Football Manager 2019 Feature Blogs: Revamped Tactics Module

[majesticeternity]

These seem like great and badly needed changes. But, imo, the game is already too easy to win at, even if not using any exploits.

 

Won't this just make it easier to win, due to all the new tactical abilities?

[kingking]

11 minutes ago, majesticeternity said:

These seem like great and badly needed changes. But, imo, the game is already too easy to win at, even if not using any exploits.

 

Won't this just make it easier to win, due to all the new tactical abilities?

It will help the A.I and improve their tactical abilities (hopefully)

[herne79]

20 minutes ago, kingking said:

It will help the A.I and improve their tactical abilities (hopefully)

Or remove some of our unfair advantages .

[Armistice]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

That virtually never happens

Last season Liverpool took 638 shots in the league. 247 of them were outside the box. That's average of 6.5 a game

Man City took 665 shots in the league, 254 outside the box, that's an average of 6.68 a game

There is nothing wrong with some of the long shots. They are frustrating but they can be a helping tool because they let you know something’s not right. The issue is when the player decides to shoot instead of passing to a team mate nearby despite he’s been told to Shoot Less Often. Or when a player who is the furthest up the field doesn’t wait for support and try to pass it back but decides to try a pot shot in a man shield. I just reinstalled FM17 and I played a game against a poor defensive side but the long shots were significantly less frequent than in FM18, the players were looking to recycle possession more often despite having a fairly aggressive mentality.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Armistice

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

That virtually never happens

Last season Liverpool took 638 shots in the league. 247 of them were outside the box. That's average of 6.5 a game

Man City took 665 shots in the league, 254 outside the box, that's an average of 6.68 a game

 

I'm pretty confident there are human players that are lower. HOw they get there is another matter... However, given that City's overall shot conversion was 16% (1 goal for every 6th shot), and human players can approach almost a goal in every fourth, which is massive, I wouldn't be surprised to see the overall amount of attempts from range being lower.

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, Armistice said:

There is nothing wrong with some of the long shots. They are frustrating but they can be a helping tool because they let you know something’s not right. The issue is when the player decides to shoot instead of passing to a team mate nearby despite he’s been told to Shoot Less Often. Or when a player who is the furthest up the field doesn’t wait for support and try to pass it back but decides to try a pot shot in a man shield. I just reinstalled FM17 and I played a game against a poor defensive side but the long shots were significantly less frequent than in FM18, the players were looking to recycle possession more often despite having a fairly aggressive mentality.

Agree, but that's a different point to saying there are too many long shots and teams dont make them. What's needed is better player recycling, which hadn't changed really from fm17, so Im surprised you think it was considerably better

[rdbayly]

2 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Agree, but that's a different point to saying there are too many long shots and teams dont make them. What's needed is better player recycling, which hadn't changed really from fm17, so Im surprised you think it was considerably better

I found long shot problems in FM17 were way easier to control than in FM18.

[MBarbaric]

1 ora fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

That virtually never happens

Last season Liverpool took 638 shots in the league. 247 of them were outside the box. That's average of 6.5 a game

Man City took 665 shots in the league, 254 outside the box, that's an average of 6.68 a game

Whenever you do match analysis, you never take numbers for their face value. Context is always most important. I've checked the last 10 matches of Man City and took a look at them.

Shots outside area - 79

Free kicks                 - 10

Corner kicks             - 4

GK out of position  - 2

After a counter att - 6

Edge of the box      - 36

Long shots              -12

Poor long shots     - 9

If you don't consider free kicks, shots after corner kicks, counter attacks and when the goalkeeper is out of position, you remain with positional attacks where Man City is in control and the opposition is behind the ball in their defensive shape. They took 57 shots from outside the box in these conditions in last 10 matches (5.7 per match on average). 

63% (36) of these shots are from the edge of the box. They occur mainly as a result of a deliberate play where:

a) the ball is passed back for a player coming from deep

b) the opposition is moved to one flank and the ball is passed sideways for a free player

c) City players perform a 1-2 pass 

d) a shot is taken on a rebound

 

37% (21) of shots are truly long shots, further than the edge of the box. They occur mainly in the following manner:

a) 57% - the opposition is moved to one flank and the ball is passed sideways for a free player (12 times in 10 games) 

b) 43% - player takes a speculative shot that really has no sense (9 times in 10 games). It is worth noting that 77% (7 out of 9) of these poor shots came in 3 matches against the worst opposition, Oxford, B&H Albion and Huddersfield.

 

To conclude, it would be fair to say that in last 10 games, on average, Man City tried 5,7 shots from outside the box during positional attacks. 

3,6 were intentional play from a very dangerous position on the edge of the box

1,2 were intentional play from a less dangerous position further from the box

0,9 were poor speculative attempts from far . To put it further into perspective, 0,7 of these came in only 3 out of 10 matches against the worst opposition, that was very likely sitting really deep.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by MBarbaric

[Svenc]

15 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

I found long shot problems in FM17 were way easier to control than in FM18.

If true, this could be interpreted in many ways. How about

1) AI defensive tactics could have been poor.
2) (Deep) defenses could have been inherently too easily overloaded (ME inherent)

It's an FMers natural instinct to play bootiful attacking football, with everything going perfectly to plan. I don't remember the release, but when I switched over from an earlier one to it, I immediately noticed how harder it was to force opposition to such shots. Naturally, I was just as frustrated as you However, from a completely different angle, which needs to be considered also. This is a football sim, not merely a tiki-taka sim.

 

Great point by MBararic. These "simple stats" collected are simply tally charts. Another incident of x, and +1 you go. Without context, they lack meaning, or as that old BBC article has it... they can be as "illuminating as an energy saving light bulb". Luckily SI don't merely tweak by such stats alone.  However, I'd be personally really interested in statistics showing where (on average) shots in general are worked from.... set pieces, open (positional) play, counters too. I have a suspicious you would find a few big differences to football right there.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Svenc

[MBarbaric]

23 minuti fa, Svenc ha scritto:

I'd be personally really interested in statistics showing where (on average) shots are worked from.... set pieces, open (positional) play, counters too.

Consider that these are not averages but actual positions, however, you get the idea. 

positional attacks

 

Counter attacks

 

Free kicks

 

Corner kicks

Edited October 4, 2018 by MBarbaric

[themadsheep2001]

38 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

Whenever you do match analysis, you never take numbers for their face value. Context is always most important. I've checked the last 10 matches of Man City and took a look at them.

Shots outside area - 79

Free kicks                 - 10

Corner kicks             - 4

GK out of position  - 2

After a counter att - 6

Edge of the box      - 36

Long shots              -12

Poor long shots     - 9

If you don't consider free kicks, shots after corner kicks, counter attacks and when the goalkeeper is out of position, you remain with positional attacks where Man City is in control and the opposition is behind the ball in their defensive shape. They took 57 shots from outside the box in these conditions in last 10 matches (5.7 per match on average). 

63% (36) of these shots are from the edge of the box. They occur mainly as a result of a deliberate play where:

a) the ball is passed back for a player coming from deep

b) the opposition is moved to one flank and the ball is passed sideways for a free player

c) City players perform a 1-2 pass 

d) a shot is taken on a rebound

 

37% (21) of shots are truly long shots, further than the edge of the box. They occur mainly in the following manner:

a) 57% - the opposition is moved to one flank and the ball is passed sideways for a free player (12 times in 10 games) 

b) 43% - player takes a speculative shot that really has no sense (9 times in 10 games). It is worth noting that 77% (7 out of 9) of these poor shots came in 3 matches against the worst opposition, Oxford, B&H Albion and Huddersfield.

 

To conclude, it would be fair to say that in last 10 games, on average, Man City tried 5,7 shots from outside the box during positional attacks. 

3,6 were intentional play from a very dangerous position on the edge of the box

1,2 were intentional play from a less dangerous position further from the box

0,9 were poor speculative attempts from far . To put it further into perspective, 0,7 of these came in only 3 out of 10 matches against the worst opposition, that was very likely sitting really deep.

 

 

 

 

I know context is key, I only currently have access to my opta numbers, not positional play Which would still come back to my point, that it's not about the number of shots, but recycling to create better opportunities that's the issue.

[Svenc]

Speaking about "better ball recycling". It's been a long-term thing that once the ball is moved out of the backline, it rarely, to never goes back. With Guardiola's teams in particular, the centre backs oft have most of the passes. Once the CBs on FM play the ball forward, they're mostly out of the game for the remainder of the attack. It's mainly the DM/defensive centre mids acting as the outlets of ball retention from then on. I reckon that "bias" to not overly play the ball back to the CBs is tweaked in parts due to pressing in deep areas lacking, traditionally. If it was possible to involve the CBs much more, the side out of possession would find it really hard to get the ball back. Which is also a factor as to ultra defensive time wasting AI... in matches of theirs in particular, you had an unrealistically low amount of turnovers, very likely. Then again, pressing is teased at having seen a bit of an overhaul for FM 19, so who knows.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Svenc

[kpsia518]

5 hours ago, GOODNAME said:

No Retain Possession ?

ya,look like Retain Possession been remove

and how about team shape ?

team shape is missing too,but its still there

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by kpsia518

[Wells]

Finally, with all those new features and changes It will be time to get back to FM after skipping 18. I just hope the AI managers will cope and use these tools to the same extent as we will do.

Only the thing I dislike is the Skin UI is terrible with those purple and greenish panels and club color being main background.

[Cal585]

On 27/09/2018 at 04:55, Neil Brock said:

In addition, there are a few new player roles that have been added this year such as the Pressing Forward, which is a role that is designed to put pressure on your opponent’s defensive line by having your striker press them and restrict their time on the ball. Defensively, there are now No-Nonsense Full-Backs and No-Nonsense Centre-Back who focus predominantly on basic defensive duties and very rarely move forward into attacking areas.

It feels a bit misleading to advertise adding new roles when they're really just rebranded/redesigned versions of existing roles. Don't get me wrong, I think the renaming of 'limited defenders' was needed and attack duty makes defensive forward more appealing as well, but they're not really new as a lot of advertising says...

Having said that, I'm loving these changes to Tactics and Training and this will probably be the year I switch back to full FM. There seems to have been a lot of work done to clear out a lot of confusing terminology and options which was much needed.

[XaW]

12 hours ago, DP said:

Yes, that is absolutely the last thing so players tend to retain possession. I know the way the ME sees it but it simply isn’t a true reflection. You’ll never hear a manager say ‘if you have no option just shoot’. It doesn’t work that way. 

In fact De Boer was saying on Monday night that he would tell his players to not shoot from distance at all. That instruction is impossible in the current ME as there are times it’ll happen for the reasons above. 

If there is nothing on a player can always go backwards or attempt to go sideways or forward rather than ridiculously shoot. 

Of course the ME have limitations, but the ‘if you have no option just shoot’-part is actually somewhat happening. I played at a relatively high junior level and if you lost possession and had a dangerous counterattack against the coaches always said (paraphrasing of course) "It's better to finish the attack with a poor shot than suffer a counterattack". So, yes, several times coaches have asked me, and others, to at least get a shot of, if there are no other options available.

They also said, look for a backpass before you shoot, though, but a poor shot is preferable to conceding on the counter. What I do agree should happen more in FM is supporting players moving better to offer passing possibilities, getting out of the pass shadow (is that an English term?) and more making themselves open and available, at least as a defensive outlet.

8 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

<a lot that made sense, I just edited it out, to not have the post be a mile long>

Some very interesting numbers there. I would like to see the same numbers from a similar amount of games in FM (AI vs AI) to see if the long shot variable are comparable or way off. I assume SI do these kinds of soak tests though, but it would be interesting to see the results.

[zigaliro]

9 hours ago, majesticeternity said:

These seem like great and badly needed changes. But, imo, the game is already too easy to win at, even if not using any exploits.

 

Won't this just make it easier to win, due to all the new tactical abilities?

Speak for yourself :P

 

Im really struggling in FM 18, so i  hope FM 19 will be easier.

Edited October 5, 2018 by zigaliro

[Tom8983]

13 hours ago, DP said:

If there is nothing on a player can always go backwards or attempt to go sideways or forward rather than ridiculously shoot

No, if there's nothing on, that means there's nothing on. The player isn't able to go backwards or sideways because there's no available options there. 

[rdbayly]

This discussion is going the way of the 'We need to talk about long shots' thread. A cyclical debate that will never move forward.

I personally found that tactics in FM18 were so precariously balanced, that a single misplaced role, duty or slider click would result in a barrage of long shots into row z. That's not to say the issue couldn't be alleviated by making changes; however, after testing and experimenting the glut of advice in the tactics forum, I still couldn't find a satisfactory solution. It felt like trying to crack a safe combination. Some users stumbled upon it, many didn't.

Also, for me, it wasn't necessarily the amount of long shots; it was the distance they missed the target by. If my player was on the edge of the box and made a yard for themselves to attempt a curler into the far corner (which just misses outside the post) - I honestly wouldn't mind. If a shot from a player with excellent technical and mental attributes regularly goes out of play close to the corner flag, then of course I'm going to question it.

The irony is this didn't impact on my overall achievements in FM18, as I could still march through divisions and over-achieve with clubs. I just 'put up' with it. Maybe it was more of an aesthetic / enjoyment issue in my case.

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by rdbayly

[westy8chimp]

9 hours ago, Svenc said:

Speaking about "better ball recycling". It's been a long-term thing that once the ball is moved out of the backline, it rarely, to never goes back. With Guardiola's teams in particular, the centre backs oft have most of the passes. Once the CBs on FM play the ball forward, they're mostly out of the game for the remainder of the attack. It's mainly the DM/defensive centre mids acting as the outlets of ball retention from then on. I reckon that "bias" to not overly play the ball back to the CBs is tweaked in parts due to pressing in deep areas lacking, traditionally. If it was possible to involve the CBs much more, the side out of possession would find it really hard to get the ball back. Which is also a factor as to ultra defensive time wasting AI... in matches of theirs in particular, you had an unrealistically low amount of turnovers, very likely. Then again, pressing is teased at having seen a bit of an overhaul for FM 19, so who knows.

Spot on. Think we will be a few years yet before the new features tie in to much better pressing and ball recycling. To start with it will be little ME tweak... But mostly a clearer UI. 

[Armistice]

11 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Agree, but that's a different point to saying there are too many long shots and teams dont make them. What's needed is better player recycling, which hadn't changed really from fm17, so Im surprised you think it was considerably better

Honestly I'm surprised to hear that, maybe there were other things that were coded in FM18 ME and they affected how ball recycling was considered? Otherwise I would suggest you to load FM17, play a few games, look at how the players recycle possession especially after a failed penetration transition and then return to FM18 and do the same. I can assure you there's a change and this might not be down to long shots stats per game but in the way they're taken. There seem to be more "stop, turn around, pass the ball back to a deeper player, look to utilize the flanks, try to drag players around" in FM17 than what I've seen in FM18 in any of those saves I've had.

 

10 hours ago, Svenc said:

Speaking about "better ball recycling". It's been a long-term thing that once the ball is moved out of the backline, it rarely, to never goes back. With Guardiola's teams in particular, the centre backs oft have most of the passes. Once the CBs on FM play the ball forward, they're mostly out of the game for the remainder of the attack. It's mainly the DM/defensive centre mids acting as the outlets of ball retention from then on. I reckon that "bias" to not overly play the ball back to the CBs is tweaked in parts due to pressing in deep areas lacking, traditionally. If it was possible to involve the CBs much more, the side out of possession would find it really hard to get the ball back. Which is also a factor as to ultra defensive time wasting AI... in matches of theirs in particular, you had an unrealistically low amount of turnovers, very likely. Then again, pressing is teased at having seen a bit of an overhaul for FM 19, so who knows.

Absolutely spot on.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Armistice

[themadsheep2001]

6 minutes ago, Armistice said:

Honestly I'm surprised to hear that, maybe there were other things that were coded in FM18 ME and they affected how ball recycling was considered? Otherwise I would suggest you to load FM17, play a few games, look at how the players recycle possession especially after a failed penetration transition and then return to FM18 and do the same. I can assure you there's a change and this might not be down to long shots stats per game but in the way they're taken. There seem to be more "stop, turn around, pass the ball back to a deeper player, look to utilize the flanks, try to drag players around" in FM17 than what I've seen in FM18 in any of those saves I've had.

 

Absolutely spot on.

There wasn't much change in player recycling. There were changes to the defensive line and defensive engagement though 

[DP]

1 hour ago, Tom8983 said:

No, if there's nothing on, that means there's nothing on. The player isn't able to go backwards or sideways because there's no available options there. 

Show me when this happens? :/

I can’t recall a situation when there is build up and someone just elects to shoot as there are no options. They may shoot as think they have a chance of scoring or frustration or even to change play up but it seems absurd that it would be the only option. 

[MBarbaric]

12 ore fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

I know context is key, I only currently have access to my opta numbers, not positional play Which would still come back to my point, that it's not about the number of shots, but recycling to create better opportunities that's the issue.

Man City use long shots as a genuine attempt to score. However, before they take long shot, they create situations where they get specific players to shoot in specific conditions where they have time and space to take a long shot. It is prepared on the training ground not as a part of keeping possession, but as a deliberate attempt on goal.

FM doesn't have that kind of control where you can instruct the team to lure the opposition on one side to open space on the other for a long shot.

In the end, they had a total of 220 shots on goal in the last 10 games with only 9 of them being wild long shots while all others have been in controlled, deliberate conditions. Would really be interesting to see how that compares to AI within the ME.

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, MBarbaric said:

Man City use long shots as a genuine attempt to score. However, before they take long shot, they create situations where they get specific players to shoot in specific conditions where they have time and space to take a long shot. It is prepared on the training ground not as a part of keeping possession, but as a deliberate attempt on goal.

FM doesn't have that kind of control where you can instruct the team to lure the opposition on one side to open space on the other for a long shot.

In the end, they had a total of 220 shots on goal in the last 10 games with only 9 of them being wild long shots while all others have been in controlled, deliberate conditions. Would really be interesting to see how that compares to AI within the ME.

I think we're making the same point here.  FM doesn't allow you to recycle as well, therefore you don't drag teams around as much as you might to be before taking the best possible opportunity, whether that's a shot in or outside the box. Speculation here, but I dont feel like the AI in the ME would match up to that yet based on FM18

[MBarbaric]

33 minuti fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

I think we're making the same point here.  FM doesn't allow you to recycle as well, therefore you don't drag teams around as much as you might to be before taking the best possible opportunity, whether that's a shot in or outside the box. Speculation here, but I dont feel like the AI in the ME would match up to that yet based on FM18

indeed, which means that long shots in FM are mostly speculative shots that rarely happen in real. well, at least once you get to the best teams that are highly organized. will be interesting to see how does FM19 compare to this.

Edited October 5, 2018 by MBarbaric

[Amarante]

I just need one thing answered. Will the ME finally calculate possession by the number of passes a team makes than how long they have the ball like how it's done in real life. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

19 minutes ago, Amarante said:

 Will the ME finally calculate possession by the number of passes a team makes than how long they have the ball like how it's done in real life. 

Isn't that how they do it already? I've just checked my last 5 matches, and using the OPTA method to calculate possession, it's accurate. 

Remember it's not just how many passes a team makes, it's how many completed passes a team makes divided by the total amount of complete passes in the game, then multiplied by 100 to get the percentage. 

[Amarante]

2 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Isn't that how they do it already? I've just checked my last 5 matches, and using the OPTA method to calculate possession, it's accurate. 

Remember it's not just how many passes a team makes, it's how many completed passes a team makes divided by the total amount of complete passes in the game, then multiplied by 100 to get the percentage. 

Before it wasn't so. The ME did it by how long one team was in possession compared to the other so things like thrown in and those stuff were counted. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

1 minute ago, Amarante said:

Before it wasn't so. The ME did it by how long one team was in possession compared to the other

How could you possibly know this unless you sat with a stopwatch and manually counted it? The analysis tools are a fairly recent addition to the game. 

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

How could you possibly know this unless you sat with a stopwatch and manually counted it? The analysis tools are a fairly recent addition to the game. 

It's been mentioned for a while now in the T&T forum.  Second paragraph here for example:

 

[Dagenham_Dave]

19 minutes ago, herne79 said:

It's been mentioned for a while now in the T&T forum.  Second paragraph here for example:

 

Looking at the match stats screenshots further down, the possession percentage HAS been calculated using the OPTA method. It's important to remember it's not calculated using total passes, it's calculated using total complete passes. 

For example in the first match stats screenshot, it shows the home team as having 63% possession. They had 546 completed passes and the total amount of completed passes in the game was 877. For the home team this works out as (546/877) x 100 = 63% (rounded up), which is what the match stat shows. 

Unless that's just coincidence, but it ties in with calculations done on my own save. 

[Svenc]

11 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

FM doesn't have that kind of control where you can instruct the team to lure the opposition on one side to open space on the other for a long shot.

I've been starting to wonder (well not really started) whether it ever will deliberately allow finer micro controls. It would likely also require AI managers that are a decent cut above what's in now* (and it may also alienate quite a few players, unless an assistant were introduced that would deal with the micro details). I think the balance lies within the ME and how it models defending though. If there was  a certain standard of zonal defending introduced, ... Tactics, in football, after all, aren't a game of rock, paper scissors.

 

* there's such a huge amount of players that outperform the AI by significant margins without actually realizing, see some of the posts in this thread, but that's another story.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Svenc

[mhaffy]

7 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Looking at the match stats screenshots further down, the possession percentage HAS been calculated using the OPTA method. It's important to remember it's not calculated using total passes, it's calculated using total complete passes. 

For example in the first match stats screenshot, it shows the home team as having 63% possession. They had 546 completed passes and the total amount of completed passes in the game was 877. For the home team this works out as (546/877) x 100 = 63% (rounded up), which is what the match stat shows. 

Unless that's just coincidence, but it ties in with calculations done on my own save.  

Based upon last 2 matches in my main FM18 save, the possession % does not relate at all to completed passes. It is still time based, as per Cleons excellent post on The Art of Possession Football.

FA Cup Final Quoted possesssion 44% Chelsea 56% Man Utd. Passes completed 350 Chelsea (40%) 522 Man Utd (60%)

Champions League Final Quoted possession 49% Chelsea Real Madrid 51%. Passes completed 487 Chelsea (43%) 647 Real Madrid (57%).

Champions League final went to extra time, hence the significantly higher number of completed passes.

I think that the quoted possession % agreeing in with "rounded" completed passes is coincidence. There is no way rounding explains the differences in the last two mathces per my current save detailed above.

Unless FM changes things, I am expecting FM19 to continue being on a time based approach even though the information does exist for it to use the Opta basis.

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by mhaffy

[Svenc]

Regardless the possession method, the most significant data issue by far is the shot data (and how it's "measured"). It affects many, many things, including all the in-game media. Basically, as soon as a side had more shots (andn didn't win), it was "unfortunate" according to all the game's media. Unfortunately, the reverse in tendency still applies too for the keeper ratings: As soon as a keeper made half a dozen saves (however simple), and his side didn't lose, fat chance for a MOM.

That's not how football works. Neither in-game, nor otherwise. (Longterm thing too though). I'm personally baffled that the game doesn't make the most simplistic distinctions still, such as breaking shots down to where they come from in simple terms: A break, normal open play, a set piece. This could also improve the assistant feedback (or AI management in general), as if like 80% of all shots come from set pieces, surely a side cannot stretch an opposition much? Likewise, running into a bucketload of breaks, it may not matter much semi-regularly if your side "dominates" the simple data the game providies match in match out. As with any assistant feedback, context would be key though. If the manager is primarily trying to keep things tight (and grind out a point or a narrow win or something), not overly stretching an opposition may not be as much of an issue as say -- when Chelsea are targeting a convincing win at home to Brighton. It may only to be expected, given the priorities.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Svenc

[craiigman]

Very hypothetical as we don't yet know how the new tactics system will play into the ME. But my guess is the defend narrow, attack wide option will be pretty popular.

However just wondering if in order to create that wingers stay wide but come narrow in the attacking 3rd. Would defend wide and attack narrow be the option to go for?

[Svenc]

In some form it should, as in general and simple terms, making the pitch smaller when defending (decreasing the chance of conceding) and making the pitch bigger when attacking (increasingn the chancen of scoring) is kinda the point. However, going super narrow when defending and all wide when attacking shouldn't be a "super formula", as there should be a transition stage. If you spread all out, players have to transition into that narrow shape again upon dropping the ball, which should come with a significant risk. And vice versa, upon winning the ball back, the same may apply in reverse: players have to spread out again. Additionally, spreading players all out may not link the most ideal with your intention to aggressively gegenpress; and it may also be easier to drop the ball.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Svenc

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

In some form it should, as in general and simple terms, making the pitch smaller when defending (decreasing the chance of conceding) and making the pitch bigger when attacking (increasingn the chancen of scoring) is kinda the point. However, going super narrow when defending and all wide when attacking shouldn't be a "super formula", as there should be a transition stage. If you spread all out, players have to transition into that narrow shape again upon dropping the ball, which should come with a significant risk. And vice versa, upon winning the ball back, the same may apply in reverse: players have to spread out again. Additionally, spreading players all out may not link the most ideal with your intention to aggressively gegenpress; and it may also be easier to drop the ball.

Transition should be a big issue if your instructions in the three phases of play arent coherent. 

But also attacking with max width ought to have its own issues tbat you either need a top heavy formation, or players capable of passing/controlling the ball over more ground... I. E. If your winger is hugging the touchline and you dont have a support cm close by or an amc... He has to get the ball into a striker... So needs good passing, technique, vision... The striker receiving a 30yrd pass will need better touch, strength and balance (compared to a tactic where mids and strikers are closer together). 

Im hoping the ME is a lot better at differentiating between players with the right attribute set for the task at hand. At the moment, other than pace being a little OP, if the tactic is sound, there isnt enough difference between types of player playing specialist roles. I think you touched on it a few days ago...perhaps the scoring of attributes out of 20 (which is 200pts behind the scenes) should instead be out of 100 in the ui and 1000 behind the scenes. 

I dont expect it to have happened this year... And thats ok, because it already looks like an improvement on last year.

Itd be great to see some tutorial videos to illustrate the points they make tho. In the revamp tactic show they say if you arw LLM you cant play tika taka so you might use the no-nonsense roles... Well show us a video to back it up... Barca set to 4231 tika taka vs benidorm set 4231 tika taka... Should be noticeable passing speed, accuracy touch, movement etc

[chris31k]

I'm sorry guys but i don't see any new feature in the tactics.

The tactical styles presets is nothing more than a bunch of team instructions chosen by the game and not by you. There's not a single instruction that you can't assign in fm18. Nothing new,  it just made easier to create a tactic. 

Even the line of engagement or the transition phase instructions was tweakable in fm18 with the pressing and defensive line instructions and with the width and tempo instruction.

Clearly i don't see anything that is doable in fm19 and was impossible to do in fm18.  They just made it easier to build tactics, that's all.

I was hoping for a upgrade of the player "links" that SI introduce in fm18, which is a great idea i think but a wingback doesnt just link up with his winger but also with the closest central defenders. The wingers link up with the striker especially when they play as inside forwards with an attack duty. That is an example of new feature that i expected from SI regarding the tactics module

 

[ElCuriosoJr]

Personally, I like the new Tactic Options. 

After CM0102, i lost the desire to make my own tactics. I concentrated more on Individual Training, Scouting and Youth Development. 

In FM19 i am ready to change and to give more importance to my tactics. 

Looking forward to it. 

[Scoham]

1 hour ago, chris31k said:

I'm sorry guys but i don't see any new feature in the tactics.

The tactical styles presets is nothing more than a bunch of team instructions chosen by the game and not by you. There's not a single instruction that you can't assign in fm18. Nothing new,  it just made easier to create a tactic. 

Even the line of engagement or the transition phase instructions was tweakable in fm18 with the pressing and defensive line instructions and with the width and tempo instruction.

Clearly i don't see anything that is doable in fm19 and was impossible to do in fm18.  They just made it easier to build tactics, that's all.

I was hoping for a upgrade of the player "links" that SI introduce in fm18, which is a great idea i think but a wingback doesnt just link up with his winger but also with the closest central defenders. The wingers link up with the striker especially when they play as inside forwards with an attack duty. That is an example of new feature that i expected from SI regarding the tactics module

 

FM18 didn’t allow you to

- set attacking and defensive widths

- play an attacking defensive forward (renamed a pressing forward)

- choose to counter press, regroup or mixed (i.e. neither selected) on any mentality

- choose to counter, hold shape or mixed (neither selected( on any mentality

- play a Libero at DC

- choose to play for set pieces

- more options means more styles of pressing through combination of pressing intensity, defensive line, line of engagement, split attacking/defensive width, counter press/regroup/mixed and opposition instructions

To say there’s nothing new isn’t true. There’s not loads but definitely some very good changes there. I’d rather they got these spot on for both the player and the AI than add a lot of new options that’s don’t work properly.

[Svenc]

Re: Counters, I'm wondering whether counters are then set off entirelly. Previously the ME inherent trigger meant that a counter was flicked on when there were less than X number of players behind the ball for the defending team upon an interception. This equally meant that for that counter phase, most if not all of the players for the countering team were encouraged to make forward runs from their default positions... on some releases this could lead to counters to the counter, even if you didn't want to. Throwing bodies forward is always a risk, after all. Counters couldn't be "turned off" entirelly as such, which the "hold shape" instruction seems to be for. And in that sense either way, the "counter" mentality was pretty quite aptly named, as it was one of those mentalities where X was given a higher number -- so that counters were more likely to occur.  That's the kind of stuff that should never have been hidden in the first place, either way.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Svenc

[waynehead]

On 03/10/2018 at 18:39, Svenc said:

you

 

[Lynch48]

Gegenpressing is overrated

Park the bus all the way!!!

[Rashidi]

On 05/10/2018 at 04:01, majesticeternity said:

These seem like great and badly needed changes. But, imo, the game is already too easy to win at, even if not using any exploits.

 

Won't this just make it easier to win, due to all the new tactical abilities?

It should make it more easier for most people to achieve things like a high press, low block, counter press etc. Tactical concepts that were fairly hard to implement for most people. The challenge for the AI is a different one. Humans tend to be more creative, AI managers are hampered by the AI managers tactical rating, the big challenge will be to see better reactions by AI managers of obvious things like - countering a counterpress. Or taking advantage of a tactical weakness. That has always been a challenging line to cross. If it made every AI m the rianager adaptable and unbeatable then this game would be unrealistic. The challenge is finding the right balance, and that is a very hard challenge for the devs to meet.

[Guest]

There goes my pre-order,  I'll wait for feedback on AI manager tactical & strategic competence before I buy.

See you all in two months,

[MBarbaric]

18 ore fa, Svenc ha scritto:

I've been starting to wonder (well not really started) whether it ever will deliberately allow finer micro controls. It would likely also require AI managers that are a decent cut above what's in now* (and it may also alienate quite a few players, unless an assistant were introduced that would deal with the micro details). I think the balance lies within the ME and how it models defending though. If there was  a certain standard of zonal defending introduced, ... Tactics, in football, after all, aren't a game of rock, paper scissors.

 

* there's such a huge amount of players that outperform the AI by significant margins without actually realizing, see some of the posts in this thread, but that's another story.

I don't think they will go deeper into micro controlling. It would be too much for the majority of the fanbase and rightly so. What they will do, is try to continue what they are doing.

Basically, internally, they create sets of instructions that force the ME to produce certain behaviour which replicating real tactics. Width in off/def phase is a great example together with all things added this year. I think that is clearly right approach as otherwise, only Cleon/Rashidi types would be able to get desired response from the ME.

How good is the result remains to be seen upon the release. 

I am not sure the defensive phase will be so significant. It will certainly be important to replicate that to an extent, however, the ME is a machine on its own and diddlying with its mechanics is as important if not more. 

The evidence of this is all over the TC where we already have instructions created by SI but they aren't really producing the desired effect in the ME. Play out of the back is one example where your team actually plays from the back, but not as you'd expect in a football match (no ream movement of players). So, the instruction is there and it works, but not as it is supposed. If updated ME is able to recreate movement and decisioning while playing from the back, then this will really be an important step back.

However, if i.e. newly introduced transitons instructions simply switch one behaviour or the other (like current play from the back) without replicating proper movement (and reasoning behind it), then I am in for a big disappointment

[Sticx]

It seems like all of the tactical changes are being centered on tactic creation which is good, but I would like to see more going into helping you adjust tactically during a match. I can design a good functioning tactic, but struggle t adapt to the Ai manager changes. For example, it would be great if your assistant could let you know during a match something like "hey boss, they are building all of their attacks through our left side, maybe we should put a bwm there to counter?" Or "they are attempting a lot of long balls over the top, maybe we should drop our d-line back a bit." You could argue that all of the information is there for you to find out yourself, but with all of that information it can feel like you're trying to drink from the fire hose st times. It would be nice if your assistant gave you helpful advice instead of hey, we're winning our fair share of headers, let's pump the ball into the box nonsense. 

[craiigman]

11 hours ago, Svenc said:

In some form it should, as in general and simple terms, making the pitch smaller when defending (decreasing the chance of conceding) and making the pitch bigger when attacking (increasingn the chancen of scoring) is kinda the point. However, going super narrow when defending and all wide when attacking shouldn't be a "super formula", as there should be a transition stage. If you spread all out, players have to transition into that narrow shape again upon dropping the ball, which should come with a significant risk. And vice versa, upon winning the ball back, the same may apply in reverse: players have to spread out again. Additionally, spreading players all out may not link the most ideal with your intention to aggressively gegenpress; and it may also be easier to drop the ball.

I'm not sure if you were replying to me or not? There's a quote function on here btw

I'm not a gegenpress enthusiast. My thinking was more that of what Pep expects of his wide players. They start and stay very wide, until the final third where they come inside.

[Svenc]

4 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

However, if i.e. newly introduced transitons instructions simply switch one behaviour or the other (like current play from the back) without replicating proper movement (and reasoning behind it), then I am in for a big disappointment

The way Rashidi worded it makes it sound as if a good deal of things are primarily UI makeovers. Given the long-term weakness of pressing and defensive engagement in particular, that would be understandable (and kind of to be expected). That may not be all there is to it, but given the history, there seems a limit as to far they can push things for the time being. The notion that AI managers would become "unvincible" is illogical if the ME were to ever aproach a football simulation though. When managers in football apply anything to "counter" an approach, what that means isn't that they become unbeatable. It means shifting the odds a few.

That long shot is still going to be a long shot. The only reason it may appear such on FM is because FM hasn't yet properly modeled something that has killed such stunts in football. Which is, the world wide spreading of zonal defending from the 1970s onwards. Everybody knows how to defend these days of globalized sports and knowledge, some of the spaces that appear on FM don't exist in football. The hey-days of the 1950s where even internationals could be dumbfounded as to whom to at all mark are long past. It's about far, far finer margins -- and,  on the occasion, arguably , in particular in such a relatively even environment, not even much of that. In particular if you take a few of football's specialties into account as well (which strangely, only the Americans seem to resist in numbers).

Naturally, FM given its title will likely always glorify the impact the manager may have a bit ----- as else what's the point of playing. You can't feel much more clever than that apparently clueless bloke in the dugout if the game wouldn't let you, can you? Anyhoo, time to stop speculating and rather wait for a bit of game to appear.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Svenc