[FM21] 4-3-3, the elusive dream - all hands on deck!

[Christopher S]

1 minute ago, frukox said:

A DMD is less attuned to play that ball but DLPS may try a risky pass there and no14 goes after the ball to square the ball back inside for a key pass or an assist. Who knows?

But that's not the problem. The DMd is not the problem. The problem is my wide player not staying wide. How many times do I have to say this? :P 
Sure, a DLPs is more likely to hit a pass like that, but that doesn't matter unless there is a player in that space to hit.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Christopher S

[frukox]

Just now, Christopher S said:

But that's not the problem. The DMd is not the problem. The problem is my wide player not staying wide. How many times do I have to say this? :P 

I already got it but what I mean is he can get that ball with his speed and runs wide to stretch the defence as he definitely has space there for a cross or a cutback.(Remember ME:)

[Christopher S]

Just now, frukox said:

I already got it but what I mean is he can get that ball with his speed and runs wide to stretch the defence as he definitely has space there for a cross or a cutback.(Remember ME:)

I suppose that could work, and I appreciate the idea. Tha tbeing said, if I was fine with bandaid solutions and ME workarounds I wouldn't bother putting hours upon hours into creating a specific playstyle. :P 

[frukox]

3 minutes ago, Christopher S said:

I suppose that could work, and I appreciate the idea. Tha tbeing said, if I was fine with bandaid solutions and ME workarounds I wouldn't bother putting hours upon hours into creating a specific playstyle. :P 

I totally get it and I remind you of my makeshift DLFS out of an APA:p but I still maintain my playstyle. That's something you can do too even if that means an asymmetrical one.

Edited February 2, 2021 by frukox

[Prolix]

I'm going to start by assessing your tactical vision that you laid out in your opening post as well as your first tactical implementation of that vision,  then I will address the update(s) that you have made. (NB: I am not an FM expert and my assumptions about how the match engine works are not guaranteed to be accurate.)

First of all, I think the vision that you've laid out for yourself is really clearly articulated.

Your section on formation, movement, and passing lanes does an absolutely wonderful job. My initial concern — echoed by some other users— would be whether you are being overly ambitious in terms of the play style that you are trying to get from this team. It seems like a very demanding play style that involves a lot of people making good decisions simultaneously. Really, involving a lot of mental attributes: decision making, obviously; but also off the ball, anticipation, vision, etc. Generally speaking I agree with the precept that “any player can play any role”, but the overall tactical environment and the balance between the ability of the two sets of players can still result in failure.

One of my first thoughts when looking at your tactical overview is about your choice of attacking mentality. This is a very aggressive mentality system in terms of the overall way of asking your team to play. Now, I think you're aware of that, because you have used team instructions to mitigate some of the effects of using attacking mentality: you've decreased the passing directness from where the attacking mentality would set it by default; you have also slightly lowered the tempo from where the defaults would have been; also, as you pointed out, you have only used three attack duties in your team to get some balance of aggression.

However, I do still think that mentality is perhaps one of the core problems with the system that you're trying to implement, and I think that that is connected to the specific player roles that you're using in conjunction with the attacking mentality. I think there is a disconnect between the roles and instructions you’ve given your team and the expectations you have about how that will play out on the pitch.

 

So let's start from the back:

You're using a sweeper keeper on support. That’s going to encourage your goalkeeper to look for opportunities to take risky or more adventurous passing options forward, earlier, to try and find those long balls up to your forwards who are positioned quite high. This isn’t necessarily something that you said you wanted. This would also (I believe) encourage your goalkeeper to make direct passes out to your wingbacks who are going to push wider and higher in the early phases of the build up. Neither of these things are fundamentally good or bad, but will have an impact on the patterns of play to expect. I will revisit this point in a moment.

Another major contradiction I see is that you have not one but two ball playing defenders in your centerback positions. Both of those players are likewise going to— even on lower mentalities— make more aggressive, riskier decisions with the ball than a standard central defender would. Coupled with your overall attacking mentality structure, both of your centerbacks (and your GK!) are going to be looking to play those longer, more speculative passes up to your forwards in particular. Again, looking at your passing lanes graphic, that doesn't necessarily seem like the outcome that you're looking for.

All of these roles mean the ball is arriving to your forwards or your aggressively positioned wingbacks early in the build up, bypassing your playmakers in the central midfield strata. If your sweeper keeper is, let's say optimistically, just playing the ball out to your wingbacks (or less optimistically, all the way up to your forward line) on a regular basis and your ball playing defenders are making similar passing decisions, you're not building play through your defensive midfielder and through your MCL/advanced playmaker in the way that you had laid out as your intention.

I know it's been mentioned in the thread already, but my first thoughts when looking at your passing lanes graphic was that the type of approach play you're looking for is “play out of defence”. It seems that you've taken certain efforts to mitigate how quickly your players will go forward and high with their passing options but then you've given a lot of these players roles that will be seeking that behavior anyway. One way to mitigate this further would be to use the “play out of defence” TI, which will reduce the passing directness of your defenders and encourage them to play a bit slower and more considered early in the build up, while still finding those passes out to your wingback on support on the right hand side and into the defensive midfielder or the central midfielders in front of them, rather than passing high and long often.

I would also consider whether you truly want both central defenders to be on the ball playing defender role. Your central defenders even on the standard role should still find the range of options that you're looking for without both being told to be so aggressive.

Elsewhere in the build up, you reported having difficulty getting your midfield players to use the defenders as passing outlets to advance the ball up the field rather than going for more aggressive passing options themselves, and again I think that this is absolutely behavior that you would expect given the roles that you're using. In the screenshot that you provide us, I believe it's your left central midfielder (who's playing as an advanced playmaker) on the ball and you're saying ‘why doesn't he pass to the unmarked centerback but instead passes in a risky way to my right central midfielder.’

And I think the answer is is fairly obvious: neither pass is clearly shorter or longer than the other, so wouldn’t be ruled out by your passing directness settings; but the player in question is an advanced playmaker on an attacking team mentality. So it should come as no surprise that the player by default makes aggressive decisions on the ball between the aggressive team mentality and the “Take More Risks” instruction. And indeed, you show the player taking the riskier option of trying to advance the play to the mezzala rather than playing slowly and more safely through the centerbacks.

Incidentally, it’s at this point that I would like to point out that your original set-up uses 7(!!!) roles with “Take More Risks” hard-coded (CF-S, IF-A, MEZ-A, AP-S, BPDx2, and SK-S), on top of a the “Attacking” baseline level of aggression. Your whole team is full of players who are going to make the most aggressive decisions they can at all times. I believe that this is also linked to your frustration at trying to get player behavior to match your inputs: you’re allowing them a LOT of deviance from your tactical vision.

The final observation I have concerning your initial system is your desire to create an overlap with the fullback and the left forward. You have told the inverted wing to sit narrower so they come in field when the team is in possession in order to allow the wingback to get outside of them, you've instructed them to hold up the ball to give them time to look for that overlap, and you've also given the team instruction overlap left which should encourage that behavior as well.

Now, inverted wingers— and almost all of the wide attacking midfield roles— have the default behavior to dribble more often. This is particularly an issue for the inverted winger which is coded to dribble more often and also to look, play, and dribble towards the center of the pitch, rather than down the wing or some other area. This means that they are not in a position and don't have the vision (like, literally the direction they are pointed) to consistently see a fullback or wingback coming around the outside of them for an overlap. This is a little bit more of a controversial suggestion, but I would consider maybe trying a wide target man on the left-hand side whose default behavior is to hold up the ball, to look for support, who isn't told to dribble often, and therefore will naturally look for the types of overlaps that you're seeking to create. Combined with the TI to play out from the back and more judicious use of risk-taking, I don’t think your team would look for the WTM too much or too early— in fact, I think you want this player to be used as a fulcrum in the final third.

Another thought about the overlaps is that with the attacking team mentality your team might be pressed very high up the pitch and thus there's less space and less time for your attacking wing back to make that overlapping run behind your opponent’s defensive line.

This is a problem that Liverpool have been having in the real world lately: coming up against these very deep defensive systems and there's not space to get those players behind consistently. And again, the decision making, off the ball movement, timing, and anticipation required between the players on the left-hand side is quite demanding: to play the pass at the right time, to hit the correct weight of pass, to not allow the wingback to be caught offside… that's a very complicated instruction and a very complicated source of penetration that you're trying to produce. One wonders whether changes to your team mentality and/or the overall pattern of build up might help.

 

On to your updates:

You've brought the team mentality down to positive— I think taking on board the feedback that you've gotten— decreased the passing length, and decreased the tempo. I think all of these are your effort to try and resolve some of the symptoms that you're seeing of players going too long or too high, too quickly, which is not how you’re wanting them to play.

However, again you note that both central midfielders had several occurrences of “unnecessary attempts at 30+ yard lateral passes”. But those are exactly the kind of passes I would expect from a Deep-Lying Playmaker and Mezzala in those positions. Both midfielders still have the take more risks instruction. Although you've given the team instructions to pass shorter as a preference, when your playmakers have the creative freedom allotted to them and the the preference for taking more risks, those type of long balls are exactly the kind of thing they're going to elect to do more regularly. If you don't want that behavior you need to use a different role in midfield to produce the behavior that you're looking for.

With both of your centerbacks still ball playing defenders, I still wonder during what phase of play or your midfield is going to be actively involved. My suspicion is that the balls going to arrive very quickly to your forwards, and only then will they turn and play interchanging passes with the midfielders behind them. But your midfielders aren't going to be involved in the build up of play or delivering those passes to the forwards in more advantageous situations.

And then we can see by the end of the match you've totally inverted mentality structure by switching over to “cautious”;  you are trying to play the ball out of defense finally, and you’ve dropped the tempo way down— I think to try and force your team to play through the midfield. But now that you are scaled back to a cautious mentality structure, where will the penetration come from? You’re now down to only two attacking duties, one of which is a DLF. It feels like all of your play is going to take place in front of your opponent’s defensive line, which is very easy for defenders to deal with. Once you’re in this situation, you’re going to be dependent on a moment of magic or individual skill from your players rather than the systematic approach that you started with.

To better defend in wide areas, you could consider setting your defensive width to “wide” in order to encourage your players to engage more aggressively when the ball is with your opponent’s fullbacks or wingers. Another consideration is that the 4-3-3 variant you’ve chosen makes an explicit decision for the fullback and wide forward to be farther apart by default. This is related to your choice of mentality structure: if you want to go highly aggressive, why not try more conservative starting positions for your players (e.g., a 4-1-4-1); alternatively, if you like the 4-3-3 (4-1-2-3 DM Wide), you can temper the aggressive starting positions with a relatively lower mentality and more cautious player roles and duties. Build the caution into your team structure and add aggressive instructions OR have an aggressive structure with relatively cautious instructions.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Prolix

[Prolix]

43 minutes ago, Christopher S said:

I tried using a Winger in the MR position instead of the AMR, the Winger is nr. 14. 

Same thing happens. And please note, the player even has the 'Hugs Touchline' PPM. 

Please look at this, and tell me how this is acceptable and not an issue? A player with 'Stay Wide' PI hard coded, and 'Hugs Touchline' PPM. There is MOUNTAINS of space on the flank, and he ignores it to cut inside off the ball. 

This is what the game should produce with those sorts of instruction, but somehow, that just isn't possible. 

I'm curious whether there is a hard-coded ME interaction between wingers and wing-backs. Is nr.16 in a wing-back (rather than full-back) role?

[Christopher S]

Just now, Prolix said:

I'm curious whether there is a hard-coded ME interaction between wingers and wing-backs. Is nr.16 in a wing-back (rather than full-back) role?

Fullback, support. Nice thought, but sadly it's not the case here. 

[Christopher S]

6 minutes ago, Prolix said:

I'm going to start by assessing your tactical vision that you laid out in your opening post as well as your first tactical implementation of that vision,  then I will address the update(s) that you have made. (NB: I am not an FM expert and my assumptions about how the match engine works are not guaranteed to be accurate.)

First of all, I think the vision that you've laid out for yourself is really clearly articulated.

Your section on formation, movement, and passing lanes does an absolutely wonderful job. My initial concern — echoed by some other users— would be whether you are being overly ambitious in terms of the play style that you are trying to get from this team. It seems like a very demanding play style that involves a lot of people making good decisions simultaneously. Really, involving a lot of mental attributes: decision making, obviously; but also off the ball, anticipation, vision, etc. Generally speaking I agree with the precept that “any player can play any role”, but the overall tactical environment and the balance between the ability of the two sets of players can still result in failure.

One of my first thoughts when looking at your tactical overview is your choice of attacking mentality. This is a very aggressive mentality system in terms of the overall way of asking your team to play. Now, I think you're aware of that because you have used team instructions to mitigate some of the effects of using attacking mentality: you've decreased the passing directness from where the attacking mentality would set it by default; you have also slightly lowered the tempo from where the defaults would have been; also, as you pointed out, you have only used three attack duties in your team to get some balance of aggression.

However, I do still think that mentality is perhaps one of the core problems with the system that you're trying to implement, and I think that that is connected to the specific player roles that you're using in conjunction with the attacking mentality. I think there is a disconnect between the roles and instructions you’ve given your team and the expectations you have about how that will play on the pitch. (1)

 

So let's start from the back:

You're using a sweeper keeper on support. That’s going to encourage your goalkeeper to look for opportunities to take risky or more adventurous passing options forward, earlier, to try and find those long balls up to your forwards who are positioned quite high. This isn’t something that you said that you wanted. (2) 
This would also (I believe) encourage your goalkeeper to make direct passes out to your wingbacks who are going to push wider and higher in the early phases of the build up. I will revisit this point in a moment.

Another major contradiction I see is that you also have not one but two ball playing defenders in your centerback positions. (3) Both of those players are likewise going to— even on lower mentalities— make more aggressive, riskier decisions with the ball than a standard central defender would. And that's now coupled with your overall attacking mentality structure so both of your centerbacks (and your GK!) are going to be looking to play those longer, more speculative passes up to your forwards in particular. Again, looking at your passing lanes graphic that doesn't necessarily seem like the outcome that you're looking for.

So these roles mean the ball is arriving to your forwards or your aggressively positioned wingbacks early in the build up, bypassing your playmakers in the central midfield strata. If your sweeper keeper is, let's say optimistically, just playing the ball out to your wingbacks (or less optimistically, all the way up to your forward line) on a regular basis and your ball playing defenders are making similar passing decisions, you're not building play through your defensive midfielder and through your MCL/advanced playmaker in the way that you had laid out as your intention.

I know it's been mentioned in the thread already, but my first thoughts when looking at your passing lanes graphic was that the type of approach play you're looking for is “play out of defence”. It seems that you've taken certain efforts to mitigate how quickly your players will go forward and high with their passing options but then you've given a lot of these players roles that will be seeking that behavior anyway. One way to mitigate this further would be to use the “play out of defence” TI, which will reduce the passing directness of your defenders and encourage them to play a bit slower and more considered early in the build up, while still finding those passes out to your wingback on support on the right hand side and into the defensive midfielder or the central midfielders in front of them, rather than passing high and long often.

I would also consider whether you truly want both central defenders to be on ball playing defender role. Your central defenders even on the standard role should still find the range of options that you're looking for without both being told to be so aggressive.

Elsewhere in the build up, you reported having difficulty getting your midfield players to use the defenders as passing outlets to advance the ball up the field rather than going for more aggressive passing options themselves, and again I think that this is absolutely behavior that you would expect given the roles that you're using. In the screenshot that you provide us, I believe it's your left central midfielder (who's playing as an advanced playmaker) on the ball and you're saying ‘why doesn't he pass to the unmarked centerback but instead passes in a risky way to my right central midfielder.’

And I think the answer is is fairly obvious: neither pass is clearly shorter or longer than the other, so wouldn’t be ruled out by your passing directness settings; but the player in question is an advanced playmaker on an attacking team mentality. So it should come as no surprise that the player by default makes aggressive decisions on the ball between the aggressive team mentality and the “Take More Risks” instruction. And indeed, you show the player taking the riskier option of trying to advance the play to the mezzala rather than playing slowly and more safely through the centerbacks.

Incidentally, it’s at this point that I would like to point out that your original set-up uses 7(!!!) roles with “Take More Risks” hard-coded (CF-S, IF-A, MEZ-A, AP-S, BPDx2, and SK-S), on top of a the “Attacking” baseline level of aggression. Your whole team is full of players who are going to make the most aggressive decisions they can at all times. I believe that this is also linked to your frustration at trying to get player behavior to match your inputs: you’re allowing them a LOT of deviance from your tactical vision. (4)

The final observation I have concerning your initial system is your desire to create an overlap with the fullback and the left forward. You have told the inverted wing to sit narrower so they come in field when the team is in possession in order to allow the wingback to get outside of them, you've instructed them to hold up the ball to give them time to look for that overlap, and you've also given the team instruction overlap left which should encourage that behavior as well.

Now, inverted wingers— and almost all of the wide attacking midfield roles— have the default behavior to dribble more often. (5) This is particularly an issue for the inverted winger which is coded to dribble more often and also to look, play, and dribble towards the center of the pitch, rather than down the wing or some other area. This means that they are not in a position and don't have the vision (like, literally the direction they are pointed) to consistently see a fullback or wingback coming around the outside of them for an overlap. This is a little bit more of a controversial suggestion, but I would consider maybe trying a wide target man on the left-hand side whose default behavior is to hold up the ball, to look for support, who isn't told to dribble often, and therefore will naturally look for the types of overlaps that you're seeking to create. Combined with the TI to play out from the back and more judicious use of risk-taking, I don’t think your team would look for the WTM too much or too early— in fact, I think you want this player to be used as a fulcrum in the final third.

Another thought about the overlaps is that with the attacking team mentality your team might be pressed very high up the pitch and thus there's less space and less time for your attacking wing back to make that overlapping run behind your opponent’s defensive line. (6)

This is a problem that Liverpool have been having in the real world lately: coming up against these very deep defensive systems and there's not space to get those players behind consistently. And again, the decision making, off the ball movement, timing, and anticipation required between the players on the left-hand side is quite demanding: to play the pass at the right time, to hit the correct weight of pass, to not allow the wingback to be caught offside… that's a very complicated instruction and a very complicated source of penetration that you're trying to produce. One wonders whether changes to your team mentality and/or the overall pattern of build up might help.

 

On to your updates:

You've brought the team mentality down to positive— I think taking on board the feedback that you've gotten— decreased the passing length, and decreased the tempo. I think all of these are your effort to try and resolve some of the symptoms that you're seeing of players going too long or too high, too quickly, which is not how you’re wanting them to play.

However, again you note that both central midfielders had several occurrences of “unnecessary attempts at 30+ yard lateral passes”. But those are exactly the kind of passes I would expect from a Deep-Lying Playmaker and Mezzala in those positions. (7) Both midfielders still have the take more risks instruction. Although you've given the team instructions to pass shorter as a preference, when your playmakers have the creative freedom allotted to them and the the preference for taking more risks, those type of long balls are exactly the kind of thing they're going to elect to do more regularly. If you don't want that behavior you need to use a different role in midfield to produce the behavior that you're looking for.

With both of your centerbacks still ball playing defenders, I still wonder during what phase of play or your midfield is going to be actively involved. My suspicion is that the balls going to arrive very quickly to your forwards, and only then will they turn and play interchanging passes with the midfielders behind them. But your midfielders aren't going to be involved in the build up of play or delivering those passes to the forwards in more advantageous situations.

And then we can see by the end of the match you've totally inverted mentality structure by switching over to “cautious”;  you are trying to play the ball out of defense finally, and you’ve dropped the tempo way down— I think to try and force your team to play through the midfield. But now that you are scaled back to a cautious mentality structure, where will the penetration come from? You’re now down to only two attacking duties, one of which is a DLF. (8) It feels like all of your play is going to take place in front of your opponent’s defensive line, which is very easy for defenders to deal with. Once you’re in this situation, you’re going to be dependent on a moment of magic or individual skill from your players rather than the systematic approach that you started with.

To better defend in wide areas, you could consider setting your defensive width to “wide” in order to encourage your players to engage more aggressively when the ball is with your opponent’s fullbacks or wingers. Another consideration is that the 4-3-3 variant you’ve chosen makes an explicit decision for the fullback and wide forward to be farther apart by default. This is related to your choice of mentality structure: if you want to go highly aggressive, why not try more conservative starting positions for your players (e.g., a 4-1-4-1) (9); alternatively, if you like the 4-3-3 (4-1-2-3 DM Wide), you can temper the aggressive starting positions with a relatively lower mentality and more cautious player roles and duties. Build the caution into your team structure and add aggressive instructions OR have an aggressive structure with relatively cautious instructions. (10)

Hey man!

Thanks a lot for the thorough feedback. Just read through it all, and I really enjoyed it. I'm going to highlight some things with bold with a number "(x)2, and respond to them, in hopes that it can help me build towards the goal.

1) I agree 100%. The problem is that I (clearly) don't know any better, and I dont feel like the game is constructively showing me how and why for the most part either. 

2) I chose Sweeper Keeper, support for a simple reason; I want my keeper to move off the line and act like a sweeper. On defend duty, they aren't likely to do much sweeping at all. I want to play a high line, and since I don't trust off side traps I want to have my keeper come off his line proactively. I agree that the distribution tendencies are contradictory to my game plan, and that's why I've later added distribution instructions to use the defenders in hopes of counteracting it. 

3) I did that because I wanted them to get more involved on the ball than standard CBs do. You are right though - they will make more attemtps at direct passing, which doesn't suit the style. There is a paradox here, though. From my experience, the regular CD-role is far too quick to hoof the ball under pressure, whereas a BDP is more likely to take risk to break the press. So we have a weird dynamic where the CD will hoof under pressure, but not elsewise, and the BDP will not hoof under pressure, but will elsewise. That seems odd to me, and I can't really decide which I like better. I will try with regular CD roles instead.

4) That's a very valid point I wasn't considering. I will keep that in mind moving forward!

5) They do, and I absolutely despise it. It bothers me to no end that we can't have a wide AM role without 'Dribble More' hard coded, without it being a playmaker or a target man. It seems incredibly arbitrary to me. 

6) You'd think that, but from my experience watching my games the issue is two-fold: fullbacks won't move into open space unless their mentality is at least 'Attacking' + other players are seemingly oblivious to the fact that we someone overlapping despite the TI telling them so, and them having the attributes to be aware and capable to use it. 
Comparatively, I get overlapped on by every single team in the league by players with significantly worse attributes in noticeably tighter angles and spaces. 

7) That's fair, maybe it is perfectly reasonable to expect. The reason I chose those roles is that I have a player with supreme playmaking stats that, attribute wise, shouldn't be making such poor decisions. He even has great PPMs for a playmaker. As for the Mezzala, well, I wanted a player that would add threat towards goal and some vertical movement. The only other real option is a CMa who, for the most part, just mindlessly bombs towards goal without bothering about buildup. I dont know, maybe I'm overcomplicating this. I've always tsruggled with the two CMs in a 4-3-3, as in my opinion, they both have to be dynamic and available, with one of them being slightly more attacking than the other - and vice versa. The in game roles don't really lend towards that idea, imo - but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

8) I went from 3 -> 2 attacking roles as a result of swapping the IFa to a Ws, and then later dropping my MEZa to a MEZs as the MEZa would mindlessly bomb forward and play more like a second attacker when the ball hadn't even left my defence. On top of that, the DLFa is the only ST role I feel like does that a lone striker should in a 4-3-3. He pressures defenders and DMs off the ball, is available in build up and then plays to threaten the goal after the immediate transition. All the attacking roles from the CM position are basically too attacking to be a part of a more thoughtful buildup, from my experience. But agian, I could be wrong here. As you noted yourself, I was just trying things out to sort of get one step closer. 

9) I've actually tried this, and it always ends up the same; my possession numbers increase, but we create absolutely nothing going forward. Like, nothing. Never got my head around how to make a 4-1-4-1 actually do anything. 

10) I'll give this a go now. Things can't get much worse result wise, so I havent got anything to lose.

 

[Prolix]

22 minutes ago, Christopher S said:

1) I agree 100%. The problem is that I (clearly) don't know any better, and I dont feel like the game is constructively showing me how and why for the most part either. 

The bane of my existence! I've been lurking these boards for years mostly as a way to find out what exactly various buttons/sliders actually DO in terms of player behavior. Of course this gets harder when we change so many different inputs at the same time -- and many of the game mechanisms themselves change 2 (or more!) settings simultaneously! 

For what it's worth, you're essentially trying to play perfect football. Your expectations are very high. The good news: you have a clear vision! The bad news: it's going to be very difficult to reach that goal. But the striving can be a lot of the joy. On one hand, you do need to operate within the limitations of the match engine. But on the other hand, even in the real world managers need to proceed in an iterative manner. Typically to establish defensive principles and stability first, then transitions, then passages of possession. Perhaps you have to briefly go back to basics and then add in complexity one element at a time? 

[Christopher S]

22 minutes ago, Prolix said:

The bane of my existence! I've been lurking these boards for years mostly as a way to find out what exactly various buttons/sliders actually DO in terms of player behavior. Of course this gets harder when we change so many different inputs at the same time -- and many of the game mechanisms themselves change 2 (or more!) settings simultaneously! 

For what it's worth, you're essentially trying to play perfect football. Your expectations are very high. The good news: you have a clear vision! The bad news: it's going to be very difficult to reach that goal. But the striving can be a lot of the joy. On one hand, you do need to operate within the limitations of the match engine. But on the other hand, even in the real world managers need to proceed in an iterative manner. Typically to establish defensive principles and stability first, then transitions, then passages of possession. Perhaps you have to briefly go back to basics and then add in complexity one element at a time? 

Yeah, you're probably right. For what it's worth, I'm perfectly happy building towards the 'perfect result' over time, as long as I see it building. I'm fine with less than perfect, as long as I can see my players at least try to do what I want them to.

[Jaye]

On wide players: I just want to demonstrate why the AMR/L slots might not be that much of a problem. Excuse my crude drawings.

This image comes from my Sporting team, playing a 4-3-3. We've just recovered a hasty clearance from the yellow team and my BDP, Quaresma, has the ball. Circled are my Winger(S) (on the right) and Winger(A) (on the left). They're keeping width by staying on the outside of the opposition full-backs, but have tucked in enough to be available for a pass. This is good because if my BDP wanted to, he could swing a pass over to either flank. Should they receive the ball, they have immediate access to three players inside, occupying dangerous positions. Had they been wider, that access might not have been there.

This next image is from a different phase, in the same game. My keeper and defenders have worked the ball up to my CM(S) (Amaya). My two wingers hug the touchline, in plenty of space to receive and drive at the opposition backline. 

When Amaya drives forward with the ball, two things happen. The Winger(S) holds his position to retain width and make himself available for a pass, while the Winger(A) starts making an inside run. This is expected because, as an attack duty, he's going to look to get into the penalty area and score goals when the opportunity arises. 

The Winger(S) receives the ball and take it forward. Now the Winger(A) has finished his run and taken up a narrow position, next to the opposition full back. Is this bad? Should he be wider? Well, no, because look at the gap that's developed between the full-back and right-sided centre back. The Winger(A) has come narrow to exploit that space should the opportunity arise. My Winger(S) could very swell swing the ball towards that area and put him through on goal.

Now, he doesn't do that. Instead, he opts to play it back into midfield. All of a sudden, my front-line looks a little clustered. Look familiar? We've ended up in this shape, not because the AMR/L slots are "broken", but because our initial attempt to penetrate the opposition failed, and we're now resetting the play to try again. This isn't a bad thing. Sure, my Winger(A) could drift into a wide area where the space is, but if he makes a forward run, he could receive a through pass on the inside of the full-back. In this phase of play, he's no longer acting like a strict winger, but more like a second forward, according to his duty. Meanwhile, the Winger(S) actually does peel away to the side of the box, receives the ball back, and sets up my no.6 for a long-range goal.

I'm not saying this is fantastic movement, but it's what I'd expect to see from two wide players in 4-3-3. They stay wide when we build-up, but then come narrow when we try to penetrate.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Jaye

[Experienced Defender]

10 hours ago, Christopher S said:

the game insists all my strikers are completely unqualified for the role. Even with 12+ in all relevant stats, it rates 1/5 stars for the role

Never follow what the game says when it comes to role selection. Instead, look exclusively at the player's attributes (and to some extent also traits and footedness). But even more important is how that role interacts with others within the system, especially those nearby. 

Whenever you consider elements of a tactic in isolation from one another, you are going to struggle. And which is worse, you won't be able to figure out where the problem is. 

[Experienced Defender]

8 hours ago, Christopher S said:

A total of 3 attacking roles shouldn't be too many

Their distribution within the system matters a lot more than the pure number. Moreover, some of my most successful tactics have "only" 2 attack duties in total. As an example:

DLFsu

IFat                                   IWsu

DLPsu   MEZat

HB

WBsu    CDde  BPDde  WBsu

SKsu

[Razor940]

18 hours ago, Christopher S said:

This is the playmaker in the AP role  (later swpaped to DLPs). Attribute wise, he should be more than qualified:

After all, he's averaging over 14 in each of these attributes. On top of that, all other relevant attributes should be more than enough for a Championship player. 

This is the IWs. His OTB attribute isn't perfect, but you have to consider the reasoning I added 'Roam from position' in the first place. I told him to 'Sit Narrower', which he simple wasn't doing. 

I've explained that several times in this thread. To reiterate: my experience is that supporting duty fullbacks simply do not move into space in attacks, at all. That's why I chose attack. 

That's fine and all, but as I've explained in this thread a couple of times already; I seemingly don't know how anything works. From my point of view, no instruction, mentality or setting has any predictable or consistent outcome. There is no tangible feedback loop. Instructions are largely ignored by your players, regardless of what you tell them. As I've said before, it's a me-problem, but it's still a problem. A tactics creator that has no semblance of predictability essentially means it's gambling. Most, if not all, the instructions do not mean what they say in short, nor what the tooltip explanation say. I'm not saying it should a cut and dry 'Do X to get Y every time', but there has to be a middle point between that and what we have. Right now, the game feels like a "transfer simulator" more than anything, as your players will rarely do what you tell them to anyway.

So sure, I can create a system with no TIs (because I don't know how they work). Then what? I identify an issue, add the instruction that the game tells me should adress that issue - and then nothing is changed because the instruction doesn't actually do what it says, or because my players choose to ignore the instruction all together. Then what? 

He has 10 positioning and 7 tackle in a side where you have an WB on attack. He's poor for that position. He's clearly a 8,5. Trust me, it makes a lot of difference having someone who can tackle there.

I don't see that at all with the defensive wide men. To me they bomb enough and I like them to not be too up the field but to get there after.

In relation to the IW, like what I said, you can have a better team, doesn't mean they have the require attributes to pull things off. I find 12 OTB weak to ask someone to roam. 

Bold - You need to understand attributes first, how they work individually and together, how they work with the TIs, and then you can jump to try things more advanced. Don't be afraid of pausing the game and go back to past moments to see what happened. Also, I suggest to read these two threads 

 And specially this one

I understand you might get frustrated, but it's not that hard once you start comprehending things.

[Christopher S]

Quote

He has 10 positioning and 7 tackle in a side where you have an WB on attack. He's poor for that position. He's clearly a 8,5. Trust me, it makes a lot of difference having someone who can tackle there.

Does his ability to position and tackle matter overall as a CM? Yes. Does it matter to his ability to find space, hit passes and unlock defences as a playmaker? Not all all. Both those attributes are purely defensive. Players have trade offs. This player should be more than capable of making up for his medicore Tck/Pos ratings with his offensive and technical ability. 

Quote

To me they bomb enough and I like them to not be too up the field but to get there after.

Good for you. That's not what I want, and that's exactly what I explained. Are you even reading what I'm writing? 

Quote

In relation to the IW, like what I said, you can have a better team, doesn't mean they have the require attributes to pull things off. I find 12 OTB weak to ask someone to roam. 

For the third time; I never claimed he was the perfect candidate to roam. I specifically said I gave him that instruction because 'Sit Narrower' wasn't actually doing anything to influence his attacking positioning. I appreciate you trying to help here, but try to read what I write properly - it's frustrating having to repeat myself.

Quote

Also, I suggest to read these two threads 

I've read both of them multiple times. Unfortunately I don't get much out of purely reading things when it comes to practical application. The way I learn things is 1:1 interaction, ie. discussing something with a person (verbally) or making changes one-by-one in a controlled environment - aka feedback loop. Neither of those things are possible in FM21, and the game as a whole barely gives any perceivable feedback to the changes you make. Even assuming it's my fault for not noticing it or knowing what to look for, I would argue it'd be dishonest to claim the game is good at providing qualitative, concrete feedback. 

Quote

I understand you might get frustrated, but it's not that hard once you start comprehending things.

I'm sure you mean well, but that is just nonsensical. Nothing is hard once you comprehend it. Astrophysics is pretty easy once you comprehend it. Biology too.

[Christopher S]

11 hours ago, Jaye said:

On wide players: I just want to demonstrate why the AMR/L slots might not be that much of a problem. Excuse my crude drawings.

This image comes from my Sporting team, playing a 4-3-3. We've just recovered a hasty clearance from the yellow team and my BDP, Quaresma, has the ball. Circled are my Winger(S) (on the right) and Winger(A) (on the left). They're keeping width by staying on the outside of the opposition full-backs, but have tucked in enough to be available for a pass. This is good because if my BDP wanted to, he could swing a pass over to either flank. Should they receive the ball, they have immediate access to three players inside, occupying dangerous positions. Had they been wider, that access might not have been there.

This next image is from a different phase, in the same game. My keeper and defenders have worked the ball up to my CM(S) (Amaya). My two wingers hug the touchline, in plenty of space to receive and drive at the opposition backline. 

When Amaya drives forward with the ball, two things happen. The Winger(S) holds his position to retain width and make himself available for a pass, while the Winger(A) starts making an inside run. This is expected because, as an attack duty, he's going to look to get into the penalty area and score goals when the opportunity arises. 

The Winger(S) receives the ball and take it forward. Now the Winger(A) has finished his run and taken up a narrow position, next to the opposition full back. Is this bad? Should he be wider? Well, no, because look at the gap that's developed between the full-back and right-sided centre back. The Winger(A) has come narrow to exploit that space should the opportunity arise. My Winger(S) could very swell swing the ball towards that area and put him through on goal.

Now, he doesn't do that. Instead, he opts to play it back into midfield. All of a sudden, my front-line looks a little clustered. Look familiar? We've ended up in this shape, not because the AMR/L slots are "broken", but because our initial attempt to penetrate the opposition failed, and we're now resetting the play to try again. This isn't a bad thing. Sure, my Winger(A) could drift into a wide area where the space is, but if he makes a forward run, he could receive a through pass on the inside of the full-back. In this phase of play, he's no longer acting like a strict winger, but more like a second forward, according to his duty. Meanwhile, the Winger(S) actually does peel away to the side of the box, receives the ball back, and sets up my no.6 for a long-range goal.

I'm not saying this is fantastic movement, but it's what I'd expect to see from two wide players in 4-3-3. They stay wide when we build-up, but then come narrow when we try to penetrate.

Like I said in my previous comment to you; they are probably not an actual problem in isolation. I never claimed that. What I did say is that I find it really annoying and arbitrary that the game does not allow me to make them do anything but this. 

I'm sure it's what you expect from the wide players in a 4-3-3. That doesn't mean it's what I expect. I couldn't care less about what the ME think is best or what wingers IRL tend to do. They don't get to dictate what I think they should do. Part of the allure of FM is getting to create your own playstyle and approach. As of right now, the game doesn't allow you to do that unless your ideas align with what SI has decided for you. 

[Christopher S]

10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Their distribution within the system matters a lot more than the pure number. Moreover, some of my most successful tactics have "only" 2 attack duties in total. As an example:

DLFsu

IFat                                   IWsu

DLPsu   MEZat

HB

WBsu    CDde  BPDde  WBsu

SKsu

That's totally fair. I didn't mean to say that 3 was ideal, just that it isn't outrageous to have 3 attacking roles in a squad.

Quote

Whenever you consider elements of a tactic in isolation from one another, you are going to struggle. And which is worse, you won't be able to figure out where the problem is. 

Not trying to consider elements in isolation. Plus, unless the game magically starts becoming a lot more concise in it's feedback loop, I don't think I'll be able to figure out anything anytime soon. :P 

[Jaye]

1 minute ago, Christopher S said:

Like I said in my previous comment to you; they are probably not an actual problem in isolation. I never claimed that. What I did say is that I find it really annoying and arbitrary that the game does not allow me to make them do anything but this. 

I'm sure it's what you expect from the wide players in a 4-3-3. That doesn't mean it's what I expect. I couldn't care less about what the ME think is best or what wingers IRL tend to do. They don't get to dictate what I think they should do. Part of the allure of FM is getting to create your own playstyle and approach. As of right now, the game doesn't allow you to do that unless your ideas align with what SI has decided for you. 

Frankly, your reasoning here is ridiculous.

The ME is a tool, and like any tool it has limits on what can be accomplished with it. It absolutely dictates how we play, because if it's not possible to do in the game, we can't just strongarm the thing into working exactly how we want it to. The quicker you accept that, the easier this game becomes.

[Christopher S]

8 minutes ago, Jaye said:

Frankly, your reasoning here is ridiculous.

The ME is a tool, and like any tool it has limits on what can be accomplished with it. It absolutely dictates how we play, because if it's not possible to do in the game, we can't just strongarm the thing into working exactly how we want it to. The quicker you accept that, the easier this game becomes.

I disagree wholeheartedly. It's not ridiculous. You're strawmanning me. 

Of course it has limits - I literally pointed that out. My point is that some of the limits aren't where they should be. You can disagree with that, but that doesn't mean I'm being ridiculous. "we can't just strongarm the thing into working exactly how we want it to" - strawman. I never claimed that. I said the ME should allow us to do this in the first place. That's essentially the complete opposite of what you just said. I'm fully aware it can't be strongarmed - that's literally what I've been saying all along.

It's fine to disagree, but that gives you no right to strawman and attempt to discredit me. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Christopher S

[Christopher S]

To move away from ME discussions and the likes... 

This is a total disaster. Absolutely shambolic. 

We are below 1.00 xG across those games. We've a total of 3 games over 1.00 xG, and even in those games we didn't really do anything. 2 of the goals are penalties. Simply put, nothing is working. I've spent about 12 hours working on this since posting, and quite frankly, I'm getting close to the point of just downloading a Plug&Play and finishing the season on vacation. 

Out of curiosity @Experienced Defender, I tried your PRD distribution from above in the game against Newcastle. Minimum amount of TIs (PooD, Higher DL). We had 1 shot in 90 minutes. That was it. Sample size is not conclusive of course, just thought I'd mention it for the record. 

This is the system as of right now: 

The CMr has the PPM 'Gets Forward Whenever Possible', which is partly why I don't like CMa or MEZa here. The other reason being that the attacking variants essentially ignore buildup and bomb up the field the second we win the ball. I've got 'Get Further Forward' ticked as PI as well. I tried DLPd in the DM role, and it was just okay. Upped it to DLPs, and he started enabling wide play a bit without any noticeable difference in defending. The MCl role is up in the air. Tried with a CMs first, but he sort... didn't do anything. Went with CAR as they inherently find space well and covers for the overlap. 

I assume the immediate feedback is going to that I don't have any penetration and that my Striker is lacking support. To add context, all supportive roles drop WAAAAAAAY too deep in defense for my liking. Literally all of them end up right outside their own 16-yard box. On top of that, none of them really play like a striker in attack either. Hence, attacking role. Winger with attack role almost exclusively ignores build up in my experience, and I've never gotten this PRD to work. I've tinkered with swapping the IWs to IWa, and the FBa to WBs + adding Overlap Left to compress their mentalities, but didn't really see any difference. I know that roles and duties work in conjuction and not isolation, but even when I try a 'correct' setup nothing works. I keep seeing people posting in various threads with 'balanced systems' and versions of PRDs that are 'cohesively distributed' and yet, whenever I try either the exact same PRD distributions, or apply the same logic, we get blasted.

I don't know. I'm sure my setup is fundamentally flawed and I'm just fumbling in the dark. 

Woopdidoo!

Edited February 3, 2021 by Christopher S

[sporadicsmiles]

17 hours ago, Christopher S said:

I have no particular preference for mentality. The only mentality I like, is the mentality that makes my team play the way I want. I chose Attacking as a starting point fully aware that it might be completely wrong.

Something to play around with then. Find out which mentality best produces the type of football you want to see. You can always work out why that is the case afterwards. Not everything in FM needs to be planned out and organised before. I have often fiddled around with tactics and found things that worked without necessarily understanding exactly why at the time!

[Christopher S]

1 minute ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Something to play around with then. Find out which mentality best produces the type of football you want to see. You can always work out why that is the case afterwards. Not everything in FM needs to be planned out and organised before. I have often fiddled around with tactics and found things that worked without necessarily understanding exactly why at the time!

I don't hate that idea. How do I figure that out, though? In case you haven't seen it, my main issue is that I don't feel like any of the settings make a noticeable, quantifiable difference. I make a change, I think it makes a difference. I keep it for next game, and now something completely different happens, contrary to the change I made. So, what am I looking for? How do I measure the differences?

[Finners]

@Christopher S

Regards your AMR, I was going to comment in response to your concerns about the defensive vulnerability of your right flank by suggesting you turn your inside forward in to a winger. I see you actually did do that, which is great, but you seemed to have gone a step too far (IMO) and swapped it to a support duty.

Winger (Att) strikes me as the best of both worlds you were looking for. I've been using Wingers on attack duties as either my primary or secondary goal scorer for the last two versions and it works very well. Like you, my system is wide and I make my pitch (literally, ie via the groundsman) as wide as possible. With the given description of an attack mentality winger describing a player that hugs the touchline with a hard coded "stay wider", it's easy to think that they'd not get themselves in to the box enough, particularly when the team's attacking width is set to wide.

But it's not really the case, in reality they attack the box frequently, particularly when the build up has come largely from the opposing side of the pitch, and  make all the sorts of runs you'd associate with a Mo Salah or a Sadio Mane. It's the fact they start from such a wide position that helps them get the space they need to attack. The only PI I add to the default is shoot less, to curb any overly ambitious long shots.

Moreover, wingers in the match engine do a hell of a lot more defensive work than inside forwards do. It's really difficult getting your inside forwards to actually help out defensively, where as your winger will support his full back extensively even with an attack duty and a positive or even attacking team mentality.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Finners

[Christopher S]

10 minutes ago, Finners said:

@Christopher S

Regards your AMR, I was going to comment in response to your concerns about the defensive vulnerability of your right flank by suggesting you turn your inside forward in to a winger. I see you actually did do that, which is great, but you seemed to have gone a step too far (IMO) and swapped it to a support duty.

Winger (Att) strikes me as the best of both worlds you were looking for. I've been using Wingers on attack duties as either my primary or secondary goal scorer for the last two versions and it works very well. Like you, my system is wide and I make my pitch (literally, ie via the groundsman) as wide as possible. With the given description of an attack mentality winger describing a player that hugs the touchline with a hard coded "stay wider", it's easy to think that they'd not get themselves in to the box enough, particularly when the team's attacking width is set to wide.

But it's not really the case, in reality they attack the box frequently, particularly when the build up has come largely from the opposing side of the pitch, and  make all the sorts of runs you'd associate with a Mo Salah or a Sadio Mane. It's the fact they start from such a wide position that helps them get the space they need to attack. The only PI I add to the default is shoot less, to curb any overly ambitious long shots.

Moreover, wingers in the match engine do a hell of a lot more defensive work than inside forwards do. It's really difficult getting your inside forwards to actually help out defensively, where as your winger will support his full back extensively even with an attack duty and a positive or even attacking team mentality.

Hey man!

Thanks a lot for your input. This, combined with what was shown through a series of screens further up, does at least show that Wingers do function consistently in a way - even if it's not in the way I want them to. Will tinker with Wingers on attack and see what I come up with. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Christopher S

[Finners]

Oh and just one more side note - remember that Football Manager is more than just a Tactics simulator.

Your current form is absolutely honking, I'm guessing morale isn't the highest in your squad, I'm guessing your players 'last five games' form is pretty wonky across the board.

Chopping and changing the system every game like a flailing tinkerman won't really help you generate any consistency and if your players are lacking confidence and morale then you're not really going to get the best view of your new formation, you might have actually struck the perfect tactical note but you won't actually notice because your players heads are all down after winning just 2 out of 12 games.

If your form is that crud, your players that unhappy, your league position probably not all that great then maybe it's not the time to be experimenting with new attacking systems that require a bit of creativity. 

[Christopher S]

4 minutes ago, Finners said:

Oh and just one more side note - remember that Football Manager is more than just a Tactics simulator.

Your current form is absolutely honking, I'm guessing morale isn't the highest in your squad, I'm guessing your players 'last five games' form is pretty wonky across the board.

Chopping and changing the system every game like a flailing tinkerman won't really help you generate any consistency and if your players are lacking confidence and morale then you're not really going to get the best view of your new formation, you might have actually struck the perfect tactical note but you won't actually notice because your players heads are all down after winning just 2 out of 12 games.

If your form is that crud, your players that unhappy, your league position probably not all that great then maybe it's not the time to be experimenting with new attacking systems that require a bit of creativity. 

Good points for sure. Luckily, since I've been at this club for 10+ years and brough them all the way up, my mere presence keeps morale above average almost regardless of results. Despite that streak of results, this is what my squad morale is right now: 

One of the few benefits of staying with a club for so long is that you become almost untouchable and morale rarely drops unless someone doesn't get to play (the Very Poor) guy.  

Cohesion, atmosphere and support is also high.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Christopher S

[Marinho]

One issue i'd like to point out is that as 'sexy' as it might seem, i always find asymetric tactics hard to perfect. Now you obviously don't have an asymetric formation, but due to the one-sided overlap and Attacking WB you might as well.

This is how mine is set up, maybe theres sth there for you as inspiration. But i am quite content with my wide CAMs going inside so theres that  to consider

(Raphinha has "hold ball" and "sit narrower" and Wingbacks "shoot less often", other than that standard role instructions)

Going back and forth on "work ball into box", think it largely is preference and down to players. Since Brooks and most backups for the attacking roles aren't good at shooting from distance i prefer it active right now.

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Marinho

[Christopher S]

5 minutes ago, Marinho said:

One issue i'd like to point out is that as 'sexy' as it might seem, i always find asymetric tactics hard to perfect. Now you obviously don't have an asymetric formation, but due to the one-sided overlap and Attacking WB you might as well.

This is how mine is set up, maybe theres sth there for you as inspiration. But i am quite content with my wide CAMs going inside so theres that  to consider

(Raphinha has "hold ball" and "sit narrower" and Wingbacks "shoot less often", other than that standard role instructions)

Going back and forth on "work ball into box", think it largely is preference and down to players. Since Brooks and most backups for the attacking roles aren't good at shooting from distance i prefer it active right now.

 

Thanks a lot on the input. 

From your screenshot, I image your team bursts into attack whenever possible, right? Counter is ticked + 4 roles in mid+att that has 'Dribble More' hard coded and baseline high risk and mentality + higher tempo + Positive TM. I'm sure this setup works wonderfully, but on face value it's quite different to what I want. I'm not too fond of urgency for the sake of urgency - I don't want passing forward into space to be the default action for my supporting players. Does it make any sense?

How does your system actually play out?

[poobington]

@Christopher S have you considered using the tactic creator, and the control possession pre set, and then tweaking it to fit your vision? Some of the TIs might give you some inspiration?

[Christopher S]

1 minute ago, poobington said:

@Christopher S have you considered using the tactic creator, and the control possession pre set, and then tweaking it to fit your vision? Some of the TIs might give you some inspiration?

Yes and no. I admit that might be a good idea, but my experience tells me that I don't actually know/understand what the difference instructions do and/or how they influence things around it. Therefore, tweaking becomes an evil circle of guesswork that slowly but surely makes everything worse. :P 

[poobington]

Heres the 4-3-3 control possession variant. Instructions and role selections seem fairly self explanatory. Being honest, I haven't fully ready your posts subsequent to your opening post, but 

[Christopher S]

Well, there are only 4 or 5 differences from that preset to what I've been trying. 

Based on the advice that is commonly given in this forum, I would make the following changes:

- Swap positiong of MEZ to right hand side. More space inside of a Winger than an Inverted Winger. 
- Change AP to DLPs, as AP offers little to no cover for the natural overlap on the left hand side. 
- ST role is a toss up. Can never really get it right, but would likely end up with DLFa as my best player for a lone striker role isn't that good at dribbling (he's good, just not exceedingly good). 
- Consider changing the FBr to FBs instead of WBs, to give more cover for the MEZ+Wa - especially if the MEZ is set to MEZa instead of MEZs. 

All of this is essentially step by step the advice I've been given, and seen be given to others, daily in this forum. 

It's also exactly the roles and positions I've been using for most of the games with absolutely no success. Now, you might say - correctly - that I didn't have all the same TI's. However, that poses a new dilemma: every time I say that TIs have little to no effect (or something similar), I am told that TIs are only suggestions or tendencies. That as long as roles and duties make sense together, TIs are barely needed. So you tell me, what then? 

In the sake of curiosity, I loaded up that same preset for an FA cup match vs Luton (bottom half team in the Championship). Result? 

1-1. 
7 shots total. 0.59 xG. Goal was scored on a corner. 
63% possession. Sure, we kept the ball, but zero attacking output. On top of that, I had to watch my wide players repeatedly hit crosses into blocking defenders. Like I've mentioned in a couple of previous posts, human controlled players seem super gimped vs AI players when it come to dribbling and crossing. Gonna put together a video and a few .pkm's and file a bug report. I'm 98% sure there is some rubberbanding going on there.

NOTE: I played the first half with the exact preset. Half time, I made the changes I listed. No difference. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Christopher S

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Christopher S said:

Out of curiosity @Experienced Defender, I tried your PRD distribution from above in the game against Newcastle. Minimum amount of TIs (PooD, Higher DL). We had 1 shot in 90 minutes. That was it

That particular setup was for a specific team I managed, which was a top team at that + is not a plug'n'play tactic (which i never create anyway). I did not by any means suggest that you should use that specific setup for your team, just wanted to show an example that a good setup can have less than 3 attack duties (in response to your earlier comment claiming otherwise). 

Speaking of attack duties and their number, you can have more attack duties overall in a tactic for an average team than for a top one. Because the whole context of the tactic matters, not its separate elements.

For example, this was a setup for an average (mid-table) team I managed (also 433dm wide formation):

DLFat

IFsu                                Wsu

DLPsu   CMat

DMde

FBat    CDde  CDde  FBsu

SKde

Note that there are 3 attack duties - compared to "only" 2 in the previous setup - even though this team is considerably weaker than the one with 2 attack duties.

Of course, there is also a difference in role selection as well as instructions. Because it's context that matters.

[Christopher S]

2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

That particular setup was for a specific team I managed, which was a top team at that + is not a plug'n'play tactic (which i never create anyway). I did not by any means suggest that you should use that specific setup for your team, just wanted to show an example that a good setup can have less than 3 attack duties (in response to your earlier comment claiming otherwise). 

Speaking of attack duties and their number, you can have more attack duties overall in a tactic for an average team than for a top one. Because the whole context of the tactic matters, not its separate elements.

For example, this was a setup for an average (mid-table) team I managed (also 433dm wide formation):

DLFat

IFsu                                Wsu

DLPsu   CMat

DMde

FBat    CDde  CDde  FBsu

SKde

Note that there are 3 attack duties - compared to "only" 2 in the previous setup - even though this team is considerably weaker than the one with 2 attack duties.

Of course, there is also a difference in role selection as well as instructions. Because it's context that matters.

I know you didn't mean that, I just tried it out of curiosity. That's what I specified the sample size not giving it any credibility.

Ay, I did that exact PRD setup for several matches. Same outcome, sadly. 

I know context is the deciding factor, but knowing that isn't helping me. I've already explained why, so not gonna into that again. I feel like I'm throwing things at a wall, hoping something will stick, but nothing does. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Christopher S

[Jaye]

3 hours ago, Christopher S said:

I disagree wholeheartedly. It's not ridiculous. You're strawmanning me. 

Of course it has limits - I literally pointed that out. My point is that some of the limits aren't where they should be. You can disagree with that, but that doesn't mean I'm being ridiculous. "we can't just strongarm the thing into working exactly how we want it to" - strawman. I never claimed that. I said the ME should allow us to do this in the first place. That's essentially the complete opposite of what you just said. I'm fully aware it can't be strongarmed - that's literally what I've been saying all along.

It's fine to disagree, but that gives you no right to strawman and attempt to discredit me. 

Sorry for being blunt, but you literally told me you don't care "what the ME thinks is best", which only tells me you're not interested in how roles actually function in the ME. You're only interested in manipulating the ME to do the very specific things you want your players to do, but how can you do that without first understanding the tools you're working with?

I gave a brief demo of how wingers can act in the ME, because you said they don't stay wide. Your response was to complain how SI won't let you do the exact things you want and dismiss my help entirely. It's fine if you don't think I'm being helpful, but complaining about what you can't do all the time isn't helpful for us either. That's why it's ridiculous. 

[Experienced Defender]

@Jaye @Christopher S Guys, however strongly you may disagree with each other, please make sure to keep the discussion polite and respectful. Otherwise, I might be left without any other choice but to lock the topic.

Of course, the warning applies to all other participants in this discussion as well.

[Christopher S]

14 minutes ago, Jaye said:

Sorry for being blunt, but you literally told me you don't care "what the ME thinks is best", which only tells me you're not interested in how roles actually function in the ME. You're only interested in manipulating the ME to do the very specific things you want your players to do, but how can you do that without first understanding the tools you're working with?

I gave a brief demo of how wingers can act in the ME, because you said they don't stay wide. Your response was to complain how SI won't let you do the exact things you want and dismiss my help entirely. It's fine if you don't think I'm being helpful, but complaining about what you can't do all the time isn't helpful for us either. That's why it's ridiculous. 

I don't care what the ME think is best in relation to what I want my wingers to do, as in what the ME thinks is best doesn't affect my opinion on what I think is most effective. I expressed very clearly that I wanted to get them to stay wide, and asked very clearly how to achieve that - with graphic examples. Your response was to tell me how great it is that they aren't doing that and why that isn't a problem. I said that I agree that it isn't a problem in isolation, but it's problematic in relation to how I want to play the game. Then I said that in my opinion it's a bad thing that the ME restricts wide play the way it does. 

'Manipulating the ME' is used in an unfair way here, imo. This entire forum is mostly filled with threads on how to manipulate the ME to recreate a certain playstyle, and that's considered a good thing (by most people). It's interesting and adds a layer of complexity to the game.

'but how can you do that without first understanding the tools you're working with?' - Excuse my french, but that's LITERALLY what I've been saying for 2 pages. Do you even read anything I write? I've stated repeatedly that from my PoV, the game doesn't give any quantifiable or verifiable feedback to changes you make tactically. There is no controlled environment, and for the most part, the outcome of any change seems borderline random. I know it's a me-problem - I've stated that repeatedly as well. That's why I wrote this post in the first place.

I've explicitly stated that you've shown clearly how wingers can function in a good way. I appreciate that. However, that doesn't change the fact that it didn't adress my question of how to get them to stay wide the way I want to. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to express displeasure over an ME restriction they didn't expect to meet halfway into their tactics progress - nor is it unresonable to explore wether it can be done beyond one person saying it can't. 

I've not meant to come across as complaining for the sake of it. Whenever I've harped on something, it's to provide context to why I want something to happen. If it truly is a hard limitation of the ME, then that's something I'll have to try and live with - of course. 

@Experienced Defender
 

Quote

@Jaye @Christopher S Guys, however strongly you may disagree with each other, please make sure to keep the discussion polite and respectful. Otherwise, I might be left without any other choice but to lock the topic.

Of course, the warning applies to all other participants in this discussion as well.

Trying my best! If this post is out of line, please let me know and I will edit it.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Christopher S

[Experienced Defender]

4 minutes ago, Christopher S said:

@Experienced Defender
 

Quote

@Jaye @Christopher S Guys, however strongly you may disagree with each other, please make sure to keep the discussion polite and respectful. Otherwise, I might be left without any other choice but to lock the topic.

Of course, the warning applies to all other participants in this discussion as well.

Trying my best! If this post is out of line, please let me know and I will edit it.

At this point, the best thing both you and Jaye can do is to stop your argument, because it's hardly going to turn into a constructive discussion ever (at least in this thread). Simply agree to disagree (with each other) and that's it 

[Christopher S]

2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

At this point, the best thing both you and Jaye can do is to stop your argument, because it's hardly going to turn into a constructive discussion ever (at least in this thread). Simply agree to disagree (with each other) and that's it 

Hey, I don't mind that - agree to disagree is a perfectly fine outcome in my eyes. I somewhat mind his accusations and rhetoric, but I agree it's best to leave it.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Christopher S

[poobington]

Another test, which albeit not fool proof is to use the Rate My Tactic App. I did that for the Control Possession preset. Appreciate it isn't your tactic, but indulge me.

The tactic scores very well in terms of solidity, and that certainly seems the case with the ey test and results. The control possession preset, and by extension what you have produced, doesn't produce goals, but at the same time very rarely do you get absolutely drubbed.

The penetration score is okay. I tend to find that top heavy tactics do far better in this area.

The support score is very poor, especially down the right and might be why the tactic it is struggling to score goals. If we cannot provide adequate support to attacking players and create high quality chances, then obviously xg and goals scored will be low for the tactic.

Overlaps - this something you wanted to achieve and the tactic will do that naturally on the left. On the right you will get an overload with both the winger and the wingback getting forward and providing width. This might also be perhaps why your winger isn't staying as wide as you would like as they are probably trying to occupy the same spaces. Maybe experiment with the fullback role.

What is the solution? Honestly, I can't tell you. The rate my tactic app would suggest you drop one of your attacking roles to a support role. I have seen other suggest you add more attacking roles. 

 

[Christopher S]

I forgot about that tool. It's a fun one - in the spirit of fun, I'll use it to see what it gives me. Let's see here, after some tinkering I've got this: 

Gonna try it out, see what works and what doesn't.

[Christopher S]

Well, that was a complete and utter failure. Lost 1-2 to Southend at home. Had 1 shot all game. Couldn't get ahold of the ball, and couldn't keep it either. 

Oh well, fun experiment anyway.

[poobington]

Haha worth a shot I guess. I am currently in the process of rehashing one of Cleon's old Art of Possession formulas to ee how that fairs on the new ME. Initial results are promising, so if its got any legs I'll let you know.

[Garrlor]

So something you could try, if you are struggling with the feedback that the ME is giving you, is to go back to basics completely. The following is where I might start a tactic if I were struggling to get something working. You can choose to either make a tactics test save or just carry on your current one and hope that it can work as you make changes. For you right now, I think option 1 is best as you are clearly getting stressed out. This may take you a full evening to play through and get it right in your head, but I am hopeful it can help. You want to watch the start of each game on full, probably for 20 minutes and just watch exactly what your players do, what you like and what you dont like. Let the rest of the game play out, watching as you see fit. Then reload your game, and get ready to go again. Make the same team talk each time so that you are not changing the base data you are working with and go again and watch. You should have a good idea what is happening at this point - same opposition, same tactic, same team talk. Results will often differ due to luck/decisions made on the pitch but that is fine.

The tactic I included above is as vanilla as it gets. No TI's, no OI's - nothing other than what is hard coded on the roles selected. As you are using all Su and De duties, the mentality of the players will be close together which mean they should attack and defend as a unit, in theory as players have different attributes and PPM's. In older FM's, you would get a slight boost to whole team mentality by playing on Su and De duties, I am not sure if it is the same in this version but here is hoping. By clearing up and paring back, you can watch what your players do. Maybe just a certain player or role is pinging balls around like no tomorrow, perhaps you just need to tweak the passing range of that one specific player or role rather than the whole team. Dont forget, you will get natural variation in what your players do depending on the options in front of them and the decisions they make at the time - what you are looking for is the patterns that repeat over time. I know you understand a lot of this, but I can sense the frustration in your posts as you have had a lot of advice thrown your way, none of which seems to work like you want.

Once you have run the base tactic through twice and you are happy with what you are looking at, then maybe make a couple of tweaks - DL and LOE for example before going back in for another run through. You may like what your team does in general but a certain role doesnt do what you want it too so you can consider a change to that role either a complete role change or a couple of PI's. This may result in a split block, which is when you instruct certain players to press hard and others to sit and wait to cover. Over time and keeping the tweaks to a minimum, you will build up an idea of what each change does. The main reason I would suggest starting a match fresh each time with the same team talk etc is so that you know that the specific change you made is having an affect - not just a player having a good/poor game or a shout has made him into superman rather than the joker. Changing things during a match is great when you know what each instruction does, certainly what change it has on your tactic. Pre season against small teams is a perfect time to make half time changes, as you should win regardless - in your situation doing a mini test save seems the best bet.

This is something I had to do back on FM18, as I could not get my head around team shape, no matter how many videos I watched or articles I read, I just had to get it into my head myself by playing through the way I have described.

[raktim0699]

4-3-3 Positive or Balanced is ideal 

                                                                                          CF (S)

                                                                               AP(S)              IF(A)

                                                                               DLP/CM(S)    Mez(S)

                                                                                            A/DM(D)

                                                                       CWB(A)   BPD(D)  CD(d) WB(S)

 

Go with this and then change something that you do not like Balanced or positive mentality is good. Since you want width and overlap so, it's coming from Full-backs here. I am still not a pro so if anyone can recommend something that needs to be changed here is perfect too. Also, Include overlap on the left side. 

 

 

[frukox]

5 hours ago, Christopher S said:

Well, that was a complete and utter failure. Lost 1-2 to Southend at home. Had 1 shot all game. Couldn't get ahold of the ball, and couldn't keep it either. 

Oh well, fun experiment anyway.

Mate, I finally got to my computer and loaded FM20 and tried to play with a high block combined with a low-risk style(which is what you want)

Results are fine, too.

The setup:

                 DLFA

IFS                                  IFS

             CMA    BBM

                  DLPS

 FBS     BPDD   CDD      FBS

                    SKS

TIs:

Balanced

Low Crosses, Lower Tempo, Overlap Left, Overlap Right(focusing on being always close to the ball-carrier with meaningful possession)

Counterpress, Distribute to CBs(guaranteeing playing out of defence with pressure in the final third)

Higher DL, Higher LOE, Prevent Short GK Distribution, Use Offside Trap(a classical high block)

PIs:

IFSs: Close Down More, Tackle Harder(for pressing in a split block)

DLFA: Close Down More, Tackle Harder(for pressing in a split block)

CMA: Roam from Position, Close Down More(making him available for a pass and involved in a high press)

FBSs: Get Further Forward, Fewer Risky Passes, Sit Narrower(pushing them higher close to their corresponding winger with the aim of keeping possession on the flanks)

OIs:

GK: Always Tight Mark, Always Close Down, Tackle Harder(GKs are bad at technicals, let's abuse it in set pieces apart from open play)

Attacking or Supporting FBs/WBs: Always Close Down(I don't want them to join opposition attacks and be a threat in my third)

It may need a few tweaks for FM21 but I think it's worth a try.

Edited February 3, 2021 by frukox

[Robson 07]

On 02/02/2021 at 11:30, Christopher S said:

Luckily, my preferred choices for the ST, MCr and IF roles are all strong or decent in the air. So, where does this leave me as a starting point? Well, here: 

As for PI's: 
- IWs has 'Sit Narrower' to open up space for the bombing LB and to create a tighter link with the ST and MC left. 
- IWs has 'Hold Up Ball' because in my experience, IW and IF never really looks for overlaps themselves, and rather mindlessly cut inside while dribbling. I want to encourage him to wait for the team to move up. 

Why would you sit a playmaker directly behind a player you have instructed to 'hold up' the ball?  You have the AP playing passes for the IW to run on to into open space, and then the IW getting such a pass and shielding the ball with his back to his opponent waiting for support.  Totally illogical.

[axehan1]

14 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

Why would you sit a playmaker directly behind a player you have instructed to 'hold up' the ball?  You have the AP playing passes for the IW to run on to into open space, and then the IW getting such a pass and shielding the ball with his back to his opponent waiting for support.  Totally illogical.

Having read through this thread,I'm quite looking forward to this response 

[Christopher S]

17 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

Why would you sit a playmaker directly behind a player you have instructed to 'hold up' the ball?  You have the AP playing passes for the IW to run on to into open space, and then the IW getting such a pass and shielding the ball with his back to his opponent waiting for support.  Totally illogical.

Well, yes and no. The issue is that the IW and IF roles are hard coded to 'Dribble More', and as such, will almost always choose to run with the ball at their feet in the general direction of goal, inwards. Since the reason for using an IW and not a winger is to enable an overlap, that is fairly unfortunate. 9/10 times, my fullback is bombing up to overlap and the IW will mindlessly dribble inwards, doing his best Messi cosplay. In an attempt to curb this behavior, I ticked 'Hold up ball', as the description specifically says it'll make the player more likely to wait for teammates to join him in attack. Lo and behold, it actually works. You've made the mistake of assuming I want to play my IWs into space, which I don't. I want him to drag defenders into the middle of the pitch and enable an overlap + get on the end of crosses from the opposite side. He is not intended as a primary attacking outlet. 

As a sidenote, my opinion is that the wide player roles in the AM strata are fundamentally flawed and needs a reworking for SI, but that's a discussion for another time. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Christopher S

[Robson 07]

@Christopher S  Or short story, swap the midfield roles to put the AP on the right side and Mez on the left.

9 hours ago, axehan1 said:

Having read through this thread,I'm quite looking forward to this response

Yes indeed.  I quite like laying down the occasional challenge.  1, why be bland?  2, let's see where it goes...