Matches getting ridiculous and unbearable

[goranm]

 

15 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Transfermarkt must be excluding blocks or something. Their stats have puzzled me ever since I've seen them. They are also calling their category not "shots" but curiously "shots on goal", which suggests as much.

They have a category "total shots at goal" which is presumably all shots at goal, however their numbers are smaller by 150-200 shots compared to the stats on PL's website. My mistake for not verifying with a second source.

However, even with the data you listed, there are 5 teams with a conversion rate of 11.6% or more. My PL save (all AI controlled on full detail) has none, the highest being 11.5%. So the conversion rate in my game is just somewhat off, but not way off as I've originally said. To me it seems as if it needs a slight bump in the ME.

 

[Draakon]

Well, my opinion after a short experience in FM20.

The game is about mentality. One team dominating and the other team (underdogs) more defensive and cautious in their mindset. Defensive teams are difficult to break, even for big giants like Manchester City, Liverpool or Barca. It gets worse if they score first, because it will encourage and motivate them and they can sit very deep for the rest of the game.

What gets you shots (and even shots on target) is possession. If you have 60+ % possession and don't waste it completely on tiki-taka football, you should get some shots and some of those you get on target. But if the box is crowded, they are not going to be all high quality shots. There's often a block or deflection. You get a lot of set pieces if you have possession and you're technically superior side, but out of those set pieces you'll get a lot of headers that may go wide or even if they're on target, it's not really a dangerous chance and goalkeeper collects them calmly. So you need patience, you need skillful players to find a way to score and even for the best teams those really good chances come 2-3 times in a game, not more. Or, if you're lucky, you can capitalize on individual mistake by opposition defender or rely on a brilliant strike (long shot or direct free kick) of your players. That's the case in real life, too.

It may be frustrating to watch, but it happens in real life too. Big teams drop points, whatever the stat sheet says, but obviously, more often or not - their patience is rewarded, possession and pressure will be eventually converted to goals and even the most defensive team has to open up a little if they're 0-1 or 0-2 down and want to change things, so the second or third goal will come easier than the first one.

 

Another thing in this thread that caught my attention was the note of players skill, especially finishing chances. I'm managing Ajax (superior side in Eredivisie) and in FM20 I've noticed that I score more goals from no-chance situations that it happened in FM16, for example. In FM16 I have about 50% conversion rate from clear cut chances. In FM20 clear cut chances are more difficult to create, but I somehow still manage to find goals. I'd like to think that's because I have superior players against smaller teams and/or they're goalkeepers are not good enough to save everything that comes on target, so it might be another thing in Champions League against big teams and better goalkeepers. 

If you want to make things more realistic for lower league sides (strikers should have poorer finishing and they will waste more chances) then finishing is not the first thing to start with. Have you ever watched lower league games (I mean, really low, not like English League One level). The football is sometimes unbearable to watch there, because terrible errors and blunders happen soooo often compared to professional level. And what characterizes lower league football is:

- it's simpler - less diagonal balls and switching the flanks (because those passes are not often on target in that level), more short passing and/or just long ball in the space for a run

- a lot less intensity - players are not physically prepared to keep opposition under pressure, so usually there's more space around players to receive the pass and they have more time to make this first touch compared to higher leagues, so players thinking does not need to be that fast and technique does not need to be that good. Passing becomes a little more important than first touch or technique

- a lot of chances (because defensive errors), but a lot of missed chances (because strikers are crap and waste too many)

- a lot of frustrating moments (poor first touch, possession given away too easily, wrong decisions, just clumsy - ball allowed over sideline while dribbling etc.)

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Draakon

[zyfon5]

1 hour ago, goranm said:

 

They have a category "total shots at goal" which is presumably all shots at goal, however their numbers are smaller by 150-200 shots compared to the stats on PL's website. My mistake for not verifying with a second source.

However, even with the data you listed, there are 5 teams with a conversion rate of 11.6% or more. My PL save (all AI controlled on full detail) has none, the highest being 11.5%. So the conversion rate in my game is just somewhat off, but not way off as I've originally said. To me it seems as if it needs a slight bump in the ME.

 

Rather than fixing conversion rate one number that is somewhat broken in FM is goalkeeper save percentage. I am in my ninth season of my journeyman save and all my GK across 3 different teams has posted above 80% save percentage every single season. Last season my GK reached 85% save percentage which is godlike levels. Under real life conditions no amount of great defence can elevate an average GK in an average team to this kind of performance. 

[Draakon]

Yeah, but watching full matches and seeing that so many shots are actually poor chances or at least not dangerous for a keeper, that save percentage make sense.

Only small complaint that I have is set pieces - even mediocre goalkeepers manage to parry close range headers that are directed on target with power. A good header on target from 5 meters is extremely difficult to deal with - it can go anywhere and the keeper is very lucky if it comes right on his direction so he could somehow parry it. But in FM20 it looks like they're always in that right position and more often than not able to hold that ball fairly comfortably. 

[yolixeya]

11 hours ago, Federico said:

Just some examples, taken randomly from my current save. Don't be scared by players, I'm using a retro-database

Yeah I read your last sentence... I'm trying to see if I can sort that somehow from somewhere.

But again... comparing it to the real world is the wrong comparison.

Yes you can sort it when you go to the league page, then to team stats detailed and there is total shot on target count for each team. I am just too early in my save to look at those stats. It's small sample size.

9 hours ago, Federico said:

From my personal point of view if we keep comparing FM to real football, we'll keep expecting to see in FM what we see in real football. And this cannot be achieved, never. Because of a simple fact: AI cannot cope a human brain and anything related to it, like emotions, experience, even born gifts. And because FM is ruled by algorithms, of course.

But I do expect to see what I see in real life football. I have been playing PES since late '90s  and saw how much that game progressed and got better at representing real life football. It's still has flaws and they will always be there but it's clearly better and I don't mean just graphics. So it can be better and that is enough.

FM has a long way to go to look like a real football aesthetically, but FM is different game then PES and stats are more important for FM and I expect to see stats from FM to match real life football.

FM only needs to bee a represent real life football, not to be real life football. You said: "AI cannot cope a human brain and anything related to it, like emotions, experience, even born gifts. And because FM is ruled by algorithms, of course." Well that is true for all games and we enjoy them. Literally any NPC in any game doesn't have any emotions or intelligence whatsoever and it's ruled by algorithms but we play and enjoy those games. Why should I then take much more rigorous stance and not tolerate that in FM? I have ceirtan level of expectations when I play games but the are not set that high. 

 

[KingCanary]

On 19/07/2020 at 20:22, Zemahh said:

Looking at this tactic, it does not surprise me at all you're having trouble creating good quality chances. There's no space creation whatsoever, you're cramming everyone into central areas, which are the easiest to defend. Since you're in year 2025, I'm going to assume you have a good squad and are a favourite often, which means the AI will line up defensively to begin with (packing central areas with DM formations and defending narrowly).

First off, you have two playmakers right on top of each other, in central midfield. That alone will invite the ball into central areas very often, with playmaker roles having "ball magnet" tendency in FM.

Next up, two Inside Forwards, both looking to cut inside into an area your AM is already occupying. Now you've got 3 players, plus an Advanced Playmaker sitting on top of each other in close proximity. All the AI has to do is to defend narrow areas and your whole attack can be kept quiet.

Your only real space creation comes from Inside Forwards opening up space for overlapping Wing Backs, but that will only result in endless crosses. Is your striker good enough aerially to get on the end of most of them? Besides that, if crosses are your main game plan, 4-4-2/4-2-4 would be a better option, giving you two strikers to compete for headers.

As for instructions, Shorter Passing in combination with Lower Tempo won't result in many exciting switches of play either. When it comes to breaking down stubborn defences, a general rule of thumb is to either go short and fast, pulling opposition out of positions with incisive passing, or slow and direct, giving your players time to get forward and then switching play to either side. With the combination you've chosen, I can see you struggle creating anything of worth.

To sum it up, you're not giving defensive sides anything to think about. You have a bunch of players in close proximity, instructed to play it slow, which probably results in a lot of non-threatening passes, until players are eventually closed down and forced to shoot from wherever they are. I would use at least one out-and-out Winger to stretch the play, cut one playmaker role and change your passing or tempo instructions.

I agree with all this yet I still think it highlights a few issues with the current ME.

What this tastic reminds me of is how my team (Norwich) won the Champinship last season. a 4-2-3-1 with two 'wide' midfielders who much prefer to come narrow or cut inside, a smallish striker and two wingbacks who loved to bomb forward and provided all the width. It worked because of two things the ME seems to struggle with.

1) Sensible wide play- IRL fullbacks bombing into that space will be looking to get into the area near the byline to fizz something in or pull something back. In FM they either try to dribble too far inside and take a shot from a stupid angle, turn backwards and give it to the inverted winger/inside forward who is in a worse position to cross or stand up a floated ball to the well marked winger at the far post. I very rarely see my fullbacks, no matter the settings, try and put a low cross across the 6 yard box when they have the space.

2) Smart penalty box movement- obviously this tactic leads to congention in the middle but it isn't helped by forwards and midfielders often being a bit dumb. For the IRL example of Norwich, Pukki isn't a striker who thrives on crosses or wins many headers. Instead he'd either make smart runs to the near post, drop back to the penalty spot to try and find space or find a pocket in between central defenders. All too often in FM strikers just kind of stand near where a defender is and don't really do enough to find space.

[KingCanary]

54 minutes ago, rossenori said:

keepers are ball magnets. shots are usually directed directly at them regardless of how out of position he is. or maybe its just the graphics misrepresenting. 

Yeah I think this is partly why people get so annoyed about 1 on 1's- because very good strikers often seem to sidefoot the ball straight to the keeper with no pace on it. It wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating if keepers were parrying these shots or strikers were putting them wide or over. But the regularity that good forwards make the keeper do absolutely no work with really good chances is very annoying.

[Draakon]

To be fair, if you're running full speed and have to aim without thinking, GK acts like a target and most people would subconsciously direct the shot towards him. But of course, professional footballer has trained so many hours and has taken so many shots that for him it should be automatic to play the ball past goalkeeper, not hitting him straight away.

[dunk105]

 

 

13 minutes ago, KingCanary said:

I agree with all this yet I still think it highlights a few issues with the current ME.

What this tastic reminds me of is how my team (Norwich) won the Champinship last season. a 4-2-3-1 with two 'wide' midfielders who much prefer to come narrow or cut inside, a smallish striker and two wingbacks who loved to bomb forward and provided all the width. It worked because of two things the ME seems to struggle with.

1) Sensible wide play- IRL fullbacks bombing into that space will be looking to get into the area near the byline to fizz something in or pull something back. In FM they either try to dribble too far inside and take a shot from a stupid angle, turn backwards and give it to the inverted winger/inside forward who is in a worse position to cross or stand up a floated ball to the well marked winger at the far post. I very rarely see my fullbacks, no matter the settings, try and put a low cross across the 6 yard box when they have the space.

2) Smart penalty box movement- obviously this tactic leads to congention in the middle but it isn't helped by forwards and midfielders often being a bit dumb. For the IRL example of Norwich, Pukki isn't a striker who thrives on crosses or wins many headers. Instead he'd either make smart runs to the near post, drop back to the penalty spot to try and find space or find a pocket in between central defenders. All too often in FM strikers just kind of stand near where a defender is and don't really do enough to find space.

2- Agree, this is the issue. We only have to find this space because the ME is so bad in terms of attacking movement- I want my AM to be close to the striker to play 1-2s, but I cant as the match engine doesnt allow that, its all about space which makes tactics so one dimensional. As you say at times it looks as if your strikers are marking the defenders, movement is absolutely woeful. The lack of variety in attacking moves also hurts the game- I don't care if an attacking move fails but I don't even see my creative players trying to unlock defences, no attempts at dinked passes, sloooow passing, running into blind alleys, through balls are extremely rare etc. All they do is hit the wall, turn around and pass back to midfield. Wingbacks or wingers get into crossing positions and dont cross even when asked to cross early or from byeline. Ask my players to cross low and near post and they do it high to the back post.

I say this as a player who has had success but by god the match experience in FM20 is utterly tedious.

[KingCanary]

4 minutes ago, rossenori said:

i can't imagine any elite striker continuously shooting directly at the GK in a 1v1 like FM strikers. how often has aguero missed a 1v1? i can't find any 1v1 conversion rates IRL, they're all general shot conversion rates, but my guess is 1v1 conversion rate for top strikers are real high but the total amount the of 1v1s opportunities would be very low. 

We see very good strikers missing one on ones quite a bit, sometimes putting them straight at the keeper- the first shot by Auba here is a great example...

However what you don't see is those one on ones being rolled straight at the keeper for him to fall on top of. The finish here is poor but it is hit with power and the keeper had to parry it out. This is the kind of thing I don't think we see enough of. 

[Pasonen]

14 minutes ago, rossenori said:

I can't imagine any elite striker continuously shooting directly at the GK in a 1v1 like FM strikers.

Problem is in real world you can score by shooting directly to goalkeeper direction by lobbing or placing it to 5-hole. A shot from side movement or other surprising situation shot. Its just before this can be done defending have to come tighter and high tempo, over attack tactics cant give even more shots on target. It should be other way. Too attack -> Lost possession and counter goals.

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, rossenori said:

there are far more 1v1 chances in game than in real life so to keep the scoreline and conversion rate believable strikers don't score as many 1v1s.

ah i remember back when strikers used to put them wide meaning corner flag wide or sky them lol. theres like no middle ground 

 

Seems to depend on the 1vs1. 

In terms of xG, 1vs1 are typically rated between  roughly 0.25 and 0.5ish. (1 in 4 and 1 in 2 chances).  The average is the 1 in 3, usually. Very good chances, but no tap-ins and certainly no penalties. Shots going directly at the keeper may be another issue tho, same as frequencies, and so on. That said, not "hitting" the keeper closing the angles should be supposed to be the challenge to a degree, naturally.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Svenc

[vukigepard]

4 minutes ago, Pasonen said:

Problem is in real world you can score by shooting directly to goalkeeper direction by lobbing or placing it to 5-hole. A shot from side movement or other surprising situation shot. Its just before this can be done defending have to come tighter and high tempo, over attack tactics cant give even more shots on target. It should be other way. Too attack -> Lost possession and counter goals.

To attack more and score less is a paradox. It logically makes no sense. More lost possession and counter goals don't translate into you scoring less, it's only a risk when it comes to conceding, because that's what counter goals and lost possession translate into. If you attack more, you risk more, but by risking more, you should also create more and score more than by not risking more. In real life it happens sometimes that risk doesn't pay off, but that doesn't mean that if they were not attacking the result would be different and they would score more goals than not attacking.

Second important thing is also player and team quality. In real life, good teams relative to their league play more attacking, because with their quality, reward of scoring is higher than the risk of conceding in the long run, and vice versa for poor teams, they play mainly defensive football because of their quality, by risking equal open game they would almost certainly lose, as they would score less than team with more quality. But it doesn't mean they would score less if they played more attacking, it would mean they would concede much more and score more but not as much as they concede, which overall isn't the best deal in the history of deals for them.

 

And generally, when talking about score that's about it, whenever you call it risk assesment, balance, philosophy in long term. Individual matches are something different, then comes into effect the opposition frustration, bad luck, bad tactical set up, which lead to the breaking of this general logical conclusion and pattern, which ocasionally happens.

And that logical conclusion is: by attacking more, you don't risk less goals, you risk conceding more, which is a much bigger deal when you are a small team because your team quality makes it unlikely that you are going to score more or same as your superior opponents than concede, and less of a deal when you are a good team, because the opposite is true.

[Draakon]

39 minutes ago, vukigepard said:

To attack more and score less is a paradox. It logically makes no sense. More lost possession and counter goals don't translate into you scoring less, it's only a risk when it comes to conceding, because that's what counter goals and lost possession translate into. If you attack more, you risk more, but by risking more, you should also create more and score more than by not risking more. In real life it happens sometimes that risk doesn't pay off, but that doesn't mean that if they were not attacking the result would be different and they would score more goals than not attacking.

Second important thing is also player and team quality. In real life, good teams relative to their league play more attacking, because with their quality, reward of scoring is higher than the risk of conceding in the long run, and vice versa for poor teams, they play mainly defensive football because of their quality, by risking equal open game they would almost certainly lose, as they would score less than team with more quality. But it doesn't mean they would score less if they played more attacking, it would mean they would concede much more and score more but not as much as they concede, which overall isn't the best deal in the history of deals for them.

Just wanted to add that yes, very attacking game can make you lose possession more often, but it is usually combined with high pressing, gegenpressing, high LoE and a lot of work. Superior club that has better players can, with collective pressing, prevent "play from defense" and won the ball back very quickly. In earlier FM games it was more difficult to create such pressing (in FM20 it's easier) but in reality all teams use it when they need to get a goal. In earlier FM games losing possession meant a fairly long time without ball and so too attacking formation instantly meant that you lost possession percentage.

However, in modern football it's high pressing + attacking mindset (get the numbers up), so it all comes down to risk-taking, as already described above. 

[yolixeya]

1 hour ago, vukigepard said:

To attack more and score less is a paradox. It logically makes no sense. More lost possession and counter goals don't translate into you scoring less, it's only a risk when it comes to conceding, because that's what counter goals and lost possession translate into. If you attack more, you risk more, but by risking more, you should also create more and score more than by not risking more. In real life it happens sometimes that risk doesn't pay off, but that doesn't mean that if they were not attacking the result would be different and they would score more goals than not attacking.

By attacking more in real life you somewhat increase your chance of scoring a goal but the risk to reward ratio is usually not good. It's just hard to break very defensive team and I think big teams don't get enough credit for those wins because everyone alread expects them to win there. On FM when you attack more, you don't just risk a conceding more (and the FM shoud be a more punishing in this regard) but you also accept to take lower quality shots. Players will be less patient with their passing and shooting if their mentality is very attacking than balanced. And nobody said that by attacking more you will score less (at least that I am aware of), but I would say that attacking more doesn't guarantee you scoring more.

Edited July 21, 2020 by yolixeya

[KingCanary]

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

Seems to depend on the 1vs1. 

In terms of xG, 1vs1 are typically rated between  roughly 0.25 and 0.5ish. (1 in 4 and 1 in 2 chances).  The average is the 1 in 3, usually. Very good chances, but no tap-ins and certainly no penalties. Shots going directly at the keeper may be another issue tho, same as frequencies, and so on. That said, not "hitting" the keeper closing the angles should be supposed to be the challenge to a degree, naturally.

I have to ask, wtf is going on in that game? Was it set up in a way to deliberately show 1 on 1 shots? Because otherwise I have no idea about the defensive set up,

[vukigepard]

57 minutes ago, yolixeya said:

By attacking more in real life you somewhat increase your chance of scoring a goal but the risk to reward ratio is usually not good. It's just hard to break very defensive team and I think big teams don't get enough credit for those wins because everyone alread expects them to win there. On FM when you attack more, you don't just risk a conceding more (and the FM shoud be a more punishing in this regard) but you also accept to take lower quality shots. Players will be less patient with their passing and shooting if their mentality is very attacking than balanced. And nobody said that by attacking more you will score less (at least that I am aware of), but I would say that attacking more doesn't guarantee you scoring more.

Players being less patient with their shooting and passing leading to lower quality shots/chances is a thing i can hear being tossed around like a mantra. How can you explain that or prove that? Sergio Aguero, or let's say any premier league player  will make a more poor decision, have a worse shot, or a worse dribble because the team is playing very attacking football? He would shoot from halfway across the field because you demand more attacking direct football?  Then the PI option shoot on sight seems reduntant. Being more attacking is a mentality, with a single goal to score a goal or more, not about your players doing things that lower your chances of scoring, but quite the opposite, it's done to rise the chances of scoring thus taking risks to do that which can result in conceding more. it's about risk taking, player quality is something that can determines the quality and outcome of that risk. I agree that it does not guarantee it in short term, in one game, but in long term it does, because more effort and risk taking to score a goal will lead to it. 

For example, you and your friend throw balls to each other trying to hit each other without the other one catching it and throwing back and hitting you (two teams), you have  better (finishing), (throwing) and (composure) and (handling). You have two approaches. Balanced, in which you something keep the ball for some period of time, waiting for him to get his guard down, to get bored or plotting and planing exactly how to hit him and not risk him catching it and hitting you. And a very attacking approach where you try to hit him as many times as you can because you know you're better. You have 90 minutes. It's very logical to assume that if you try to hit him as many times as you can, you are going to hit him more times, but he is also going to hit you more times as well ( number which depends on his mentality). It won't really drastically affect your aim or your decisions because you are throwing it more rapidly. During the 90 minutes, you would definately hit him more with an attacking approach (which is long term here), you would get hit more, and the number of total hits depends mainly on both sides mentality. But because you are better, you are inclined to be attacking because in 90 minutes it's better to have more of 55-45%, chances than less of them. If it was short term (5 minutes), he probably could be in an unlikely lead even tho he is worse due to various reasons (you were complacent, having bad five minutes, not feeling strong, pure bad luck etc etc). 

It's no different in football.

[yolixeya]

2 hours ago, vukigepard said:

it's done to rise the chances of scoring thus taking risks to do that which can result in conceding more. it's about risk taking, player quality is something that can determines the quality and outcome of that risk. I agree that it does not guarantee it in short term, in one game, but in long term it does, because more effort and risk taking to score a goal will lead to it

You said it yourself. Mentality is about risk taking, that includes that the player will take lower quality shots. Aguero will not shoot from halfway line but it just might take that 10% shot on very attacking mentality while on positive mentality possibly there would be less urgent play, skipping 10% shot to allow for some player movement to create opening for 20% chance. I can agree to disagree about this but that's how I view it.

You seem to think attacking mentality equals better chances and I simply think that is not necessarily true. If it was like that then you could make any tactic better simply by switching to more attacking mentality.

[vukigepard]

1 hour ago, yolixeya said:

You said it yourself. Mentality is about risk taking, that includes that the player will take lower quality shots. Aguero will not shoot from halfway line but it just might take that 10% shot on very attacking mentality while on positive mentality possibly there would be less urgent play, skipping 10% shot to allow for some player movement to create opening for 20% chance. I can agree to disagree about this but that's how I view it.

You seem to think attacking mentality equals better chances and I simply think that is not necessarily true. If it was like that then you could make any tactic better simply by switching to more attacking mentality.

That's ok, but again, what do you constitute as a 10% shot?  Shot from a specific position which ends up as a goal when Aguero shoots it and it gets in 1/10 of the time, when a average EPL player shoots it with 12 finishing and gets in 1/10 of the time? What if that player is in form, is it then 12% shot? What if he's complacent, is it 7% shot? 10% shot says nothing, it's purely theoretical speak that has no real background, and yes if team puts an emphasis on attack, if the players are getting more exposed to get into better positions to score a goal, chance of scoring a goal should be higher than not doing risky moves because, those risky moves are made to actually score a goal, if there is no difference, or if there is a considerable lower quality of chances, then there's no rational reason to take a risk, ever. Someone taking a shot from a certain position is their invidual decision, and especially elite players with good decisions won't make poorer choices because their team is playing attacking and risk taking. You're not risk taking when you take 10% shot instead of patiently waiting for a 20% chance, what's the risk in that? Negative risking of not scoring a goal? No, that's a single decision, which should go together with team instructions and player instructions. Risk is a risk if you can get punished for it, lose something, in this case concede a goal because you're more open, more out of formation, less organized when you lose the ball. And only reason why would you take that risk, it to score a goal, and you won't risk everything for a very low quality chances, most people won't, but you risk so you can create a better chance and score.

No, attacking shouldn't guarantee that tactic is better, but it should mean it scores more than balanced one in the long run, if it's unbalanced, also concede much more. How much of both should be determined by team quality, oppositon quality and mentality and tactical instructions. It doesn't need to be abstract rocket science with 10% shots and 20% chances (because that requires to answer who is taking that shot, exactly from where, how is it taken, his morale, his form, his ca and attributes in that match in that situation, who is the opposition keeper, how good is he, how good are defenders, their morale, form, pressure, weather and much more). Since we don't know how engine really works, those percents don't mean anything, it's down to players ability to do the right thing in a situation, and attacking mentality shouldn't have detrimental effect on that, but again, on conceding. If it's down to a right thing to do in a attacking mentality, it's for sure to create a good attacking chance, not to lower the quality of your chances, otherwise, call the balanced mentality attacking then, and attacking -"pranking the opponents by pretending play NFL"

Edited July 21, 2020 by vukigepard

[blejdek]

I like it how my match lead to such a wholesome conversation. Many good ideas, many things mentioned, many suggestion for next fm games, many interesting views on the game and football itself. Nice one guys.

[yolixeya]

48 minutes ago, vukigepard said:

That's ok, but again, what do you constitute as a 10% shot?  Shot from a specific position which ends up as a goal when Aguero shoots it and it gets in 1/10 of the time, when a average EPL player shoots it with 12 finishing and gets in 1/10 of the time? What if that player is in form, is it then 12% shot? What if he's complacent, is it 7% shot? 10% shot says nothing, it's purely theoretical speak that has no real background,

Yes, it's theoretical and we don't need to introduce variables like complacency to complicate things. Complacency will influence 20% chance in a same way it influences 10% chance. Your example of me throwing a ball at my friend and winning just because I throw the ball more is also purely theoretical. This is something I see in the game, players are taking lower quality shots more on attacking mentalities. Do you disagree with that statement?

1 hour ago, vukigepard said:

k, if the players are getting more exposed to get into better positions to score a goal, chance of scoring a goal should be higher than not doing risky moves because, those risky moves are made to actually score a goal, if there is no difference, or if there is a considerable lower quality of chances, then there's no rational reason to take a risk, ever.

I agree, but it's not like they do not do risky passes on lower mentalities. They will simply just look for better opportunity to do so. You can still be pretty attacking. My point is that pure risk will not yield you more goals. Good player movement, good supply of the ball, good decisions will.  You can shoot yourself in a foot by being overly attacking in some games because you will not allow your players to do those things. I'm not saying it will happen all the time, but in some games it will.  Been there, done that.

[HUNT3R]

So I'm now in my 3rd season with the club and I'm encountering more and more defensive opposition. Most play 'cautious' tactics but I get the odd 'defensive' tactic too. With this season, I had a bit of an epiphany thinking about everyone doing a gegenpress and people often getting 30 shots to 1, with no goals, so trying something a bit different (and opposite of what most do and I did as well) when facing these defensive teams. So far, it's working. Getting around 50% possession on average, but scoring goals.
 

I slipped up against Brest and the others had 'balanced' or 'positive' tactics. Teams like Angers, Guingamp, Amiens, Lorient, Nice and Montpellier tried to be cautious or defensive and it hasn't worked for them.

[vukigepard]

25 minutes ago, yolixeya said:

Yes, it's theoretical and we don't need to introduce variables like complacency to complicate things. Complacency will influence 20% chance in a same way it influences 10% chance. Your example of me throwing a ball at my friend and winning just because I throw the ball more is also purely theoretical. This is something I see in the game, players are taking lower quality shots more on attacking mentalities. Do you disagree with that statement?

I agree, but it's not like they do not do risky passes on lower mentalities. They will simply just look for better opportunity to do so. You can still be pretty attacking. My point is that pure risk will not yield you more goals. Good player movement, good supply of the ball, good decisions will.  You can shoot yourself in a foot by being overly attacking in some games because you will not allow your players to do those things. I'm not saying it will happen all the time, but in some games it will.  Been there, done that.

I can agree that i see it in the game, but i don't agree that it should be like that.

Yes it's theoretical, but i've given all the important parameters and why it would be 55-45% as an example. I've hypotheticaly defined chance long term which is much easier to actually prove (think of it as a casino roullete), the more you pile 55-45% chances over the longer periods of time, more is the chance that you will win at the end (or the casino for that matter). It's much harder to prove and define why is something individual a certain percent chance, because you must put in much more parameters, and in the end, all those parameters only lead to 1 of the 2 things, hit or miss. 

Then you could define pure risk as something totally not needed, because no manager or sane person would say risk more just for the sake of it, doesn't matter that it doesn't result in more goals. Opposed to that, managers will risk more so they achieve that good attacking movement, so they can get the ball to attacking players and supply them, even if it means losing posession and risking counters and conceding and trust their players to make good decisions so they don't do that, works sometimes, sometimes not and they shoot themselves in the foot. Higher the team quality, higher the chance it does work.

[Spanner]

I don't think you can under-estimate in game decisions. 

For example i just played a game as England Manager, went 1 goal down. Made a Tactical Change and then went 2-1 up at half time. Then made a 2-player-changes after 65mins and won the game 3-1.

Possession and Match statsistics are ok but in-game you need to react to what happens. If you can't then it will be very hard to win!...Pre game is one area, in game is the second area and post game is the final area. 
.....all 3 areas are very big in FM20. You need to understand, plan and play all 3.

[04texag]

2 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

So I'm now in my 3rd season with the club and I'm encountering more and more defensive opposition. Most play 'cautious' tactics but I get the odd 'defensive' tactic too. With this season, I had a bit of an epiphany thinking about everyone doing a gegenpress and people often getting 30 shots to 1, with no goals, so trying something a bit different (and opposite of what most do and I did as well) when facing these defensive teams. So far, it's working. Getting around 50% possession on average, but scoring goals.
 

I slipped up against Brest and the others had 'balanced' or 'positive' tactics. Teams like Angers, Guingamp, Amiens, Lorient, Nice and Montpellier tried to be cautious or defensive and it hasn't worked for them.

So what are you doing when encountering these defensive setups?? Would love some details on this, it's something a lot of us struggle with!

[Travis Bickle]

2 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

So I'm now in my 3rd season with the club and I'm encountering more and more defensive opposition. Most play 'cautious' tactics but I get the odd 'defensive' tactic too. With this season, I had a bit of an epiphany thinking about everyone doing a gegenpress and people often getting 30 shots to 1, with no goals, so trying something a bit different (and opposite of what most do and I did as well) when facing these defensive teams. So far, it's working. Getting around 50% possession on average, but scoring goals.
 

I slipped up against Brest and the others had 'balanced' or 'positive' tactics. Teams like Angers, Guingamp, Amiens, Lorient, Nice and Montpellier tried to be cautious or defensive and it hasn't worked for them.

Funnily enough, after 5 years with Marseille, dominating everything, it suddenly got really tough when teams play an extreme form of park the bus against me. I haven't really found a way to fix it other than trying to spread play out more and be more decisive. Previous years I could rely on a piece of genius from Thiago Almada but this time I cannot. This has even extended into the CL.

I think this frustration is something I am happy with as it is realistic. I've developed a very good side and I am the side everyone wants to beat. 

This being said, it still gets frustrating when despite having the best/one of the best regen Striker in the game he fluffs 1on1s against very lowly performance. He's got the pace, finishing and composure to finish at least 20% of his 1on1s and I'd guess he only scores under 10% of them. 

[HUNT3R]

6 hours ago, 04texag said:

So what are you doing when encountering these defensive setups?? Would love some details on this, it's something a lot of us struggle with!

After trying 1 match with Gegenpress a few seasons ago, I noticed that the pressing was extremely effective, though it forced the ball backwards and it seemed like the opposition had no choice but to pass it between centrebacks and GK. I often read here that the defensive opposition "happily" pass between defenders. What if there's not much of a choice? They're getting pressed so much there's no time to look for better or forward options - just whoever is close by so you can get a pass off and keep possession? 

Now that I have a chance against these teams again, I'm not doing extreme pressing. I'm letting them come forward a bit and then we press. Yes, you do have to wait for the build up and the loses you some % possession, but I'm still winning the ball back and crucially, when I do, there's more space to use. I am catching them a bit off guard before they're completely set in the defensive phase again. Quick movement helps. On one flank I have an overlap going and that helps catch the fullback out normally. Another way is my DLP (with Tries Long Range Passes and Dictates Tempo) and I often see things like my winger pulling the ball back to midfield (instead of crossing) midfield to DM (DLP) and he switches it to the IF on the other side before the defence had time to properly shift across. Or (when shifting the ball across the pitch) it could go to my BWM, who also provides penetration with runs with ball often so if he gets it while the opposition still tries to shift across, he's giving them a different problem and they have to engage, which could open up passing opportunities or a shot at goal himself.

The other thing I noticed last season, was my own tendency to use Positive or Attacking if I want to force a goal against these teams. It worked but wasn't a guarantee and it often felt lucky if I did get a goal, so it didn't seem like something to rely on. This season, I thought about that as well. What if that's what those teams 'want'? With the more attacking Mentalities, I'm shifting the ball forward quicker, players make their runs earlier and we take more risks in doing so, including passing. With my tactic how it is, is that the best way of doing things? Am I rushing to much and then my players just sit on top of the opposition, so they don't have to move? I'm on Balanced now. Play is more measured. We knock the ball around more. There's no need to take too much risk, so I don't see crazy passing or shooting attempts. 

For the first time, I have a striker who is a force in the air as well and he's helped out on the odd occasion too. It's not even just headers. He is my only striker who is left footed and he also has Shoot with Power, so gives me something different in more ways than one. But he hasn't been a regular in the team at all, but having a different option certainly helps.

I still can't give all the credit to the tactical setup. The two I'm playing at DLP and BWM are key players for me (their traits, I think, help a lot) and it's difficult to see the same amount of success without them.

Like I said, for now, it seems like it's working well. I don't face enough of the truly defensive sides where their formation even says "defensive 442" for instance. That will come in a season or two and then it'll be the real test.

[Zemahh]

39 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

I often read here that the defensive opposition "happily" pass between defenders. What if there's not much of a choice?

That still is a real problem and the one SI need to look at, though. You're absolutely correct in that players often simply compound the issue with using overly-aggressive tactics, but there's two glaring issues that allow underdogs to keep all the possession in the world (even if non-threatening):

1. The way mentalities are designed, low-risk ones (Cautious, Defensive, Very Defensive) look for passes rather than safety-first clearances way too often. In real life, you will not see lesser teams passing at the back when under any sort of pressure, defenders will simply clear the ball, because that way there's no chance of them getting caught in possession close to goal. Not the case in FM, defenders will all too happily turn back and pass the ball to a goalkeeper or another defender, racking up a hundred passes during the course of the match, which means low-risk mentalities effectively have no penalty to them.
2. The way pressing works, players never close down passing lanes, instead they run directly towards the ball, vacating their area and leaving a passing option open. Even with top-heavy formations, that can result in some really wonky-looking pressing, with players chasing the ball like headless chickens and outside of opposition getting caught in possession, they can often still play out of defence without too many issues.

That is why in FM it's way too easy to create a tactic that will keep all the possession in the world, even with subpar players. That's very simple to try out, pick a heavy-underdog predicted to get pumped in every match, create a bottom-heavy formation like a 4-1-4-1, select low-risk roles (w/o Dribble More, Take More Risks or similar), use Cautious or lower Mentality and your possession numbers will be through the roof. Doesn't matter if inside your half or not, the fact any team can pass it at the back like prime Barcelona, is a real problem. You will easily see 60-70% of possession and survive comfortably.

[yolixeya]

2 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Another way is my DLP (with Tries Long Range Passes and Dictates Tempo) and I often see things like my winger pulling the ball back to midfield (instead of crossing) midfield to DM (DLP) and he switches it to the IF on the other side before the defence had time to properly shift across.

One thing I never liked about FM is that whoever plays in DM position does this all the time. I play with Anchorman and they often recycle the ball through him and he will find free winger or FB/WB with a ong ball like Pirlo. Yet in game description is that he plays short simple passes.

[vukigepard]

17 minutes ago, rossenori said:

i like how in your tactics if you lower your mentality, it changes your passing to shorter and tempo to lower lol like that's not how defensive teams play 

I really hope they rework the mentality system so it mostly defines the risk taking like moving out of formation, player individual freedom on a team level, time wasting, working harder to get a goal even if it means conceding where you can see clear linear progression from very defensive to very attacking. It could also make some way for more versatile team instructions where you can clearly define what do you exactly want. For the past few versions, tactic creation has been very counterintuitive and confusing for me, it's better this year because team structure is at least something that is determined by instructions + mentality, but,  it's still strange to me and my view on football that you could long term score more goals when you put less emphasis on goal scoring with the same tactic than on attacking where you would put more emphasis on goal scoring and less on keeping the clean sheet. Sure, in a single match, or 2, or 10 that could be the case, but shouldn't be longer you go with that approach. Maybe that could be the key, changing mentality with objective/focus like protect the score at all cost/ protect the score/ play it safer/ balanced/ play it more risky/ chase a goal/ chase a goal at all cost. Defined that way it becomes much more clear what mental approach you want from your team, because after all, the score is often the most important part of the game.

[HUNT3R]

3 minutes ago, yolixeya said:

One thing I never liked about FM is that whoever plays in DM position does this all the time. I play with Anchorman and they often recycle the ball through him and he will find free winger or FB/WB with a ong ball like Pirlo. Yet in game description is that he plays short simple passes.

I don't use an Anchor Man role, but I can definitely see the difference between using my main playmaker as a DLP/D and using one of the other two options who do not have "tries long range passes" and even "dictates tempo". They are much less likely to swing a long range pass out wide. Of course they still do, but you just see them doing it less than their teammate.

[yolixeya]

38 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

I don't use an Anchor Man role, but I can definitely see the difference between using my main playmaker as a DLP/D and using one of the other two options who do not have "tries long range passes" and even "dictates tempo". They are much less likely to swing a long range pass out wide. Of course they still do, but you just see them doing it less than their teammate.

I can see the difference when I use different options too but what I also see is that whoever is playing in DM position always has the more space then players in MC positions so that is why they make those passes probably. But, it's not something I would expect from Anchorman, I have a DLPsu on MC strata who was my player of the season (Bernardo SIlva) yet I often see him giving the simple pass bach to Anchor who then switches the ball to other side. It's like they switched roles.

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, yolixeya said:

I can see the difference when I use different options too but what I also see is that whoever is playing in DM position always has the more space then players in MC positions so that is why they make those passes probably. But, it's not something I would expect from Anchorman, I have a DLPsu on MC strata who was my player of the season (Bernardo SIlva) yet I often see him giving the simple pass bach to Anchor who then switches the ball to other side. It's like they switched roles.

I agree. I wouldn't expect it from the anchor man either, unless he doesn't have options. He should have fairly short passing set so I wouldn't expect a long pass to be played often, but that depends on the passing options available. You could face a team that presses heavily and so the MCs aren't an option. Or you could have a team that sits off, but your setup separates the MCs from the Anchor Man too much, so there's often an opposition player between. Etc. I've had both happen to me, so I know those scenarios are possible.

[BuryBlade]

I did a piece last year on a tactics thread about the importance of analysing during the match what is happening and responding to this. I am by no means an expert at this game, and a lot of what I have learnt comes from great minds on here (Cleon, Rashidi, Mr Hough to name a few). 
 

It’s only a small piece but shows some of my thinking in game and how I reacted to what I was seeing from the opposition and my players. Hopefully it might help.

Wanted to post up a small tactical analysis piece regards to this tactic. A lot of people I think will see this thread and think they can plug this tactic in, and are entitled to then win everything. Football Manager, just like real life, requires the user to constantly be analysing your own teams performances and the oppositions. Below I’m going to show why this is needed and useful to being successful:

Inter v Frosinone: Going into this one I feel they should cause me no problems and a home win should be guaranteed. We score early and my feelings are looking right... except Frosinone are causing me lots of problems. They’ve set up with 3 AMs and a striker. When we attack, they have 4 men ready to counter against our 2 CBS. They keep creating chances and getting shots away.

My assistant is advising that Marin (LM for me) is struggling to create anything down the left andhaving been booked, I feel he is a liability. He alsoadvises we are giving possession away cheaply and aren’t keeping it in their half (we only had 39% at this point).

So the game is 1-0 to me, but we are struggling and if it continues, Frosinone will score. Cue changes... I have considered the analysis from my assistant andwhat I can see and I’m changing things accordingly...

As you can see in the stats image, I decided to remove Marin and bring on another CM. I then moved my DLP to the regista role. This is to offer extra defensive cover and operate as the main ball player, helping to keep possession more effectively.I make the IWB left a standard wing back as he now has to cover the whole left hand side on his own. To help him out, I change the left sided centre mid to a Mezzala so he will drift wide and assist theLWB. 

To summarise, I have added a Regista to help keep the ball and offer defensive cover, an extra body in midfield to help with possession in their half and removed the LM who was struggling. 

The results were easy to see. Albano (Regista) controlled the game from this point. Everything went through him (94% pass completion) and he even scored. We created chance after chance, and only poor finishing meant the score wasn’t higher. Frosinone created no further chances for the entire game following these changes. 

What could have quickly turned into a shock result was avoided by analysis of what was happening and making considered changes to counter this.

The lesson is, yes this tactic is very good. But don’tcome into this and just plug and play and then be disappointed if you don’t achieve unprecedented success. No real life manager makes no changes during  games! 
 

 

[yolixeya]

15 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

You could face a team that presses heavily and so the MCs aren't an option.

He is passing to them too. They are fairly close to each other so they pass it around among themselves often.  I play Anchor, DLPsu and BBM midfield trio and or Anchor, DLPsu BWM.  It's just Anchor is pressed less so he has time to make those passes to free wide teammates.  At least that is what I think why this is happening. It's not that I am complaining, it like a having a DLP but still having a Anchor in the defensive phase of play. But it is one aspect of FM i don't like.

[Svenc]

22 hours ago, KingCanary said:

I have to ask, wtf is going on in that game? Was it set up in a way to deliberately show 1 on 1 shots? Because otherwise I have no idea about the defensive set up,

Yes, and that's why it's flawed (tons of time for the forward on almost every shot). Basically, one side had only a single full back as a "defensive line", plus all the other guys were instructed to man mark one of the opposition centre backs (they'll gladly oblige).  The actual conversion was slightly above the 50/50 range, which would fit that xg 0.5ish rating on the higher end of 1vs1s. Not sure how SI would be testing things, mind.

A perfect example for an average one on one would be West Ham's Jarrod Bowen against Liverpool's Alisson Becker from spring. Was rated in the xG 0.3 range (1 in 3 on average a goal). https://understat.com/match/11911 Could have been the equalizer, but wasn't. Alisson had also come off his line and greatly reduced the distance to make the target far smaller.

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Svenc

[Pasonen]

31 minutes ago, Svenc said:

A perfect example for an average one on one would be West Ham's Jarrod Bowen against Liverpool's Alisson Becker from spring. Was rated in the xG 0.3 range (1 in 3 on average a goal).

In fm20 player would have shot directly to gk because they dont lob or gk make fast runs out and we would have blamed game for having horrible st's in 1on1's. In real life direction of fwd run was slightly lateral and gk came fwd and made great save with his hand. Also it seemed player hesitated a second or two with the ball because he was in fast running speed. Then he saw defender and didnt go for right foot. Dont know wich is his stronger. That much info we miss in fm when players go for 1on1's

Edited July 22, 2020 by Pasonen

[KingCanary]

2 hours ago, Svenc said:

Yes, and that's why it's flawed (tons of time for the forward on almost every shot). Basically, one side had only a single full back as a "defensive line", plus all the other guys were instructed to man mark one of the opposition centre backs (they'll gladly oblige).  The actual conversion was slightly above the 50/50 range, which would fit that xg 0.5ish rating on the higher end of 1vs1s. Not sure how SI would be testing things, mind.

A perfect example for an average one on one would be West Ham's Jarrod Bowen against Liverpool's Alisson Becker from spring. Was rated in the xG 0.3 range (1 in 3 on average a goal). https://understat.com/match/11911 Could have been the equalizer, but wasn't. Alisson had also come off his line and greatly reduced the distance to make the target far smaller.

 

If the game reflected this chance or the Auba one I posted above a bit more then I think players would be less annoyed (although I'm sure some would still be).

My big problem with 1 on 1's is the amount that get sidefooted straight at the keeper for them to just pick up- the saves are too easy and the finishing too weak to reflect top quality players.

[HUNT3R]

In each of my last two matches, I won the match in the last 10 mins against defensive opposition. In the first they scored in the 70th min. I kept my Mentality the same and pretty much everything else. In this match, I just changed my other fullback's duty from Support to Attack. With no other changes, because we were the better team even before the goal, we came back and scored in the 77th and 88th. Their goal a free kick floated into the area, flicked onto another attacker and shot from a tight angle. Mine, a through ball from my B2B to the AMR and a pulled back whipped cross for a placed volley at the far post. The winner was my player getting a tackle in after a throw in on the half way line. The DLP immediately (Dictates Tempo!) launching it over the defence to my striker who finishes the 1 v 1 easily. Tough angle too.

In the second match, my left-footed left winger (who has pace and dribbling as his strengths) wasn't doing much, so I subbed him for a right-footed inside forward type player (Martial) but kept the role and everything else the same. Then later, I subbed off my AMR as he wasn't doing well enough and was still learning the position. Brought on someone slightly weaker, but with the team for longer and knew the position better. From an attacking throw in, my striker flicked on the header and somehow, the newly brought on (3 mins ago) AMR sensed what was going to happen and went for it. Brought it down and slotted it near post with his weaker foot before the defence knew what was going on. Maybe the fresh legs helped? Maybe we got lucky? He was also the same player to score the winning goal in the previous match. Maybe he just thrives under pressure. He does have the best Anticipation of all my strikers. Maybe that helps him in these tough situations? All I know is that I know now who can save a game that doesn't look like it can be saved.

Edit: He did it again. 0-2 down, he scored the equaliser in the 85th in a Euro Cup Qtr Final. Anticipation and Acceleration FTW.

 

[Spanner]

8 hours ago, BuryBlade said:

I did a piece last year on a tactics thread about the importance of analysing during the match what is happening and responding to this. I am by no means an expert at this game, and a lot of what I have learnt comes from great minds on here (Cleon, Rashidi, Mr Hough to name a few). 
 

It’s only a small piece but shows some of my thinking in game and how I reacted to what I was seeing from the opposition and my players. Hopefully it might help.

Wanted to post up a small tactical analysis piece regards to this tactic. A lot of people I think will see this thread and think they can plug this tactic in, and are entitled to then win everything. Football Manager, just like real life, requires the user to constantly be analysing your own teams performances and the oppositions. Below I’m going to show why this is needed and useful to being successful:

Inter v Frosinone: Going into this one I feel they should cause me no problems and a home win should be guaranteed. We score early and my feelings are looking right... except Frosinone are causing me lots of problems. They’ve set up with 3 AMs and a striker. When we attack, they have 4 men ready to counter against our 2 CBS. They keep creating chances and getting shots away.

My assistant is advising that Marin (LM for me) is struggling to create anything down the left andhaving been booked, I feel he is a liability. He alsoadvises we are giving possession away cheaply and aren’t keeping it in their half (we only had 39% at this point).

So the game is 1-0 to me, but we are struggling and if it continues, Frosinone will score. Cue changes... I have considered the analysis from my assistant andwhat I can see and I’m changing things accordingly...

As you can see in the stats image, I decided to remove Marin and bring on another CM. I then moved my DLP to the regista role. This is to offer extra defensive cover and operate as the main ball player, helping to keep possession more effectively.I make the IWB left a standard wing back as he now has to cover the whole left hand side on his own. To help him out, I change the left sided centre mid to a Mezzala so he will drift wide and assist theLWB. 

To summarise, I have added a Regista to help keep the ball and offer defensive cover, an extra body in midfield to help with possession in their half and removed the LM who was struggling. 

The results were easy to see. Albano (Regista) controlled the game from this point. Everything went through him (94% pass completion) and he even scored. We created chance after chance, and only poor finishing meant the score wasn’t higher. Frosinone created no further chances for the entire game following these changes. 

What could have quickly turned into a shock result was avoided by analysis of what was happening and making considered changes to counter this.

The lesson is, yes this tactic is very good. But don’tcome into this and just plug and play and then be disappointed if you don’t achieve unprecedented success. No real life manager makes no changes during  games! 
 

 

Exactly ...... as a have tried to say, there is pre-game tactics, IN-GAME tactics (probably the most powerful) and then Post-game!

Bravo with your great In-game tactical decisions.

I feel that players now want more 'plug and play' tactics so they can go as far into the future with success as possible.

[BuryBlade]

51 minutes ago, Spanner said:

Exactly ...... as a have tried to say, there is pre-game tactics, IN-GAME tactics (probably the most powerful) and then Post-game!

Bravo with your great In-game tactical decisions.

I feel that players now want more 'plug and play' tactics so they can go as far into the future with success as possible.

Thanks for your kind words! 

[Mcfc1894]

On 17/07/2020 at 19:54, HUNT3R said:

Then you can do something about it that can move you forward to getting out of this. Ranting on a forum may let off some steam, but every 1.5th match later, you'll be back to being frustrated. Either analyse your matches or add more to the thread you have in the tactics forum... or ideally both.

Or SI could not leave us with this unrealistic match Engine and try to fix it instead

[HUNT3R]

5 minutes ago, Mcfc1894 said:

Or SI could not leave us with this unrealistic match Engine and try to fix it instead

I'm not going to spoil it for you, but read the other 145 replies that follow the post you quoted. The thread gets better .  

[Louisking1992]

On 20/07/2020 at 12:06, herne79 said:

Not the only way no.

This is how my current Le Havre team line up:

And here are some results against "defensive" teams who enjoy the majority of possession but have hardly any shots whereas I have plenty:

Obviously not all my matches look like that - some matches I have the majority of possession; in others it's more even.  Some matches are fairly even in shot count; in others the opposition have more (looking at you PSG).

Now ok I'm not playing with any particular style in mind (although I could easily) but the point is to understand how everything works together.  Each component part is just one cog in a larger wheel.  How your roles & duties all combine together; how your players affect their roles (different players will play the same role differently); how you rotate your squad; how you speak to your players before and during each match; what substitutions you make; what instructions you assign; and so on.  Some people believe that just complicates matters when actually if you stop and think for a couple of minutes and plan things it really isn't.  Fail to plan, plan to fail.

Take my two Wingbacks for example.  Identical roles & duties right?  But the players I use there are different - one has the Trait to get forward often, the other doesn't.  So one side is a little more attack focussed than the other.  But what if neither player had that Trait, couldn't I just give one Wingback an attack duty if I wanted some variety?  Yeh sure I could but then the profile of the role itself changes and (potentially) how it impacts the rest of the system.  There's nothing wrong with that so long as you understand this, plan for it and watch how things play out.

Now take my 3 attackers.  All 3 function beautifully together.  Why?  Because they have the right attributes for what I need from them and I haven't over-burdened them with lots of instructions.  They have plenty of off ball movement, composure and roaming ability; they're not told to attack too fast (into brick walls) or too slowly (into packed organised defences); and they have plenty of support behind or out wide if they need to recycle possession.  They tend to make the right decisions at the right time, speeding up or slowing down the attack as they see fit.  Sometimes people forget (or don't realise) that players are perfectly capable of making their own decisions without us managers telling them what to do via team or player instructions.

Goals are primarily from (and an even balance between) through balls and crosses, with some short passes and a few set pieces.  My AF scores for fun, my CF isn't far behind and my AMC leads the way in assists (and has a few goals too).

My point in all of this is that sometimes us managers can try too hard and end up over-thinking things.  I've seen possession systems with umpteen TIs for example which still don't give much possession, whereas to turn my system above into a possession system I'd add 3, maybe 4, instructions.  And also, just look at how this thread has gone - are you really any the wiser now after all this input, when all you actually need do is read and understand what @HUNT3R has been saying right from the get go?  Your quote above suggests not and that's a shame. 

The game is not perfect (and neither is a lot of "advice", no matter how earnestly some people write) but as a man much wiser than me once said, if you don't know what something does - don't use it.

Out of interest, how has your AMC (Treq) performed over a period of time? 

[HUNT3R]

I'm still not getting a lot of teams who line up with a defensive tactic. They're usually using a Cautious 4231 or something. I'm about at the halfway mark and had my first truly defensive team -

[herne79]

4 hours ago, Louisking1992 said:

Out of interest, how has your AMC (Treq) performed over a period of time? 

Last season stats in full are:  41 appearances (+4 subs); 9 goals; 25 assists; 108 key passes; avg rating 7.53.  He doesn't take corners or free kicks.  He also covered an average of 13.5km per match - by comparison the 4 wingbacks I used during the season covered 13.3km, 13.4km, 13.6km and 13.8km on average.

For Ligue 1 only: he had the most assists out of all players (21); 2nd highest avg rating (7.67 - my AF was highest rated @7.70); and 8th on the list of key passes (82) with an 85% pass completion rate.

He's doing alright .

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, herne79 said:

Last season stats in full are:  41 appearances (+4 subs); 9 goals; 25 assists; 108 key passes; avg rating 7.53.  He doesn't take corners or free kicks.  He also covered an average of 13.5km per match - by comparison the 4 wingbacks I used during the season covered 13.3km, 13.4km, 13.6km and 13.8km on average.

For Ligue 1 only: he had the most assists out of all players (21); 2nd highest avg rating (7.67 - my AF was highest rated @7.70); and 8th on the list of key passes (82) with an 85% pass completion rate.

He's doing alright .

Interesting stuff. Out of interest, can you post his attributes? I'm not expecting a Messi type quality player, but I'd love to see Ilic in more detail. I bet he has First Touch, Balance, Agility and Off The Ball in spades.

Seeing the Key Passes stat made me look at mine. My DLP/D has 52 in 16(1) but he takes free kicks and corners too, so I'm sure that influences the stats and apparently a fair amount too. The closest next player I have (and he doesn't take any free kicks or corners) also has a 2 key passes per match.

[Louisking1992]

43 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Last season stats in full are:  41 appearances (+4 subs); 9 goals; 25 assists; 108 key passes; avg rating 7.53.  He doesn't take corners or free kicks.  He also covered an average of 13.5km per match - by comparison the 4 wingbacks I used during the season covered 13.3km, 13.4km, 13.6km and 13.8km on average.

For Ligue 1 only: he had the most assists out of all players (21); 2nd highest avg rating (7.67 - my AF was highest rated @7.70); and 8th on the list of key passes (82) with an 85% pass completion rate.

He's doing alright .

Thats some pretty incredible numbers there.. Im really struggling getting my AMC to perform in general, suffered last season with hardly scoring or getting assists. 

[herne79]

36 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Interesting stuff. Out of interest, can you post his attributes? I'm not expecting a Messi type quality player, but I'd love to see Ilic in more detail. I bet he has First Touch, Balance, Agility and Off The Ball in spades.

Seeing the Key Passes stat made me look at mine. My DLP/D has 52 in 16(1) but he takes free kicks and corners too, so I'm sure that influences the stats and apparently a fair amount too. The closest next player I have (and he doesn't take any free kicks or corners) also has a 2 key passes per match.

Not the best but pretty bloody good, my Le Havre side is a regular CL team now.  Honestly I don't pay too much attention to individual stats (when I posted above that's the first time I've looked at them) - if I win I'm happy, if I don't I'm not.  I'm happy quite a lot .  I just tend to watch what my players are up to on the pitch and if they broadly do what I expect then the team is good enough to at least give a good account of themselves.  If we start getting out played I'll make adjustments.

13 minutes ago, Louisking1992 said:

Thats some pretty incredible numbers there.. Im really struggling getting my AMC to perform in general, suffered last season with hardly scoring or getting assists. 

AMCs can be a bit finnicky.  In this 352 he's brilliant.  In one of my 4231s (different team & players) he's also pretty good.  In another 4231 (a different team again) he's "ok", but I view that as my fault and could probably make some improvements if I tried.  We're still achieving season objectives though so no big deal and I won't try to fix what isn't broken. 

You say your AMC suffered with hardly scoring or getting assists, which we always like to see from an AMC, but how is your team performing overall?  Are you at least meeting your Board's target?  Over achieving?  If yes then your AMC is actually fully involved - you can't achieve or exceed targets carrying a passenger - he's perhaps just involved in a different and less obvious way such as being part of build the build up rather than the final ball; or creating space for others by pulling defenders out of position; or helping out defensively.  You don't get ratings, assists or goals for that, but you do get a working cog in the wheel.

Obviously if you are underachieving then something is wrong which may (or may not) run deeper than just the AMC.

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, herne79 said:

Not the best but pretty bloody good, my Le Havre side is a regular CL team now. 

I manage in League 1 too and I'd love to have a player that good! I'm behind Lyon and PSG in terms of quality (they have players like yours) but I'm catching up slowly. Based on the players I've seen in the league, he is damn good. What I find most impressive is that he's a Left Foot Only player, but then I guess the Agility helps to turn quickly and get his body into positions so he can use the left.