Should I just...quit FM?

[Bunkerossian]

I have had no successful saves this year that lasted for any meaningful time. Even when I think the tactic I created for a team will get results- I end up in a spiral of bad form. I think the initial step of selecting the right formation for the roster you have is where I'm doing things wrong. But...every single time. For Osasuna, a relegation candidate, I thought having an extremely defensive formation (5 mids in my own half) would work. First game of the league- it works great. Then- only draws and losses. Are some people just unable to analyse things corrently- and thus unfit to play this game?

[Tony Wright 747]

14 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I have had no successful saves this year that lasted for any meaningful time. Even when I think the tactic I created for a team will get results- I end up in a spiral of bad form. I think the initial step of selecting the right formation for the roster you have is where I'm doing things wrong. But...every single time. For Osasuna, a relegation candidate, I thought having an extremely defensive formation (5 mids in my own half) would work. First game of the league- it works great. Then- only draws and losses. Are some people just unable to analyse things corrently- and thus unfit to play this game?

You can't have a one tactic fits all any more, you have to micro- manage your tactics and react to changes within the game

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, Tony Wright 747 said:

You can't have a one tactic fits all any more, you have to micro- manage your tactics and react to changes within the game

I do substitutions and changes as a result of visible alterations to opponent tactics. It's just that my logic on what would fit the team I'm playing, gives poor results long term.

[Aubibeen69]

I have the same problem: my tactic works great, I create a lot of scoring opportunities but no goals... And in the last minutes the opponent score on his first occasions. It is several matches in the year, so frustrating. Real cheat. I am fed up with fixed games !It happens far too often, to visible, too ridiculous.

By the way, I play in MLS, fistful of stereotyped actions, this is so unrealistic since this winter... First saves worked great...

[dafuge]

31 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

You can't have a one tactic fits all any more, you have to micro- manage your tactics and react to changes within the game

I don't really agree with this, I've played with the same tactics for years now without changing them!

[Bunkerossian]

The thing is-I don't reuse tactics when trying to play as different teams, in most cases. If I go with Defensive mentality as the norm (in my last save I did so)- it is usually because I think the team cannot survive in a game otherwise. But how to know the true capability of a roster of players?

[Cougar2010]

10 minutes ago, dafuge said:

I don't really agree with this, I've played with the same tactics for years now without changing them!

I sort of agree in that balanced tactics work fairly well but its also worth noting that you tend to get yourself into a situation where you don't need to adapt.

The important thing for the OP is to recognise how his team is viewed by others in the league and how they will typically approach a match against him.

 

[looping]

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

I have had no successful saves this year that lasted for any meaningful time. Even when I think the tactic I created for a team will get results- I end up in a spiral of bad form. I think the initial step of selecting the right formation for the roster you have is where I'm doing things wrong. But...every single time. For Osasuna, a relegation candidate, I thought having an extremely defensive formation (5 mids in my own half) would work. First game of the league- it works great. Then- only draws and losses. Are some people just unable to analyse things corrently- and thus unfit to play this game?

First off, you are not alone. I'm totally inept to play the game. I find it unplayable.

With that said, most of the people are going to answer you have to adapt to the opposition, but the question is, adapt to what and foremost why? The game follows certain logic and you have to understand this logic otherwise you lose. It's up to you to understand the logic.

 

[Bunkerossian]

45 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

I sort of agree in that balanced tactics work fairly well but its also worth noting that you tend to get yourself into a situation where you don't need to adapt.

The important thing for the OP is to recognise how his team is viewed by others in the league and how they will typically approach a match against him.

 

I thought I had acted in accordance with that in my save games- but between dealing with the abilities/weaknesses of the team, budget available, and my obviously flawed ideas- I never managed to achieve something that seemed functional.

[sporadicsmiles]

1 hour ago, Aubibeen69 said:

Real cheat. I am fed up with fixed games !It happens far too often, to visible, too ridiculous.

That is you not reacting to the opposition going more attacking to search for an equaliser. It happened to me in my first game of the season in my current save. They had a single shot at the end, and it is a scramble from a poorly cleared corner. It happens, both in real life and in the game. To contrast this, I just beat the team top of the league 2-0. I was 1-0 up at half time, and the opposition went super attacking (433 with three strikers). I changed how I was playing to deal with this threat, and to try to maximise counter attacking. Scored a late second goal.

57 minutes ago, dafuge said:

I don't really agree with this, I've played with the same tactics for years now without changing them!

Balanced tactics can do well, in general. Sometimes you will have to change your tactics or suffer the consequences. For examples, my current tactic is not great against teams that play narrow formations that flood the midfield. So usually, if I know I will face that, I will make specific changes to counter. I also make specific changes during a match to exploit something I notice, or to take away something the opposition is exploiting.

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

I do substitutions and changes as a result of visible alterations to opponent tactics. It's just that my logic on what would fit the team I'm playing, gives poor results long term.

It is possible to keep it very simple and get results. My current formation currently has 0 TIs because I do not know which ones I want or need yet, and yet we win. The key is to have an idea of how you should play, and how you can play, and how you want to play. In your Osasuna example, if you are setting up to frustrate a team by parking the bus you need to have good outlets to counter - pace up front, for example. Also, setting up against Barcelona away and Granada home should not be the same. If you set up not to lose, then a draw is a success for you. If you expect to win, set up more aggressive. 

Another thing to remember is to exploit the players you have properly. Not just set up a formation, but to try to create specific positions where a player's strength comes to the front. I will give you an example (an obvious one, but simple things have great results). I have a really tall striker who is good in the air (he is 195cm, heading 15, jumping reach 17), and play in a lower league. I recently set up my wide players to cross in his direction, and set him on the near post for corners. He has now scored 3 goals in the 2 games since I made the changes, all from these specific changes. I also loaned a pacey striker who can beat most defenders for pace. If you have a guy who is excellent at something, try to work out how you can exploit that in game. I hope that helps, because it is not nice to give up something you want to enjoy. 

[Bunkerossian]

5 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

That is you not reacting to the opposition going more attacking to search for an equaliser. It happened to me in my first game of the season in my current save. They had a single shot at the end, and it is a scramble from a poorly cleared corner. It happens, both in real life and in the game. To contrast this, I just beat the team top of the league 2-0. I was 1-0 up at half time, and the opposition went super attacking (433 with three strikers). I changed how I was playing to deal with this threat, and to try to maximise counter attacking. Scored a late second goal.

Balanced tactics can do well, in general. Sometimes you will have to change your tactics or suffer the consequences. For examples, my current tactic is not great against teams that play narrow formations that flood the midfield. So usually, if I know I will face that, I will make specific changes to counter. I also make specific changes during a match to exploit something I notice, or to take away something the opposition is exploiting.

It is possible to keep it very simple and get results. My current formation currently has 0 TIs because I do not know which ones I want or need yet, and yet we win. The key is to have an idea of how you should play, and how you can play, and how you want to play. In your Osasuna example, if you are setting up to frustrate a team by parking the bus you need to have good outlets to counter - pace up front, for example. Also, setting up against Barcelona away and Granada home should not be the same. If you set up not to lose, then a draw is a success for you. If you expect to win, set up more aggressive. 

Another thing to remember is to exploit the players you have properly. Not just set up a formation, but to try to create specific positions where a player's strength comes to the front. I will give you an example (an obvious one, but simple things have great results). I have a really tall striker who is good in the air (he is 195cm, heading 15, jumping reach 17), and play in a lower league. I recently set up my wide players to cross in his direction, and set him on the near post for corners. He has now scored 3 goals in the 2 games since I made the changes, all from these specific changes. I also loaned a pacey striker who can beat most defenders for pace. If you have a guy who is excellent at something, try to work out how you can exploit that in game. I hope that helps, because it is not nice to give up something you want to enjoy. 

I cannot set up other than looking for a draw- because aggressive setups require types of players I don't have. I set up with 2 DM-s (Anchor+BWM) and an MC (AP), because I have only that sort of player available to me. Packing your own half is the simplest method to get something out of a game, no?  A 442 cannot accomodate either of the AP-s which are needed to take set pieces. I tried it, and saw immediately it wasn't working.

[DalyBhoy]

I started a thread a couple of months ago ranting about the same thing. Worth a repost.

Why does it seem like you can only be successful if you magically stumble across the tactic and player instructions that SI have decided is the best for the given year? There is no room for creativity, the match engine restricts you to work out the code necessary to beat it. It has become far too mechanical. It is not realistic at all. It is not enjoyable at all. Creativity is plentiful in real football. There is a diversity of tactics, game plans, player instructions and player abilities from game to game, year to year.  Many different ways to approach a game of football, and managers have shown you can be successful with a myriad of different approaches. Yet, football manager incessantly punishes the player for attempting to be creative with his team rather than sticking to the very narrow parameters set by SI and the match engine.

Another gripe…how many times have you been ahead at half time (across many saves, with many different teams, of various abilities and mental characteristics) and come out the second half for the other team to steamroll you in a complete reverse of momentum. Why? You said ‘Pleased’ at half time and one guy reacted by showing disinterest, the others didn’t react at all. Meanwhile, the other manager must have said he was ‘Disappointed’ and really got his players fired up, really inspiring team talk from the away dressing room and it has resulted in his team overturning a 2 goal deficit and winning 4-2.

Team talks are far too influential, especially considering you have about 5 options (of which two are only suitable at any given time). The game has become boring and repetitive. Devoid of any room for creativity or fun. I don’t mean it is too hard either, it is just soulless, it is too mechanical.

Perhaps SI should release notes on the impact each variable (each team or player instruction, teamtalk style etc) has on the games algorithms. I know there are plenty of tactics help and guides, although are they not just blind fanboy conjecture? I’m sceptical about them, I want concrete information provided by SI.

The game does absolutely nothing to capture the essence of real football. The game is either a highly complex mathematical puzzle, or perhaps it Is masquerading as a highly complex mathematical puzzle with little real substance (too many options which do nothing to influence the algorithms).

Which is it? Either way it is certainly not as enjoyable as when I started in 01/02, and got less enjoyable as the years progressed.

[Cougar2010]

4 minutes ago, DalyBhoy said:

I started a thread a couple of months ago ranting about the same thing. Worth a repost.

Why does it seem like you can only be successful if you magically stumble across the tactic and player instructions that SI have decided is the best for the given year? There is no room for creativity, the match engine restricts you to work out the code necessary to beat it. It has become far too mechanical. It is not realistic at all. It is not enjoyable at all. Creativity is plentiful in real football. There is a diversity of tactics, game plans, player instructions and player abilities from game to game, year to year.  Many different ways to approach a game of football, and managers have shown you can be successful with a myriad of different approaches. Yet, football manager incessantly punishes the player for attempting to be creative with his team rather than sticking to the very narrow parameters set by SI and the match engine.

Thats just not true I'm afraid.

Sure some tactical setups on each version find it easier to exploit weak points in the coding but that doesn't mean you can't be successful with other setups.  I've had success with lots of different formations & instructions in the last three years.  Just on FM17 I've used 442, 451, 4141, 41221 & currently 3232.  If you look around the tactics forum you'll also see many other shapes being used by a variety of users.

Yes, some are easier to setup than others but if you understand your team, the shape & what you want from it as as considering the opposition you can make most formations work.  I will add though here that using a formation that is inherently weak against the opposition formation will give you a bigger hill to climb due to the weak starting position.

 

 

4 minutes ago, DalyBhoy said:

Another gripe…how many times have you been ahead at half time (across many saves, with many different teams, of various abilities and mental characteristics) and come out the second half for the other team to steamroll you in a complete reverse of momentum. Why? You said ‘Pleased’ at half time and one guy reacted by showing disinterest, the others didn’t react at all. Meanwhile, the other manager must have said he was ‘Disappointed’ and really got his players fired up, really inspiring team talk from the away dressing room and it has resulted in his team overturning a 2 goal deficit and winning 4-2.

You have to understand your team, their personalities & how they'll react.

You should know before you give a team talk which players will be happy, which will be fired up & which feel under pressure. 

More effort = better results.

 

 

4 minutes ago, DalyBhoy said:

Team talks are far too influential, especially considering you have about 5 options (of which two are only suitable at any given time). The game has become boring and repetitive. Devoid of any room for creativity or fun. I don’t mean it is too hard either, it is just soulless, it is too mechanical.

Team talks only work for the first 15 minutes of each half and often less than that as their effect are overwritten by what happens on the pitch during that 15 mins.

 

4 minutes ago, DalyBhoy said:

Perhaps SI should release notes on the impact each variable (each team or player instruction, teamtalk style etc) has on the games algorithms. I know there are plenty of tactics help and guides, although are they not just blind fanboy conjecture? I’m sceptical about them, I want concrete information provided by SI.

The game does absolutely nothing to capture the essence of real football. The game is either a highly complex mathematical puzzle, or perhaps it Is masquerading as a highly complex mathematical puzzle with little real substance (too many options which do nothing to influence the algorithms).

Which is it? Either way it is certainly not as enjoyable as when I started in 01/02, and got less enjoyable as the years progressed.

There are far too many variables for SI to give you X+Y=Z answers.  The ME makes thousands of those calculations every minute of a match.

You would be far better off approaching it like a real football match rather than trying to turn it into that mathematical puzzle to be solved.  You would enjoy it more and probably have more success.

[Svenc]

Team talks still aren't all that. Drastic changes in overall match dynamics after a half time are and have always been more likely to be caused by AI tactical switches. Sometimes those can play into ME issues that need addressing (there are a few!), sometimes what the AI does is a bit drastic in general (going from "I just don't want to concecde and soak up all your crap shots / pressure" to "All out attack" in the space of a few mins), and whilst the AI doesn't crack your tactics (another myth), a switch can by chance play completely into the holes of your tactic. Whilst every tacic has a few right with the pick of formations, if it's an unbalanced tactic in general, that is more likely to happen. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff you see published on the Workshops etc. precisely fit such a bill (limited defensively cover getting exposed on any intercepted atack suddenly by simple formational switches to multiple forwards). This thread looks like it's eventually going to be locked, but if somebody is motivated/interesting in seeing what's really the cause, I think we had a promising thread on this where uploaded matches with such extremely different halves may fit. Might be an actual issue behind too.

 

52 minutes ago, looping said:

First off, you are not alone. I'm totally inept to play the game.

 

So inept that you finish European spots with Torino.

[Bunkerossian]

How to properly assess what sort of tactics are feasible for a team? I've been looking at the roles of players, amount of cover for each position, and the predicted ranking, thus far.

[Cougar2010]

12 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

How to properly assess what sort of tactics are feasible for a team? I've been looking at the roles of players, amount of cover for each position, and the predicted ranking, thus far.

Generally for a formation I consider the following when taking over a club:

A) Two or three DCs.

B) One, two or three STs.

C) Do the club have any wide players? (Wingers).

D) What formation allows you to fit in as many of the better players at the club as you can.

 

Once you have the basic layout of a formation you then start to consider roles & duties along with the style of play (Defensive, possession, balanced, attacking, direct etc).  You should also have an idea of where you sit in the league (title chasers, just off the top, mid table, bottom half, relegation fodder).  This gives you an idea of how attacking or defensive other teams will play against you.

Start with something simple, don't add any TIs or PIs initially unless you fully understand what they do and how they'll improve your base tactic.

Watch your first match, adapt during the match if you need to and consider what could be done better for the next match.  Then rinse & repeat.  Eventually your tactic will morph into a stable one and you'll add players to the squad that suit it.

[Bunkerossian]

Usually my first matches are friendlies- and it is hard to ascertain in those games, if anything needs fixing. This is frequently the case as my tactics are designed to fight opposition of a higher level than those in friendlies. I think I might need a tutor for some time,  to go through the process.

[Tony Wright 747]

3 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

Thats just not true I'm afraid.

Sure some tactical setups on each version find it easier to exploit weak points in the coding but that doesn't mean you can't be successful with other setups.  I've had success with lots of different formations & instructions in the last three years.  Just on FM17 I've used 442, 451, 4141, 41221 & currently 3232.  If you look around the tactics forum you'll also see many other shapes being used by a variety of users.

Yes, some are easier to setup than others but if you understand your team, the shape & what you want from it as as considering the opposition you can make most formations work.  I will add though here that using a formation that is inherently weak against the opposition formation will give you a bigger hill to climb due to the weak starting position.

 

 

You have to understand your team, their personalities & how they'll react.

You should know before you give a team talk which players will be happy, which will be fired up & which feel under pressure. 

More effort = better results.

 

 

Team talks only work for the first 15 minutes of each half and often less than that as their effect are overwritten by what happens on the pitch during that 15 mins.

 

There are far too many variables for SI to give you X+Y=Z answers.  The ME makes thousands of those calculations every minute of a match.

You would be far better off approaching it like a real football match rather than trying to turn it into that mathematical puzzle to be solved.  You would enjoy it more and probably have more success.

Your last paragraph was pretty much spot on Cougar, thats how i approach the game.  I set my tactics, formations and player roles more or less in the same way as i would if it was a real match and not a simulation and I don't seem to be having the same problems some other people are

[Bunkerossian]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

Your last paragraph was pretty much spot on Cougar, thats how i approach the game.  I set my tactics, formations and player roles more or less in the same way as i would if it was a real match and not a simulation and I don't seem to be having the same problems some other people are

I do the same- but results aren't there. It's fairly easy to match preferred player roles to positions in a formation, but after that... =(

[Cougar2010]

3 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I do the same- but results aren't there. It's fairly easy to match preferred player roles to positions in a formation, but after that... =(

You shouldn't just be choosing a player's best role if you didn't already know.

You need to make sure that the roles work well together.

Basically Roles >>> Players.  You choose the roles then fit the players into them.

[Tony Wright 747]

9 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I do the same- but results aren't there. It's fairly easy to match preferred player roles to positions in a formation, but after that... =(

Is it perhaps a case of what expectations are.  I play FM16 and am managing Toulouse in Ligue 1, I took over half way through the season wit the club in the bottom 3, with a brief of staying up.  I managed that and actually finished one place below where they finished IRL.  I don't have the budget to buy top players or pay the wages they would require.  I know I am not going to qualify for Europe any time soon, and to do that I am going to have to improve my rep and move to a biggar club.  I feel I am in a similar position to the real manager of Toulouse.  I don't want to exploit the game to win everything in sight, I just play the game as realisticlly as possible

[Bunkerossian]

10 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

You shouldn't just be choosing a player's best role if you didn't already know.

You need to make sure that the roles work well together.

Basically Roles >>> Players.  You choose the roles then fit the players into them.

Fitting square pegs into round holes- then? If I have 3 destructive MF-s that have little in the way of finishing or long shots, then I cannot use them as BBM-s. DM-D, CM-D, BWM or Ancherman are my options.

[Thorqemada]

Even if you have the right tactics its totally easy to lose bcs you have 1 wrong Player, a 3:0 is the most dangerous score midgame, i came back quite a few times for a 3:4 win or stuggles to keep at least a 3:2 when i was in the lead, there are so many variables and the ME is situationally so sensible to any influence that you nearly have no chance to estiamte what happens and the only thing is to find a very robust tacitc that works allmost all the time and find the right Players to fit it.

I found that counterplay works well for me, though ist still amazing how the tactic makes it that my very fast Players with the Advantage of a headstart into the open space behind the enemy defense still get caught as if they were snails by at times extremely slow defenders and it looks pretty ashaming (if not unbelieveable, like the Goalie that dives for a save of a Ball that is not even played to the Striker yet) in the 3D match.

[Cougar2010]

8 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Fitting square pegs into round holes- then? If I have 3 destructive MF-s that have little in the way of finishing or long shots, then I cannot use them as BBM-s. DM-D, CM-D, BWM or Ancherman are my options.

Putting too many of the same roles on the pitch is also fitting square pegs into round holes.

Players are also more flexible than the roles are so its the players that change while the roles stay the same.

If you have three destructive MFs then some of them either need to play a different role in a match or simply not play allowing other players to come into the first team to play the other roles.  There are also some formations/styles that would allow for more of these type of players on the pitch.

Its about looking at your options and coming up with a viable solution.

To give you some examples, take this player from my current save:

He is a natural DM and was/is an excellent anchor man in the DM position when I use a DM.  However over the last season I've mostly been using a 3232 (Wingbacks) system which means no DM.  Makowski can also play DC & MC but he isn't quite as good as he is at DM but because I'm not using a DM he has to do something else.  ATM he is splitting his time between playing DC and BWM at MC but he isn't great at either.  At DM as an AM he is a 4* player but at both DC & BWM he is more of a 3* player.  Still good but I have other options which means he doesn't get as much football as he should. 

 

This is another player I have:

You can see from his role/duty pie chart he is fairly flexible while I've learned from watching him on the pitch he is quite a defensive player.  My midfield three are a CM(a), BWM(d) &  DLP(s) so he has to fit one of those three roles.  He currently mostly plays as the DLP while filling in sometimes as the BWM despite CM being shown as his best role.

[Bunkerossian]

My options in my last save were such that I opted to play 2 out of 3 DM-s, and one of my 2 static playmakers as an MC. 2 standard wingers, one man up top. The tactic made absolute sense to me- like the ones before in different saves, but it was a failure after maybe 10 league games.

[thomit]

Cougar is quite right about roles. They come first, putting players in the chosen role comes second. A tactic where you just choose a role to suit the players can be a recipe for disaster. Those little green segments of the pie chart that "recommends" roles for players are probably doing more harm than good in this game.

They are not recommendations, they are just hinting at suitability.for a role. Giving a player a role that suits the player 100% may not be the role that you should have chosen for your tactic. even if that means that the player(s) available for that role only get a "suitability" of 50% (half a green pie). The right role for the tactics is always going to be more important than player suitability. Not that suitability is not important, but that decision should always come after you have decided what kind of role you want for that position in your tactical setup.

[Bunkerossian]

35 minutes ago, thomit said:

Cougar is quite right about roles. They come first, putting players in the chosen role comes second. A tactic where you just choose a role to suit the players can be a recipe for disaster. Those little green segments of the pie chart that "recommends" roles for players are probably doing more harm than good in this game.

They are not recommendations, they are just hinting at suitability.for a role. Giving a player a role that suits the player 100% may not be the role that you should have chosen for your tactic. even if that means that the player(s) available for that role only get a "suitability" of 50% (half a green pie). The right role will always be better then the right suitability. Of course, some times - they will fit both criteria very well, which is obviouslly even better. And, of course, some times the suitability becomes more important. An example is for lone strikers; once you have decided whether this should be a role all about spearheading attacks and about scoring goals, or whether this should be a bit more of a supporting role more involved in the build-up, then you have choices to make about the right role. Personally I wouldn't pay much attention to the green pie though, I would rather pay attention to the role descriptions, and in particular the hard coded role instructions, and then decide wich role fits best to my player's abilities.

I look at ability, too. This is why I put roles in a formation according to what the player looks best for. I had found a team dreadfully poor in wide options. Lots of good central midfielders. So I tried a 4-3-1-2. But I couldn't use wing backs- none of the available players could do it- and budget was tight.

[herne79]

2 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

Fitting square pegs into round holes- then? If I have 3 destructive MF-s that have little in the way of finishing or long shots, then I cannot use them as BBM-s. DM-D, CM-D, BWM or Ancherman are my options.

A BBM doesn't need finishing or long shots.  They're just nice to have.

But don't overlook the CM(s).  It's extremely customisable and flexible.

[thomit]

3 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I look at ability, too. This is why I put roles in a formation according to what the player looks best for. I had found a team dreadfully poor in wide options. Lots of good central midfielders. So I tried a 4-3-1-2. But I couldn't use wing backs- none of the available players could do it- and budget was tight.

You should not "put roles in a formation according to what the player looks best for". That way of going about it can lead to extremely unbalanced and flawed tactics.

[herne79]

8 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I look at ability, too. This is why I put roles in a formation according to what the player looks best for. I had found a team dreadfully poor in wide options. Lots of good central midfielders. So I tried a 4-3-1-2. But I couldn't use wing backs- none of the available players could do it- and budget was tight.

@thomit above beat me to it.

I'll also add, why can't you use wingbacks?  There's hardly any difference between a wingback and a fullback (essentially just the odd PI).

Arguably this is an area that could be improved in game.  The game is almost too helpful in trying to give you an idea of "best" roles and duties, but without making it clear enough these are actually no more than suggestions, not recommendations.

[thomit]

Let's use an example. Let's take a 4231 Wide formation. Now, I have 5 central midfielders in my team, 3 of them are "best suited" - according to the suitablity pie - to be attacking playmakers, the 2 others are "best suited" to be BWM's. Now, would I choose a BWM and a AP as the 2 roles in my central midfield? I would certainly not; that would lead to a way too risky and unbalanced midfield. What is needed is 2 roles that are both holding, - or at least not prone to leave their central positions on the pitch very often (due to the fact that the 4 players in front of them are quite agressively attacking and risk-taking, and that my full backs are part-taking or supporting in attack often). What I need there is - for example -  a CM with defend duty, coupled with a deep playmaker with support duty. So that is what I choose. Then I put players into those roles that I think would do a good job there. Both the "BWM"'s I have will fill the CM/defend role without problem, and all 3 of my "AP"'s will manage a DLP/support role without a problem. They're not given the roles that the green pie suggest are the best for them, but they are the roles that I think will best suit my tactic and formation. Infinitely more important.

[Bunkerossian]

44 minutes ago, herne79 said:

@thomit above beat me to it.

I'll also add, why can't you use wingbacks?  There's hardly any difference between a wingback and a fullback (essentially just the odd PI).

Arguably this is an area that could be improved in game.  The game is almost too helpful in trying to give you an idea of "best" roles and duties, but without making it clear enough these are actually no more than suggestions, not recommendations.

Fairly slow fullbacks with crossing that isn't great. Defending skills are good.

The thing is with 4-2-3-1- that tactic requires very specific players. I'd never shoehorn a BWM into a CM-D just to play it. A CM-D needs to have low aggression, while a BWM needs to have fairly low.

[Svenc]

At the end of the day, you need guys who a) defend/disrupt b) get at the end of moves and c) those who supply // open the space. Simply putting all guys to never cross / risky pass / dribble never because they don't have the best attributes will limit play. Plus, as anybody can attest to (cheating ME, before I'm infracted: ) even that guy with long shots 1 may score a screamer.  Reminds me a little about my freshman years, in particular going lower league. I'd oft put my wide guys to never dribble by def simply because like all the other guys on their level they had low dribbling attributes LL , tactical genius.  It's interesting only in more recent times SI have re-introduced feedback that may encourage you to do similar via the assman role advice. If you want a terribly tactic, simply stick to what the assistant rates best: two limited full backs defend, one centre back backs cover, a libero defend, all midfielders on attack, the forwards on defend roles, all based on the attribute distribution only.

[thomit]

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

Fairly slow fullbacks with crossing that isn't great. Defending skills are good.

The thing is with 4-2-3-1- that tactic requires very specific players. I'd never shoehorn a BWM into a CM-D just to play it. A CM-D needs to have low aggression, while a BWM needs to have fairly low.

No. A 4231 Wide does not require specific players, not more than any other formation. It all depends on what you're trying to do. Are you trying to play like Barcelona? Yes then you'll probably need Barcelona's players. What all formations and tactics needs is common sense, and balance. Any formation/tactic requires that you choose sensible roles and duties for it, rather than just choosing roles that best suits your players. Again, the first approach will (hopefully) lead you to sensible and balanced tactics, the latter will most probably not.

And a CM/d does not "need" a low aggression. I have what is probably the best guy in the world for that role in my formation and tactical setup, and his aggression stat is 18, if I remember correctly. Don't OCD too much about such things. All it means in this particular scenario is that he tend to pick up a decent amount of yellows and maybe a red during the season. Nothing to be scared of.

[Bunkerossian]

19 minutes ago, thomit said:

No. A 4231 Wide does not require specific players, not more than any other formation. What all formations and tactics needs is common sense, and balance. Any formation/tactic requires that you choose sensible roles and duties for it, rather than just choosing roles that best suits your players. Again, the first approach will lead you to sensible and balanced tactics, the latter probably won't.

And a CM/d does not "need" a low aggression. I have what is probably the best guy in the world for that role in my formation and tactical setup, and his aggression stat is 18, if I remember correctly. Don't OCD too much about such things. All it means in this particular scenario is that he tend to pick up a decent amount of yellows and maybe a red during the season. Nothing to be scared of.

It's because he needs to hold position that I think a CM-D needs low aggression.

I do find it strange that no guide I've read recommends playing defensive FB-s. Then what do I do with a full back who is good at defending, and unsuited to joining attacks due to unsatisfactory speed, dribbling and crossing?

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

Fairly slow fullbacks with crossing that isn't great. Defending skills are good.

Then have them on support with reduced crossing PI so that they provide flank support and a passing option.

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

A CM-D needs to have low aggression, while a BWM needs to have fairly low.

Absolutely not.  The BWM role especially in an aggressive role, so why use a player with low aggression?  The Aggression attribute helps players to "get stuck in" as it where, not shy away and play passively.  Not to be confused with the hidden Dirtiness attribute btw.

3 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

It's because he needs to hold position that I think a CM-D needs low aggression.

Hold Position is a TI used when you are in possession, not when you're defending.

[thomit]

I have yet to encounter a full back who is "unsuited" to join in attack. Not very good? Yes. Unsuited? No. Is he really ***** at dribbling, but you still wan't him to contribute in attack? Then do not give him a role where dribbling is part of his (hard-coded) instructions. FB/attack or WB/support. Speed or crossing ability is of little concern compared to the need to have full backs contributing in attack - if that is indeed your need. The most important ability of any player is that he indeed is positioned where he is needed, and when he is needed, as much as possible.

Predominantly defensive minded full backs? Sure, if you have the wing play taken care of by other players, so that there's really little need for the full backs to contribute in attack. The reason you don't see many tactics with a FB on defend duty in it, is because of the fact that most modern tactics require full backs to take part or actively support in attack. But as I said, if they're not really needed for that, then have them on defend duty, it'll be safer. Or when you simply want to defend and not bothered with actually scoring.

[Bunkerossian]

3 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Then have them on support with reduced crossing PI so that they provide flank support and a passing option.

Absolutely not.  The BWM role especially in an aggressive role, so why use a player with low aggression?  The Aggression attribute helps players to "get stuck in" as it where, not shy away and play passively.  Not to be confused with the hidden Dirtiness attribute btw.

Hold Position is a TI used when you are in possession, not when you're defending.

Up there was a typo, regarding the BWM. My bad.

Regarding the FB ideas- wouldn't this passing support thing simply end up being counter bait? If he loses possession, the wide player is out of position.

So a CM-D with high aggression is not at risk of charging in too early when the ball is lost, and thus exposing central areas to a counter?

[Svenc]

System is always compromise in some way or other. It is very rare that when you start out you will have all the players you'd ideally want... However even if you took over a squad of entirelly centre backs, playing 10-0-0 may be a bit too extreme an idea.

24 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I do find it strange that no guide I've read recommends playing defensive FB-s.

One part of that may be that having a big amount of players on defend (effectively sitting behind the ball) shifts the balance hugely into a particular direction. Having both backs on defend is of (limited) use, as if they won't push up to at least support midfield much, a side --usually-- will find it harder to keep the ball into the oppositioin final third for very long. However, it's historically been one of 2-3 main causes behind a few added 30 shots no goals matches, as defensive AI for prolonged periods can have lots of guys on defend duty. I personally consider both backs just defending to be quite extreme and it should be treated as such in terms of AI tactics, as how often do you see it in a competitive match of football that both backs stay glued to the back line not much advancing,  save for maybe the dying minutes of seeing a match out (the AI can and still does play like this oft for entire matches -- however it also switches those throughout depending on which, i.e. 10 minutes to go and still a chance of a result).

[Bunkerossian]

4 hours ago, herne79 said:

A BBM doesn't need finishing or long shots.  They're just nice to have.

But don't overlook the CM(s).  It's extremely customisable and flexible.

A BBM must have these 2, otherwise the chances will simply be squandered. I've played with natural BWM-s set to this role, and it's a waste.

[Cougar2010]

11 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

A BBM must have these 2, otherwise the chances will simply be squandered. I've played with natural BWM-s set to this role, and it's a waste.

You started this thread because you were frustrated with results and even called it "Should I just...quit FM?"

Several people have advised you where you are going wrong but you are just dismissing the advice.

Your way isn't working else you wouldn't have started the thread.  Unless you change your approach you are unlikely to see an improvement.

[Thorqemada]

I play with the classic roles that were already in FM13, tried the others and fond it not better - the HB for example like to open the Center Door to the oposition.

At all defense makes way to much Errors compared to the offense and 1 on 1 is to avoid aside of the WB Position bcs there it still is not Goal if you lose the challenge.

Pretty much you Need 3 on 1 to deffend successfull which means if the first challenge/tackle is lost the second Players takes on the oposition and if necessary a third Player after the second has alos not won the ball back.

Strikers and offensive Players are fully able to win against 3 Players at once the same time but in a staggered setup these 3 Players build so to say in WWI Terms a 3 trenches deep defense and when you have the Ball get it out of your damned half bcs an error there is to a pretty high degree a Goal, even in the opostiion half you never have to allow 1 on 1 defensive Actions, you always need a numerical advantage for a possible defensive Action in case you lose the ball which means you usually attack with initiative and not with numbers.

I play an aggressive 4-1-3-2 Counter with 8 man in my own half to the middle line and 2 attackers when you look at your tactic screen (in FM16 it was attacking 4-3-1-2 in a 7-3 setup but the FM17 defense does not allow it).

SK-s

CD-d x2

Anchorman-d

WB-a x2

CM-s x2

AP-s (MC)

CF-s

Poacher-a

My way is to deny the Center area by numerical advantage somehow/counterattacking agressively  and i found to score goals against equal or stronger opponents i have to set "Work Ball into Box" bcs else way i have Chances but no Goals.

The whole CCC shebang is more misleading than helping anyway.

 

TLDR: Allways ever have numerical superiority in your defense with a staggered 3 trenches deep defense, avoid Errors in your own half at all cost but try to seek advantage of opositon Errors and attack with initiative, not with numbers!

[Bunkerossian]

2 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

You started this thread because you were frustrated with results and even called it "Should I just...quit FM?"

Several people have advised you where you are going wrong but you are just dismissing the advice.

Your way isn't working else you wouldn't have started the thread.  Unless you change your approach you are unlikely to see an improvement.

How to deal with  unsuitability of players to roles- then? What is the point of a BBM that misses sitters? After the experience, I could only play the players in their primary role.

[Cougar2010]

Just now, Bunkerossian said:

How to deal with  unsuitability of players to roles- then? What is the point of a BBM that misses sitters? After the experience, I could only play the players in their primary role.

No player is ever perfect for a role.

You do the best you can with what you have available, thats what a manager does.

In the short term do you have a player who can play that role better?

In the long term you may want to sign a player who is more suited to that role and can do what you want.

TBH though it sounds like you are stuck in a loop and have no intention of changing so if thats the case the rest of us are just wasting our time posting

[MHovel]

I have an issue when I have CCC and my strikers tend to miss them (I'm not talking about the CCC stat, I'm talking about actual chances that me personally witnessed and they are not from a difficult angle, even whne my strikers or AMr/l managed to get them from the middle, they tend to shoot the ball straight to the middle, and it looks like they pass the ball to the GK "intentionally". (it does happen IRL that players sometimes not placing their shots properly or do not kick the ball right, but this happens way too often in FM.

even comfortable shots from the edge of the box, the players tend to shoot them very weak and straight to the middle which make it easy for the GK to handle (it happens also for the AI, but when the majority of the matches that me personally dominating in terms of threats and even quality threats and overall, the AI gets this kind of chance let's say, once. while me, can get the same scenario almost every game, and few times per game, this what makes it annoying and i tend to believe that other frustrating users would get annoyed from that aswell.

 

Today, I can tell that in terms of creating tactic in the game Im doing it much successfully when comparing to myself time ago.

The game have a huge problem in terms of missing chances, yes, not every CCC should convert into a goal, im talking about very high amount of ccc that being missed (too much from a convincing angles).

I realised something about the game when your players have no option up front, they will take stupid long shots instead of holding the ball, which tend to happen mostly when playing with 1 striker up front.

in order to avoid long shots, adding one more player up front (striker position), and in a proper role and duty with his striker partner, this could avoid the stupid long shots decisions.

but there is another problem with the strikers who doesn't come back do defend (even if you set him as a defensive forward on defend and very fluid).

atleast me personlly tested and he will still remain on top, I'm not sure if that was just a ME bug, but also the wide players who doen't want to defend or more precisely they don't tend to track the opposition full backs is another problem when going to 4-4-2, now this is a huge risk formation to go to because i end up having 6 players "defending" (2 cm's 4 defenders when one of them have an attack duty, so sometimes I have only 5 defending which makes me exposed to counter attack easily, and ofcurse the AI' always know's how to exploit space, then comes the users frustration).

the only way to instruct them (wide players) to mark full backs, is to ask them to mark tighter the opposition full back, "Mark a specific player".

i.e. when I set a tactic as my default (i.e. 4-4-3) and during games I manage to analyze that my players are taking long shots, then I change the formation to more players up front, i.e. 4-4-2), this really improves one thing, no more stupid and annoying long shots which mostly tend to happen when teams park the bus against you, but this makes you exposed to counter attacks easily.

After a while, when i change things according to my knowledge or to my analyzation, things getting worse after half season, before things is getting worse, im getting quite good resualts and good performance from my players.

but the only problem that i have is that, my players starts to miss chances and alot of them being missed and the opposition GK became really amazing, all is good with that because it tend to happen IRL.

I talked with each player after the match and raised their morale before matches, because i want them to be with higher morale before the game.

so in the 2nd match, i had the same issue, my players start to miss a very convincing opportunitties (GK seems to became amazing again according to the high rate), but it's not because the GK start to really become amazing, it's my players shooting the ball to the middle so it's easier for the gK to take those one or one situations, which I'm again fine with this because I assume it's just a bad day in the office (again).

in the 3rd match we didn't deserve to win.

in the 4th match, I had a simillar problem like i had in the 1st and 2nd match i described, this time the opposition also had chances but if comparing it to my chances according to what I actually saw from the highlight, my chances were more convincing because they also have been from a good and better angles... but my players kept missing and we lost at home 0-3 while we were much better overall in all aspects, everytime we missed a very good opportunity the opponent managed to score.

From my experience with FM so far, I start to believe that if you create a tactic that AI already can adapt to it, the ME translate it in the way you won't see it as bad performance from your players, you will see your players keeps missing chances and then you lose 1-0 (loosing 1-0 and having loads of chances and cannot convert it to goals, that not a bad tactic, it's a bad luck).

I'm not expecting to win every match, but I blame SI for not providing any information regarding the game.

it's understandable that it's very hard to implement a ME that can satisfy all users or that every change to the ME can cause problems, but the less you can do is to provide more information for the users regarding the game.

the game doesn't simulate real life football, otherwise I won't feel so restricted to create my own tactic, so atleast give us a proper guide which provide more information and much accurate info.

it's very unfortunate that people buying the game just for downloading tactic and to watch games, they miss the whole idea/concept of the game (not like i should care about how they play or what makes other people happy), but my intention is, if this is something that have it's own thread at the SI forums, (in the download tactic section) when the majority of the tactics their doenst make sense and probably successfull because of the tactics exploit one or another in the ME (Its like allowing exploit thread  in the forums).

The game is more frustrating than enjoying not because of loosing, because of the fact that the basic user change things up with the mind they think they understand what they change, but in fact the misunderstand the feature.

Im a customer from 2015 (quite new compared to the majority here), but i'm really dissapointed.

sorry for my English.

 

[Bunkerossian]

57 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

No player is ever perfect for a role.

You do the best you can with what you have available, thats what a manager does.

In the short term do you have a player who can play that role better?

In the long term you may want to sign a player who is more suited to that role and can do what you want.

TBH though it sounds like you are stuck in a loop and have no intention of changing so if thats the case the rest of us are just wasting our time posting

I fear changing, because of bad experiences with experiments. Another example: I tried fitting an MC playmaker into a 4-4-2, but as he was utterly unsuited for defensive tasks, I played him on Support, and tried a BBM role beside him. I was lucky not to concede a goal, and soon induced defensive stability by going to a 1 striker formation. Game ended in a scoreless draw.

[Svenc]

It's opening up into a few predictably reoccuring themes. What I collect from such threads and prior experiences (never been much different), is the following that can make improvements:

- Include an optionally assistant who can step by step go through a few basic things and steer players into the right directions // asking the right questions. Even in absolutely totally simple terms like how could we increase he chance to score / hold onto what we have / go for broke. Or prior setting up a sensible base core, considering that the assistant does all of that either way when holidaying, why not.

- Include further and more intelligent stats, possible even feeding that advice. Assessing chances requires  a bit of experience with reading the ME, plus a subjective eye. Posted many times that I don't think it's coincidence that there is that oft expressed notion how crosses etc. would be "overpowered", and one on ones of a narrowed through balls in particular undercooked/missed too often. The crosses/wide balls don't connect that often, but in real football likewise they need to change direction in an instant to at all go on target, leaving the keeper no to few chance of reacting. This seems in line with research. Factor in the pace of play, the footedness of the player, a few actually bad finishes etc.  Is it possible to have individually situations roughly judged and placed an approximate "number" on, no idea (e.g. Expected Goal models or similar).

However as internally shots must individually differ or else all would be random and we'd all quit in disgust, it must be possible to have better feedback for a few of this. Similar is used by a few actual managers in the game too, whilst FM on a stats level is pretty much MOTD. As outlined in this ages old article, on television these simple stats are used to make things accessible. To have them as key performance indicators for a manager, is truly difficult.  On the plus side, the absence of such means the AI couldn't assess them either.... but at the start of the game their logic means they've already gone through that "initial learning stage" and roughly know how to get a certain level of performance out of teams. Well, most of them.

 

[Cougar2010]

2 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I fear changing, because of bad experiences with experiments. Another example: I tried fitting an MC playmaker into a 4-4-2, but as he was utterly unsuited for defensive tasks, I played him on Support, and tried a BBM role beside him. I was lucky not to concede a goal, and soon induced defensive stability by going to a 1 striker formation. Game ended in a scoreless draw.

But thats what you do as a manager.

You try things sometimes a new role, sometimes a new player.  Some of those work, some don't.

You adapt & change from match to match.

Overall you seem to be seeing things as black or white when the truth is football is full of grey.  Roles & players are not things which are simply switched on or off, they are far more complex and each match you set up in a way that you think gives your team the best chance of winning.  Sometimes you don't win when you deserve to and on the flipside you win sometimes when you shouldn't + everything in the middle.  Thats what football is like IRL.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, Cougar2010 said:

But thats what you do as a manager.

You try things sometimes a new role, sometimes a new player.  Some of those work, some don't.

You adapt & change from match to match.

Overall you seem to be seeing things as black or white when the truth is football is full of grey.  Roles & players are not things which are simply switched on or off, they are far more complex and each match you set up in a way that you think gives your team the best chance of winning.  Sometimes you don't win when you deserve to and on the flipside you win sometimes when you shouldn't + everything in the middle.  Thats what football is like IRL.

I guess I'm also under the influence of threads that emphasize simplicity when creating tactics. I really don't put many instructions, but I also stick to player roles that fit the player. It echoes what my real-life philosophy: everyone should play his defined part within a team. I'd never demand attacking play from a ˝butcher˝ (colloquial name for a BWM where I'm from).

[ilkork]

I haven't read the previous posts, but I have to comment on the following:

4 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

A BBM must have these 2, otherwise the chances will simply be squandered. I've played with natural BWM-s set to this role, and it's a waste.

A BWM (Ball-Winning Midfielder) is someone who is just looking to win the ball back. He doesn't offer much towards creativity.
A BBM is the guy who will receive the ball from the BWM and then look to lay it off to a more creative player, like an Advanced Playmaker.

So, a BBM is somewhere in the middle, not too much of a defensive player(BWM) and not too much of an offensive player(AP). But he helps in both defensive and attacking situations.
And don't expect a BBM to act like a "classic 10".