What is Your Favourite Team Mentality?

[WHUBen]

There is a lot of discussion regarding Team Mentality, so I thought I would ask What is your favourite Team Mentality and Why?

Mine is Balanced because the more risky Team Mentality I use (Positive, Attacking, Very Attacking) the more risky passes my players tend to make, so I keep it balanced and apply player instructions/player role that has risky passes.

[99]

Attacking, with much shorter passing to balance the risk and have some possession. The lowest mentality I am willing to go is Positive, Attacking being by far the one I use most.

Edited May 28, 2020 by 99

[Guest]

Attacking

[Snorks]

I tend to bounce around from Balanced to Attacking. 

Never really felt comfortable going below a balanced set up but I think more to do with my own football aesthetic preference than anything else.

[FrazT]

Attacking at home and away against weak teams.  Positive away against stronger teams

[Rashidi]

Very attacking mentality, cos everyone else plays it wrong. Buahahahahahaha

[WHUBen]

13 hours ago, 99 said:

Attacking, with much shorter passing to balance the risk and have some possession. The lowest mentality I am willing to go is Positive, Attacking being by far the one I use most.

Does this depend on what team you are? Or is this the same with every save, no matter the team?

10 hours ago, Snorks said:

I tend to bounce around from Balanced to Attacking. 

Never really felt comfortable going below a balanced set up but I think more to do with my own football aesthetic preference than anything else.

I have not either, I am starting too because I know mentality essentially means risk in and out of possession.  

3 hours ago, FrazT said:

Attacking at home and away against weak teams.  Positive away against stronger teams

Is this across all saves you do, even if you are a less quality of team?

24 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Very attacking mentality, cos everyone else plays it wrong. Buahahahahahaha

Ahhhh the guy who actually taught me what mentality actually is! A risk indicator. 

[FrazT]

"Is this across all saves you do, even if you are a less quality of team?"

I usually play as a higher qulaity team, so yes,this is across my saves.

[DementedHammer]

I use all of them depending on my specific tactics and match situation. However, I tend to use Counter, Balanced and Positive the most. The others I only generally use for more extreme situations towards the end of the match, or if I'm trying to replicate a specific style of football that requires it. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by DementedHammer

[jacono]

Swept all before me as AFC Wimbledon in my second season (having finished 13th in my first season) on cautious, lost my nerve a few times and went with the assistant manager's suggestion to go balanced or positive against mid to lower table opposition, but it never worked as well so I always went back to cautious

[jacono]

With Watford now, generally use Positive, unless it's away against the bigger teams, in which case I use Balanced or Cautious. None seem to work well for me though lol

[Britrock]

Balanced because it gives me the most flexibility in game to change things. 

[north_london_fan]

At the moment I am testing out a positive mentality with my  5-1-4-0 DM formation on my DPMM/Brunei save.

[Snorks]

On 29/05/2020 at 19:47, WHUBen said:

 

I have not either, I am starting too because I know mentality essentially means risk in and out of possession.  

 

 

Yep, I understand that as well, but with my own preference aside (and I know there is Perception bias at play) but  I ALWAYS concede at least ONE if I play on Cautious/Defensive for more than about 20 mins. 

On 30/05/2020 at 09:12, Britrock said:

Balanced because it gives me the most flexibility in game to change things. 

I have never understood that at all. Yes, I can see that balanced is a 'base' if used with simple TIs/PIs but surely it's just as easy to change things in game if you are starting on Positive or Cautious? I always start on what  I think will work (no hard rule but say - Balanced/Positive if away, Positive/Attacking if at home) and change it if it isn't working how I had hoped.

I have never quite got my head around it being easier to see things or change things if you are playing a Balanced mentality.

Like I said earlier though, much of my approach is probably down to my own preferences than the game.

[Svenc]

On 29/05/2020 at 09:18, Rashidi said:

Very attacking mentality, cos everyone else plays it wrong. Buahahahahahaha

You seem to not have gotten the latest message   FM Myth™, do you?

The more aggressive mentalities would lead to awful shot/Chance conversions.

And vice versa.

Not sure where exactly that is actually being discussed (would love to see a link), but apparently somewhere on these boards.

No kidding.

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Svenc

[Federico]

48 minuti fa, Svenc ha scritto:

You seem to not have gotten the latest message   FM Myth™, do you?

The more aggressive mentalities would lead to awful shot/Chance conversions.
 

This is another FM Myth™.

I'm playing balanced and the conversion rate is shamefully atrocious and unbelievably unrealistic anyway.

A lot of FM Myths™ should be busted, but both from directions.

[baris28]

What mentality should it be for programming AI may I ask? Is it really better in defensive and changing formation last 5 minutes and scoring from setpieces. Only solution for competitive game? Well I'm a wargamer for 20 years and curious about what does know-all people say. 

Edited June 2, 2020 by baris28

[Svenc]

41 minutes ago, Federico said:

This is another FM Myth™.

It's also a cognitive dissonance /  confirmation bias. The guy claims his 1vs1 conversion went through the roof as soon as he switched to a more cautious mentality, like every single one converted. This is not going to last. Small sample size error.

Even my stress test back then with the forwards actually in yards of space had sequences of not scoring in 4 (the overall conversion over dozens was slightly above 50%). 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Svenc

[Federico]

I hope this guy you're talking about elaborated and perfectioned his 1v1 conversion rate along many seasons since, as you always state, every statistic according to FM should be considered on a very long time scale.

By me, I'm not playing an attacking tactic since FM17 (it doesn't mean I never played offensive, but my starting tactic has never been attacking or even positive since), so I have a good background to speak of.

Anyway, I'm rethorical.

[baris28]

Hmm. 1 vs 1 are about mentality? I didn't observe that. I see in both AI and human disadvantage in here. I see long shots that have clear sight(snipers) have more goals than 1 vs 1 in game.

I hope 2021 will not be designed for kids. I'm not convinced by know-all people on this one. 

[Rashidi]

11 hours ago, baris28 said:

Hmm. 1 vs 1 are about mentality? I

1v1s are about quality.

[zyfon5]

12 hours ago, baris28 said:

Hmm. 1 vs 1 are about mentality? I didn't observe that. I see in both AI and human disadvantage in here. I see long shots that have clear sight(snipers) have more goals than 1 vs 1 in game.

I hope 2021 will not be designed for kids. I'm not convinced by know-all people on this one. 

A 1 v 1 from a first time header shot from a cross is going to vary differently from a relatively uncontested shot slightly far out directly facing the goal resulting from a rebound. Both are 1 v 1 for sure but from an xG point of perspective is going to be very different.

Edited June 3, 2020 by zyfon5

[Federico]

1 ora fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

1v1s are about quality.

What kind of quality?

The quality of the player going for a 1v1?

The quality of the chance itself, like striker being under pressure, position, distance?

The quality of the keeper and how good he is on 1v1s?

Surely not mentality.

I don't know, I played many, many games now. None of those 3 points have proven to be determinant for the conversion of 1v1s (and to be honest especially point n.1. I could even say the worse attributes a player has, the better will be his finishing. And this statement can be easily applied to penalties and free kicks too), which for me is about randomness and figures, or at least this is the feeling I got back from what I've seen on the screen. Mind, this counts for me as much as for the AI, that misses dramatically 1v1s as much as my team does.

Anyway, I sense this is going too much off-topic now, at least from my side.

[KeegBCFC]

Did my best to replicate Sheffield United's real life tactics (without the overlapping CB's), used a Cautious mentality and it got me into the CL second season and kept me in the top 4 for 3 seasons after that before I signed a 50m striker and switched to 4-1-2-1-2 with Attacking mentality. The issue with the 3-5-2 was lack of goals from my strikers, but I was getting bagloads of goals and assists from my full backs.

[mrw072]

I tend to prefer a cautious mentality I think.  Although it's dependent on the team i'm managing.  But I find that it doesn't seem to stop my team from being adventurous.  I guess I tend to associate it with a counter attacking mentality, which I like.

[koulouu]

Cautious  mendality with some(but not alot) aggresive instructions and roles

[PL Tuck]

I'm glad I found this topic. Since as far back as I can remember I've defaulted to a positive mentality, but this year things seem to have changed. My players make a lot more 'silly' errors than they used to. For me, balanced is the new positive (or at least it seems that way). On positive players also try and shoot from impossible angles whereas on balanced and cautious they will look for the cutback more. It could be argued that I play more attractive football on lower mentalities as well which is a little counter-intuitive. If I put them on attacking it's like telling them to shoot once they get to within 30yds, even if there 4 players blocking them.

I thought I was going a bit mad but reading this thread seems to confirm what I've been seeing.