Tactical Theorems and Frameworks '08

[Rico73]

I must be doing something wrong..... I started using TT&F tactics for beginning of 08/09 season with Man Utd. In all competitions my record so far looks like this: For the first 14 games (inc charity shield) I won 12 drew 1 and lost 1 (away to Villa 4-1 when I couldn't do anything right. I then went on a winning run of 7 games lost the next 6!! then drew a couple before winning another! The problem that I have is that whilst I accept going on a 6 game losing streak was probably due to my inept use of the tactics, according to the match stats after each of those games I had more possesion, more of the ball, more shots etc. Player ratings were always 7 excluding two players who I dropped for having a 6. My team morale was always at least V.Gd and even the fans (apart from two games against chelsea & arsenal) were please with the possesion etc. I can't understand losing that number of games and practicaly throwing away the league but still appearing to play well, the fans (especially at a title challenging club like Man Utd) staying relatively happy and the board stating I should be doing 'slightly' better. Please let me know your thoughts...Confused!

[gunnerfan]

How are you watching the games? When things are going well, I tend to watch on extended highlights, but when there are problems, watching full match is sometimes the only way to see what is happening. It may be that you need to tweak something.

Further up the thread, I discussed a problem I was having in that I couldn't get my forwards to penetrate my opponents' back line. wwfan made some suggestions that helped. Watch a match that isn't going well and see what's going wrong on the pitch.

[Rico73]

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

How are you watching the games? When things are going well, I tend to watch on extended highlights, but when there are problems, watching full match is sometimes the only way to see what is happening. It may be that you need to tweak something.

Further up the thread, I discussed a problem I was having in that I couldn't get my forwards to penetrate my opponents' back line. wwfan made some suggestions that helped. Watch a match that isn't going well and see what's going wrong on the pitch.

Thanks gunnerfan I normally watch in extended (always have done) but will watch the whole game when things start going wrong again (I'm sure they will!) As I said it was more puzzling how the ratings, morale etc etc was still good and I kept losing!

[blakey1882]

Thanks everyone for the advice. I'll try again. I don't think I'm far off.

I try and liken it to the real game and though being patient at home makes sense I also think that the best teams get around 'the parked bus' by playing a slick passing game at a high pace.

[gunnerfan]

As I said it was more puzzling how the ratings, morale etc etc was still good and I kept losing

The ratings I can understand, because it is possible to play well and lose. As for morale, my guess is that you are handling team talks very well - not jumping down their throats when they lose.

[wwfan]

@ Uncle Sam: I agree, but at the highest level you should have at least three players who can utilise the free role instruction.

@ Rico73: When you hit that type of run, the man/media interaction becomes vital. Read this for more detailed information.

[Jablome]

So, no one had any thoughts on my playmaker question?

[Dexter St Jock]

wwfan you know on the part of closing down you say for instance CD for CD's should be between 6-8 in the attacking framework. Am I right in thinking that you should have 6 for a slow defence or possibly a defence who is going to suffer from speedy strikers and 8 if it's less speedy attackers or you do have speedy defenders?

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by Jablome:

So, no one had any thoughts on my playmaker question?

Tbh, Jablome, I sort of scanned past it because you were talking about a higher level of play than I'm at now. But based on your question, I would have to say that if your MCd is set to HUB, that suggests that he might be in a better position to be the playmaker, since he will presumably be looking to distribute the ball and not move into the attack himself (something like a point guard in basketball).

[flipstyle]

I just felt the need to stop by and say since discovering this a few weeks ago I have experienced absolutely sensational results. Cannot thank you enough for your hard work researching and putting it all up here to share as well. Amazing job.

[Tottenham4Life]

I really wish wwfan would expand on the "reading the match" portion of the tactic. I think this is great overall though.

I seem to be in a bit of an away slump right now. It's my 2nd season with a sweedish second division side (now first division) and we can't win on the road to save our lives. Could it just be all the new faces gelling together?

[Dexter St Jock]

If it's ok with wwfan I would like to give out this little but maybe useful tip. It still follows the guidelines of TT&F but with a diffrent formation.

Background - I started a game with Liverpool where I designed a 4-4-2 using wwfan's guidelines. Now obviously Liverpool are "one of the big four" and alas contain very able players to pull off a 4-4-2. I think the most important thing is a stable defence, pacy wingers, extremely good central partnership in midfield and two pacy, agile attackers where one plays the "Rooney" role or even a big strong TM supporting the other striker however I prefer the former. So for me I had Riise, Alexis, Agger and Daniel Alves in defence, Gerrard, Alonso, Mascherano, Babel in midfield and Torres-Milito up front. So they were pretty tailored for my needs.

Then after 4 years at the club I decided to leave for a challenge and ended up taking over Aberdeen. Now as you can assume I didn't have the best of squads there and definately not good enough to challenge for the league. After playing a season with the team it became apparent that playing 4-4-2 was going to be tough. Sure I could win the matches I was "supposed" to win but matches that were tight, well, they weren't and ended in being totally dominated. The thing was the 4-4-2's only weakness was being exploited. The centre. When you look at it there is no centrally central player and it was costing me.

So what I decided to do against better opposition was to bulk up the midfield so I could get a centrally placed player to help out. I sacrified one striker, the other became a target man and I made the sacrified one a MCd (MC centrally with a barrow to DMC). I then tweaked the MC I was having on defence to look more like the MCa. I also put my wingers mentality above the MCa's as a 4-5-1 relies heavier on wingers supporting and creating attacks. Instantly more tighter games were much tigher. I didn't always win but a couple of very important 0-0's came a long away from home.

So I would definately try this out if you are struggling or seeing definate signs that you are suffering down the middle with the 4-4-2 and look for more stability. Maybe you've bought loads of new players and could use this tip until they achieve a good understanding. At least now I'm happy that I do have an alternative formation until I get exactly the players I want for Aberdeen and can play the 4-4-2 proper.

[Jonnieboy]

Always a great read your threads/articles, wwfan - and of great benefit for my game - much obliged..!

[wwfan]

Linked to in the first post, but possibly easy to miss. Also, written for 07, so read with that in mind. With thanks to the FM-Britain, especially The next Diaby, Millie and thegooner for their contributions to this post/article.

Learning to Understand the AI

By the end of FM06’s playing life, I was able to chop and change my tactics as I pleased. Showboating between 4-4-2 diamonds, Rafaesque 4-2-3-1s and versions of the Chelsea 4-3-3. It had become so easy to read the AI systems and employ a counter-system to defeat them that the game was losing all challenge. The AI couldn’t cope with my split mentality setup and all I had to do was ensure I had enough players back when playing an attacking AI and enough going forward against a defensive one.

FM06 was a revolution in terms of the AI tactic switching and attempting to comeback from 2 or 3 goals down. In the early days after 06’s release anger and frustration about the ‘comeback bug’ was widespread and intense. The resulting multi-tactic approach to FM, so common in today’s tactic design, was the only tactical solution to the AI changing tactics mid-match. Previously one tactic beats all was the name of the game. The transfer to the multi-tactic mentality was painful but far-ranging. I doubt anyone plays every match without some pre-game formation changes nowadays.

The AI hasn’t changed too much in terms of its propensity to tactic switch in 08. Any single AI side will happily run the gauntlet of tactics from the ultra-defensive 3-3-2-1-1 to an ultra-attacking 2-3-5 depending on match circumstance. In real terms there is no difference between this and the AI in 06. However, in 07 the type of tactic the AI is employing is much harder to pick.

Admittedly, none of us need telling that the 3-3-2-1-1 (4-5-1 in match commentary) is defensive, nor the 4-2-4 attacking and if pointing that out were the sole scope of this article I would be wasting my time typing it. What has changed in importance is understanding the mid-range mentality settings and being able to start a match with a strategy towards defeating them in mind.

Understanding AI Systems

The first step towards anticipating the AI strategy is the pre-game formation screen flicks up before the pre-match team talk. It can yield some very important clues as to what the AI wants to do. In England, most managers will play one of the following during the course of a normal game.

Flat 4-4-2

Flat 4-4-2 with short farrows on the wingers

Flat 4-4-2 with long farrows on the wingers

Flat 4-2-4

Each version of the tactic gets progressively more attacking and in 99% of cases it is safe to assume that the longer the arrows on the wingers the more adventurous the AI manager is. However, it is important to realise that starting formations relate to the style of play a manager prefers. In most cases, cautious managers will tend to keep their style of playing possession football and only change to 'gung ho attack' in desperate situations. More aggressive managers are likely to switch to attacking formations much earlier in the game.

The formation screen is the best place to build a good starting assumption, but other elements need to be added to complete the picture. Paying attention to in-game statistics and on field incidents becomes an important tool in deciding on whether the strategy you are using is the correct one or not. AI strategy can be decoded by paying attention to the following elements.

Attacking AI: With an attacking AI a key indicator is the large number of passes going forwards instead of sidewards or backwards. Players will not spend much time on the ball. The wingers will push forward and play level with the strikers. The central midfield will also push up although one MC/d tends to stay back and provide cover for the central defence. Pay careful attention to the opposition fullbacks. If they are pushing forward deep into your half and getting to the byline in support of the wingers then the AI is clearly attacking

Counter measure: defensive strategies (weaker teams) or balanced strategies (stronger teams).

Possession AI: This system is very difficult to play against. When attacking the AI builds up play slowly and doesn’t play too many risky forward passes. Build up play will consist of clinical through balls in the third half, occasional direct balls to breaking strikers hoofed up balls and crosses from deep positions. The AI managers who prefer this style will stick to this until very late in the match whether they be pushing for a goal or defending a lead. When top teams employ this style (e.g. Man U, Roma), they are very hard to counter with a defensive tactic. Best is to set up a well-balanced system to start taking the battle in midfield.

Counter measure: defensive strategies (underdogs) or balanced (tweaked) strategies (medium and stronger teams).

Ultra-defensive AI: This system employs heavy time wasting. Watch for the increased amount of time players keep the ball before passing to a team mate. Most of the passes will aim to keep possession or clear the ball from danger and only a few look for counter opportunities. The most common forms of attack are balls hoofed up to a lone striker or very patient forward moves that can be finished by a dangerous quick pass or deep cross. There are many possible formations that employ this style: not only the classical 3-3-2-1-1 (which is the most obvious), also flat 4-4-2s, defensive 4-4-2s (2 DMCs, often referred as 4-2-2-2), 4-1-4-1s, some diamonds and the French and German 4-2-1-2-1s.

Counter measure: overloading strategies, after most attacking versions (plus unticking counter) have failed

Ultra attacking AI: This strategy usually plays as a 4-2-4 but occasional more idiosyncratic formations are possible (2-3-5). The AI employs next to no time wasting. Forward runs are high on almost every position, including the previously cover-minded MC/d, which often results in an overloading of the opposition's defence. Only the two centre-backs stay back. There will be a high number of long shots from any half-promising midfield position. There is also the very dangerous option of long balls out of the defence to a fast breaking front four which misses out both sets of midfield. At times it will feel like playing against 8 forwards. Low ranked teams often play the 4-2-4 with a possession approach, keeping hold of the ball until the forwards break and then trying to hit them with a long ball from defence.

Counter measure: kill game/shut up shop strategies (all teams)

Defensive AI: This is sometimes difficult to differentiate from the possession AI. Most of the observations on a possession AI remain, but with careful scrutiny you will see the passing is more cautious and the time wasting slightly higher. The most obvious change from the possession system is the very strong positional constancy of any defensive player. The back four will stay back at all times and are almost always covered by the DMCs. If the AI is using two strikers, you will see one of them continuously dropping very deep to pick up the ball and/or help out the defence. The other striker constantly looks to beat your offside line which can be very clinical and dangerous. The midfield will only get forward in support on occasional instances when the chance is most definitely on.

Counter measure: balanced and attacking strategies, sometimes overloading for top 4 teams

Continental and Multi-Strata Formations

More problems arise with non-standard managers (two that readily come to mind are Mourinho and Allardyce) who play 4-3-3s, wingless’4-1-3-2 and 4-5-1s. Although harder to pick, they still offer clues to their intentions. Are the wing backs or wingers farrowed? Does the formation employ a pure DM, a flat three in the centre or an AMC? A good example is Rapid Bucharesti which plays a 3-5-2 with an AM when attacking, but a 3-5-2 with DM when defending.

Many Spanish teams use the 4-2-3-1 for a cautious game before switching to a 4-4-2 if they need to score. The most difficult formations to successfully pick are diamonds, the Cappello 4-2-2-2 and some 4-5-1/4-3-3 hybrid formations. They often don't change during the game and adapt between attacking, defensive or possession mindsets entirely through mentality and forward runs.

Expected AI Changes

Since FM06 users have become accustomed to change formations to counter the AI mentality and its tactical switches. If done well it can lead to a fantastic performance. However, badly or hastily made decisions can prove disastrous and are often enough punished by conceding immediately after switching tactics and eventually losing the game.

Don’t change to a more aggressive tactic immediately after conceding, especially away. Once the AI team takes the lead, unless it comes late in the match, it will generally look for a second goal. If the AI is playing at home the extra crowd input from the first goal will give the AI team a boost and an instant change to a more aggressive formation will allow them more holes to exploit.

It is hard to determine the AI mentality by watching key highlights only, but as that is the preferred mode of playing for most the occasional hints in the match commentary offers some help. There are some other in-game strategies you can use while watching the match highlights or more. As you can predict with relative certainty what the AI will do in certain situations, based on the rank of both teams, venue, who scores, etc you should be able to switch strategy with some success. Less experienced players will definitely gain an advantage from using extended highlights until they have gained more experience. For key games they are almost a must, no matter how long you have been playing.

For example, after a goal against a team that the AI thinks it can beat, the AI will nearly always go more attacking or keep to an already aggressive style in an attempt to grab a second with the crowd behind them and their tails up and kill off the game. Similarly, after conceding or grabbing a lucky lead when the AI thinks it will lose, the AI usually shuts up shop and is content to try and pick off the team as they commit men forward in an attempt to get back into the game. Nevertheless, some teams shut up shop after conceding in first half, but will try to come back in second. If they go down by two goals some AI teams will still try to get back into the game whereas others will shut up shop to try and prevent embarrassment . Paying attention to the AI formation ater a second goal is vital in understanding its mentality. Underdogs will shut up shop in the second half after starting defensive if still defending a draw. Knowing what the AI usually does helps you see better what's going on.

Definition of Counter Measures

SUS/Kill Game/Defend

Very defensive, time wasting approach against 4-2-4s etc. during last 15-20 minutes of a game.

Defensive/Counter

Either 'interdiction', very defensive and slightly destructive or 'possession', defensive but trying to control the game from the back

Balanced

Playing higher up the pitch, controlling the game from a solid defence, defensive supporting midfield, but looking actively for attacking/counter options

Attack/Control

Clear effort to dominate the game all over the pitch, create and convert chances in high numbers

Overloading

Hyper-attacking formations with large numbers of attacking players or very massive concentration of attacking players.

Knowing You Have ‘Got It Right’

The key indicators that the user team is outperforming the AI team are the passing percentage and possession statistics. Although they don’t stabilise until circa the 10th minute, if you are not losing by then they will offer an excellent analysis of how well your team is performing.

At home, the user will want to see an eight per cent or greater advantage in possession (>54%) and a ten per cent or greater advantage in pass percentage.

Away the user will want to see a two to six per cent advantage in possession (51-53%) and a five to ten per cent advantage in pass percentage.

This is obviously variable when playing teams outside your division in cup games but it is a good rule of thumb when checking to see you have picked the right version. Also it's an ideal rather than absolute and a user could well be happy with 52% possession at home with circa 75% passing against an Ai pass percentage of circa 55%.

These stats can be turned on their heads in the last 15 minutes if the AI switches to an ultra-attacking or defensive system, but until then it is a good method to verify your tactical choice. Goals are a better method but unfortunately a lot less frequent than passes!

Possession stats should be related to the average possession performance. They are likely to differ for teams with tactics that aim at less possession (counter, high tempo, long passing, Target Man Supply etc.). For these teams shot ratios and SOT ratios are more relevant, as are as action zones.

[McTavish]

The key indicators that the user team is outperforming the AI team are the passing percentage and possession statistics.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The key factors that effect possession (in my opinion) are passing style, tempo and to some extent time wasting. The formation is obviously a factor too since packing the midfield will generally lead to winning possession more often and thus improving your ratio.

As such I don't think it's a good indicator of whether you've "got it right" and read the game correctly since there are many occasions where I'm happy to allow the AI team to dominate possession, safe in the knowledge that when my team does have the ball we make much better use of it.

I'd go further and say that relative number of chances isn't even a good indication, by itself. If you really want to gauge if you've "got it right" you have to weigh up a lot of different factors such as pass/cross completion, tackle success %, etc etc as well as possession, action zones and chances created. Examining individual player statistics is perhaps the best way to go about it as you can see if you're nullifying the opposition threat in the areas of the pitch your intending, and whether your creative players have the space to play to their potential.

The rest of the post was very informative and useful, many thanks

[McTavish]

Someone touched on it earlier in this thread I think, but I was wondering how successful people have been finding RoO based formations at lower and higher levels?

Reason I as is that in the 5-3-2 frameworks I favour, I had a lot of success at lower levels with an RoO based setup, particularly playing a more direct/counter style. At higher levels though I found split/global mentalities to be more effective, especially playing a shorter/slower game.

This could of course be to any number of different factors and I've only tested with a couple of different teams, so just wondering if anyone else has noticed the same thing.

Also, something that bugs me about the RoO is the ambiguity in the mentality slider. It's commonly accepted that mentality effects a players position on the pitch, but I'd wager that it also has a strong bearing on how a player reacts when he's on or near the ball. For this reason, I can't justify setting my strikers (for example) to normal/defensive mentality even in a very defensive formation but in order to stay within 6 clicks from the centre backs as suggested, this is necessary. Same goes the other way around, I can't think of a circumstance where I'd want my centre backs to play with an attacking mentality since their the last line of defence so they have to keep it safe and simple.

I agree in principal with the RoO and understand the logic behind keeping a formation tight and not allowing too much distance between the lines, but at the same time I'm beginning to think that, at higher levels at least, there's perhaps better ways to go about this.

[Jablome]

Closing Down

One thing I am really seeing with 8.0.2 is that you must get your CD for defenders correct. Particularly in defensive sets (all 442s btw), I am finding it better to err on the side of lower than higher.

If it is too high, my DCs and FBs will invariably lunge forward at a most inopportune time, miss the tackle and let a player in alone. Constantly leads to a goal. Also, they get themselves way to far out of position too often.

In my Counter tactic, I lowered my DCs to 4 and my FBs to 6. After watching a full match (ug), I noticed a huge difference. They stayed at home much more and didn't make any rash challenges. They also routinely made huge plays in the box to clear the ball. This kept them in position much more often and allowed the mids to do the work they are supposed to do in the last 1/3.

I have not tried it yet, but I am tinking with having the FBs mark specific on wingers when the AI goes to the long farrows. That is the next test.

[Jablome]

Originally posted by McTavish:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The key indicators that the user team is outperforming the AI team are the passing percentage and possession statistics.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The key factors that effect possession (in my opinion) are passing style, tempo and to some extent time wasting. The formation is obviously a factor too since packing the midfield will generally lead to winning possession more often and thus improving your ratio.

As such I don't think it's a good indicator of whether you've "got it right" and read the game correctly since there are many occasions where I'm happy to allow the AI team to dominate possession, safe in the knowledge that when my team does have the ball we make much better use of it.

I'd go further and say that relative number of chances isn't even a good indication, by itself. If you really want to gauge if you've "got it right" you have to weigh up a lot of different factors such as pass/cross completion, tackle success %, etc etc as well as possession, action zones and chances created. Examining individual player statistics is perhaps the best way to go about it as you can see if you're nullifying the opposition threat in the areas of the pitch your intending, and whether your creative players have the space to play to their potential.

The rest of the post was very informative and useful, many thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that in some games, this can be true. But don't you think that if you have all of those indicators working in your favor on a regular basis, you are probably succeeding more often than not? That, at least, has been my experience with these tactics. Although it can lead to very close nailbiters...

For example, just played a few repeat test games with Hartlepool away at Fulham. Perfect game for me to work out the Counter. I am ruling them in possession, shots, and action zones (32% to 21% in two straight games), and everything else.

Only place I am not is SOG. Even at 4. Haven't figured out why yet. Getting nice chances, but not even hitting the building on a few. Won both games 2-1, but it should be more comfy with the domination methinks.

[Jablome]

Sorry for the triple!

A question I had re: Closing Down that I forgot to ask.

Would you lower CD on the defenders even more for Defend, or keep it about the same?

I would say lower, but it also occurs to me that the dline is raised for defend and you don't want them to sit inside the goal for 20 minutes. So, maybe too low would be...well, too low.

Or, is raising the dline enough to compensate and make sure CD is very low so that they only take action when it is breaking in front of them?

And, so on...

[McTavish]

Originally posted by Jablome:

I have not tried it yet, but I am tinking with having the FBs mark specific on wingers when the AI goes to the long farrows. That is the next test.

This works to close out a game but be warned; if you set specific marking then your players will ignore your proposed defensive line and follow the players they're supposed to be marking right up the pitch. This is most noticeable when the other team are playing counter attack and your specific marking their strikers, in which case your defenders will follow them into your own 6 yard box even when the opposition aren't even in your half. It may be a more effective strategy against wingers because they're inherently positioned further down the pitch. I'd be interested to hear how you get on with testing this.

But don't you think that if you have all of those indicators working in your favor on a regular basis, you are probably succeeding more often than not? That, at least, has been my experience with these tactics.

Between all those indicators, yes I think you can judge your probability of succeeding. Without doubt in fact. But that doesn't necessarily mean you've "got things right" - it could be that you're playing a much stronger team and thus the indicators are against you but this doesn't necessarily mean you've made tactical errors as you could be trying to exploit possession in a certain area of the pitch. It's also difficult to judge the quality of chances without examining the 2D representation. I think my point was, you can't just look at possession and chances created and from that judge from that if you're getting things right tactically, as it's more about quality of possession/chances than quantity.

About closing down instructions, I think it really has a lot to do with the formation the opposition is fielding. I agree that lower closing down is prudent for defenders in most circumstances, but against certain setups (for example when the other team plays an AMC behind your centre mids, or overlapping fullbacks) having your defenders on too low CD will leave a lot of space for them to run into, and in a dangerous are of the pitch. Can't say I've tested it much but in these circumstances perhaps loose, zonal marking with slightly higher CD and easy tackling might be the better option, so that if you're defence does get pulled out of position then they'll aim to obstruct/delay the opposition rather than dive in and leave space behind them. Another option could be opposition instruction but I'm not entirely sure how that works in conjunction with contradictory player instructions.

[Jablome]

A question for all. What would you do in this situation?

Example: Hartlepool home v. Trees in first round of LC. I Attack, they play a 4141. We dominate all stats and take a 2-0 lead.

Halftime talk is Pleased and we go up 3-0 in the 47th. On the restart, Trees stay in their 4141.

What would you do at this point? In RL, what do you think is likely to happen?

[wwfan]

Not sure who Trees are, but....

I would probably play Balanced with a slow tempo at three nil up. Match is won, no need to pour forwards any more and tire players, just keep the ball and look to work it up the pitch when the opportunity presents itself. Basically, look to play keep ball.

[Jablome]

Originally posted by wwfan:

Not sure who Trees are, but....

I would probably play Balanced with a slow tempo at three nil up. Match is won, no need to pour forwards any more and tire players, just keep the ball and look to work it up the pitch when the opportunity presents itself. Basically, look to play keep ball.

Meant Tricky Trees - Nottingham Forrest

I would agree, but do you think that you would have to change it? Doesn't it make sense that if they don't change much and you keep attacking that they are not getting back into the game?

[wwfan]

Horses for courses. That type of decision making is what you are receiving your virtual money for. Do you look for a fourth and really put the match out of reach but also have more risk of conceding and letting the opposition back into the game, or do you sit back and relax with a three goal lead, happy that the job is done?

I would tend towards option two, especially in the cup, but might really try to boost Goal Difference in the league. I might also go for the jugular against teams that are rivals in order to wreck their morale for a match or two. However, nine times out of ten, I'm happy with two nil, let alone three nil, and would play much more conservatively after going two clear.

That said, however, in my current game with my shambles of a back line, my Attack is the best form of defence, so I stick with that much longer than I would usually.

[Jablome]

Originally posted by wwfan:

Horses for courses. That type of decision making is what you are receiving your virtual money for. Do you look for a fourth and really put the match out of reach but also have more risk of conceding and letting the opposition back into the game, or do you sit back and relax with a three goal lead, happy that the job is done?

I would tend towards option two, especially in the cup, but might really try to boost Goal Difference in the league. I might also go for the jugular against teams that are rivals in order to wreck their morale for a match or two. However, nine times out of ten, I'm happy with two nil, let alone three nil, and would play much more conservatively after going two clear.

That said, however, in my current game with my shambles of a back line, my Attack is the best form of defence, so I stick with that much longer than I would usually.

Well, since they did not change, I didn't either. They got a corner...and scored. Then a free kick...and scored. So, I switched to Counter to close out the game 3-2.

It was not until they scored twice that they went to a 442.

Excellent point about the difference b/t a cup tie and league.

[wwfan]

The only thing I really struggle with in FM is the marking against teams that don't play standard formations and change between non-standards. I have some marking patterns to deal with 4-3-3s, 5-3-2s and 4-2-3-1s, and they do it well, but when a team switches between these systems it absolutely destroys the original pattern and they score almost immediately. I have seconds to notice they have changed formation or I am in all sorts of trouble.

The only teams, in my game, that do this with regularity are Plymouth and Wolves, but, God it's frustrating to play them!!! Drew a match against Wolves 3-3 in which I was cruising at three-nil up prior to first formation change. The score immediately, then again after the next change, then once more when they switch to a 4--2-4 when I'm marking a wide 4-2-3-1. I had absolutely no time to react for their first and third goals. They changed formation, I hit the tactics screen, they scored before my changes were initiated. The second goal was also a weird goal, but I think my marking patterns were OK.

Apart from that aberration of a game I seem to have sorted my defence out simply by selling my two DCs (2m and 2.2.m) and buying in five new defenders and two new DMCs with the proceeds. This has also strengthened my attack (although I did buy a new FC as well) as the DMCs are much more mobile than the original MCs and win the ball much higher up the pitch.

[heathxxx]

It's funny really because like alot of people, the second half of games has invariably not been very good for my teams, even though the AI is chopping and changing formations, I just manage to scrape home, chopping and changing myself to counter. 3-0 up and cruising only for opponents to mount a major comeback is a nightmare to behold. It's "The Charge of the Light Brigade" all over again.

I've actually found that in this instance, long term, less tinkering does better. I keep my fingers firmly away from the panic button.

Because I'm using a tactics set, it's mostly team and individual instructions that change, rather than the formation. My team appears more comfortable because their shape remains the same. The only occasional minor adjustments on the formation screen for me are perhaps changing a barrow/farrow slightly.

Where did I develop this pearl of wisdom from, that's serving me so well these days? From the "hints" that show during processing progress, of course! There's one that suggests changing formations continually is "unsettling" to players and can have disastrous results.

Keep it simple

[wwfan]

I usually have no problem. I know from the off Wolves and Plymouth are going to be difficult games. I think I made an error in the Wolves game and should have switched to a zonal marking, defensive system at three goals up. Tried to be too clever and got punished for it.

Changing formation is unsettling. Changing instructions within a formation isn't. I still use the 4-4-2 for all matches,just with different instructions.

[Davva]

Hi wwfan,

do u have a new tactic set available for download? I av tried your beta set, I wonder if there is a newer one...

cheers

[wwfan]

Originally posted by Davva:

Hi wwfan,

do u have a new tactic set available for download? I av tried your beta set, I wonder if there is a newer one...

cheers

I expect to have something ready for the Easter weekend.

[FrazT]

Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Davva:

Hi wwfan,

do u have a new tactic set available for download? I av tried your beta set, I wonder if there is a newer one...

cheers

I expect to have something ready for the Easter weekend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will look forward to that-

congrats on your Modship by the way- well deserved.

[gunnerfan]

wwfan - do we have to address you now as "Your Modship"?

(tugging the forelock)

[wwfan]

I think you should ....

... whether you will

[lim]

Hi wwfan, Superb thread i see alot of time and effort has gone into this and i appreciate that.I have a problem as i am currently struggling in a network game with friends, i am spurs the problem is that i dont know what i should be setting my passing style as for each player, so I dicided to use a rule of one theory for the passing style thinking this would have the same effect as it did with menalities.

So i did the following:

GK - 13

CB - 12

LB - 11

MC/D - 10

LM/MR - 9

MC/A - 9

FC/D -7

FC - 6

I found that i struggled to find a killer ball in the final 3rd and i found it hard to breat down teams, however i did find that i gained high passing percentage and therefore possession.

What i would like to hear is your opinion on passing style and also should this be linked heavily with tempo & width like it was back in FM07, as you decribed then that the DMC sets the tempo of the play and therefore should be either the same or similar as the passing style of the DMC.

Thanks Phil

[wwfan]

Attackers and wingers shorter than midfielders.

Central midfielders set the type of game you wish to play (direct, mixed, short). However, I tend to stick with mixed as it allows them far more passing options.

For Defend and Counter, FBs and DCs longer passes than MCs.

Balanced rougly the same as MCs.

Attack and Control shorter than MCs (to feed them).

[Jablome]

Well, I took the job at West Ham after guiding Cardiff back to the CH. The raise was great, but the job has been awful.

Can't figure it out. 6 games in and the squad is still doing really strange things with the football. 2,1 and 2 thru 5.

So, I am away to Derby after a home draw v. Newcastle we should have won.

Odds are about even.

I pick "We can win" etc.

Use my Balance tactic.

We go down 2-0 i/s 10 minutes. Sweet. I figure they are just not focused, so better switch to Counter. That works for 21 minutes.

All Goals in the 1st Half

Earnshaw scores 4 times including a penalty.

Now, take a look at the stats. Nice, right?

I am going to make a bold statement here.

I genuinely do not care what went right or wrong. This game is becoming too difficult. Period.

[wwfan]

I don't see the argument. You have done well over a period of time, including at least one promotion, but are willing to declare the game is too difficult after 6 matches with a new club, of which only one result was horrific??

It takes at least 15 games for a squad to begin to gel, so assume it also takes 15 games for a manager to gel with the squad (as indicated by the media message 15 games in). Those first 15 games will be more difficult because it is a bedding in period, especially if your tactical instruction is very different to the previous one.

Give the new team some time to adjust and report back. If you can achieve once, you can do it again.

[Jablome]

Originally posted by wwfan:

I don't see the argument. You have done well over a period of time, including at least one promotion, but are willing to declare the game is too difficult after 6 matches with a new club, of which only one result was horrific??

It takes at least 15 games for a squad to begin to gel, so assume it also takes 15 games for a manager to gel with the squad (as indicated by the media message 15 games in). Those first 15 games will be more difficult because it is a bedding in period, especially if your tactical instruction is very different to the previous one.

Give the new team some time to adjust and report back. If you can achieve once, you can do it again.

I know. I know. Just very frustrated. They have hit the post so many times in the last 3 games, it should have fallen over by now.

[Jablome]

wwfan: If the team report says that the team moral is high and they have a good understanding of each other, shouldn't that mean that they are gelled?

Also, on reflection, if what you say about 15 games is the case, then why is it that folks like Cleon can take a team, put in a totally different tactic and basically destroy everything in front of them from game one?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Jablome:

wwfan: If the team report says that the team moral is high and they have a good understanding of each other, shouldn't that mean that they are gelled?

Also, on reflection, if what you say about 15 games is the case, then why is it that folks like Cleon can take a team, put in a totally different tactic and basically destroy everything in front of them from game one?

I can't always, depends on the players and their adaptability. I can have success with most teams, but some slower than others. It depends how adaptable players are really.

[Cleon]

I should also add that wwfan plays the game more genuinely than me, by that I mean, I will set out to exploit the AI's weaknesses. And even create a formation, to do this. wwfan likes to keep the realism and use a 442.

Or atleast I think so, anyways

[ryder]

Just a quick message for wwfan.ive devolped my own tactic set,thanks to your advice on here,but i was just wondering how much attention you pay to opposition instructions.I use them myself but get fed up when changing tactics sets during the game only to have to reset them.i presume its a bug as this was fixed on fm 07 7.02 but has appeard again on 08.So ime asking how important opp instructions realy are.cheers

[Jablome]

Originally posted by Cleon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jablome:

wwfan: If the team report says that the team moral is high and they have a good understanding of each other, shouldn't that mean that they are gelled?

Also, on reflection, if what you say about 15 games is the case, then why is it that folks like Cleon can take a team, put in a totally different tactic and basically destroy everything in front of them from game one?

I can't always, depends on the players and their adaptability. I can have success with most teams, but some slower than others. It depends how adaptable players are really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that is refreshing to hear.

[wwfan]

Originally posted by Jablome:

wwfan: If the team report says that the team moral is high and they have a good understanding of each other, shouldn't that mean that they are gelled?

Also, on reflection, if what you say about 15 games is the case, then why is it that folks like Cleon can take a team, put in a totally different tactic and basically destroy everything in front of them from game one?

They will have a good understanding of each other. Of you and your tactics, ah, that is the rub!!

As Cleon said, I don't take any advantage of the engine holes. In fact, I avoid exploiting them. As TT&F is based on that method of playing, it requires excellent decision making skills, as highlighted in the OP. When you take over a new team who aren't used to you, those skills need to be perfect to perform well. As you adjust to each other, getting things almost right will suffice.

The only thing I use that could be regarded as exploitative is the mentality system, which can possibly give you an edge. However, it can equally give you a massive disadvantage if you employ the wrong version, so it weighs out in the end. If you want to use an exploitative tactic and thus minimise the poor performances in the earliest stages of taking over a club, all you have to do is

@ ryder: More important for away matches than home ones. Yes, unfortunately you do have to reset them. Have reported the frustrations in having to dothat and SI are aware.

[gunnerfan]

If you want to use an exploitative tactic and thus minimise the poor performances in the earliest stages of taking over a club, all you have to do is

wwfan, I have to ask...did you do that on purpose?

[wwfan]

Did I do what on purpose???

[gunnerfan]

That's what I thought.

[Guest bajdoff]

wwwfan, thanks for a superb thread.

I am Liverpool on the first season, unbeated for 24 games in PL, winner of the League cup, semi final in the FA cup and CL. I am been using your tactics with a very good result I think. I have used the counter tactic on chelsea and arsenal with good result but against Man Utd I always have big problems. They always play with 4231 with back arrows on the MC and sidearrows on the OMC´s. Do you have any idea´s? I don´t want to change from 442.

[JoeThorogood]

good thread again wwfan.

I would just like to ask you, when you analyse the AI behaviour/set-up/tactics whatever you want to call it. What do you look at, the match commentary, the 2d pitch, the match stats, player ratings, home/away stats?

I understand your view on the tactics and I can sense when I have got it right/wrong etc but what I struggle with is seeing why its working or not working. If its not working I struggle with changing the tactics because I fail to see where to change things.

I think a you-tube video would be very beneficial. You could comment on a game saying what was working and why, or what wasn't working and why. This would not only be a descriptive aid but also a visual one that would the people like me out. Have a think about it, would like to hear your views on the idea.

[blakey1882]

Well I'm completely out of ideas.

Started a new season with Burnley and things aren't going too bad. I'm about 15 games into the season and after having a bizarre result against Leicester I've been loading the game again and using it as a test game.

I must have played the match 10 times now and I've lost 9 times and drawn once.

I start the game with Leicester as evens favourites and I'm 9-4. I've tried using both my defend and my counter tactics. Using either of these I do very well with possesion dominating with around 60%. Both my CB's are on tight man marking. Quite often I take the lead but to no avail in the long run.

I have two big problems.

1 is Ian Hume Leicesters striker. For those who don't know him. His strong points as a championship striker is his decent finishing of 14 and and pace + accelleration of 14. This is topped off with a good jumping score of 17. His weak points are he's only 171cm tall. His composure (5), positioning (3) and decisions (8) are all poor for a stiker. So this is why I'm frustrated. He wins more than 50% of headers against my defenders and reguraly scores with them despite the fact that both my cbs have good heading and jumping skills and are much taller than him. He also seems to take every single chance he gets on the ground and often does so by getting into fantastic positions and losing his marker (both my cb's have marking of 15). I have no idea why this happens and I find it happens with a lot of short strikers. If anyone has any ideas I'd be really grateful.

The second thing is a bit more petty but equally frustrating. The AI always seems to find a way to score. So far I've conceded late in the game in the following ways after doing a great job of shutting up shop for the majority of the game.

The opposition striker getting clean through on goal from a goal kick despite my deep defensive line and low attacking mentality.

A wonder goal as Matty Fryatt dribbles round half my team and slots past the keeper.

My own defenders mistake as he dallies on the ball before being robbed by the opposition striker.

A penalty out of nothing from a long throw.