Is "Lower Defensive Line" a "Lose Now!" button?

[Overmars]

I spent a few hours today testing out some formations and tactics. Almost any variation using the lower or much lower defensive line team instruction ended up sinking my team to a 5-0 defeat or some similarly disastrous scoreline. I can't see any reason to use this option in the current match engine, at least not against a side of any quality. Defenders can't seem to cope with all of that pressure and opposing attackers and attacking midfielders score goals for fun on long shots or goal crease scrambles.

I know a lot of people complain about the ubiquity of higher defensive line gegenpressing tactics among FM users and posters, but I can see why people adopt that approach when the opposite choice yields such dreadful results.

Has anyone made a passive defense work when not using a superior team?

Edited April 25, 2020 by Overmars

[Experienced Defender]

Defensive line - lower or higher (or whichever) - is just one aspect of a tactic, so it's hard to share any specific view without knowing the whole context (the whole tactic, that is). The fact is that lower lines in general (both of defense and/or engagement) can invite more pressure than your players can possibly handle, but it does not automatically mean that a tactic that uses a lower DL/LOE cannot work by default. 

[zyfon5]

a simple answer - no. but u will need the right players to execute a low block. once u overachieve with the team, u will need to adjust back the tactics becoz the AI will start to adjust their mentality also and ur low block will no longer be effective. my experience with the low block: took a team that is expected to finish 13th to 9th place with the 15th lowest wage budget in the league. defensive wise we conceded the 6th least goals in the league.

Edited April 26, 2020 by zyfon5

[jascko]

My experience is that everything under the standard defensive line invites too much pressure that eventually ends in goal to the opponent. Low block might have worked if you had team of players with very high values in positioning, anticipation, bravery, concentration, jumping, heading, teamwork and work rate. Those values should be superior in relation to opponents. Example: if opponent attackers has 15 off the ball, your defenders should have a minimum of 16 in positioning, etc. In general, I agree with you: this version of FM doesn’t like low block tactics. I m saying this on the background for my own experiance and feedbacks from others - including this forum.

[nick1408]

My experience is that anything under the standard defensive line coupled with an equivalent or lesser line of engagement makes it hard for opposition to break down. The 'downside' I have found is that it also creates far less possession. My theory is that it is because the opposition is allowed more possession before either the attackers or defenders engage. It's not a bad thing and I have used lower defensive lines successfully along with <40% possession. It really comes down to what you want to achieve and how you actually implement it.

 

Personally, I wouldn't use a lower defensive line without a DM but that's just me and not a hard and fast rule by any means. The reason being that if I am using a lower defensive line I am trying to make it hard  for the opposition to get into the box so more players in these situations is always helpful. More players help soak up pressure in an area. As always, you need the right players to implement

[zyfon5]

56 minutes ago, jascko said:

My experience is that everything under the standard defensive line invites too much pressure that eventually ends in goal to the opponent. Low block might have worked if you had team of players with very high values in positioning, anticipation, bravery, concentration, jumping, heading, teamwork and work rate. Those values should be superior in relation to opponents. Example: if opponent attackers has 15 off the ball, your defenders should have a minimum of 16 in positioning, etc. In general, I agree with you: this version of FM doesn’t like low block tactics. I m saying this on the background for my own experiance and feedbacks from others - including this forum.

 

if u use some high pressing tactics u will more likely to achieve success in FM like what we have seen in real life. the real reason is not bcz the ME but the principles of football itself. Tactics with low block is passive defending ie the success of your tactic depends largely what the opposition is doing. if the opposition do not want to play into your low block the best result u could usually get is a 0-0 draw not considering set pieces. however if u decide to press the opposition high up the pitch there is very little that the opposition could do except trying to lob long balls behind the defence hence it is a very active form of defending and not necessary take into account how they play. u are more likely to find continous success with these types of tactics in the long run. however there are also cons of playing a high line: players that are very good with the ball can break down ur high pressing, high pressing tactics are more intensive hence ur players are more tired and easily injured.

so what is the value of tactics playing with a low block? i will argue that the only time u want to play a low block tactic is when u are huge underdogs and a 0-0 draw is good result for u. other than that there is very little reason to use a low block tactic as a long time tactic bcz the AI will very quickly adjust to it and make ur defensive tactic useless.

[zyfon5]

also i found it ironic that people here always complain about the lack of central penetration, wingers not able to cross, strikers not able to score etc but do not agree that low block tactics can work. all of these things favour the use of low block tactic when u think about it. so which is true?

and the art of defensive football is seldom discussed just anywhere in football compared to things like tiki taka and gegenpress where a lot of ppl aldy know how to translate it to FM. hence i have seen a few threads where ppl complained about defensive tactics not working when their whole tactical set up including the roles and instructions do not fit what i know of defensive tactics fully. so there's another problem there ppl are just less informed about defensive tactics. defensive tactics are more than just setting a cautious mentality, setting the defensive line low, use some roles that sounds quite defensive and expect it to work.

[jascko]

22 minutes ago, zyfon5 said:

also i found it ironic that people here always complain about the lack of central penetration, wingers not able to cross, strikers not able to score etc but do not agree that low block tactics can work. all of these things favour the use of low block tactic when u think about it. so which is true?

and the art of defensive football is seldom discussed just anywhere in football compared to things like tiki taka and gegenpress where a lot of ppl aldy know how to translate it to FM. hence i have seen a few threads where ppl complained about defensive tactics not working when their whole tactical set up including the roles and instructions do not fit what i know of defensive tactics fully. so there's another problem there ppl are just less informed about defensive tactics. defensive tactics are more than just setting a cautious mentality, setting the defensive line low, use some roles that sounds quite defensive and expect it to work.

I think the problem is as follows: setting up defensive low block tactic is much more complex and needs much more understanding about the game then setting up high block high pressing tactic. It can have something to do with the fact that this forum is full of tactics and explanations about high block attacking tactic then low block defensive tactic. The same thing applies for youtube: the big majority of youtube clips is about high pressing attacking tactics. Rashidi, who is regarded by many as a person with most understanding about the game, is pro high press attacking.

 

[zyfon5]

3 minutes ago, jascko said:

I think the problem is as follows: setting up defensive low block tactic is much more complex and needs much more understanding about the game then setting up high block high pressing tactic. It can have something to do with the fact that this forum is full of tactics and explanations about high block attacking tactic then low block defensive tactic. The same thing applies for youtube: the big majority of youtube clips is about high pressing attacking tactics. Rashidi, who is regarded by many as a person with most understanding about the game, is pro high press attacking.

 

 

 

but u cannot deny that an attacking tactic is more successful whether IRL or in game due to reasons i have described above. but defensive tactics still has its value and could work. there are threads that discuss about counter attacking tactics in this forum but is so few when compared to threads that discuss about possession football or gegenpress. u sir right here describe the problem perfectly.

[Adonalsium]

Well, the way I see it, Guardiola is right when he says football is ultimately about which side has the better players. If you have better players you will play a low block more effectively just like you will play a high pressing system more effectively. However, I have certainly noticed in the ME that lower blocks don't tend to work quite as well as mid blocks or higher blocks. I've found success by tweaking my tactics into a mid block and playing on the counter against sides that are far superior to mine, lower blocks invite too much pressure for my liking. In comparison to real football where various sides of differing skill level are very tough to break down, it's really a lot easier to do so in FM (even though sometimes it feels like nothing is going in).

Edited April 26, 2020 by Adonalsium

[FMunderachiever]

my take on this is:

Dropping the defensive line is not a "lose now" tactic, but it is inherintely less successful in the game and real life than high pressing, and that to me is logical because winning games whilst giving your opponent 65% possession and frustrating them into messing up is obviously more difficult than having 65% possession in someone elses half.

[nick1408]

15 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

my take on this is:

Dropping the defensive line is not a "lose now" tactic, but it is inherintely less successful in the game and real life than high pressing, and that to me is logical because winning games whilst giving your opponent 65% possession and frustrating them into messing up is obviously more difficult than having 65% possession in someone elses half.

I sort of think the same but it really depends on where the opposition has their possession. If my team isn't that crash hot at pressing I feel more stable letting the opposition have a high amount of possession in their half. They have to attack sometime and they will have to take more risks to break down a solid low block.

Nice and attacking above. The three zones are 4-3-3 which most technical sides would roughly use.

I'd roughly characterise this as a 6-3-1 when defending. Essentially by dropping the lines I gained two players (from three - half a player each from midfield) to provide bodies for the defence to get around. 

 

Here I have eight players dropped back in defence. it is inviting pressure, sure, but I haven't lost any players upfield by someone getting dribbled around. In fact, there is less room to go around as essentially I have roughly 10 players in the defensive area. In the first pic I have roughly two thirds of the pitch for 2-3 players (assuming a winger got skinned) looking after an area of the pitch. This gives the attacking player time, space and options. In the last pic the same defenders are only  looking after one third of the pitch thus reducing the amount of time, space and options available.

 

The reason we don't see successful low block teams is complex (in my opinion). Top teams don't do it as they have the technical players to ping passes around the pitch and the money to buy the best to play a nice, attacking style. Teams lower on the table (i.e. Burnley) are sort of forced into a lower block as they are constantly on the back foot due to their lesser talented players needing to create a solid block with minimal technical work involved for lesser technical players. Also, what is success? For a top team it's a trophy. For a Burnley it's EPL survival. I'd say by their thoughts they have been successful for the past few years by employing the low block.

 

It's all down to opinions really, and the players available.

[Justified]

20 hours ago, Adonalsium said:

Well, the way I see it, Guardiola is right when he says football is ultimately about which side has the better players. If you have better players you will play a low block more effectively just like you will play a high pressing system more effectively. However, I have certainly noticed in the ME that lower blocks don't tend to work quite as well as mid blocks or higher blocks. I've found success by tweaking my tactics into a mid block and playing on the counter against sides that are far superior to mine, lower blocks invite too much pressure for my liking. In comparison to real football where various sides of differing skill level are very tough to break down, it's really a lot easier to do so in FM (even though sometimes it feels like nothing is going in).

Is that an actual Guardiola quote? If that's the case I completely disagree. I think this is where Guardiola's inflexibility of his system comes into play. He will only have success because of player quality as he needs players to pull it off. As for matching player quality, I think it's completely possible to have a system where you're vertically and horizontally compact and nullify any team in the world. Burnley, Atletico, Getafe etc etc are teams that show this on a weekly basis however their weakness is when being favourites for a match.

As for lower blocks, they're designed to soak pressure so you need to set your players to counter. I'm not a fan for the simple reason I don't want the defensive counter to be the only offensive weapon I have and for highly technical teams they can completely camp in your half and you'll never get out. It's not the kind of football I like.

[Blünderbossu]

Depends on your team really. If you're good at marking, positioning, tackling, heading and so on but your defence has poor pace then it can be the right way to go.

Got to have a couple of players in attacking roles so you have an "out ball", and often you'll need to play direct. If you try playing out from the back when your tactic encourages the opponent to be camping in your half and you're likely to be making challenges to win the ball close to your own goal you're going to struggle to do anything on the counter and then it's just attack vs defence. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Blünderbossu

[davidbarros2]

When you play on a low block (low LOD and/or LOE) you are inviting the opponent to come at you and you need to be able to deal with it.

The attributes required for your players would be somehow different, as in, pace or acceleration are no longer a (must have) requirement for your defenders, but concentration and strength, heading, so on... would be much more valuable.

The same goes for your offense. First you need an offensive plan for the (few) times you'd have the ball. Perhaps someone good at passing and vision to launch a long ball, a pacey winger and a TM upfront. Perhaps a good DLF to hold the ball and release it to an IF... whatever suits your players and your gameplan.

Either way player attributes go hand in hand with the sucess you would be getting when playing a low block, being it your defensive line or your offensive line.

I've had huge sucess playing on a low block in FM18 following the tactic handbook released by @Rashidi (it's still up in the description of one of his 2018 videos), even playing with a major team (stuff like "be more expressive" and the extinct "roam from position" TI's played a big part in suiting the low block for a major team). Highly recommend that reading if you want to dig deeper into the low block requirements.

Personally, for this year's edition of the game, I had sucess with positive mentality and standard LOE/LOD, which resembles somehow a middle lowish block at times, and it was the only way I manage to get the best out of a no10 (support) and a no9 (pacey striker) in terms of assists-goals respectively.

Edited April 27, 2020 by davidbarros2

[Adonalsium]

1 hour ago, Justified said:

Is that an actual Guardiola quote? If that's the case I completely disagree. I think this is where Guardiola's inflexibility of his system comes into play. He will only have success because of player quality as he needs players to pull it off. As for matching player quality, I think it's completely possible to have a system where you're vertically and horizontally compact and nullify any team in the world. Burnley, Atletico, Getafe etc etc are teams that show this on a weekly basis however their weakness is when being favourites for a match.

As for lower blocks, they're designed to soak pressure so you need to set your players to counter. I'm not a fan for the simple reason I don't want the defensive counter to be the only offensive weapon I have and for highly technical teams they can completely camp in your half and you'll never get out. It's not the kind of football I like.

Yeah he says it in press conferences and elsewhere many times. He can tweak this and that and whatever but ultimately if his players are worse he can't do anything. I am not one to say what he means by that but to me it means that tactics ultimately, when it comes down to the wire, take a back seat to how well the players are playing. I agree though that as you say there are many ways to attempt to nullify better players. They are just not guaranteed to work, and your players still need to be good enough to score as well!

[FMunderachiever]

1 hour ago, Justified said:

Is that an actual Guardiola quote? If that's the case I completely disagree. I think this is where Guardiola's inflexibility of his system comes into play. He will only have success because of player quality as he needs players to pull it off. As for matching player quality, I think it's completely possible to have a system where you're vertically and horizontally compact and nullify any team in the world. Burnley, Atletico, Getafe etc etc are teams that show this on a weekly basis however their weakness is when being favourites for a match.

As for lower blocks, they're designed to soak pressure so you need to set your players to counter. I'm not a fan for the simple reason I don't want the defensive counter to be the only offensive weapon I have and for highly technical teams they can completely camp in your half and you'll never get out. It's not the kind of football I like.

"Nullifying" opponents doesn make you a great team or a successful team. Burnley are ****, and lose to **** regularly. Your post is implying that Burnley are a quality side somehow capable of challenging for all the trophies.

 

Of course Guardiola is right that having the best players is the most important factor in winning. thats called stating the bleeding obvious.

[zyfon5]

7 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

"Nullifying" opponents doesn make you a great team or a successful team. Burnley are ****, and lose to **** regularly. Your post is implying that Burnley are a quality side somehow capable of challenging for all the trophies.

 

Of course Guardiola is right that having the best players is the most important factor in winning. thats called stating the bleeding obvious.

Burnley may not be a quality side that is capable of challenging trophies, but they are a quality side when it comes to the art of defending. they have consistently able to concede less than their expected goals (xG) from 2014/2015 to 2017/2018 which no English side has managed to do. to put it simply, they are a statistical anomaly which makes xG useless due to how good their overall defending is.

u can get more info from this excellent video

 

[Justified]

9 minutes ago, Adonalsium said:

Yeah he says it in press conferences and elsewhere many times. He can tweak this and that and whatever but ultimately if his players are worse he can't do anything. I am not one to say what he means by that but to me it means that tactics ultimately, when it comes down to the wire, take a back seat to how well the players are playing. I agree though that as you say there are many ways to attempt to nullify better players. They are just not guaranteed to work, and your players still need to be good enough to score as well!

Oh yes 100% agree. You need to still play to your strength and ultimately if your strength isn't good enough then it'll be tough. Don't get me wrong, a team with quality will have it easier because they've got game-changers. On the flipside of that, football is still 11 v 11 so a well thought plan is still a part of a foundation of winning.

8 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

"Nullifying" opponents doesn make you a great team or a successful team. Burnley are ****, and lose to **** regularly. Your post is implying that Burnley are a quality side somehow capable of challenging for all the trophies.

 

Of course Guardiola is right that having the best players is the most important factor in winning. thats called stating the bleeding obvious.

Firstly, you need to calm down. I'm all for hearing people's opinions but your post comes across as petulant.

Secondly, I never said nullifying makes you a successful team. The subject is about lower blocks. I never said Burnley are challenging for trophies. I even said they struggle when they're favourites for matches.

Of course quality of players is a factor. So is coaching, mentality, teamwork, tactics, moral etc etc. It's a piece of a very large puzzle. I was just criticising as saying that football is ultimately about player quality is very one way to look at things and is quite disrespectful to the work coaches and managers do to achieve success.

[FMunderachiever]

3 minutes ago, Justified said:

Oh yes 100% agree. You need to still play to your strength and ultimately if your strength isn't good enough then it'll be tough. Don't get me wrong, a team with quality will have it easier because they've got game-changers. On the flipside of that, football is still 11 v 11 so a well thought plan is still a part of a foundation of winning.

Firstly, you need to calm down. I'm all for hearing people's opinions but your post comes across as petulant.

Secondly, I never said nullifying makes you a successful team. The subject is about lower blocks. I never said Burnley are challenging for trophies. I even said they struggle when they're favourites for matches.

Of course quality of players is a factor. So is coaching, mentality, teamwork, tactics, moral etc etc. It's a piece of a very large puzzle. I was just criticising as saying that football is ultimately about player quality is very one way to look at things and is quite disrespectful to the work coaches and managers do to achieve success.

I am calm. you just said something weird like Guardiola was talking nonsense because of......Burnley and Getafe.....something something.

Anyway never mind. Youre one of the best posters here so im sorry if it was petulant. it probably was so please accept my apologies

[Justified]

1 minute ago, FMunderachiever said:

I am calm. you just said something weird like Guardiola was talking nonsense because of......Burnley and Getafe.....something something.

Anyway never mind. Youre one of the best posters here so im sorry if it was petulant. it probably was so please accept my apologies

Well if it came across as I thought Guardiola is talking nonsense then I apologise for that. I actually have a lot of time for Pep, his views on football are good and generally has a very good/moral view on the game. I just disagreed if that was the quote because it's very elitist to say you can ultimately only be successful with player quality. The collective is just as, if not more, important. Tactics is a part of it. 

Don't worry about it, if we all respect each other and each others opinions then the forums will be a better place 

[Experienced Defender]

I would put it quite simple: a good (well thought-out) tactic can help an underdog overachieve, just as a poor tactic can make a top team underachieve. In other words, having the best players in the league does not guarantee you are going to win the title, nor does having the worst ones automatically mean you'll get relegated. Because if everything was solely dependent on the players' quality, then managers and coaches would not be needed at all. 

[witchplease]

On 26/04/2020 at 04:06, Overmars said:

I spent a few hours today testing out some formations and tactics. Almost any variation using the lower or much lower defensive line team instruction ended up sinking my team to a 5-0 defeat or some similarly disastrous scoreline. I can't see any reason to use this option in the current match engine, at least not against a side of any quality. Defenders can't seem to cope with all of that pressure and opposing attackers and attacking midfielders score goals for fun on long shots or goal crease scrambles.

I know a lot of people complain about the ubiquity of higher defensive line gegenpressing tactics among FM users and posters, but I can see why people adopt that approach when the opposite choice yields such dreadful results.

Has anyone made a passive defense work when not using a superior team?

I think the same since even if there's no other way for opponents to score there's always op set-pieces. I like defensive setups so have tried a lot to somewhat replicate Jose's or Conte's systems but just couldn't keep clean sheets so i slowly went back to good old overused gegenpress. But around 9 games ago (low sample size but still) i went back to trying low block and strangely enough haven't conceded a single goal whenever i have played that way (still playing extremely urgent pressing and counter-press though, while i do want to play less pressing and more regrouping like Jose's mastaklass days but don't think i or my team is ready for that yet). I was already having the best defensive performance this season compared to other teams but i was still barely keeping clean sheets (7 out of 21), always conceding that 1 pesky goal in late game.

But now i kept 6 clean sheets in all 6 games where i played low defensive line, the 3 games where i conceded a goal is when i played at least standard or higher line. So low block might've some potential in this fm with right kind of players and what not despite all the problems this ME's got. As far as dealing with set-pieces go i am using some downloaded routine which has definitely helped against those **** goals. Downloaded from here - https://tacticasfm.menorketing.com/football-manager/jugadas-balon-parado-setpieces-fm20/

For all i know it could just be a small lucky run of games but if you want i can go in detail about what i think has helped me get better results with low defensive line.

Edited April 29, 2020 by witchplease

[sporadicsmiles]

Is a lower defensive line a lose now button? Ask the users who complain about losing to a low block defensive AI side who score with their one meaningful attack in the game. 

In more seriousness, of course not. It is about how you set up.

The time when, I think, most people talk about low defensive line is when you want to defend with your backs to the wall against a better team. Some kind of park the bus, pack the defence, and hope they cannot break through. For that is a lot of what is behind such an idea. You give up possession and territory and hope they cannot break through. If they do, you lose. And if you cannot find a decent attacking outlet, you will lose. In most cases where you would even consider this, a draw is also a win for you. It is not a way to set up a successful side though. It makes no sense to play with a lower defensive line like this if you are the better side.

And so we come to the crux of the question. Why do you want to play a low defensive line. Everything in your tactic should have a point. So what is the point of a low defensive line (in any tactic)? First consider why good sides use a high defensive line;. It helps them dominate a game. The want to go forward, attack, and create chances. You want your players high up the pitch. This is simply why a normal or high defensive line works for good sides, and why most tactics for good sides works like this. It is riskier if you have average players because it pits extra stress on your defence and they need to be good enough to handle it. 

So when would a low defensive line make sense? In a proactive way? 

For a big side, I can think of two cases where you might want to do this (and there may be more). 

1. You want to see out a game you are winning with a lot of aimless possession in your own half without giving up a risk of a counter attack.

2. You want to pull a particularly stubborn team forward to create space to attack. 

Notice that a low defensive line has a concrete reason, but they come with a risk (as does everything in football tactics). The risk is you are playing close to you own goal, and so if you lose the ball there is less distance to cover for the opposition to create a goal scoring chance. 

I use the second option with mid table sides quite often actually. In FM19 I had a wonderful season with Wolves where we would defend deep and hit teams with devastating counter attacks using my fast players. We kept conceding long shots in this particular save (which was likely down to my keeper getting old and losing his agility/reaction times), which prevented me having huge success. But it worked. Why? Because I was using a low defensive line for a reason. It was a part of the greater whole, and integrated with my game plan. I invited pressure to create chances. It meant we conceded, but we also scored. 

The other think here is that you cannot decouple the defensive line from the mentality. A low defensive line with a defensive mentality is vastly different to a low defensive line on positive or attacking. They do not play the same. And so when you mention your defensive line you almost have to also think about the mentality that goes with it. The formation is also key here, because a low defensive line players very differently depending on where your players are on the field. It is not a simple matter of changing the defensive line and seeing if you win or lose. There is so much more to it than that. 

 

[zyfon5]

2 hours ago, witchplease said:

I think the same since even if there's no other way for opponents to score there's always op set-pieces. I like defensive setups so have tried a lot to somewhat replicate Jose's or Conte's systems but just couldn't keep clean sheets so i slowly went back to good old overused gegenpress. But around 9 games ago (low sample size but still) i went back to trying low block and strangely enough haven't conceded a single goal whenever i have played that way (still playing extremely urgent pressing and counter-press though, while i do want to play less pressing and more regrouping like Jose's mastaklass days but don't think i or my team is ready for that yet). I was already having the best defensive performance this season compared to other teams but i was still barely keeping clean sheets (7 out of 21), always conceding that 1 pesky goal in late game.

But now i kept 6 clean sheets in all 6 games where i played low defensive line, the 3 games where i conceded a goal is when i played at least standard or higher line. So low block might've some potential in this fm with right kind of players and what not despite all the problems this ME's got. As far as dealing with set-pieces go i am using some downloaded routine which has definitely helped against those **** goals. Downloaded from here - https://tacticasfm.menorketing.com/football-manager/jugadas-balon-parado-setpieces-fm20/

For all i know it could just be a small lucky run of games but if you want i can go in detail about what i think has helped me get better results with low defensive line.

Indirect free kicks has seem to be buggy this version of ME. I had a few games where my players completely left out few players unmarked when defending a free kick. There are reports of it on the bugs forum so SI has taken note. It is annoying but not gamebreaking. But it doesn't take away that lower defensive line can work with the right set up.

[Vizzini]

1 hour ago, sporadicsmiles said:

The other think here is that you cannot decouple the defensive line from the mentality.

I think this is often overlooked and ignored by most users. I think that the preset-tactical styles really does not help as some of the more defensive ones always go with defensive mentality+ lower D-line and LoE. I also think formation and roles plays a part here as well. Some formation and roles are more suited to a low block approach.

[sporadicsmiles]

6 hours ago, Vizzini said:

I think this is often overlooked and ignored by most users. I think that the preset-tactical styles really does not help as some of the more defensive ones always go with defensive mentality+ lower D-line and LoE. I also think formation and roles plays a part here as well. Some formation and roles are more suited to a low block approach.

I 100% agree. While you can decouple things to a degree when you are trying to isolate how things work, you have to keep everything else in mind too. The same goes for pretty much every instruction. It does make the game difficult to learn, because it is never really made explicit anywhere, to my knowledge. In general I am not a fan of the defaults. I wish we could edit them to provide our own defaults for people to use. 

[jsx7ste]

Simulate the whole season with a high LOE formation vs a season with a much Lower LOE and  I think that 9 times out of ten the high LOE will finish higher. Do this with multiple teams and then you will have your answer. I expect the LLOE will be close to the 'lose button.'

 

 

[Adonalsium]

7 hours ago, jsx7ste said:

Simulate the whole season with a high LOE formation vs a season with a much Lower LOE and  I think that 9 times out of ten the high LOE will finish higher. Do this with multiple teams and then you will have your answer. I expect the LLOE will be close to the 'lose button.'

The word 'formation' does a lot of legwork there. Of course, better systems will perform better. And low LOEs, high LOEs suit different types of systems. If you just stick low LOE on a 4231 I doubt it's going to perform better than a high LOE (though it will work under certain setups), but with a 5311 or 532? it's going to do better.

[jsx7ste]

9 hours ago, Adonalsium said:

The word 'formation' does a lot of legwork there. Of course, better systems will perform better. And low LOEs, high LOEs suit different types of systems. If you just stick low LOE on a 4231 I doubt it's going to perform better than a high LOE (though it will work under certain setups), but with a 5311 or 532? it's going to do better.

I will simulate a season with two different tactics, use a preset LLOE tactic and a preset HLOE tactic and see the results. I'll do it with a low and high team in a league. Will be interesting to see the outcome.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, jsx7ste said:

Simulate the whole season with a high LOE formation vs a season with a much Lower LOE and  I think that 9 times out of ten the high LOE will finish higher. Do this with multiple teams and then you will have your answer. I expect the LLOE will be close to the 'lose button.'

 

 

That's simply not true. 

This maybe an old thread but the principals are still the same and relevant today. BTW some of the comments in that thread are relevant to the thread you started about lacking space and breaking down stubborn defensive teams.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Crazy_Ivan

[jsx7ste]

40 minutes ago, Crazy_Ivan said:

That's simply not true. 

This maybe an old thread but the principals are still the same and relevant today. BTW some of the comments in that thread are relevant to the thread you started about lacking space and breaking down stubborn defensive teams.

I will simulate a season with a few teams using the following formations, Catennacio and Gegenpress presets. and will see which is more successful. Obviously, there will be variables at play but it will be interesting to see how different the final standings are. I'll try with a low mid and high performing team. I hope the  lower line of defence tactic wins with the more defensive minded squads and teams that aren't as industrious. 

[Robson 07]

I'm going to ask a question here if no one minds.  I've seen plenty of posts that touch on this but it's one thing that I've never really known with absolute certainty.

Does setting your Defensive Line work for both In Possession and Out of Possession?  

Take width as an example.  Width can be set for both attack and defence phases.  It is a setting found on both those screens.  Whereas Defensive Line setting is only a customisation from the Out of Possession screen.

I see two possible answers:

1) Setting your defensive line - in the only way we can - works for both with and without ball.  In other words, it works for both phases,

- or -

2) Your Team Mentality sets the Defensive Line for the In Possession (attacking) phase.  e.g. You play an Attack mentality and when you have the ball the D-Line plays high as set by mentality.  However you can adjust the D-Line for Out of Possession (defensive phase) only.  So when you lose the ball, a turnover, your defence pushes up or drops back according to what you have selected.

Hope that makes sense.

[Guest]

If I have the right players set up the right way in the right low block system with the right instructions it can be deadly. 

[zyfon5]

44 minutes ago, Robson 07 said:

I'm going to ask a question here if no one minds.  I've seen plenty of posts that touch on this but it's one thing that I've never really known with absolute certainty.

Does setting your Defensive Line work for both In Possession and Out of Possession?  

Take width as an example.  Width can be set for both attack and defence phases.  It is a setting found on both those screens.  Whereas Defensive Line setting is only a customisation from the Out of Possession screen.

I see two possible answers:

1) Setting your defensive line - in the only way we can - works for both with and without ball.  In other words, it works for both phases,

- or -

2) Your Team Mentality sets the Defensive Line for the In Possession (attacking) phase.  e.g. You play an Attack mentality and when you have the ball the D-Line plays high as set by mentality.  However you can adjust the D-Line for Out of Possession (defensive phase) only.  So when you lose the ball, a turnover, your defence pushes up or drops back according to what you have selected.

Hope that makes sense.

from what i can see in game the defensive line when u have possession and dun have possession is definitely different and the graphic that u see in the tactics screen may not represent what is in game.

[zyfon5]

1 hour ago, jsx7ste said:

I will simulate a season with a few teams using the following formations, Catennacio and Gegenpress presets. and will see which is more successful. Obviously, there will be variables at play but it will be interesting to see how different the final standings are. I'll try with a low mid and high performing team. I hope the  lower line of defence tactic wins with the more defensive minded squads and teams that aren't as industrious. 

just a small request can u make a separate save file like halfway through the season? will be interesting to see how things changes after half a season played compared to the end result.

[jsx7ste]

How do you mean? Yes I can try. I have done the first run with Genoa. Here are the results with the gegenpress. They had a media prediction of 14th and finished 9th. They had no natural left sided IF but were suggested to be good at gegen by AM. I am in the process of running the LLOE tactic now. 

[Adonalsium]

1 hour ago, jsx7ste said:

I will simulate a season with a few teams using the following formations, Catennacio and Gegenpress presets. and will see which is more successful. Obviously, there will be variables at play but it will be interesting to see how different the final standings are. I'll try with a low mid and high performing team. I hope the  lower line of defence tactic wins with the more defensive minded squads and teams that aren't as industrious. 

If you do so, make sure to test it more than once - a study with a sample size of just one isn't very informative. 

[jsx7ste]

I Just checked back and Bob Johnson was sacked using the LLOE formation with Genoa. He was sacked in November.

 

 

[jsx7ste]

Does anyone have a team to suggest who would benefit from LLOE with the players they have? I am also happy to use any LLOE formation that will give the best outcome.  The first two were done using preset tactics and when on Holiday had use current match tactics ticked but did not suggest the players to use. The AM was the same in both simulations.

[zyfon5]

30 minutes ago, jsx7ste said:

I Just checked back and Bob Johnson was sacked using the LLOE formation with Genoa. He was sacked in November.

 

 

can u try with a counter attack tactic? not trying to be picky here but the catenaccio tactic in the game is a very poor tactic in general even on the defensive side.

[jsx7ste]

1 minute ago, zyfon5 said:

can u try with a counter attack tactic? not trying to be picky here but the catenaccio tactic in the game is a very poor tactic in general even on the defensive side.

Sure thing. I'm midway through Chelsea's Gegenpress. I will use Counter attack for them. Any particular formation you think LLOE is effective with?

 

[zyfon5]

28 minutes ago, jsx7ste said:

Sure thing. I'm midway through Chelsea's Gegenpress. I will use Counter attack for them. Any particular formation you think LLOE is effective with?

 

I think the counter attack preset tactics is good enough. Too good of a tactic will defeat the purpose of this experiment.

[jsx7ste]

Chelsea Gegenpress preset finished 4th and reached the QF of the Champions League.

[jsx7ste]

Well, Bob Johnson was sacked by Chelsea using a LLOE Fluid Counter. A bit unfairly I have to say. Failure to qualify for the Champions league seemed to cost him. After losing in the final of the Euro Cup, he was sacked the next day.  Here's the results.

 

HLOE 2 - O LLOE

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by jsx7ste

[zyfon5]

19 minutes ago, jsx7ste said:

Well, Bob Johnson was sacked by Chelsea using a LLOE Fluid Counter. A bit unfairly I have to say. Failure to qualify for the Champions league seemed to cost him. After losing in the final of the Euro Cup, he was sacked the next day.  Here's the results.

 

HLOE 2 - O LLOE

 

i would say it is not far off in terms of results. 70 points using high defensive line and 61 points using low defensive line. when u account that chelsea is a strong team in EPL and most teams will be cautious against them it is likely that there is no obvious difference between these two tactics.

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

Does setting your Defensive Line work for both In Possession and Out of Possession?

The defensive line setting defines how high (or deep) your back-line will look to position themselves while you are in possession. Once you lose possession, they will look to adapt their positions and movement as best as they can to prevent the potential threat from an opposition counter-attack. So if you play with a higher DL, your defenders will potentially have to cover a greater distance to deal with danger in case of an opposition ball over the top. That's why attributes such as speed, anticipation, concentration and decisions matter more when you play on a higher line. 

[jsx7ste]

1 hour ago, zyfon5 said:

i would say it is not far off in terms of results. 70 points using high defensive line and 61 points using low defensive line. when u account that chelsea is a strong team in EPL and most teams will be cautious against them it is likely that there is no obvious difference between these two tactics.

True. Although you could also argue that the LLOE tactic got sacked on both occasions. I'll do another one tomorrow. What is clear is that the preset Catenaccio is not the tactic to go for it seems

[zyfon5]

44 minutes ago, jsx7ste said:

What is clear is that the preset Catenaccio is not the tactic to go for it seems

The previous team that I managed in my current save replace me with a AI manager that has catenaccio playing style. FYI they always play wing play style under me. Needless to say, things didn't end well for them. Went from 1st from previous season to 8th. Now a fluid counter attack style manager is managing them and they are performing as expected.

[Robson 07]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

The defensive line setting defines how high (or deep) your back-line will look to position themselves while you are in possession. Once you lose possession, they will look to adapt their positions and movement as best as they can to prevent the potential threat from an opposition counter-attack. So if you play with a higher DL, your defenders will potentially have to cover a greater distance to deal with danger in case of an opposition ball over the top. That's why attributes such as speed, anticipation, concentration and decisions matter more when you play on a higher line. 

"In Possession" only instruction, eh?  Well, well.  How nice of SI to put such an instruction on the "Out of Possession" tab only when you're making a tactic.

So then at other end - Line of Engagement.  That's an "Out of Possession" only instruction only, yes?

So to make the defensive block, you take the D-Line setting from where your last line of defence is positioned in possession.  Then take LoE is the instruction for where you tell your forwards to start pressing from the moment you turn the ball over.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Robson 07