Help: Analyzing the analysis tools

[HoneyMuffin]

Hi guys, 

I have been playing football manager since FM 16, on and off for the pure reason that I love this game i'd play it everyday if it was a little friendly for new players.  Even the tips and tricks give you just a small needle in a giant haystack. 

So here is the scoop.  I am in my third season on FM20.  I started with my first team, Dartford FC and managed to improve our predicted finish from 12th to 3rd.  In my second season I took the league away, won convincingly, bagged myself the manager of the year award and a nice promotion to the Vanarama National League.  In our third season, however we were not successful.  Even getting myself sacked from my role in February. 

That brings me to my new challenge, Blackburn Rovers.  I joined them in turmoil as the team sat 18th in the league with 7 games to go.  So I went on my way, built a tactic around my best players, hoping to snatch a 1/1 draw or maybe a win.  We have a pretty good attack.  Alas this brings me to my current dilemma.  I played Stoke away from home and lost 3/1, then to Millwall with an identical scoreline.  I checked the stats.  We are not creating any chances.  Hell we can not even get out of our own half unless its down the flanks.  I knew something was wrong.  The tactic had to change, however I have no clue on how to put the analysis into practice.  From here on out i will place images and a description of what I think is going wrong.  

P.S I am probably wrong Also I really hope these images are placed correctly. 

 

If the image was placed correctly then amazing.  you can see my tactic Its a flat 4321, wanting to counter attack, by using short passing to hopefully reach Adam Armstrong who can cut inside and become a goal scoring threat, and have supporting attacking options with the AM and the Striker (AM should be on attack I apologize).  Now you guys know the roles, duties and the system, you may be thinking, "How did it go so wrong?"  Well let me show you.  

 

Now we start with my first game against Stoke City, having a very good season in 10th.  I think to my self This is going to be a hard game.  Mid table though I might be able to snatch a draw.  WRONG it was awful.  We created no chances.  Our passing was great, but we didn't do anything productive with the passing (I will post another screenshot of that).  The only good thing I noticed about this game was that Adam Armstrong is a proper dribbler of the ball.  winning all of them and this was consistent in both games.  However Adams crossing and decisions are not the best.  My inverted winger however has very good crossing and very good mentals to go with it, however I have no aerial threats to go with.  The best I can hope is that a whipped cross reaches Armstrong on the floor while he is in position to make a strike.  Anyways I decided to play it through the center and open up space for Armstrong to attack into.  This was the plan anyway.

The image below is a heat map of that game.  As you may already know there is one tiny issue with the tactic.  My striker is Isolated, nobody can even reach the box, and I think I know why. 

 

This next image is our passing combos.  I think, at least from my point of view, our passing into the halfway line is pretty good.  We have triangles and it is quite clean.   However our attack is somehow congested in the centre of the pitch.  We have nowhere to go.  It looks like that the midfield are passing to the wide players who are just bombing down the flanks which is what i wanted them to do.  With Armstrong's pace he should take players with him to defend that space, but for some reason nothing is happening in the middle of the park.  I think I know why it is happening.  Their midfield and defense are limiting the space for passing so we need more movement off the ball and i have no idea how to achieve this.  

 

Below this should be two images of our heat map and passing combos for the Millwall game.  The same applies here.  There wasn't any reasons to place chances created as their were none.  I would have posted otherwise  

 

So what I am asking is that i think I know what the issues are with the tactic.  I just don't know how to achieve it.  A similar thing happen'd at Dartford and I tinkered and tinkered and nothing was working.  My teams moral is very low.  I have held positive team talks and praised their conduct so we really need that turn in form to really get the best out  of the squad.

 

Also if any of my observations were wrong then please call me out on them.  I want to learn as much as I can on this game.  I would play more if I knew how to confirm how to change the errors of my tactic.  Also you guys need anymore images I can place them below.  

 

Thanks :D       

 

[GianniM]

Keep in mind I don't know your players so I can only comment on your formation, roles and duties, TIs and their relation without knowing how your players would fit in. 

You're playing on cautious mentality, play out of defense, work ball into box, shorter passing... these are TIs you would use for possession based football, yet you say you want to counter-attack and have counter TI? Think about how that would work. Especially if clearly your players are far from the best of the league, otherwise they wouldn't be sitting at the bottom. There are a few issues that come with these TIs: 

1. Slow play and no surprises, meaning your opponents will be back in position before you even reach their half. Especially with your low LOE and LOD, and your AFa running forward due to the counter TI finding himself all alone in the opposition area. 
2. Your players probably don't have the qualities to play possession based football
3. Play out of defense but your full backs on support and even defend duty will not be able to support the build-up well enough to do this. 

So if you want to counter-attack, which I think probably is a good idea given your situation, you should take a more direct approach. 

Then the defensive TIs are also contradicting: 

1. Prevent short GK distribution, yet you have a very low LOE which means your players will all gather very high up the field around the opposition backs to stop the GK from distributing to them, then they won't do much anymore until the opposition has passed the LOE. This makes it incredibly easy for the opposition to bypass your five players up front. 
2. Lower LOD and much lower LOE will make it very easy for the opposition to get far into your own half
3. I Don't understand the urgent pressing and the BWM combined with the low LOD and LOE
4. Regroup vs more urgent pressing seems contradictory to me

Then your midfield is way out of touch with the defense. 

1. As I said before, your conservative full backs won't be able to support the build-up well enough.
2. Next to that you have an Advanced Playmaker behind an AMC. You're probably better off with a DLP who can pick up the ball from the defense, then bring it forward to the AMs. You can see the big gap between defense and midfield when in possession in your passing screenshots. You need someone (and different TIs) to bridge this gap. 
3. During transition from attack to defense, your AP won't be contributing too much defensively and your BWM will leave his position to press the opposition, leaving a big gap between midfield and defense for the opposition to exploit. Even more so with the more urgent pressing TI and low LOD. 

Also your formation is 4-2-3-1 which has many players up front. I think given your position in the rankings you should consider a formation that is more defensively solid. For example change the AM to a DM (4-1-4-1 DM Wide). 

Edited April 23, 2020 by GianniM

[Djuicer]

1 hour ago, GianniM said:

 

1. You want to play out of defense, but at the same time Prevent short GK distribution will mean your GK skips the defense during build-up??

 

Is this not for your forwards? to stop op. team from playing out from the back?

 

Regarding the tactic, very defensive rightside? FBd, winger on support, no nonsense cb and a central midfielder with defensive duty.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Djuicer

[GianniM]

Sorry, of course, you're right. Have adjusted it now. Still doesn't make much sense combined with a much lower LOE. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by GianniM

[Djuicer]

3 minutes ago, GianniM said:

Sorry, of course, you're right. Have adjusted it now. Still doesn't make much sense combined with a much lower LOE. 

Agree, lower loe + def line makes sense in it self. But combined with the  Prevent short GK distribution makes the TIs contradictonary.

[GianniM]

Yeah, but much lower though? Personally, I would never use it, especially not as a standard for every match. It would give the opposition too much time and space in the build-up. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by GianniM

[HoneyMuffin]

Hi guys thanks for all getting back to me.  I am looking over the tactic now and agree with what you guys are saying.  I went with a 4231 because its the tactic the team has been playing all year and is the formation all of my players are good at.  Ad there are only 5 matches of the season to go I will try a defensive tactic and build from there.  I have just noticed that when I build defensive I don't get much success breaking on the counter.  This is obviously an issue with a tactic I have set up in the past, but wouldn't know what too add and change.  

 

Anyways I am going to change up the tactic and post it back onto this forum and again try to explain my reasoning behind it.  Also because I forgot to mention.  I would use intense pressing to try and win the ball back in our third of the pitch while disupting their attacking and defensive organisation as we are pulling them out of position.   I was hesitant to play direct football as my team are not too good at it.    

[HoneyMuffin]

Hi guys,

 

I took a look at the tactic and made changes to what I think would be a decent counter attacking system using direct play. 

 

So the jist of the tactic is to invite pressure into my half of the pitch, win the ball back quickly with higher pressing (I am not sure if this is a good idea or not, but the preset has this TI) with a DM on suppor to link up with the cms.  I would like to play a DLP here, but I have no options.    

 

For my attack I want to use banks instead of Armstrong.  Though Armstrong is an amazing player for the team he doesn't fit this system.  He can't play in a deeper midfield role.  He doesn't have the stats or familiarity.  Plus banks has been putting in solid performances according to the match ratings. 

   The right side of our pitch is the defensive side.  Honestly I have no ideas on what to do here so I placed them on support to maybe give more attacking  options, hence the CM ATK.  He can play the role pretty well, though he is more of a creative midfielder rather than an attacking midfielder which is something I have come to notice about the team.  We are very defensive minded in the midfield and creative.  Our main attacks should be from our wide players, but they can't put in crosses due to the lack of our aerial threats.

 

One thing I have noticed however is that Armstrong can play as a quick attacker and is something I have thought about putting in rather than a target man.  I have decided to keep TI's to a minimum and focus rather on counter play.  

 

Tell me what you think.  I can get additional information for you guys.      

    

[GianniM]

That looks better, although be aware that you now have only one attacker which may be inconvenient when hitting early crosses. 

You're saying you don't have any aerial threat but it seems Gallagher would fit the bill, no? Not sure how tall 6'4'' is in European measures but given his weight (102kg!!) I take it he's big and has a jumping reach of 15. 

I'd say wait for advice from the more experienced guys up here and meanwhile, have a look at this topic for other ideas:

 

[Djuicer]

Not sure you have to be on the negative side regarding mentality with those TIs. Balanced will probably be defensive enough mixed with the TIs.

Armstrong is perfectly viable playing deeper. I would even argue he is better starting from a deeper position. More space to utilise his pace.

 

EDIT: Adam Armstrong playing mainly as inverted winger attack in midfield strata.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Djuicer

[HoneyMuffin]

I will take a look.  I never do this but I decided to have an experiment.  I played with my changed tactic and we lost that game like 3/0.  Then after I changed mentality to attacking and managed to pull a draw.  Although I do have to ask, why would Armstrong be better in that position rather than Banks?  He has weaker mentals and weaker crossing.  He is much more of an attacking player with high explosive pace and dribbling.  Surely Banks would be a better choice right?

 

I am probably wrong, but this is from my observations.  It would be great if you could explain why my observations maybe wrong so I can go forward as a manager to identify more suitable players for role.  

 

Thank you.    

[GianniM]

Can you post a screenshot of Armstrong?

Even better, one where you compare Armstrong to Banks via the comparison tab? 

[Experienced Defender]

12 hours ago, HoneyMuffin said:

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to go over and analyze everything you asked about and all the screenshots you posted, so I am going to focus exclusively on your tactic and see what's potentially wrong with it.

So here are some observations:

- Your DL/LOE combo suggests that you want to play very defensive-minded football

- This notion is further reinforced by the regroup team instruction as well as a low-risk team mentality (cautious)

- More urgent pressing and Prevent short GKD should somewhat offset the defensive passiveness caused by the previously mentioned instructions, which is not a bad idea overall

But then on the other hand:

- You are trying to implement such a defensive style of football while playing in a fairly non-defensive and top-heavy system such as (standard) 4231

- But even if we ignore the rather unsuitable formation, the setup of roles and duties is still far from being optimally balanced (which can be particularly problematic in an already tricky formation like the 4231)

And last but not least:

- Your in-possession instructions are heavily possession-oriented, especially when coupled with the low team mentality (cautious)

- Asking your players to play out of defence and - especially - work ball into box should imply that they are highly capable, both in terms of technical skill and tactical intelligence

But if they were really so capable as to execute this type of highly demanding possession-oriented instructions, why then would you want to play such a defensive style of football in the first place?

So the key question for you is this: What style of football you actually want to implement with your team and why?

Once you answer this questions, I'll be in a lot better position to offer you some more specific and meaningful advice 

[HoneyMuffin]

Yeah sure I will post them here.  For a counter attack I guess Armstrong would be better for a break, however he isn't comfortable in a 4141 formation and it isn't like Banks is slow himself.  The only other alternative I can think of is that i play a 4123, but armstrong would still be better as an inside forward due to his finishing ability.  He needs to cut inside and use that pace and dribbling to cause issues.  I feel that a 4123 would be a positive tactic for when the team is high in moral and we are playing well.  

What do you guys think?

 

 

[HoneyMuffin]

1 minute ago, Experienced Defender said:

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to go over and analyze everything you asked about and all the screenshots you posted, so I am going to focus exclusively on your tactic and see what's potentially wrong with it.

So here are some observations:

- Your DL/LOE combo suggests that you want to play very defensive-minded football

- This notion is further reinforced by the regroup team instruction as well as a low-risk team mentality (cautious)

- More urgent pressing and Prevent short GKD should somewhat offset the defensive passiveness caused by the previously mentioned instructions, which is not a bad idea overall

But then on the other hand:

- You are trying to implement such a defensive style of football while playing in a fairly non-defensive and top-heavy system such as (standard) 4231

- But even if we ignore the rather unsuitable formation, the setup of roles and duties is still far from being optimally balanced (which can be particularly problematic in an already tricky formation like the 4231)

And last but not least:

- Your in-possession instructions are heavily possession-oriented, especially when coupled with the low team mentality (cautious)

- Asking your players to play out of defence and - especially - work ball into box should imply that they are highly capable, both in terms of technical skill and tactical intelligence

But if they were really so capable as to execute this type of highly demanding possession-oriented instructions, why then would you want to play such a defensive style of football in the first place?

So the key question for you is this: What style of football you actually want to implement with your team and why?

Once you answer this questions, I'll be in a lot better position to offer you some more specific and meaningful advice 

I want to play a counter attacking style of play.  Slow in defense we have high positioning.  I have noticed that most of our goals against is due to headers and gaps in our defense from pressing.  So I am thinking about changing our pressing to less urgent to compensate for this, then it begs the question.  How do we get the ball back.  

[Experienced Defender]

10 minutes ago, HoneyMuffin said:

I want to play a counter attacking style of play

In that case, you should consider formations such as 442 or 4411 or 4123 wide (i.e. 4141dm wide, as the game calls it) or possibly deep 4231 (with 2 DMs) or even 4213wide (with 2 DMs and a CM). Pick the one of these that suits your players best.

Once you decide on the formation you wanna use, you need to think about a setup of roles and duties that would be conducive to a counter-attacking style. 

And the final step is making a proper choice of team instructions and team mentality. Here you need to be aware of the following:

- unlike passive defensive styles of football (e.g. park the bus or catenaccio), counter-attacking styles work better on a slightly higher mentality (Balanced or even Positive), because a higher mentality - among other things - means proportionally faster attacking transitions

- the mentality automatically affects all (other) instructions, so you always need to take the mentality into account when setting the instructions up

P.S: The best sign that you've managed to create a good counter-attacking tactic is when it works even without turning the Counter team instruction on 

 

[Djuicer]

10 minutes ago, HoneyMuffin said:

For a counter attack I guess Armstrong would be better for a break, however he isn't comfortable in a 4141 formation and it isn't like Banks is slow himself.  The only other alternative I can think of is that i play a 4123, but armstrong would still be better as an inside forward due to his finishing ability.  He needs to cut inside and use that pace and dribbling to cause issues.  I feel that a 4123 would be a positive tactic for when the team is high in moral and we are playing well.  

Did you really read my post about Armstrong? Not saying you have to drop anyone inparituclar. Just said Armstrong is fully viable in a deeper role. He can learn that position. I would say his only stand out skill is pace, how to best use that? give him space to run into. Starting deeper = more space in front of him.

"Armstrong is perfectly viable playing deeper. I would even argue he is better starting from a deeper position. More space to utilise his pace."

 

[GianniM]

His pace might actually be what you need in a counter-attacking style. I'd try him as an IF/IW. 

[HoneyMuffin]

38 minutes ago, HoneyMuffin said:

25 minutes ago, Djuicer said:

Did you really read my post about Armstrong? Not saying you have to drop anyone inparituclar. Just said Armstrong is fully viable in a deeper role. He can learn that position. I would say his only stand out skill is pace, how to best use that? give him space to run into. Starting deeper = more space in front of him.

"Armstrong is perfectly viable playing deeper. I would even argue he is better starting from a deeper position. More space to utilise his pace."

 

 

44 minutes ago, HoneyMuffin said:

Yeah sure I will post them here.  For a counter attack I guess Armstrong would be better for a break, however he isn't comfortable in a 4141 formation and it isn't like Banks is slow himself.  The only other alternative I can think of is that i play a 4123, but armstrong would still be better as an inside forward due to his finishing ability.  He needs to cut inside and use that pace and dribbling to cause issues.  I feel that a 4123 would be a positive tactic for when the team is high in moral and we are playing well.  

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

As there are only 5 games of the season left there is little time to train him in this role as for the next season i am in the market to improve our possession game.  I have placed screenshots of the situation here.  What i mean is that Armstrong is not at all familiar in this position unless he is playing in an advanced role, therefore can a player play in a unfamiliar role, though he may have the attributes to do it.  I have tried this before and in my experience has resulted in a high mistake game from the player.   

[Djuicer]

Just now, HoneyMuffin said:

As there are only 5 games of the season left there is little time to train him in this role as for the next season i am in the market to improve our possession game.  I have placed screenshots of the situation here.  What i mean is that Armstrong is not at all familiar in this position unless he is playing in an advanced role, therefore can a player play in a unfamiliar role, though he may have the attributes to do it.  I have tried this before and in my experience has resulted in a high mistake game from the player.   

Think you must choose formation for longterm. TIs is easier to change more often. For five games its not worth to retrain anyone imho.

[GianniM]

You don't necessarily need him in the ML position. You can also make a tactic with AMR/AML instead of MR/ML. With a lower LOE they should be tracking back automatically I'd say. Especially since you have a DM for defensive cover now as well, you can do with the wingers a bit higher up the field. 

[HoneyMuffin]

Okay so I think it makes more sense as Experienced defender mentioned to is to have a 4231 DM wide.  It brings Armstrong into the equation.  

 

Thinking about this 

 

 

  I am thinking as the match goes on and if we are struggling then we can pass into space 

[GianniM]

A few remarks still:

1. Doesn't make much sense though to have a sweeper keeper when you're not giving him the space to operate in due to the lower LOD. I'd change him to a standard GK. 
2. Why play for set pieces as a standard? Do you have particularly good players for that? I'd say it is counter-productive if you want a fast counter-attack, your forward gets the ball and makes a dive and the play stops. 
3. Defend narrower - I'd only use that if the opposition is strong coming through the middle (pre- or in-match analysis)

[HoneyMuffin]

8 minutes ago, GianniM said:

A few remarks still:

1. Doesn't make much sense though to have a sweeper keeper when you're not giving him the space to operate in due to the lower LOD. I'd change him to a standard GK. 
2. Why play for set pieces as a standard? Do you have particularly good players for that? I'd say it is counter-productive if you want a fast counter-attack, your forward gets the ball and makes a dive and the play stops. 
3. Defend narrower - I'd only use that if the opposition is strong coming through the middle (pre- or in-match analysis)

Yeah that is a good point.  SK shouldn't be on there.  I wasn't really looking.  To defending narrower I have noticed that most of the goals we are conceding are from headers through the wings so it would be wise to defend wide, however when i change to wide then our center is also very vulnerable.  I keep loading the QPR game as a means to experiment a little.  I have replayed the game at least 8 times and the same thing applies, we are not taking any shots, our passing is wayward on direct.  The tactic works now I can see, but we just aren't working as a team.  I am thinking of just playing through until the next season and just accept that we are getting relegated.   I have had a save before where I took charge of a team in the final 2 games, got relegated and then came back much stronger, winning the league as the first season we got promoted.   

   

[GianniM]

51 minutes ago, HoneyMuffin said:

so it would be wise to defend wide, however when i change to wide then our center is also very vulnerable. 

So just leave it blank, that's an option too

Mind that you now have positive mentality AND more direct passing AND higher tempo. You might want to tune one of them down and see how that goes. 

[HoneyMuffin]

I will give it a try and get back to you.

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, HoneyMuffin said:

Okay so I think it makes more sense as Experienced defender mentioned to is to have a 4231 DM wide.  It brings Armstrong into the equation.  

 

Thinking about this 

DM on defend and DLP on support would make more sense than the other way around (assuming you want to use a playmaker as such, which may not be necessary). 

The right side looks good with both FB and winger on support duties paired with the attacking CM 

The left one is potentially problematic though, as the attacking IW may struggle due to the lack of support from those behind him (a holding midfielder and a conservative fullback). 

The lone striker on attack duty absolutely makes sense in a counter-attacking setup. However, I am not so sure that a target man is a good choice for his role. Simply because he can often get the ball when he is too isolated and thus lose it before proper support arrives from his deeper teammates. Lone striker roles you should consider instead of TM - depending on the type of your striker as a player - are DLF on attack, PF on attack and CF on attack. 

You seem to have failed to pay attention to my "warning" about the impact of the mentality on everything else. I am specifically referring to instructions such as higher tempo and more direct passing under the already high team mentality (positive). 

When it comes to out of possession instructions, the lower LOE does make sense for a counter-attacking style, as you need to draw the opposition more into your half. But when it comes to the defensive line, I would up it slightly to standard for the sake of optimal compactness. So my recommended combination would be - standard D-line with lower LOE. 

I would live both the pressing urgency and tackling intensity on default, especially as you play under the positive team mentality (see above what I said about the impact of the team mentality  )

Then you can watch the match to see what happens before you decide if any of these might need to be tweaked (either up or down). 

[HoneyMuffin]

5 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

DM on defend and DLP on support would make more sense than the other way around (assuming you want to use a playmaker as such, which may not be necessary). 

The right side looks good with both FB and winger on support duties paired with the attacking CM 

The left one is potentially problematic though, as the attacking IW may struggle due to the lack of support from those behind him (a holding midfielder and a conservative fullback). 

The lone striker on attack duty absolutely makes sense in a counter-attacking setup. However, I am not so sure that a target man is a good choice for his role. Simply because he can often get the ball when he is too isolated and thus lose it before proper support arrives from his deeper teammates. Lone striker roles you should consider instead of TM - depending on the type of your striker as a player - are DLF on attack, PF on attack and CF on attack. 

You seem to have failed to pay attention to my "warning" about the impact of the mentality of everything else. I am specifically referring to instructions such as higher tempo and more direct passing under the already high team mentality (positive). 

When it comes to out of possession instructions, the lower LOE does make sense for a counter-attacking style, as you need to draw the opposition more into your half. But when it comes to the defensive line, I would up it slightly to standard for the sake of optimal compactness. So my recommended combination would be - standard D-line with lower LOE. 

I would live both the pressing urgency and tackling intensity on default, especially as you play under the positive team mentality (see above what I said about the impact of the team mentality  )

Then you can watch the match to see what happens before you decide if any of these might need to be tweaked (either up or down). 

This is amazing feedback.  I will change the dm to a def and try dpl on support for extra support on my left.   and see how that does.  I did fear a target man for my striker as I feel they come in to support the transition and hopefully pass to my bombing IW.  i will try with a DLF on attack.

 

I always have difficulty understanding mentality.  I am aware of the impact mentality has on TI's.  Usually the higher mentality the quicker standard play becomes and passing becomes direct and vice versa with defensive mentalities.  My issue that i have with that is choosing a reliant option.  I would like to know how to choose a system like this one and know what kind of passing and tempo we need to play.  If you guys could link me to any reading material or good you tube videos that explain this i will give it a watch/read.  

 

 

[Djuicer]

8 minutes ago, HoneyMuffin said:

I always have difficulty understanding mentality.  I am aware of the impact mentality has on TI's.  Usually the higher mentality the quicker standard play becomes and passing becomes direct and vice versa with defensive mentalities.  My issue that i have with that is choosing a reliant option.  I would like to know how to choose a system like this one and know what kind of passing and tempo we need to play.

 

You must decide what you want your team to do. Do you want to play tiki-taka? counter attack? attack through the middle? use wings? tempo and passing directness is a tool for creating the style you want. You do not need to play any particular tempo and passing style due to the formation you have decided to use, a formation is neutral (well more or less). Its how you implement it that decides if its attacking, defensive or something inbetween.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Djuicer

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, HoneyMuffin said:

I always have difficulty understanding mentality.  I am aware of the impact mentality has on TI's.  Usually the higher mentality the quicker standard play becomes and passing becomes direct and vice versa with defensive mentalities

With all else being equal:

- In the attacking (possession) phase, the mentality affects: tempo, passing style (direction) and appetite for (passing-related) risk, creative freedom, relative width and freedom of movement. So the higher the mentality - the higher/greater each of these will be.

- In the defensive (out-of-possession) phase, the mentality defines how passive or aggressive (active) players will be when defending (i.e. trying to win the ball back). So when you play on a higher mentality, there is less need for more urgent pressing and/or harder tackling. The mentality also affects the relative position of defensive line and LOE. Therefore, every time you change the mentality, you have automatically modified these instructions even though you have not touched them at all (higher DL/LOE on, say, the positive mentality is not same as higher DL/LOE on the balanced, let alone cautious and so on). 

2 hours ago, HoneyMuffin said:

My issue that i have with that is choosing a reliant option.  I would like to know how to choose a system like this one and know what kind of passing and tempo we need to play

So bearing in mind the above explanation/description of the team mentality impact, let's imagine you want to play counter-attacking football using the Cautious team mentality. Let's also assume you have already created a good counter-attacking setup of roles and duties. So what could be logical in-possession instructions (basic ones) to start with?

- higher tempo and more direct passing 

Let's now imagine you still want to play counter-attacking football, but have decided to up the mentality to Balanced. Which basic in-possession instructions would now make sense?

- higher tempo (still),but standard passing

Now you want to maintain basically the same (counter) style of play, but under the (even higher) Positive mentality. Do your in-possession instructions need further adjustment? 

Not necessarily. You can continue with the same TIs you used under the Balanced (higher tempo/standard passing), and it should still work as a good counter-attacking setup, just slightly faster and a bit more adventurous (due to the mentality effect). Or you may decide to only keep the higher tempo, but reduce the passing to shorter if you want to still have an essentially counter-attacking tactic, just a bit less rushed (because you don't want to lose possession to cheaply when it's not necessary).

The same basic principle applies to the out-of-possession instructions as well.

I hope that these practical examples will help you get much better understanding of how the mentality - and hence any change of it - actually affects tactics and consequently the tactical decisions you need to make when creating a tactic.