Team Instructions clarification

[bdixon]

Could someone please clarify a few teams instructions, in principle I kind of understand what they mean but would like a 'dummy' explanation to how it effects the ME.

Pass into space - Now I know this increase through balls, but is it for all players? will I see defenders trying a Hollywood type pass over the top?

Attacking width - By increasing this does it just impact the width of the formation or does it it also effect passing preferences to the wide area's as well?

Work ball into box - Obviously decrease shots from distance but does it still impact on crossing as well?

I'm sure there are a few TI's that may of changed through different ME but there is no where I can find that give you a 100% definitive answer. If there is please point me in the right direction.

[yonko]

Pass Into Space - yes, it increases the likelihood that players will try more Hollywood type passes. Those with attacking duty more so than those with defensive duties, but overall more likely from all than when the instruction is not selected. If it's a team instruction, then it has a global effect.

Attacking width is just for the formation, how wide the players are spread out. It doesn't affect the focus of passing. It used to a few years ago but not anymore.

WBIB - it should decrease both long shots and crosses. But from my experience this has always depended how the ME is tuned. And understand that it will not completely eliminate long shots or crosses. It will just decrease the likelihood of them occurring.

[FMunderachiever]

what confuses me a bit is passing "risk" when it comes to the back 4 or back line.

Shorter passing and building from the back to me would in FM terms be less "risk"..... when in reality id say this was riskier than launching it downfield to the forwards to chase.

So if you WANT your defenders to play long balls (hoofs), should you be telling them to take MORE risks, which will then make them deliver long balls rather than "less risky passes" which will make them play short into midfield?

 

Also what does the choice of defender role ie central defender, no nonsense central defender or ball playing defender have on passing range?

 

If looking for long balls, should you use a ball playing defender? Even though logic would suggest you want no nonsense defenders?

[bar333]

@FMunderachiever I'm not sure what the game would consider "risky" for CB's. Logic dictates that it simply depends on the situation. If they're not under pressure then attempting the long ball when there's a safe simple passing option would be the risky move, however if they are being pressed then it's refusing to clear it long which would be the risky move.

When it comes to CB's and roles I think you have to differentiate between hoofed clearance type of balls and actually more calculated diagonal\through balls. The former is what you'd expect from a NNCB when under the tiniest bit of pressure. The latter is what you'd expect from a BPD. So to answer your question I think it depends on what you mean by "long ball". If you want a defender to actually take his time on the ball, look up and attempt an actual long pass then BPD. It's subtle but pretty obvious when you think of real life examples - take Van Dijk at Liverpool vs Carragher at Liverpool. Both play\played the odd "long ball", but there's a big difference in the context and what their idea is with it.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

So if you WANT your defenders to play long balls (hoofs), should you be telling them to take MORE risks, which will then make them deliver long balls rather than "less risky passes" which will make them play short into midfield?

If you want them to play long hoof balls, simply tell them to play long (extremely direct) passes  The "take more risks" PI has little to do with this, because it pertains to through balls (passes into space), rather than passing length.

But what's interesting is this: if you set a defender to the shorter passing and take less risks PIs, when he cannot make a short pass safely, he will usually opt to hoof it long, simply because in such situations a longer pass is less risky (from the purely defensive perspective) than a short one.

2 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

Also what does the choice of defender role ie central defender, no nonsense central defender or ball playing defender have on passing range?

If you want more long hoof balls from a CB, then use NCB. BPD tends to make more through balls (i.e. risky passes in FM terms). Standard CD will behave according to how you set his PIs.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

If looking for long balls, should you use a ball playing defender? Even though logic would suggest you want no nonsense defenders?

Depends on what kind of long balls you want. If you want simple hoof-balls, then use NCB. But if you want a more intelligent (playmaker-like) long passes into space, then BPD is your man. But bear in mind that BPD needs certain attributes in order for the role to work in the right way - passing, vision, first touch, decisions, technique...

[FMunderachiever]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Depends on what kind of long balls you want. If you want simple hoof-balls, then use NCB. But if you want a more intelligent (playmaker-like) long passes into space, then BPD is your man. But bear in mind that BPD needs certain attributes in order for the role to work in the right way - passing, vision, first touch, decisions, technique...

Definitely simple hoofs is the aim, trying to turn the opposition around and winning the second ball.

My philosophy for the non league is built around effectiveness from set pieces and playing a very rigid 442 variant focused mostly on wing play.

Just as a side note, id love if there was actual evidence of how many goals were scored by building from the back. How many goals were as a result of a passing move from back to front.

I suspect despite us being critical of managers like john beck famously of cambridge, most goals ARE still as a result of moves of 6 passes or less, even at the top level.

 

[Experienced Defender]

15 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

Definitely simple hoofs is the aim, trying to turn the opposition around and winning the second ball.

My philosophy for the non league is built around effectiveness from set pieces and playing a very rigid 442 variant focused mostly on wing play.

Just as a side note, id love if there was actual evidence of how many goals were scored by building from the back. How many goals were as a result of a passing move from back to front.

I suspect despite us being critical of managers like john beck famously of cambridge, most goals ARE still as a result of moves of 6 passes or less, even at the top level.

 

I personally also prefer a simple tactical style based on tight and disciplined defense and quick attacks without much possession and unnecessary complication. Direct counter-attacking football and/or hoofball of different sorts are my favorite philosophies 

[LukasZ_VCF]

48 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I personally also prefer a simple tactical style based on tight and disciplined defense and quick attacks without much possession and unnecessary complication. Direct counter-attacking football and/or hoofball of different sorts are my favorite philosophies 

With fast wingers and strikers I am using it at Valencia