Shape


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, herne79 said:

No.  It's not accurate and I'm hiding the table posted as people could easily read it and think to use it.

Everyone can be involved in defence, transitions and attacks.  You think a Wingback with an attack duty using a Highly Structured Team Shape won't attack (for example)?  Or be involved in transitions?  According to that table, all he'll do is defend.

Player roles and duties set what each player will do.  Team Shape then modifies their behaviour by changing the individual player mentality (which you can see in the PI screen).  That's all there is to it.

Great. The problem I see is a overview of the whole team where I can see all these mentality changes as I switch between different shapes, team mentalities, roles and duties. Or have I only missed it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tyballs said:

Great. The problem I see is a overview of the whole team where I can see all these mentality changes as I switch between different shapes, team mentalities, roles and duties. Or have I only missed it?

Go to Player Instructions for one of your players.  Hit the Edit button.  There is a green bar in there called Mentality - that's the individual mentality bar.

As a test, set your team to Very Fluid, check a defender's mentality bar.  Then switch the Team Shape to Highly Structured - go back to the same player and see how the mentality bar has changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, herne79 said:

Go to Player Instructions for one of your players.  Hit the Edit button.  There is a green bar in there called Mentality - that's the individual mentality bar.

As a test, set your team to Very Fluid, check a defender's mentality bar.  Then switch the Team Shape to Highly Structured - go back to the same player and see how the mentality bar has changed.

Thank you, but I know that.  Is there any overview of the whole team and each players mentality so that I dont have to have a clickorama and at the same time remember all eleven bar lengths. It would be a great tool to understand how changes on shape effects your tactics or more correctly your mentality structure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 07/02/2017 at 16:53, Rashidi said:

You ar right roles and duties get tweaked every season, so I doubt SI is ever going to give you one that categorically states what the whole team will look like when all these changes are made graphically.  I am not inferring that @summatsupeer is the one that inspired me to write the next few paras, its just a personal observation and not directed to anyone in particular. It just brings back memories.

 

Everything is now inter-connected, and SI want to do away with that kind of complexity because people are going to return to the same discussions we were having 20 years ago...

"so whats the difference between a defender on mentality 5 and mentality 6. So why does he take so much more risk, I only changed him by one notch , for god's sake. "

Back in those days I used to tell people its only a risk barometer. If a player is higher he takes more risk, and this is reflected by his positioning, his runs, his passes, his tackles, his visits to the doctor, his calls to his grandma and his poop times. I remember those discussions well enough...and won't be wanting to be a part of them now. All we need to know and should care about is treat it like "risk". Thats all, the harder you try the worse it gets. When you look at shape, treat it like "how many players are gonna hold their hands together and sing Kumbaya".

Keep things simple, the moment we get into trying to nail specifics down....everyone is going to start chasing their own tails. 

"When you look at shape, treat it like "how many players are gonna hold their hands together and sing Kumbaya"."

That is a superb way of explaining how shapes work Rashidi!!! You can instantly visualise very fluid compared to high structured!

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, iamneallyons said:

"When you look at shape, treat it like "how many players are gonna hold their hands together and sing Kumbaya"."

That is a superb way of explaining how shapes work Rashidi!!! You can instantly visualise very fluid compared to high structured!

so how many players will hold their hands on fluid standard and how many on attacking? likewise, how many on structured standard and how many on structured attacking? can't believe we are talking about this in  game about football :D  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

so how many players will hold their hands on fluid standard and how many on attacking? likewise, how many on structured standard and how many on structured attacking? can't believe we are talking about this in  game about football :D  

 

Well its just an example isnt it, what Rashidi is saying is if you play on "very fluid" the team will be closer together as a unit and act more as a unit - if "highly structured" the team will be further apart and act more as individuals based on their allocated role/duty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On February 13, 2017 at 12:29, MBarbaric said:

so how many players will hold their hands on fluid standard and how many on attacking? likewise, how many on structured standard and how many on structured attacking? can't believe we are talking about this in  game about football :D  

 

To answer your question:

Very Fluid = all of them will hold hands together as one whole unit

Fluid = the team will hold hands in two groups - defensive group and attacking group

Flexible = the team will hold hand in 3 groups - defensive, supporting and attacking group 

Structured = the team will hold hands in 4 groups - defensive , defensive transition, attacking transition, attacking group 

Very Structured = the team will hold hands in 5 groups - defensive, defensive transition, transition, attacking transition and attacking group

They will do that regardless of Mentality. The Mentality is just the risk at which the players will perform their tasks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, yonko said:

To answer your question:

Very Fluid = all of them will hold hands together as one whole unit

Fluid = the team will hold hands in two groups - defensive group and attacking group

Flexible = the team will hold hand in 3 groups - defensive, supporting and attacking group 

Structured = the team will hold hands in 4 groups - defensive , defensive transition, attacking transition, attacking group 

Very Structured = the team will hold hands in 5 groups - defensive, defensive transition, transition, attacking transition and attacking group

They will do that regardless of Mentality. The Mentality is just the risk at which the players will perform their tasks.

It's amazing what happens when people hold hands together and sing Kumbaya. Shape is all about transitions. Nice explanation. And it's central to how I play. Whenever I want to change my approach in a game I change shape.

Shape wasn't even a thing before FM15, in fact it was probably the single biggest useless option in the game, and then it changed in FM16, it matured in FM17. At the moment the key difference between over performance vs the AI is really about how you adapt in a game. It's about how you can change your teams style of play entirely with a slight change in duties or shape.

In one of my latest matches, we were in the Champions League final. We blitzed our way to an early lead and then changed shape and duties to wait for the opposition to attack us. When it did we struck by attacking the vacated space and scored our second before we  stacked up and kept the ball away from them to win 2nil. 

I didn't like the table that was ultimately hidden because it was fundamentally wrong on so many levels. Shape is really simple when you think about it. It's all about duties and transitions. That's it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would really be so much simpler if shape was scrapped, and replaced by a vertical compactness graphic like we have now for width; and creative freedom was decoupled from it and purely managed by the "be more expressive / disciplined" button (perhaps with 2 more levels ex: be super disciplined / be super expressive). Currently it's both concepts mixed into 1 hence all the confusion.

Personally I've playing more with shape recently. By default I play on fluid, and like the extra creative freedom fluid gives my players, so when I switch to structured I add "be more expressive" to keep the freedom. By getting this out of the way, it means my shape switches are all exclusively about vertical compactness and not about inventiveness. I switch to structured when I just want to switch things up by having my lines further apart, hence stretch the opposition, or try to exploit some space they're leaving for me.

It's a bit hit-and-miss, trial-and-error, but overall this system is what works for me. I like playing rather quickly on "extended" highlights which only really shows chances and goals, so probably miss the more subtle nuances of transitions to really properly notice the mistakes I might be making. If you play more slowly, more carefully, I imagine shape could become a rather potent weapon in certain circumstances, as I've noticed occasionally it can dramatically change the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, yonko said:

To answer your question:

Very Fluid = all of them will hold hands together as one whole unit

Fluid = the team will hold hands in two groups - defensive group and attacking group

Flexible = the team will hold hand in 3 groups - defensive, supporting and attacking group 

Structured = the team will hold hands in 4 groups - defensive , defensive transition, attacking transition, attacking group 

Very Structured = the team will hold hands in 5 groups - defensive, defensive transition, transition, attacking transition and attacking group

They will do that regardless of Mentality. The Mentality is just the risk at which the players will perform their tasks.

thanks everyone for trying to explain this to an old daft I am. yonko gets the winner :D

however, as @noikeee says above, SI should really follow the ruote they started when they left out (OMG can't remember the name of those horrendous leavers :0). I mean, I know they are still under the hub but SI stepped away from that unfootbally concept into roles and duties that makes much more sense. same should happen with shape. those things serve to connect football and software in very awkward way as it is. I mean shape certainly has it's place in football meta language but not in a way as it is represented in the game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys even notice the level of creative freedom, either via Team Shape or PI Be More Expressive/Be More Disciplined? I'm not sure I notice it and I'm watching the matches on comprehensive mode. 

IMO creative freedom should be strictly PI/TI like Roaming and I agree it should be decoupled from Shape. Perhaps "Shape" should be renamed into "Compactness". Yes, SI can do something to avoid the confusion but I think the users should also adjust their thinking and mindset in order to understand the evolution of the tactical side of FM. 

As Rashidi always says, it is about transitions. Real life football is also all about transitions - how you defend them and how you take advantage of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, noikeee said:

It would really be so much simpler if shape was scrapped, and replaced by a vertical compactness graphic like we have now for width; and creative freedom was decoupled from it and purely managed by the "be more expressive / disciplined" button (perhaps with 2 more levels ex: be super disciplined / be super expressive). Currently it's both concepts mixed into 1 hence all the confusion.

Couldn't agree more. Very wise words of advice. I hope this'll be the case in FM18. The illogical correlation between (vertical) compactness/shape and creative freedom is something that's been bothering me ever since the introduction of the tactics creator.

Ideally, width and depth should have two different settings; a with the ball and without the ball setting. There are teams who track back in a very narrow, compact way, but who attack using the entire width of the pitch. Now, defending is by default semi-compact and the width setting solely defines the width in attacking situations. Which is limiting. Same'd go for depth. You should be able to defend very tightly front to back and to be way more spread out when attacking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yonko said:

Do you guys even notice the level of creative freedom, either via Team Shape or PI Be More Expressive/Be More Disciplined? I'm not sure I notice it and I'm watching the matches on comprehensive mode. 

IMO creative freedom should be strictly PI/TI like Roaming and I agree it should be decoupled from Shape. Perhaps "Shape" should be renamed into "Compactness". Yes, SI can do something to avoid the confusion but I think the users should also adjust their thinking and mindset in order to understand the evolution of the tactical side of FM. 

As Rashidi always says, it is about transitions. Real life football is also all about transitions - how you defend them and how you take advantage of them.

The only problem with compactness as a definition is that shape currently does more than that. I don't disagree that vertical and horizontal compactness should be something on their own, but with shape, we are also talking about managing individual risk profiles, which is what actually leads to the compactness, not because it is a setting so to speak. To just set a vertical compactness level can to some extent be accomplished already with the d-line settings, but in any case shape, as it currently works, does more. I don't know why they moved away from the term philosophy because to me this captures the essence better.

In fact, the easiest way I can think of to explain it is this: every mentality has a median point and from contain (lowest) to overload (highest) this median point increases. Shape either pushes player mentality farther from the median point (structured) or closer (fluid). This is what gives the compactness/separation that we see, it being particularly noticeable in the transition states. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dr. Hook said:

The only problem with compactness as a definition is that shape currently does more than that. I don't disagree that vertical and horizontal compactness should be something on their own, but with shape, we are also talking about managing individual risk profiles, which is what actually leads to the compactness, not because it is a setting so to speak. To just set a vertical compactness level can to some extent be accomplished already with the d-line settings, but in any case shape, as it currently works, does more. I don't know why they moved away from the term philosophy because to me this captures the essence better.

In fact, the easiest way I can think of to explain it is this: every mentality has a median point and from contain (lowest) to overload (highest) this median point increases. Shape either pushes player mentality farther from the median point (structured) or closer (fluid). This is what gives the compactness/separation that we see, it being particularly noticeable in the transition states. 

Well, okay, I agree, but if shape only affected mentality and not creative freedom, then we'd still be a lot freer to do whatever we want, regardless of what it's called: shape, philosophy, compactness...

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, noikeee said:

Well, okay, I agree, but if shape only affected mentality and not creative freedom, then we'd still be a lot freer to do whatever we want, regardless of what it's called: shape, philosophy, compactness...

On this we are of one mind- the creative freedom should be detached from (Shape, philosophy whatever) and made it's own category. I dislike that it ever became inextricably linked, though I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dr. Hook said:

On this we are of one mind- the creative freedom should be detached from (Shape, philosophy whatever) and made it's own category. I dislike that it ever became inextricably linked, though I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it.

Both sides have merits, I can understand why SI leans towards leaving it the way it is, and personally I like it cos of the uncertainty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my initial setup with Burnley, am a fan of the 4-4-2 shape so here we go.

Mentality - Control

Shape - Highly Structured

Ti's - Play narrow

Now on to the roles and duties to balance my Mentality and Shape.

1. Gk - Defend

2. F/Back - Attack

4. & 5. Central defender - Stopper x 2 to reduce the space between defense and midfield since am on Highly Structure shape

3. F/Back - Support

6 & 8 = BWM - Defend and Box to Box Mid - Support

7. Wide PlayMaker - Attack

11. Wide Midfielder - Attack

10. DeepLying Forward or Complete Forward on Support

9. Advanced Forward - Attack

Then i adapt according to the situation i come across when actually playing the game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, djsmiley said:

This is my initial setup with Burnley, am a fan of the 4-4-2 shape so here we go.

Mentality - Control

Shape - Highly Structured

Ti's - Play narrow

Now on to the roles and duties to balance my Mentality and Shape.

1. Gk - Defend

2. F/Back - Attack

4. & 5. Central defender - Stopper x 2 to reduce the space between defense and midfield since am on Highly Structure shape

3. F/Back - Support

6 & 8 = BWM - Defend and Box to Box Mid - Support

7. Wide PlayMaker - Attack

11. Wide Midfielder - Attack

10. DeepLying Forward or Complete Forward on Support

9. Advanced Forward - Attack

Then i adapt according to the situation i come across when actually playing the game. 

the formation is fine, I wont knock it .. just out of interest though... why choose Highly Structured and then offset it with duties/roles? Why not start standard/flex or control/fluid etc.

for instance I use highly structured in my 442 (2 dm) to emphasise/(work with) the gap between lines... and play direct. if I don't want the gap I don't play highly structured... I play more compact and shorter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Both sides have merits, I can understand why SI leans towards leaving it the way it is, and personally I like it cos of the uncertainty.

The way it is, it's certainly harder/more challenging, as it's got so many repercussions to think about, however I don't think more challenging is necessarily always a good thing. In this case I think it confuses people for no gain. I just don't think it's even realistic, and this game has always strived for realism over everything else.

The examples I always give when I want to exemplify why this is unrealistic, are the sides that play highly compact but highly disciplined (ex Simeone's Atlético Madrid), or not compact at all but super free (ex Scolari's Portugal). This is impossible in the game at the moment. Also footballers will certainly understand the idea of playing with the lines closer together or further apart, real life managers certainly change that midgame, but telling players to go "fluid", "structured"? Ehh, dunno.

I'm not even sure it's realistic to change creative freedom midgame. "Right guys, on second half we're all going to be much more expressive, so feel free from now on to disregard all my instructions more!". "Okay guys, on the second half today we're going to forget about all the relaxed free game we usually play, and you better follow my instructions to the letter today!". Discipline/creative freedom tends to be more of a core philosophy thing about the way a manager works, than a tactical weapon. Whereas compactness definitely is a tactical weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you guys about this from a couple of angles, one being that the two things team shape controls don't always go hand in hand in a tactical system, but also (and mainly) because it's name doesn't describe what it actually does.

I want to have my team play the way I want them to, the tactics creator should enable me to do that in a clear, concise way. Whether I succeed or fail should be based on how well my tactics work with the players at my disposal, not because I'm uncertain what impact certain controls or options will have due to their misleading in-game description. There is a learning curve of course, but only recently after a good 500 odd hours am I truly getting to grips with the tactics creator and I doubt I am alone in this.

The way these things are described are confusing, especially for new players. I'd be playing a very different genre of game if I wanted to be deciphering what things mean. I don't think that a game is made more enjoyable by complexity that inhibits it's accessibility or functionality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/02/2017 at 13:20, Rashidi said:

I understand you are not having a go, and its just your frustration creeping in which is not something strange. I do lose at times, in fact prior to FM16 I could on for seasons without losing. Between FM15-16 I worked my socks off to show why that was the case, and since then I am glad that the AI has changed, now its all about spotting things in a game. Now I cannot go a full season without at least losing a few times, sometimes I put the videos up and sometimes I don't.

The fact is each video I do and every guide that I write is about adopting a set of principles. I try to share my style of play and I am not telling the world that this is the only way. There are so many ways to skin the cat. The problem is understanding the principles, the very basic ones, like what do different roles and duties do, and how do they change when we start playing with different mentality and shape settings, and then how do this get affected when we change team instructions.

Treating things in isolation like Shape for example is a dangerous exercise, and each time people come to me seeking a formula for successful shape settings, I resist the urge of giving useless information. Is there a specific shape to use for counter systems? Is there aa specific shape for teams with poor technical skills. The answer isn't a simple cut and dried one. 

Mentality affects risk, and this affects choices that players make for 90 minutes, covering everything from the passes they make, the off the ball movement they do and their decisions to close down and move up and down.

Shape affects how a team works together, do they behave in distinct units or do they work cohesively. 

Roles and Duties affect the individual players within a system and have the effect of making entire sets of players work as a unit or not, it also has the effect of working with Mentality and Shape that you use. The kind of duties you set up will influence in large part how important shape then becomes for you to exploit zones on the pitch. This is by far the biggest piece that nearly everyone gets wrong. The interrelationship between Mentality/Shape and Roles and Duties. In fact I did a video called the Dark Arts of Attacking Football way back in FM16, the rules of which still apply.

That list that was put up displaying the mentality, I used to make lists like that, now I don't. Reason is simple, things can change with SI, esp when they make small tweaks.

These are the main things that you need to set up right.  The rest of the shouts work off these.

Closing down and defensive line with the right roles and duties allow you to create defensive line traps. Its something I explain in a video where you create hot zones on the pitch where the AI is put under pressure, losing the ball there gives you a chance to win the 2nd ball back and counter. Works only in certain systems since its so role/duty dependant.

Width and the other shouts well they become minor shouts that just influence the style of play, really minor.

 

How much data do I analyse before a game 0. I just have fun.  What SI have done successfully in the last 2 years, is divert attention from these and give you a lot more candy on the screen that attracts you making you think its important when in reality it isn't. So if you focus only on understanding how Mentality/Shape roles and duties work together you should be fine. And here's why I am not posting details its been covered by me and Cleon in threads stickied up top. If you want something with a different flavour Ö-zil to the Arsenal!'s threads recently show another way of approaching it. Basically its still the same principles he just uses Defensive lines and the shouts differently but what ALL THREE have in common is they use the same principles for mentality, shape, roles and duties. 

This is a really really good post Rashidi, i feel like it should be stickied somewhere so people can view it - opens your mind up as to what inter-relationships there are between mentality/shape/role/duty. Very good, thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Craigus89 said:

I agree with you guys about this from a couple of angles, one being that the two things team shape controls don't always go hand in hand in a tactical system, but also (and mainly) because it's name doesn't describe what it actually does.

I want to have my team play the way I want them to, the tactics creator should enable me to do that in a clear, concise way. Whether I succeed or fail should be based on how well my tactics work with the players at my disposal, not because I'm uncertain what impact certain controls or options will have due to their misleading in-game description. There is a learning curve of course, but only recently after a good 500 odd hours am I truly getting to grips with the tactics creator and I doubt I am alone in this.

The way these things are described are confusing, especially for new players. I'd be playing a very different genre of game if I wanted to be deciphering what things mean. I don't think that a game is made more enjoyable by complexity that inhibits it's accessibility or functionality.

Your not wrong there pal - by going off all these different explanations of what shape actually does, its quite misleading on the in-game descriptions.

The people that have made their way to this forum are probably all quite similair in that we are quite OCD with our tactics and we want them to do what we ask them to do so when thats not happening through misleading descriptions within the game, its quite easy to get frustrated!

Rashidi and the other mods have tried their best to help us out though to be fair to them and explain things as to what shape ACTUALLY does in-game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 15/2/2017 at 03:23, Rashidi said:

 Whenever I want to change my approach in a game I change shape.

(...)

In one of my latest matches, we were in the Champions League final. We blitzed our way to an early lead and then changed shape and duties to wait for the opposition to attack us. When it did we struck by attacking the vacated space and scored our second before we  stacked up and kept the ball away from them to win 2nil.

On your example did you go with a defensive-structured against an attacking-v.fluid ? Or something similar?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Since I want to know more about this game than just leaving things randomly, this is what I know about Team Shape.

 

1. (Highly) Structured slightly reduces defending players mentality and increases attacking players mentality.

Also structured leads to less creative freedom. Structured, from what I've read, tells players to concentrate on their duty first of all.

 

2. (Very) Fluid increases defending players metality slightly and attacking players mentality is reduced. Also creative freedom is increased. Fluid also tells players to concentrate on Team Mentality before their duties. So if you got Control + Very Fluid for example, your whole squad will be aggressive.

 

3. Flexible is in middle and tells players to concentrate on what exactly? Their duty or Team Mentality or something between? It is also reccomended to leave the Team Shape to Flexible if you are unsure what it does or how it affects transitions.

 

That being said, Very Fluid could do great in a slightly defensive formations like 4-1-4-1 if you want to create high pressing football (because naturally 4-1-4-1 is slightly more defensive rather than attacking). 

 

And all before anything, Team Shape affects transitions only. Is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 15/02/2017 at 01:23, Rashidi said:

Shape is really simple when you think about it. It's all about duties and transitions. That's it. 

How so? How does fluid and structured change how a team transitions from defence to attack, or from attack to defence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, howard moon said:

How so? How does fluid and structured change how a team transitions from defence to attack, or from attack to defence?

Your adjusting the mentality of the players, which will make them more defensive / attacking.  If you reduce the players mentality they will be less focused attacking and perform more supporting actions.  

For example you might have a WB-A on Very Structured, because he is deeper than the midfield strata his base mentality (before taking duty into account) is lowered, making him play safer, so will be more cautious during transitions compared to if you were on Flexible.  Very Fluid would do the opposite, so he would take more risks and try to help in transitions rather than waiting for the attacking phase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Your adjusting the mentality of the players, which will make them more defensive / attacking.  If you reduce the players mentality they will be less focused attacking and perform more supporting actions.  

For example you might have a WB-A on Very Structured, because he is deeper than the midfield strata his base mentality (before taking duty into account) is lowered, making him play safer, so will be more cautious during transitions compared to if you were on Flexible.  Very Fluid would do the opposite, so he would take more risks and try to help in transitions rather than waiting for the attacking phase.

I think examples are really helpful rather than trying to put it in words, I guess people have different uncertanities for example myself I am trying to find out how risky a player is in a similar duty but in different Team Shapes, but I guess I have to watch the transitions in game to check that after all, right? Say, could a FB-A with Standard-Very Structured be compared with the same FB-A on Counter-Very Fluid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, nightwalker22 said:

I think examples are really helpful rather than trying to put it in words, I guess people have different uncertanities for example myself I am trying to find out how risky a player is in a similar duty but in different Team Shapes, but I guess I have to watch the transitions in game to check that after all, right? Say, could a FB-A with Standard-Very Structured be compared with the same FB-A on Counter-Very Fluid?

Not really and i'm not sure what it would tell you.  Team Mentality affects all the players mentality in the team as well as passing/tempo etc which will also have an effect on transitions.  I find it better to focus on what a player is doing relative to the other players in that tactic, rather than what he would be doing if I changed things that affect all 10 outfield players.  If that one player is having issues its likely his duty or the roles/duties around him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Not really and i'm not sure what it would tell you.  Team Mentality affects all the players mentality in the team as well as passing/tempo etc which will also have an effect on transitions.  I find it better to focus on what a player is doing relative to the other players in that tactic, rather than what he would be doing if I changed things that affect all 10 outfield players.  If that one player is having issues its likely his duty or the roles/duties around him.

I don't even know why I asked that question tbh sometimes I am getting confused by new info and I totally lose the sense of how everything works together. I need to get back to basics and add those pieces of info together to what I know rather than just concentrate on a single aspect alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, nightwalker22 said:

I don't even know why I asked that question tbh sometimes I am getting confused by new info and I totally lose the sense of how everything works together. I need to get back to basics and add those pieces of info together to what I know rather than just concentrate on a single aspect alone.

Haha been there done that.  I always start with an attacking idea and a defensive idea, making sure they fit well. Then I pick my formation and get my roles+duties sorted. That will define the movement patterns and combinations between the players whatever mentality I select.  I can then add team instructions and change team shape to tweak the style, transitions etc.  Besides some instructions such as "look for overlap" the combinations defined by the roles and duties won't change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...