Accuracy of rate my tactic website

[dan0817]

What is everyone's experience of using this? It has kind of helped me find a direction for tactics as you can see from the screenshot but I feel at times it really stresses on support duties too much, ie. it says a tactic is good if it has a large amount of support duties. May I ask if this is actually a good principle to judge a tactic by or is it a flaw in their system? I was planning to use a b2b instead of a cm(s) in RCM as well as a w(a) instead of a w(s) in RAM but I had to make those changes to make the tactic perfect by their standards. Do those changes make sense?

[madmike]

I'm a big fan of it, especially for new players but like everything it does have its limitations.  Best used as a guide in my opinion, I'm not sure when it was last updated and doesn't take into account player instructions added by the user.

If you try making a 532 with Wingbacks for example its all but impossible to make a 5star tactic.  (without setting the middle 3 as Carrilero - CMD - Carrilero)

A BBM in a 4231 can work but generally will be advised against due to how much he roams.

Read Pairs and combinations when you have chance as that's a fantastic guide also.  Your tactic looks ok but you don't have any penetration on the wings and no true number 9 (apart from the AMC) that doesn't mean your wrong, short passing works well with support duties.  Be careful with Positive mentality along with higher line of engagement plus higher defensive line and offside trap, this maybe overkill unless your defenders are really good and fast you will be caught out by speedy strikers.

 

Like anything these things are just guides to help our understanding but you still need the players, team management, tactics etc etc to get it all working together.

Best of luck with it.

 

Mike

 

Pairs & Combinations - The Ultimate Guide (Released) - Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com)

Edited January 11, 2021 by madmike

[RCCook]

My experience has been pretty similar- it's good as a starting point, but does seem to over-emphasize support instructions. 

[Experienced Defender]

In short - can be helpful as a rough guide, but definitely not a "tactical bible".

[sporadicsmiles]

I think it is a nice tool for people who are not sure and want to check they are not setting up something that screams red flags. But it should not be relied on too much, as it is only telling you "this is not a stupid way to set up a team". There is so much more that goes into building a tactic than this. Most importantly the players you have at your disposal. And then you have changes you may make to deal with specific opposition. 

I'm not an expert in the 4231, I'm a solid 433 man with a DMC rather than an AMC. But I think the BBM can work here. Especially in the way you are set up here role and duty wise. The FB(S) on the same side, so fewer worries about being caught out there. And with a AM(A) and DLF(S) you should create space and overloads in the middle. The W(S) I would initially keep and see. His job - aside from providing crosses - will be to provide width to keep the opposition full back wide. In fact with a BBM/AM(A) inside and a winger outside, opposition left backs are going to be tested here. They will have to make a choice which area to cover. This could be a very nice way of playing, especially if the opposition is weak at LB.

[Johnny Ace]

Sorry to dig this up but didn't think it needed a new thread

I've been playing around with it & so far, it seems pretty sound but there are a few things it "allows" that I wouldn't be  comfortable with

Am I boring or is that left side insane?

I mean, it's an interesting option but I wouldn't want to play like that for 90 minutes & you'd better hope your CM(D) has a good game. It gives that a good Solidity score  

Edited August 20, 2021 by Johnny Ace

[Tsuru]

Like everybody here said, RMT is nice to be used as a starting point, a guide to begin a tactic. It is very good to test some ideas and see if roles/duties work well together, or to test the roles-duties-TIs combinations (because it tells you about some conflicts). However you should always test on the game and see for yourself.

For example, on some situations I think a Wingback on Defend is a very nice option (for example, behind a IW-Su), but RMT always tell me not to use the Wb-D. Why not? It is in the game, it is there for some reason and it obviously works on some situations. The same happens with IWBs, and for no apparently reason. The 5-3-2 is also very hard to set up and get 5 stars, and the 5 star version of RMT worked pretty badly with me in FM.

So as a starting point I think it is a good tool, then you can start playing and adjusting by yourself.

45 minutos atrás, Johnny Ace disse:

mean, it's an interesting option but I wouldn't want to play like that for 90 minutes & you'd better hope your CM(D) has a good game. It gives that a good Solidity score  

It makes sense for me, Johnny. You are basically creating a left overload and balancing that with a more conservative right side.

If it works in the game, that is another story.  

[Johnny Ace]

5 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

It makes sense for me, Johnny. You are basically creating a left overload and balancing that with a more conservative right side.

If it works in the game, that is another story.  

It's something I've never even contemplating using, I might try it later, could be excellent if you spot a weakness down a flank 

It's a fun app, thanks for getting me on it @Tsuru

Edited August 20, 2021 by Johnny Ace

[Fatkidscantjump]

Agree with what previous posters said.

I would add one thing : it seems to overrate some roles and underrate others. For example carrilero and half back seems to give loads of "score". While iwbs give way less and always create "issues". 

It also makes little difference between an Ap(s), mezz(s), dlp(s), bwm(s), in terms of score, when the difference is actually obviously huge. 

So yes, good for first drafts, lacks depth. Great app thoug

[Johnny Ace]

I was reading GuidetoFM (which is going to take weeks to get through it all but it's very interesting) & was perusing their example tactics, they have this as an Attacking tactic which looks pretty cool:

 

Punching it into their app & it doesn't get the 5 stars because of the IWB 

 

The blurb doesn't say anything about this

It's odd

 

[mikcheck]

IWB will act as WB when using two DMC

[Johnny Ace]

5 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

IWB will act as WB when using two DMC

Didn't know that, just thought they would overlap the DLP, interesting 

[Piperita]

A few things I found out while testing the site with my tactics:

1) IWB roles give some great stats but unless paired with a (I)Wa there will always be the "not enough players are stretching play"-warning. Which is a shame because in 21 IWB-roles are very solid all over their side and *do* run wide of there is space or overlaps are ticked. Especially if they are playing on the side they are strong-footed.

2) Overlap and underlap are in my opinion not fully implemented as they open new avenues and affect the structure quite a lot. But in the tool they are mostly just there to say when they do not complement natural movement.

3) HBd is a broken role. Granted, right now I feel this in the game, too, but what stats they give are insane.

4) I think that is more on guidetoFM but a few roles struggle or are virtually the same in terms of score. Especially IF and IW have little distinction despite their difference in base-mentality. That a BBM has the same stats as a MEZs also sounds wrong to me.

5) Narrow formations without CAR or MEZ are impossible to have 5 stars because either the fullbacks form no partnerships or they are not doing enough to stretch play. In my opinion they should form overlapping partnerships with DM/CM who have "Hold Position" locked in. /edit: SS and EG in half spaces in a three-man-team also create partnerships.

6) As an IT guy it is pretty fun to play with the values and play around. But as an FM guy it is way more fun to find something fitting the squad on hand.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Piperita

[Johnny Ace]

1 hour ago, Piperita said:

5) Narrow formations without CAR or MEZ are impossible to have 5 stars because either the fullbacks form no partnerships or they are not doing enough to stretch play. In my opinion they should form overlapping partnerships with DM/CM who have "Hold Position" locked in. /edit: SS and EG in half spaces in a three-man-team also create partnerships.

I did read something about that, you can use central midfield roles but you have to instruct them to Stay Wider,  obviously the CAR & Mezz are the only ones that have that hardcoded so the app doesn't pick up your PIs

[glengarry224]

6 hours ago, Piperita said:

A few things I found out while testing the site with my tactics:

1) IWB roles give some great stats but unless paired with a (I)Wa there will always be the "not enough players are stretching play"-warning. Which is a shame because in 21 IWB-roles are very solid all over their side and *do* run wide of there is space or overlaps are ticked. Especially if they are playing on the side they are strong-footed.

2) Overlap and underlap are in my opinion not fully implemented as they open new avenues and affect the structure quite a lot. But in the tool they are mostly just there to say when they do not complement natural movement.

3) HBd is a broken role. Granted, right now I feel this in the game, too, but what stats they give are insane.

4) I think that is more on guidetoFM but a few roles struggle or are virtually the same in terms of score. Especially IF and IW have little distinction despite their difference in base-mentality. That a BBM has the same stats as a MEZs also sounds wrong to me.

5) Narrow formations without CAR or MEZ are impossible to have 5 stars because either the fullbacks form no partnerships or they are not doing enough to stretch play. In my opinion they should form overlapping partnerships with DM/CM who have "Hold Position" locked in. /edit: SS and EG in half spaces in a three-man-team also create partnerships.

6) As an IT guy it is pretty fun to play with the values and play around. But as an FM guy it is way more fun to find something fitting the squad on hand.

All good points.  And also your post makes the excellent point that Rate My Tactic is a tool, not definitive.  It does a good job of alerting me to potential issues, which I can then try to address by changing a role/duty, adding a TI or PI or even training a trait.  Or not.

[zabyl]

Lacks lots of things like narrow formation flank forward movement partnerships. It only considers Carrilero & Mez roles with "FB/WB"s for forward movement partnerships because of those roles' stay wider hardcoded PI.

It doesn't consider defensive wingers or Ws as width providing roles on lone wide man formations.

 

It is an interpretation of that tool's creater who thinks all high pressing or short passing tactics are the same core style and some TI's can not be used with those core styles and team mentalities to create a 5 star formation as an example... Yeah, whatever. Play FM with those perfect 5 star tactics to see if something like a 5 star tactic really exists.

 

I mean it can be used as a starting guide for creating a tactic but it lacks many things. If you use a 5 star tactic you set; you realize that actually it is not a good tactic in the game. It is just someone's own interpretation of football manager who created that tool. Not yours.

Edited September 10, 2021 by zabyl

[Craigus89]

Agree with the poster above. I don't know quite how to describe what I've tested with it apart from saying that its interpretation of a 'good' tactic is extremely narrow and doesn't really reflect what can work in game. 

[Footix]

My tactic got five stars and we still play like ****, so ... I'm not sure about this tool!

[Tsuru]

This is a 5-star 4-4-2 on Rate my Tactic:
 

In theory it looks good. I tested this in game during a first half and I saw the Wide Playmaker a little bit isolated - the CM-D retreated to protect the defence, the FB-At tends to overlap later during the attack phase, and the AF-At was ahead inside the box. We didn´t play bad, but relied on long balls from to the striker to score.

And this version does not look good according to RMT, as the tool says it lacks penetration on the left and has no effective support on the right:
 

 

I used this version during the second half of the same game, and the result was really impressive as we started to control the game like we did not do on the first half. The Inverted Winger on Support had many passing options: he could do one-twos with the retreating PF (which allowed time for the FB to overlap), he could pass the ball to the fullback or directly to the other side, in which the CM-Su and the W-At had more space to operate due to the striker playing ahead. We didn´t score, but created many interesting chances.

This version swap might have worked because the second version explored some flaws on opponent´s tactic, or maybe because they started attacking us more and we were more deadly on counters. Or maybe the players were more suited to play the roles of the second one. Yes, ok, it could be. But the point is, there is no better version here, both can work depending on many factors and I like them two. But according to RMT yes, one version is better than the other, it is something which I don´t agree.

It can be a nice tool but things really should be seen in game, because the roles/duties/TIs are just some pieces of the bigger puzzle.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Tsuru

[Johnny Ace]

@Tsuruthat 4-4-2 would make sense if you flipped the duties on the wide midfielders, attack duty on the opposite side to the AF, then it gives you two attack duties the left flank though which I red flagged up above (the CM(D) better be good )

1 hour ago, Tsuru said:

It can be a nice tool but things really should be seen in game, because the roles/duties/TIs are just some pieces of the bigger puzzle.

They do say that, they have a tactic analyser thing & it pretty much says, you may get a 5 star tactic but watch it & adjust as necessary & if you're a strong team you don't need to get 5 stars as you won't need the solidarity score as faster players can get back faster, defender's are positioned better etc

I think 5 stars is, okay, you've got a good starting point here. The rest is very much player ability dependent  

[Tsuru]

18 minutos atrás, Johnny Ace disse:

@Tsuruthat 4-4-2 would make sense if you flipped the duties on the wide midfielders, attack duty on the opposite side to the AF, then it gives you two attack duties the left flank though which I red flagged up above (the CM(D) better be good )

I prefer a more balanced way - that is, in one side you have an attacking fullback with a wide midfielder on support and a CM-D, and on the other side you have a support fullback with a supporting central midfielder and an attacking wide midfielder. So in your point of view in this balanced way the AF would play in the same side of the attacking fullback?

I think one of the problems with RMT is exactly the 5 star evaluation, it should be something different like "yes, this is a good starting point" as a final result, I think it would be more clear then.

[Johnny Ace]

30 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

I prefer a more balanced way - that is, in one side you have an attacking fullback with a wide midfielder on support and a CM-D, and on the other side you have a support fullback with a supporting central midfielder and an attacking wide midfielder. So in your point of view in this balanced way the AF would play in the same side of the attacking fullback?

I think one of the problems with RMT is exactly the 5 star evaluation, it should be something different like "yes, this is a good starting point" as a final result, I think it would be more clear then.

Yeah, for me:

           

Is a logical 4-4-2

The FB(S) & CM(S) support the WM(A) on the left. The FB(A) gets forward, the CM(D) anchor's that side of the pitch & the PF gets the support from the right 

RMT 5 stars that 

As well as:

&

&

All with varying Solidarity, Support & Penetration but enough for the 5* rating

Some look more solid than others to me, I imagine Man City vs a League Two team, you'd be alright with any of them, then with anyone else you've got to see where you strengths were. Like that last one, isn't all that logical to me but if your CM(D) is the best CM(D) in the league & your LB & LM are quality players, you could use it as a base lineup. Vice versa too, all of these are 5 * but trying to beat Man City as a league two with any of them & it's highly unlikely you'll get any joy

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Johnny Ace

[zabyl]

1 saat önce, Johnny Ace said:

All with varying Solidarity, Support & Penetration but enough for the 5* rating

Some look more solid than others to me, I imagine Man City vs a League Two team, you'd be alright with any of them, then with anyone else you've got to see where you strengths were. Like that last one, isn't all that logical to me but if your CM(D) is the best CM(D) in the league & your LB & LM are quality players, you could use it as a base lineup. Vice versa too, all of these are 5 * but trying to beat Man City as a league two with any of them & it's highly unlikely you'll get any joy

That site detects FBa's contribution to penetration, solidity and support the same as WBs. Fullback role can be less attack minded if they are on the same duty but in the game duty changes player's personal mentality. How can FBa contributes solidarity, support & penetration with a higher personal mentality the same amount as a lower mentality WBs? Consider this when creating a tactic on that site.

Edited September 17, 2021 by zabyl