Tactical Theorems and Frameworks '08

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by grantlp13:

sorry to say this, but this TT F is for 4-4-2 right?

Where should I search for a place to discuss about 4-3-3 formation?

TT&F isn't a tactic, it's a framework for tactics. You should be able to apply the theories to any formation.

[denyyourmaker]

hey

having attempted almost every other God forsaken tactical method on any forum, tried and failed to construct tactics of my own, and having had pethetic results with all downloaded tactics, i stumbled across wwfan's thread.

This has, single-handedly, restored my faith in the FM series and i now understand significantly more what it takes to be successful in the game, and consider myself to be an effective, succesful manager for the first time fince FM05. WIth FC Moscow i finished a miserable 8th using shambolic tactics downloaded from sites such as this. I then refused to begin the new season until i'd found something i could actually enjoy watching my team playing. All i can say is im pleased i found this.

It took me 2 hours to do it all properly, based around the players i have, but i constructed 5 tactics, in depth, using the framework plus set pieces etc. 24 games unbeaten and won the Russian title for the first time ever on the last day of the season by 1 point, finishing ahead of Zenit Peterberg who have a far better squad (aka Arshavin). Not bad considering i was tipped no higher than 6th. Im now going into season 3, Champions League, a whopping 2.5mil to spend...after this season im going to look elsewhere. But the point is i havent had the luxury of other clubs wanting me in ages.

Anyone, with any club, can use this framework to make a succesful winning structure. Just read everything carefully and take your time. Learning when to apply which one is key. I use attack when heavily favoured at home, counter when away to better teams, defence when hanging on and control when its' in the trenches. The rest of the time im always playing balances, and it seems to be fine. I'd recommend to definately watch the 2D match engine for the first few games using it, then just use extended highlights from then on.

Be patient, choose your tactic wisely, dont panic, and watch as your team improves. I play a 4-1-2-2-1 but it'll work with most formations i believe. THIS is the solution to all of my FM2008 problems on 8.0.2. Pure magic. wwfan, cheers

[wwfan]

TT&F only focuses on a 4-4-2 in the original post because I don't think it offers any unfair advantages over the AI. Certain other formations do and thus make testing less reliable. However, as gunnerfan said, the theories are viable for any formation.

@ denyyourmaker: Thank you. Responses like that are why we (the FM-B team) write these threads. We think FM has improved remarkably through the last few versions and would love for everyone to see it as we do. Glad you finally got there, even if it did take you three years

Well done on that title.

[Cleon]

This has, single-handedly, restored my faith in the FM series and i now understand significantly more what it takes to be successful in the game, and consider myself to be an effective, succesful manager for the first time fince FM05

You must have some patience I tell you

[denyyourmaker]

its not the first thing ive won in 3 years...but its the first thing ive won without reloading the odd game/playing as a Galactico team with a huge transfer budget. Legitimately, i guess you could say.

Now going to try and pick up a few gems and try and retain the title...build my rep and get a bigger job with a bigger club.

And i dont understand those who cant even get this to work...honestly, without the likes of wwfan and cleon playing your seasons for you, is there any way you'll have the patience/common sense to succeed? If i can, anyone with an ounce of footy knowledge can. I just file to see how the system could fail after a bit of practice.

[Quagmire13]

I just want to thank everyone that was involved in making this thread. I used to always have to use other peoples tactics but now I am actually able to create my own because I finally understand how everything works.

[wwfan]

The first legitimate win is a thing of beauty.

It is unusual for me to ask for help in one of my own threads, but, with reference to gunnerfan's statement on how the thread could/should develop, her goes:

I am currently tuning the generic 4-4-2s with which I tested the engine and released as a Beta into something a little more specific. The changes are almost entirely style based, trying to get a team playing the exact way I want them to, rather than roughly the right way (as in the Beta tactics). I have saved a few games against the right callibre oppsosition in order to test and tweak each tactical flavour. I am now close to being 100% happy and should release a finalised set pretty soon.

However, I have come up against a seemingly insurmountable problem in one match. Playing away on the Counter against a better team (player for player) who are doing worse than me in the league. They are slight favourites in the pre-match odds. I have played the match roughly 12 times, and gone ahead one or two nil nearly every time. So far, so good. However, I have yet to win any one of the games I went ahead in. Every one has been a draw. I have perceived the problem but am struggling to find a solution.

The problem

My DL and MCd (MCL) are great players in every aspect bar one, pace. They are heavily outpaced by the opposing MR and MCR. Prior to the AI going to a long farrowed 4-4-2 from the short farrowed they start with, this poses no problems. However, once they switch they always equalise and the goal always comes from an attack down that flank.

Solutions thus far

I have slightly raised the d-line (my DCs are quick and strong) which has stopped the FCR from scoring easy goals via unclosed down TBs from the MCR or MR.

I have shown the MR onto wrong foot, which stops him from getting outside my DL, but not form playign a ball inside to the MCR who then has all the time in the world to pick his spot.

I have closed down always the MCR, which has stopped his long shots and TBs, but often left the MR unmarked as the DL moves forward to CD the MCR.

The d-line change has definitely been advantageous but the other two changes both correct one area whilst simultaneously creating a weakness in another.

Other possible solutions

Specific mark the MR with my ML (who is very quick). I also have a quality sub ML (also very quick) who could come on when the starter tires.

Remove the barrow from the MCd/MCL so he is closer to the MCR when he gets the ball and thus gives him less time to play a TB.

Discussion

Everything I have tried has filled one hole whilst exposing another. I'd like to hear how people think I could contain the MR, MCR & FCR given my player limitations. I could play my DC at DL (he is accomplished in that position) which would solve the problem, but I would like to solve it tactically rather than through player swapping.

[Law_Man]

I'm having this problem on a regular basis i.e. going 1-0 or 2-0 up playing counter against 442 short farrows and then bam, as soon as the AI switches to long farrows I just can't contain them.

Do you want to keep the 442? If not, you could put an extra defensive minded MC in midfield, and have him mark the MCR which would presumably solve this problem when combined with the higher defensive line (helping the FCR situation) and showing the MR onto weeker foot (helping the MR situation).

What do you think?

[McTavish]

I realise this kind of defies the point of what you're trying to do but the only thing I can think of that you haven't already mentioned (I was going to suggest swapping your DC to LB before I finished reading the post ; ) is what most managers would probably do if those circumstances arose in the real world - Switch to a 4-5-1. If you happened to have a slow ML you could always move him inside and bring a pacey striker back to cover the left flank.

Man marking is an option but I played around a lot with man marking wingers when tweaking 5-3-2 and 3-5-2 formations and concluded that the only way to do this effectively is to actually set marking -> specific. Simply setting your ML to man marking won't get the job done, he'll still get caught out of position way too often.

[wwfan]

Switching to a 4-5-1 would almost certainly work. However, and this is why I am tuning the tactics, I would like to have a system that doesn't need to switch to a non-4-4-2 and can work via OI or Specific Marking only.

How would you guys have the marking/CD/tackling set up in this situation?

[McTavish]

Hmm well I pretty much base my player instructions on your TT&Fs so I wouldn't be able to suggest anything new Anycase..

ML

Marking: Specific (MR), Loose

CD: ~8

Tackling: Normal (or hard if he has highish tackling)

DL

Marking: Zonal, Loose

CD: 12-14

Tackling: Easy/Normal

MCL

Marking: Man, Loose

CD: 6-8

Tackling: Normal/Hard

No barrow

DCL

Marking: Specific (FCR), Tight (if high marking/tackling) or Loose (if high anticipation, positioning)

CD: 4-6

Tackling: Easy

Might also be worth tweaking opposition instructions:

MR

CD: Always

Show onto weaker foot

MCR

CD: Always

FCR

CD: Always

Marking: Tight

Now to me, setting the opposition instructions to mark the FCR tightly while having his marker set to loose seems counter intuitive but I picked it up from Gallago's recent post and although I can't say I've studied it too carefully it does seem to work.

Anyway, with those instructions what should be happening is your ML, MCd and DCL all have specific players to mark while the DL is free to cover. However if he's a touch on the slow side this might not be the best setup, in which case maybe switching your DCL and DL around (or even just their marking/cd instructions) might be the best option.

[gunnerfan]

wwfan - when I'm trying to hold a lead with defenders with insufficient pace - and I find myself in that position A LOT!! - I usually drop a player into the sweeper position, with zonal marking. If I don't have an actual sweeper, I use my best DM or else my most defensively effective MC. If my backs start getting overwhelmed by excellent service into the opposing strikers, I also put a picket player in front of the backs, also set to zonal marking.

Forum members who dislike going totally defensive won't like it, but when your players don't have the attributes you need to hold a lead, you don't often have much choice. This, btw, was a solution I developed when I was coaching my son's team back around U-14. There are times now when FM takes me back to those days more vividly than I would like.

[gunnerfan]

Now to me, setting the opposition instructions to mark the FCR tightly while having his marker set to loose seems counter intuitive but I picked it up from Gallago's recent post and although I can't say I've studied it too carefully it does seem to work.

I haven't seen the post, but like a lot of other things in FM tactics, it makes sense if you think about what each command is telling the marker - 1) mark loosely and 2) except the FCR, and stick to him like glue.

[wwfan]

Again, I agree that is what I should do, but this is not just about winning a specific match, rather about better understanding tactical instruction. If I wanted to win the match in terms of a career save, I would happily change formation and bring on DMCs or sweepers for the last 20 mins or so.

However, I want to best understand how a 4-4-2 can cope with such a situation. As I have posted many times previously, the 4-4-2 doesn't offer the advantages that many other formations do, such as a 4-1-4-1, and thus you learn a massive amount from trying to stop situations as detailed above from happening within the constraints of a specific formation (as defined in the OP). By doing that you can better design tactics and write better tactical theory.

The challenge I have set myself is to have the 4-4-2s working as well as possible, and then designing a complimentary set of 4-2-3-1s (in the Benitez rather than Ferguson mould i.e. 4 defenders, 2 DMCs, 2 ML/R, 1 MC/AMC (depending on flavour) and an FC as against 4 defenders, 2 DMs, 3 AMs (AML/C/R) and an FC) and see if I can help Starr_Man5 win his title. I thus want the 4-4-2s to be as close to perfect as possible (and to understand how they may fail), so designing the 4-2-3-1 will be a much easier task. I might find that I cannot defend the lead, no matter what I do, which will be fine and tell me what I need to know. If I find I can defend it on a regular basis and can make adjustments to do so that will inform the final release of the 4-4-2s alongside the more defensive variants of the 4-2-3-1 and make them better tactics.

And, God knows, Starr_Man5 needs good tactics

[gunnerfan]

wwfan, your commitment to the 4-4-2 is admirable. But IRL a coach would bring on the sweeper and/or picket player specifically because he knows that staying with the 4-4-2 isn't going to get it done with the horses he's got at the time.

I mean, when you're trying to hold that lead, the AI has no compunction about going to the 4-4-2.

[Rico73]

Originally posted by wwfan:

Again, I agree that is what I should do, but this is not just about winning a specific match, rather about better understanding tactical instruction. If I wanted to win the match in terms of a career save, I would happily change formation and bring on DMCs or sweepers for the last 20 mins or so.

However, I want to best understand how a 4-4-2 can cope with such a situation. As I have posted many times previously, the 4-4-2 doesn't offer the advantages that many other formations do, such as a 4-1-4-1, and thus you learn a massive amount from trying to stop situations as detailed above from happening within the constraints of a specific formation (as defined in the OP). By doing that you can better design tactics and write better tactical theory.

The challenge I have set myself is to have the 4-4-2s working as well as possible, and then designing a complimentary set of 4-2-3-1s (in the Benitez rather than Ferguson mould i.e. 4 defenders, 2 DMCs, 2 ML/R, 1 MC/AMC (depending on flavour) and an FC as against 4 defenders, 2 DMs, 3 AMs (AML/C/R) and an FC) and see if I can help Starr_Man5 win his title. I thus want the 4-4-2s to be as close to perfect as possible (and to understand how they may fail), so designing the 4-2-3-1 will be a much easier task. I might find that I cannot defend the lead, no matter what I do, which will be fine and tell me what I need to know. If I find I can defend it on a regular basis and can make adjustments to do so that will inform the final release of the 4-4-2s alongside the more defensive variants of the 4-2-3-1 and make them better tactics.

And, God knows, Starr_Man5 needs good tactics

wwfan Firstly I must say what a brilliant thread this is and how much you are helping all of us understand the tactics in 2008. I can only speak for myself but I imagine others feel the same in that by understanding the game better our enthusiasm for the game has returned. Anyway I just wanted to throw a bit of a curve-ball to your problem: You may have already tried this, but why don't you fight fire with fire and change your tactic to Balanced or (a real curve-ball) Attack, the reason I say this is that you mentioned that the opposition are a better side but performing worse than you in the league, you are 1 or 2 up away and they start going long and narrow. All of the above points to the fact that they are low on morale and vunerable, try hitting them where it hurts again rather than backing off and inviting them onto you. I must admit that it's not the usual way to go about it but then sometimes it's the unusaul that works. You may also want to set the OI's on the MR & MCR to tackle hard and show onto weaker foot. I hope it works!!!

[McTavish]

I haven't seen the post, but like a lot of other things in FM tactics, it makes sense if you think about what each command is telling the marker - 1) mark loosely and 2) except the FCR, and stick to him like glue.

Here's the relevant part:

by Gallagos

All defensive movements of the backline are intended to either mark players or mark space. We can translate this split into the game instructions. The player instructions are set in relation to space. The opposition instructions are set in relation to the players, i.e. the ball. So if we use the opposition instructions accordingly, we can move closer to the approach.

For the DCs opponents (2 forwards or 1 FC + 1 AMC) the instructions look like:

=> Tight marking

=> Closing down always

Translation: The DCs sit deeper and let the attacker come onto them, always trying to stay behind the ball. But when the player reaches their area, they quickly and aggressively try to pressure him. Hard tackling could be another option here, but it falls down against the danger of provoking penalties or free kicks close to the box.

There instructions are pretty common, but together with the player instructions they should make up for a tight defense that simulates ball oriented play.

One thing to be aware of: A really fast striker with good dribbling skills will turn „closing down always“ into his advantage. So when your defender is not really quick and skilled, don’t use it.

Point is, the DLR is set to mark specific -> FCR but set to loose marking and low CD. However in player instructions the FCR is set to tight marking -> always and CD -> always. The question is, which instruction will your DRC follow - will he mark loose or tight, will he close down always or own area? If Gallagos is correct in his assumptions then the DLC should exhibit the following behaviour:

FRC without possession outside DLC's zone - loose marking

FRC without possession inside DLC's zone - tight marking

FRC with possession outside DLC's zone - low closing down

FRC with possession inside DLC's zone - high closing down

The problem arises when the FRC links up with the MR down the flank, pulling the DLC wide and potentially leaving a gap for the MRC, who can easily outpace his opposite number and get on the end of through balls into the penalty area. In this case, the DL should be the one to tightly mark/close down the opposition FRC (because it's his zone) while the loose marking/low closing down instructions of the DLC should override specific player instructions (because it's not his zone) - instead he should cover the centre and prevent the MRC from popping up unmarked in the box.

[McTavish]

Originally posted by McTavish:

Point is, the DLC is set to mark specific -> FRC but set to loose marking and low CD. However in player instructions the FRC is set to tight marking -> always and CD -> always. The question is, which instruction will your DLC follow - will he mark loose or tight, will he close down always or own area? If Gallagos is correct in his assumptions then the DLC should exhibit the following behaviour:

Fixed

[James8]

Originally posted by wwfan:

I have shown the MR onto wrong foot, which stops him from getting outside my DL, but not form playign a ball inside to the MCR who then has all the time in the world to pick his spot.

I have closed down always the MCR, which has stopped his long shots and TBs, but often left the MR unmarked as the DL moves forward to CD the MCR.

...Everything I have tried has filled one hole whilst exposing another. I'd like to hear how people think I could contain the MR, MCR & FCR given my player limitations. I could play my DC at DL (he is accomplished in that position) which would solve the problem, but I would like to solve it tactically rather than through player swapping.

Your experimentation with the OI's and the results you see are in line with my own expectations and other posts I have been monitoring in this forum. You painstakingly set up each individual instruction to suit each framework however, by also assigning OI's you give instruction to your players to temporarily leave the set system to deal with individual threats.

As you have observed, showing onto weaker foot will prevent crosses at the expense of a higher through ball risk down the sides of your DCs or to the MR. It would make more sense if you showed inside to a DMC waiting to make a tackle ('showing inside into the numbers' is the coahing phrase I have heard many times). I realise that this is not the answer you are searching for. My point is that the OIs in your system I don't believe are going to provide the solution to your problem becasue of the strict way you set up the individual instructions.

I'll offer an unusual tactical solution - to focus your attacking play down your left side (yes the opponents right) to make the MCR and MR defend more. You have noted that the high defensive line has worked so perhaps by attempting to pin these players in their own defensive corner will nulify their attacking threat. If you focused your play down the opposite flank (your right side) then the MCR and MR would be able to spring forward if/when you lost possession having not had to track back as far.

I personally cannot see a way in which, using a 4-4-2 system, you can re-assign the marking and closing down instructions, individual or OI, to compensate for player inadequacies without leaving other opposition players unmarked. If I may be so bold to say that perhaps this is a limiting factor in your dedicated 4-4-2 formation approach, albeit one which I have greatly enjoyed learning about and using.

[gunnerfan]

Okay, I'm Longford, about to try to hang on in the Irish Premier Division again. Despite my best efforts, the team is pretty terrible, because a lot of the usual avenues for players are closed off by budget constraints, board fiat or an attitude that seems to prevail in Ireland in which many players regard the clubs they play for as clubs, rather than professional or semi-professional entities, which makes them reluctant to leave. An interesting laboratory for TT&F!

Anyway, I've played four friendlies, all against semi-pro or amateur teams - teams I really should have rolled over. In all four matches, despite nearly constant tweaking of tactics, I was consistently outshot, out-passed and out-possessed (a split in possession of 45% to 55% was almost uniform across all four), yet I won all four by scores of 3-0, 1-0, 2-0 and 3-1, respectively.

In all of these matches, with one exception I'll mention below, I wasn't unhappy with what I saw on 2-D, and in fact I was surprised to see the numbers - often, the AI racked up some good passing stats, but didn't do much with the ball. I wonder if we can become too much a slave to the numbers, and I'm beginning to think that, at least for the matches you watch on full, you're better off trusting what you see on 2-D than the numbers (except, of course, for goals scored).

It was only after the fourth friendly that I realized that one of my problems was that my strikers simply would not try to turn on opposing defenders. Not ever. They would either hold the ball until dispossessed or drop it back to one of the center mids, there to try again. This was even the case with mentality on high attacking (yes, that was consistent with TT&F framework). And the reason for this, I think, is that I had not re-adjusted CF, which I had set extremely low at the end of the prior season when I was playing stronger teams and needed to win in order to stay up. CF is supposed to key off decision making and creative freedom (although if you go to the Tactics screen when not in a match and click on "view - creative freedom", the attribute that comes up is flair), so I figured to keep it very low. But after thinking about it, I realized that you really have to allow your strikers some creative freedom (if no one else), simply so they take the initiative to get past the backs. My situation was also complicated by the fact that my strikers are really terrible at long shots, so I had them set to "rarely". Hence, the backs could simply sit back and wait for my strikers to come to them.

:smack in head:

[gunnerfan]

I personally cannot see a way in which, using a 4-4-2 system, you can re-assign the marking and closing down instructions, individual or OI, to compensate for player inadequacies without leaving other opposition players unmarked.

In basketball, a team will sometimes double up on defending the opponent's star player. When that happens, the rest of the team shifts so that the least dangerous player is left unguarded. I'm wondering if there's a way to apply that thinking here.

[wwfan]

Thanks all for the feedback and help. I have finally solved the problem within the 4-4-2 framework.

One of the key problems I was having was the amount of time the MCR was having on the ball, which allowed him to feed the FCR or MR at will. I had already solved the FCR problem by increasing the d-line slightly and increasing DC closing down by the same amount. However, the balls to the MR were killing me as he would sprint around my slow DL or return feed the MCR with a one-two. I had to solve two issues. One, stopping the MCR having time on the ball and dictating play down the right flank. Two, limiting the influence of the MR when he did get the ball.

Solution

1: Remove the barrow from the MCd/MCL. I decided that to have a barrowed MCd he would need to be faster. The barrowed MCd simply has to cover too much ground in too quick a time when trying to CD the opposition MCR, which my MCd's slow pace didn't allow.

2: Increase the MCd/MCLs CD to last notch own half. Although this goes against the tight marking-low CD recommendations of the opening post, it did serve its purpose. The opposing MCR was either already tight marked when he did receive the ball (if he was in the final third) or closed down if he was deeper. He thus had to play a much quicker ball to the MR, from a much deeper position, which negated the MRs influence as he had less time to get into space and exploit the DL's lack of pace.

3: First half: Show MR onto weaker foot. Forces him to cut inside, but as the MCR was always being marked when he did (my MCd is an excellent marker), he had poor passing options.

4: Second half: Specific mark the MR with the ML. My ML is quicker then the winger. I had him on high CD and easy tackling to harry him, which allowed the stronger but slower DL time to get into place and block the cross/win the ball in the tackle. He was still being shown onto wrong foot.

Results

3-1, 2-0, 2-1: the goal in the first match came from an indirect free kick, in the last match via a corner, both in the last 10 mins of the match. No goals against me from open play, which was the object of the exercise. If I continued replaying the match, I am sure I would concede an open play goal, for such is the random nature of football, but I am happy with a threepeat victory and think the tactic is doing its job correctly now. I would happily use it, with the OI/Specific Marking adjustments, against any side providing the same pace-based challenge and be reasonably expectant of doing well.

This exercise has given a little indication of how I first built tactics and started writing TT&F, back in the early days of 06. If I saw something that didn't seem right, I would replay and replay until I found a solution, within the formation framework, rather than by using another formation. For 06, I must have replayed matches 50 times, which, although exceedingly frustrating, forced me to alter all my pre-conceived conceptions of how to play FM and prodded me, kicking, screaming and tearing my hair out, towards a more logical manner or playing and a more complete undertsanding of the engine. For 07, I still had one major change to make, which was the remodelling of mentality, from the engine exploitive Rule of Two to the more logically acceptable Rule of One, which also took me numerous repeat games. This is the first multi-play match for 08, outside of Beta testing bugs, because it is the first time I have had a challenge that lay totally outside the boundaries of 07 solutions. The one major change, for me, between 07 and 08, was how Closing Down worked, which I picked up on very early. I had a similar experience in 06 in which my MCd/DMC was becoming part of the d-line rather than protecting it, so when I saw the same things happening in 08, I knew how to fix it. Outside of that change, most things worked in roughly the same manner and didn’t need much playing around with. Certain things, such as Playmaker and Target Man, are not as effective any more, which is fine and realistic, but don’t alter the fundamentals, which pretty much still stand between 07 and 08.

For me, the real joy of 08 is in the fine tuning, the stylistics of play, really getting the team to play in exactly the manner you wish. The above conundrum was part of that joy; fixing a seemingly insignificant detail that had not previously been noticeable, or even a problem, to produce a much better tactical setup. Equally, as in gunnerfan's above posts, changing individual instructions after watching a player fail to perform in the manner anticipated in the 2d representation leading to his getting much higher match ratings is also an enjoyable challenge, and changes from team to team, player to player, and often has to be retweaked when new personnel are brought into the side, or a different starter is forced upon you due to injury.

The manner in which I refine tactics, via replaying an already played game, is something I feel FM is missing. I would like to be able to play a series of training matches in which the tactics of the opposition were closely replicated via the combined tactical knowledge of the AssMan and Opposition Scout and fix things via those matches. However, repeat playing a game as a psuedo training match is the only way in which to make detailed corrections currently, so it will have to do.

[gunnerfan]

Glad to hear you worked it out, wwfan. Meanwhile, my season has started in the IPD, and even with higher CF settings, my strikers still aren't taking on opposing defenders. It's getting very frustrating. I'm actually thinking of resigning at Longford because the circumstances are just too restrictive.

[wwfan]

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

Glad to hear you worked it out, wwfan. Meanwhile, my season has started in the IPD, and even with higher CF settings, my strikers still aren't taking on opposing defenders. It's getting very frustrating. I'm actually thinking of resigning at Longford because the circumstances are just too restrictive.

What are the settings?

[gunnerfan]

Their CF attributes are 7 and 9, respectively, and I've moved the CF settings up as high as 13 or 14. No change.

[wwfan]

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

Their CF attributes are 7 and 9, respectively, and I've moved the CF settings up as high as 13 or 14. No change.

Other settings, re individual instructions, mentality etc, plus the attributes you are wanting to make best us of but failing.

[gunnerfan]

I've got one strong forward and one quick one. I use the strong one as a target man, and he has a slightly lower mentality than the quick one. Maybe the answer is to increase the mentality and CF of the attacking mid, so that he'll look for the killer pass more often.

[wwfan]

I would look at the following:

1: Have either of them got long shots to at least mixed? This will make them more likely to at least look for the turn and shoot, which might well become a turn and run if space opens up.

2: What are their CD settings? I would have the quick guy on man-marking (possibly even tight), high CD to ensure he is always on the shoulder of the last defender and ready for a quick TB should you suddenly gain possession. The FCd would have low CD, loose, zonal marking to be in space for the easy possession pass.

3: How are they being supplied? The MCa and the FCd should be looking to make a lot of TBs for the FCa to be truly effective. Likewise, for a Counter based tactic, having the FBs play direct TBs mixed into space for the wingers (no TBs, often crosses, mixed FWRs and RWB often) and FCs to run onto can help with the quick break.

4: Are they both HUB? I would only have the FCa HUB for Control tactics. His job is to play on the shoulder and break in all other tactics.

Interested to hear if any/all of this helps.

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by wwfan:

I would look at the following:

1: Have either of them got long shots to at least mixed? This will make them more likely to at least look for the turn and shoot, which might well become a turn and run if space opens up.

Both are on mixed, although their long shot attributes are in single digits.

2: What are their CD settings? I would have the quick guy on man-marking (possibly even tight), high CD to ensure he is always on the shoulder of the last defender and ready for a quick TB should you suddenly gain possession. The FCd would have low CD, loose, zonal marking to be in space for the easy possession pass.

I'm still fuzzy on the whole CD vs. marking thing. I've been keeping both forwards on middle settings for CD and loose marking. I generally TM the forwards and outside mids, loose-mark and high CD the center mids. I use man-marking for the team, but if I'm using a sweeper or a DMC in a diamond midfield I set them on zonal.

3: How are they being supplied? The MCa and the FCd should be looking to make a lot of TBs for the FCa to be truly effective.

Check.

Likewise, for a Counter based tactic, having the FBs play direct TBs mixed into space for the wingers (no TBs, often crosses, mixed FWRs and RWB often) and FCs to run onto can help with the quick break.

Don't currently have the FBs playing through-balls, so I'll try that (although their passing attributes are single-digits). I hesitate to have the FBs RWB because their dribbling attributes are below 5. My FCd is slow (pace=7), so having him run onto anything is hopeless. You begin to see my problem.

4: Are they both HUB? I would only have the FCa HUB for Control tactics. His job is to play on the shoulder and break in all other tactics.

I never have my FCa HUB, only the FCd.

Interested to hear if any/all of this helps.

We'll see. My next match is the season opener vs. Finn Harps.

[Law_Man]

wwfan: re your eventual 4-2-3-1, I don't know whether you've seen this before or not, but I never have before just now.... The AI was playing a 4-2-3-1 (the version you're intending to create) and it had the AMC back arrowed to the DMC position so that when I got possession the thing turned into a 4-3-3 with the AMC now a DMC! I don't know about you but I've never seen that before and it struck me as very clever, hence the exclamation marks! So just a suggestion for you to look at when the time comes to make your 4-2-3-1 in case you hadn't seen it before.

[wwfan]

Before I get around to desiging a 4-2-3-1, I have to sort out my defence in my curent save. Never really experienced what I am experiencing right now, not since early 06 anyway. I concede goals out of nothing in just about every match I play. Can't keep a clean sheet for love or money, which is exceedingly unusual for me.

I think it is a combination of three things:

1: Having no pace in either FB or MCd

2: Having a DC with a Dives into Tackles PPM

3: Not having any strong players up front who can hold the ball up for any length of time and thus allow my slower players time to get back into position. I am ridicuously vulnerable to the break despite having quick DCs.

Still winning, but have to score two every match, which leads to a lot of tactical switching and head scratching in order to balance the risk/reward of every system versus how I percieve the AI to be playing. I know if I get it wrong my defence will concede.

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by wwfan:

Before I get around to desiging a 4-2-3-1, I have to sort out my defence in my curent save. Never really experienced what I am experiencing right now, not since early 06 anyway. I concede goals out of nothing in just about every match I play. Can't keep a clean sheet for love or money, which is exceedingly unusual for me.

I think it is a combination of three things:

1: Having no pace in either FB or MCd

2: Having a DC with a Dives into Tackles PPM

3: Not having any strong players up front who can hold the ball up for any length of time and thus allow my slower players time to get back into position. I am ridicuously vulnerable to the break despite having quick DCs.

Still winning, but have to score two every match, which leads to a lot of tactical switching and head scratching in order to balance the risk/reward of every system versus how I percieve the AI to be playing. I know if I get it wrong my defence will concede.

In true Jedi style; I sense a disturbance in the force, you seem unusually frustrated and downbeat......

So i guess its times like these when you should be reminded how much people appreciate the work you put into this. And think of how empty your victories would feel if you went down the engine busting route

On a more tactical note, I've found that back arrowing an MCd unless he's got a bit of pace can lead to him becoming isolated when the opposition attacks, and even bypassed completely sometimes. Have you found this at times?

[wwfan]

I'm still doing well, but it is a hard struggle this season. The previous issue was undoubtedly tactical, but I think the defensive one is player based. Quite simply, I don't have the required defensive players to consistently (or ever: one in 20 matches thus far) keep clean sheets. I took over a bigger club at the end of the previous season (Aldershot to Stoke) which had obviously been horribly mismanaged by the previous manager. No defensive cover, no back-up goalie, lots of unhappy players, no money to spend. Makes for a challenge.

I do get frustrated with not being able to defend. I always build teams from the back and it is a different experience for me to have attacking quality (four great FCs for the divisional level, two good left wingers and one good right winger) without defensive solidity behind them. I feel like I'm managing Spurs circa Ardiles, or Keegan's first spell at the Toon, in which I have to score three to be certain of winning.

It is a learning experience though, as I am being forced to be much more aggressive away from home, as the more defensive tactics simply won't cut it if I employ them from the off. I can dominate with them but in the full knowledge that my DC is bound to miss a vital tackle and the FBs won't be quick enough to cover for him so I have to score twice. Therefore, I tend to use Balanced, or even Attack, in shorter or longer bursts away from home, just to try and get on the scoreboard enough times to be comfortable. Scored twelve in my last four games, but conceded eight (4-1, 0-3, 3-2, 5-2). I actually played very well in the three-nil defeat too! That kind of scoring ratio has never happened to me in any FM08 season thus far. In previous seasons, with a solid defence, Counter nearly always did the job. It makes for a dynamic match experience but I can't relax for a second. I'm aiming for promotion and a change of job at the end of the season, unless my scouts can find me some decent, low-priced, Premiership quality defenders to go with the one I have, who, to be fair, is doing magnificently well (averaging 7.40 with no other defender averaging over 7.00). One season of constant in-match changing is instructional but frustrating.

So, not downbeat, but certainly contending with frustration. I do agree with the barrowed MCd. He needs to be quick or he can be a liability.

[Law_Man]

Glad to hear it

I'm definitely from the 1-0 control the game, limit the opposition and score one from your domination over 90 mins at some point within said 90 mins, I have to say. I think it's a much better feeling as a manager knowing that should you score at some point (even (and especially so) if its from a set piece) its unlikely you'll lose the game. Rather than the nailbiting sinking feeling you have when you're going into every game thinking "well I'm bound to concede so lets hope and pray I score at least one and preferably a couple more". Its not a good feeling. As good as I think 8.02 is, there does seem to be quite a few goals flying around!

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by Law_Man:

...Rather than the nailbiting sinking feeling you have when you're going into every game thinking "well I'm bound to concede so lets hope and pray I score at least one and preferably a couple more". Its not a good feeling.

When I was coaching my son's youth team, I got to know that feeling all too well. And I haven't appreciated being put back in that position so often with FM08.

[gunnerfan]

wwfan - Well, your suggestions passed the first test. Beat Finn Harps, 1-0, but for the first time, we were able to put consistent attacking pressure on the back line. We were also helped by a Finn Harps sending-off, so I'm not as sanguine as I might have been. But definitely a step in the right direction.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

[blakey1882]

Excellent thread and great advice.

I do have one little problem at the moment though.

I've set up my tactics and designed them for Man Utd. Because usually I am the heavy favourite for games I usually use the control or attack formations. Both of these are based on very attacking 4-4-2's. The control is very much a basic low tempo keep the ball and wait to kill the opposition off tactic which works well. My attacking tactic is also successful and is based much more on knocking the ball around at a higher tempo and getting men in the box as soon as possible.

The problem I am having is despite the success of both tactics I find my strikers very rarely touch the ball. It's not a major problem but it does tend to result in my strikers getting low marks when they haven't scored.

I've tried adjusting CF but this didn't tend to change things much. I've tried getting the players to swap position to lose their marker but again nothing.

To give a good example I won a game recently 2-0. I enjoyed 60% of posession and 78% of the ball. My playmaking/holding midfielder passed the ball 90 times, yet my poaching striker only 12 times in 90 mins.

I was hoping now I'd refined the tactics that with a few tweaks I could go onto what I would call a proper game managing a lower league club. Has anyone got any ideas?

[Jablome]

Been a bit busy, but here is a thought.

So, I am playing a set of 442 based on TTF. So, you get the idea of the tactics.

NOTE: I tick TM for Attack, Control and Balance only. I never tick playmaker.

My TM is on the right side.

My MCa is on the left, MCd the right.

The overall scoring strategy is as follows:

Get the ball to the TM who will either turn and shoot, or, more likely, lay off to the speedy ST who scores most of my goals. It often results in some sweet plays, particularly in my version of Balance b/c there are so many passes before the finish.

So, here is the question:

Having two quality MCs, who do you make the playmaker and why?

I know you can swap them so that the PM would be in both spots throughout, but is there a preference?

My thinking is that I like the MCd as the playmaker, particularly if he has dictates tempo PPM b/c he is right behind the TM and usually has a nice little triangle of passes available to the MCa, ML and TM.

Also, I am finding that a TM in this style really benefits from the PPM "comes deep to get the ball." This often brings him level with the MCa and opens up the top for the fast ST.

What I find this setup limits with that same PPM of the TM is TM headers from crosses by the wingers. But you can't have it all.

If you are wondering how I set up my strikers, just refer to the link to "Target Men" in this thread for the general idea. Give it some time and it works like a charm if you have the right players.

So, which MC should be the playmaker?

[cice2]

Some question with regards to OI.

Is tight marking a player with low balance attribute effective? It makes sense irl but seems impossible to prove in the game. Nudging a player with poor balance constantly will definitely affect his game irl but is it simulated in fm?

[Arsenal71]

Originally posted by blakey1882:

Excellent thread and great advice.

I do have one little problem at the moment though.

I've set up my tactics and designed them for Man Utd. Because usually I am the heavy favourite for games I usually use the control or attack formations. Both of these are based on very attacking 4-4-2's. The control is very much a basic low tempo keep the ball and wait to kill the opposition off tactic which works well. My attacking tactic is also successful and is based much more on knocking the ball around at a higher tempo and getting men in the box as soon as possible.

The problem I am having is despite the success of both tactics I find my strikers very rarely touch the ball. It's not a major problem but it does tend to result in my strikers getting low marks when they haven't scored.

I've tried adjusting CF but this didn't tend to change things much. I've tried getting the players to swap position to lose their marker but again nothing.

To give a good example I won a game recently 2-0. I enjoyed 60% of posession and 78% of the ball. My playmaking/holding midfielder passed the ball 90 times, yet my poaching striker only 12 times in 90 mins.

I was hoping now I'd refined the tactics that with a few tweaks I could go onto what I would call a proper game managing a lower league club. Has anyone got any ideas?

If you havent already done so, i would personally lower mentality for at least one of the sc'c & make FWR mixed. This will ensure that they are not too far up the pitch to receive the ball. See how much this helps.

[blakey1882]

Just when I thought I was getting this right it's going horribly wrong.

3 games in a row against different standards of opposition which means I have mixed and matched my tactics.

1st game I had 28 shots to their 4 and drew 1-1.

2nd game I had 25 shots to their 5 and lost 1-0.

3rd game against good opposition I had 19 shots to their 9 and lost 2-1.

I have a top quality keeper and top quality strikers. My teams morale is superb throughout.

The oppositions lesser strikers seem to only need one chance to score yet mine miss chance after chance. Similarly the oppositions keeper always seem to have the game of his life.

It's really frustrating!!!

[blakey1882]

Cheers Arsenal71, I already have this kind of thing.

I also have the problem that my forwards don't really suit being target men and as you can see from my post above I don't have a problem creating chances.

[Cleon]

But what sort of chances are you creating? Just because you create 20+ doesn't mean they are good ones. All of them could be long range efforts.

Do your strikers have high composure and decisions?

[blakey1882]

A mixture of both. Teams are defending very deep against me. I have a lot of my players on mixed long shots because they are all good from distance but I don't want to just keep shooting from long range.

The players I am using up front are 2 from Torres, Rooney, Ronaldo and Saha. Just checking, they've all got decent composure but aren't the best when it comes to decisions.

[Cleon]

If decisions are low, then it can provide a lot of the wrong choice's in terms of shots. Which players are having the majority of your shots? Is it well spread out, or just certain individuals?

[blakey1882]

Pretty much spread out. As I said earlier I'm using this game I'm playing to experiment so picked a side that should be dominating most games so I could develop my attack and control strategies. In many ways when I'm doing this at the right time it's working and I'm very happy with the results.

Maybe I've just been unlucky in these games but I did think that if this had happened to Man Utd in reality even Fergie would have been scratching his head.

[MattUK]

at home play slower and more patient to create better chances. Away play fast and grab a goal.

[Jablome]

Originally posted by blakey1882:

Pretty much spread out. As I said earlier I'm using this game I'm playing to experiment so picked a side that should be dominating most games so I could develop my attack and control strategies. In many ways when I'm doing this at the right time it's working and I'm very happy with the results.

Maybe I've just been unlucky in these games but I did think that if this had happened to Man Utd in reality even Fergie would have been scratching his head.

My experience has been that if you want to develop/refine tactics, you should use a side that is not galactic. Very often, sides as good as Man U. can run amok with almost any setting. I don't mean Blue Square, but maybe L1 or CH, but that is just personal preference.

Also, plenty of United strikers can work as a TM and you can swap them with each other. Using a TM is an extremely effective way to score in Control, Attack and Balance.

Finally, how are they scoring against you? Based on the shots, it sounds like on the break. Are you watching 2d as your team peppers the keeper and has the ball constantly but can't put it in and, suddenly, they beat your offside trap and score? In TTF, if you are getting hit on the break even tho you are dominating possession/chances, etc. then your Control tactic is probably not set correctly or you are using Attack v. a no farrows defensive formation.

Basically, the AI has figured out that you know what you are doing. So, it has decided to park the bus. You have to adjust by using Control, slower tempo, build up play, etc. I have found that getting the Control tactic right is the hardest one, but when you get it, it is devastating.

[wwfan]

Control is undoubtedly the most difficult variant to design. Persoanlly, I wouldn't use a TM as I think it is limiting in any Contol tactic, as it funnels the play too much and limits options. However, if Jablome has it working via Player Swapping, who am I to argue

A more recent suggestion for Control was to minimise the long shot options, as you are trying to play your way through the opposition which long shots negates. You want a player with the option of spreading it wide to maintain possession versus taking a 30 yard snapshot to opt for the former. You also want a lot of CF up front to encourage players to try the unexpected, and at least three free roles to maximise more random and thus difficult to mark off the ball movement.

[Uncle_Sam]

I have always been under the impression that free roles is a hidden positional rating, and that ticking that for a player with a low rating for free roles would be similar to playing him out of position.