New update - Has it changed anything?

[busngabb]

My save was going well, I was around 2nd/3rd with Everton in the second season and not far off top. I'd lost twice in 23 games or thereabouts. Since the update I've not won away at all and am going down to alarming scorelines, 4-0 at Bournemouth after 30 minutes, 3-0 to Fulham, 2-0 to Brighton after 20. I seem to be on top in games but they just score. The highlight will start with a throw in or similar and ricochet into a tap in for someone, not the kind of thing which shows what is going on. Bournemouth had 5 at the back so presume there's something tactically causing that one, but it's been a night vs day change in how I'm doing away from home.

Did the update change anything or was it just a data update? If just a data update, any suggestions as to why I'm suddenly getting hammered away, but doing well at home?

[Experienced Defender]

Without seeing your tactic (screenshot), it's absolutely impossible to offer any proper feedback at all. 

It sometimes happens that a poorly designed tactic works really well due to a match engine weakness (so-called exploit plug'n'play tactics are the most notable example). And given that updates are made in order to fix those ME weaknesses (or at least some of them), it is possible that the ME weakness that was previously "exploited" by your tactic no longer exists. That's usually the case in most situations like the one you described.

But again, without a screenshot of your tactic, all this is nothing but mere speculation.

[Nozzer]

Since the update I've started conceding a lot more goals.  Think my XG to concede is 13 but I've conceded about 28 with me being hammered 6-0 and 4-0 away from home which skews it a bit.  I've also noticed the opposition score very early on, most of the time from their first chance

I'm still scoring loads of goals and if I'd conceded what the XG says things would be much better.  Plus my tactic is quite risky down the left hand side (oppositions right) so conceding a few is understandable to be fair 

[crusadertsar]

Again most "plug and play" exploit tactics dont do well after updates. On the other hand if you develop a well balanced logical system it won't really affect it.

[Nozzer]

Well my tactic is not plug and play and I'm still playing well but there are certainly differences since the update although not as extreme as in the OP

Edited February 26, 2021 by Nozzer

[crusadertsar]

18 minutes ago, Nozzer said:

Well my tactic is not plug and play and I'm still playing well but there are certainly differences since the update although not as extreme as in the OP

Well let's see your tactic then?

Most problems arise when people don't follow the concept of pairs and combinations or use an overkill of team instructions.

Not saying that's a problem with yours. But in my experience when update "breaks" something it's due to suboptimal roles, or duty distribution. Or instructions.

Edited February 26, 2021 by crusadertsar

[Nozzer]

28 minutes ago, crusadertsar said:

Well let's see your tactic then?

Most problems arise when people don't follow the concept of pairs and combinations or use an overkill of team instructions.

Not saying that's a problem with yours. But in my experience when update "breaks" something it's due to suboptimal roles, or duty distribution. Or instructions.

I have no problem with the changes in my save, I'll slightly amend my tactic if needs be.  My tactic was already risky so it is possible that something in the match engine has changed which heightens the riskiness therefore I'm conceding more goals

I only replied as I thought it was a bit odd that the first 2 replies mentioned plug and play and poorly designed tactics where it is entirely possible that the OPs tactic is neither.  There will obviously be some changes that affect well balanced successful tactics as well as plug and play / exploit tactics

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, crusadertsar said:

Well let's see your tactic then?

Mate, only the OP's tactic can be discussed in this thread. 

[crusadertsar]

Just now, Experienced Defender said:

Mate, only the OP's tactic can be discussed in this thread. 

Haha true, sorry forgot that.

[busngabb]

That's my default tactic. I'll change the mentality depending on who I'm playing. At home against teams I should beat I'll go attacking, mid table sides leave it on positive and elite teams put it to balanced. Away I'll normally start on positive against teams I should beat, balanced against mid table teams and see how it goes and adjust from there and against elite teams I go cautious and change the fullbacks to defending from attacking, more direct passing, play for set pieces, be more disciplined and regroup when possession lost. I tend to start with minimal player instructions, just obvious stuff like tight marking an isolated sole striker or showing a good winger onto his weak foot if he's looking to cut inside to prevent that. Then I'll add more if particular players are doing well against me.

My form has gone completely south now, started with just the away form, but now getting hammerings at home too, 4-0 down to Newcastle which finished 4-1 and gave up last night at 2-0 down to Chelsea after 2 and a half minutes.

[auhsoj]

1 hour ago, busngabb said:

That's my default tactic. I'll change the mentality depending on who I'm playing. At home against teams I should beat I'll go attacking, mid table sides leave it on positive and elite teams put it to balanced. Away I'll normally start on positive against teams I should beat, balanced against mid table teams and see how it goes and adjust from there and against elite teams I go cautious and change the fullbacks to defending from attacking, more direct passing, play for set pieces, be more disciplined and regroup when possession lost. I tend to start with minimal player instructions, just obvious stuff like tight marking an isolated sole striker or showing a good winger onto his weak foot if he's looking to cut inside to prevent that. Then I'll add more if particular players are doing well against me.

My form has gone completely south now, started with just the away form, but now getting hammerings at home too, 4-0 down to Newcastle which finished 4-1 and gave up last night at 2-0 down to Chelsea after 2 and a half minutes.

I think you are misusing Mentality.  Attacking against teams who you should beat may not work. The higher the mentality, the more risk your team takes, in possession and out of possession. This means that your side will play more risky and direct passes. Given weaker opposition will defend deeper, you may simply be passing the ball straight to them as their is little space for your players in attack.

Tight marking a sole striker may sometimes be counter-intiutive too. If nobody else is running in behind the sole striker, then it can work. However, a sole striker dropping deep can lead your CB out of defense, leading to wide gaps appearing in your backline.

 What type of goals do you tend to concede? Are they from balls over the top? Do the opposition pass around you? Do they score from crosses? 

That formation is definitely too attacking to play against top top sides. Try moving the defensive line back, putting your FB's on support, maybe even moving back your wingers. I'd definitely switch the BWM to a more defensive role: the BWM will often leave his position to go chasing after the ball.  Maybe a CM on defend would work better.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by auhsoj

[busngabb]

27 minutes ago, auhsoj said:

I think you are misusing Mentality.  Attacking against teams who you should beat may not work. The higher the mentality, the more risk your team takes, in possession and out of possession. This means that your side will play more risky and direct passes. Given weaker opposition will defend deeper, you may simply be passing the ball straight to them as their is little space for your players in attack.

Tight marking a sole striker may sometimes be counter-intiutive too. If nobody else is running in behind the sole striker, then it can work. However, a sole striker dropping deep can lead your CB out of defense, leading to wide gaps appearing in your backline.

 What type of goals do you tend to concede? Are they from balls over the top? Do the opposition pass around you? Do they score from crosses? 

That formation is definitely too attacking to play against top top sides. Try moving the defensive line back, putting your FB's on support, maybe even moving back your wingers. I'd definitely switch the BWM to a more defensive role: the BWM will often leave his position to go chasing after the ball.  Maybe a CM on defend would work better.

 

 

 

 

I really don't understand what you've put about mentality. You're at home against the bottom team in the league who haven't won all season. They will be defensive. Being attacking and taking a risk or two might result in them getting into a position to get a goal from a set piece or getting one or two if they have pace on the counter, it wouldn't lead to you being 4-0 down inside the first half. If they don't work like that, what's the point of them? What are they for? Teams in real life do play like that, they'll be more ambitious and look to attack more at home and will generally scale how conservative they are based on the quality of the opposition.

It worked fine until the update. I came second in the Prem in the first season with it and was 3rd with a game in hand to take me 2nd in the second season. I'd lost 2 in 28 games in all competitions. I beat Liverpool, Chelsea and City away both seasons using those tactics, I rarely lost to the top 6 teams. Then I've gone 2 wins in 12 since the update. It might not be perfect, but what's there to make it so utterly shambolic all of a sudden? 4-0 inside the first half at home to Newcastle for example with that tactic? 2-0 in two and a half minutes?

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, busngabb said:

I'll change the mentality depending on who I'm playing. At home against teams I should beat I'll go attacking, mid table sides leave it on positive and elite teams put it to balanced

That's a completely wrong approach, because the mentality is not about that. Neither a more attacking mentality makes you more dangerous in attack nor does a more defensive mentality make you more solid in defense. The mentality does have an automatic impact on all other team instructions, but does not define your core tactical style. Instead, both the style of play and the overall (un)soundness of a tactic is primarily determined by the setup of roles and duties - i.e. how balanced and sensibly designed it is. That's the first thing anyone needs to make sure when creating a tactic. 

Your tactic (from the screenshot) has some flaws, which we can discuss in more detail if you want. 

[crusadertsar]

@busngabb Unfortunately you couldn't be more wrong. Going even more attacking and aggressive against a defensive side is the last thing you want to do. It will just compress whatever little space you have as they huddle around their goal. It will just lead to a to of blocked crosses and blocks by their goalie. That's when you see people posting frustrated messages about being FMed as they went 50 shots to 2. And then lost by 0-1. 

You really want to do the opposite and go more patient with slower tempo and lower risk to control the ball, and break these sides down due to your superior players. You might not score a lot of goals but you will probably force one through. Also lower mentality and slower tempo will allow you to set up overloads and then hit then on the more exposed side once they react to your overload.

Edited February 26, 2021 by crusadertsar

[busngabb]

2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

That's a completely wrong approach, because the mentality is not about that. Neither a more attacking mentality makes you more dangerous in attack nor does a more defensive mentality make you more solid in defense. The mentality does have an automatic impact on all other team instructions, but does not define your core tactical style. Instead, both the style of play and the overall (un)soundness of a tactic is primarily determined by the setup of roles and duties - i.e. how balanced and sensibly designed it is. That's the first thing anyone needs to make sure when creating a tactic. 

Your tactic (from the screenshot) has some flaws, which we can discuss in more detail if you want. 

So what is the point of mentality? I'm not assuming putting attacking means you score goals, but that you try to be more positive and try to attack. If it doesn't mean that it's implementation in the game is wrong. Why does your staff recommend the same things I do? I.e to reduce the mentality away from home and increase it to attacking at home? A red herring?

Happy to hear what the flaws are, I've tried this year to develop my own tactics rather than just downloading one someone develops by simulating. Also interested to know why it's gone from being relatively successful, where I felt like signing a few better players would bring trophies, to where I'll likely be sacked in a month or two. If what you say about mentality is all wrong and the tactic is rubbish, why did it work so well until the update?

[busngabb]

4 minutes ago, crusadertsar said:

@busngabb Unfortunately you couldn't be more wrong. Going even more attacking and aggressive against a defensive side is the last thing you want to do. It will just compress whatever little space you have as they huddle around their goal. It will just lead to a to of blocked crosses and blocks by their goalie. That's when you see people posting frustrated messages about being FMed as they went 50 shots to 2. And then lost by 0-1. 

You really want to do the opposite and go more patient with slower tempo and lower risk to control the ball, and break these sides down due to your superior players. You might not score a lot of goals but you will probably force one through. Also lower mentality and slower tempo will allow you to set up overloads and then hit then on the more exposed side once they react to your overload.

I've tried that sometimes. Putting it on balanced and dropping to a deeper defensive line to tempt them out. But it just results in my team not attempting to score and nothing happening, with 30 minutes disappearing without a highlight.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, busngabb said:

So what is the point of mentality? I'm not assuming putting attacking means you score goals, but that you try to be more positive and try to attack

The mentality in essence determines the level of risk in the attacking (possession) phase of play and the level of aggression in the defensive phase. So with a higher mentality, players are more willing to take risks in terms of passing style, movement on the pitch and creative freedom in attack. In defense, it affects how aggressive/assertive players will be when pressing and tackling. 

Another consideration is the impact of the mentality on all other team instructions, which is directly related to the above. For example, when you up the mentality from, say, Balanced to Positive (or Positive to Attacking etc.), all team instructions will be proportionally adjusted even if you haven't touched any of them (tempo becomes proportionally faster, passing more forward-oriented and direct, lines of defense and engagement also get higher, pressing urgency is increased and so on). The same happens when you lower the mentality, just in the opposite direction. 

Therefore, the mentality does indirectly affect your style of play through its automatic impact on other instructions, but does not define it nor can alter your overall tactical balance, which is primarily a function of how your roles and duties are set up. 

Far more important than the mentality in defining the core tactical style is the line of engagement (along with the already mentioned roles and duties). Another reason why the LOE is extremely important is that it determines your level of defensive compactness in tandem with the defensive line (along with the formation and - again - balance of roles and duties). 

Last but not least, the way you attack and the way you defend have a significant impact on each other. Here again the "famous" line of engagement plays a huge part. 

3 hours ago, busngabb said:

Why does your staff recommend the same things I do? I.e to reduce the mentality away from home and increase it to attacking at home?

That's why I never listen to my staff when it comes to tactics. And basically the same reason why I never use preset tactics - they are full of tactical overkill. 

Now to be clear: there are situations in which it makes sense to tweak the mentality in conjunction with a couple of other tweaks. But the mentality change alone is not likely to create a substantial improvement in your playing style and overall performance. 

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, busngabb said:

Happy to hear what the flaws are

The most obvious problem in your tactic is its defensive vulnerability. There are several reasons:

- less than optimal compactness (i.e. the distance between D-line and LOE), especially for a top-heavy formation without a DM (4231)

- aggressive manner of defending within such a loose defensive block (meaning that the players have to cover too much space when defending)

- both fullbacks on the attacking duty in a formation with no DM

- poor balance on the right flank (no defensive cover from the midfield for the attacking FB, because the BBM is neither a holding nor covering midfield role)

- the use of overlap instructions, which increase the individual mentality of your fullbacks in an already vulnerable system (on top of that, you have wide partnerships on both flanks that already create the so-called natural overlap, which makes the overlap instruction(s) even more needless) 

3 hours ago, busngabb said:

Also interested to know why it's gone from being relatively successful, where I felt like signing a few better players would bring trophies, to where I'll likely be sacked in a month or two. If what you say about mentality is all wrong and the tactic is rubbish, why did it work so well until the update?

I think I already explained that in my first post of this thread  

[busngabb]

49 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

The most obvious problem in your tactic is its defensive vulnerability. There are several reasons:

- less than optimal compactness (i.e. the distance between D-line and LOE), especially for a top-heavy formation without a DM (4231)

- aggressive manner of defending within such a loose defensive block (meaning that the players have to cover too much space when defending)

- both fullbacks on the attacking duty in a formation with no DM

- poor balance on the right flank (no defensive cover from the midfield for the attacking FB, because the BBM is neither a holding nor covering midfield role)

- the use of overlap instructions, which increase the individual mentality of your fullbacks in an already vulnerable system (on top of that, you have wide partnerships on both flanks that already create the so-called natural overlap, which makes the overlap instruction(s) even more needless) 

I think I already explained that in my first post of this thread  

Thanks for that, appreciate it. If I drop the line of engagement back will that improve things? Change fullbacks to support without the overlap instructions.

I'm a bit confused about what to do with the central midfield role. If I've put the fullbacks to support and removed the overlap, will that mean I don't need to change the midfield?

[Experienced Defender]

28 minutes ago, busngabb said:

If I drop the line of engagement back will that improve things?

That would improve your compactness in defense. However, be careful how far back you drop the LOE, because too much compactness is almost as bad as too little. Basically, an optimal level of compactness - especially in systems without a DM - is with the DL being just one notch higher than LOE. 

 

30 minutes ago, busngabb said:

Change fullbacks to support without the overlap instructions.

Such tweak would make sense only in tandem with a couple more tweaks elsewhere. Because a FB on support duty is likely to prove a bit too conservative to provide his inside-oriented wide partner (IF/IW) with proper and consistent support. Especially as your tactic seems to be rather possession-oriented in terms of instructions. 

The problem in your tactic is not a FB on attack duty per se. The problem is that you have them on both flanks in an inherently vulnerable top-heavy system such as 4231, where the attacking FB on the right is without defensive cover in the midfield. But on the left flank, your setup is optimal (FBat + holding BWM + IF support). Therefore, the right side is the area that needs improving in terms of balance - not just for defensive reasons but also attacking-wise (because BBM and IW/IF on support duty may easily end up competing for space and influence in the final third). 

44 minutes ago, busngabb said:

I'm a bit confused about what to do with the central midfield role. If I've put the fullbacks to support and removed the overlap, will that mean I don't need to change the midfield?

No (see my previous passage - explanation). That tweak alone would probably not suffice. 

[busngabb]

5 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Therefore, the right side is the area that needs improving in terms of balance - not just for defensive reasons but also attacking-wise (because BBM and IW/IF on support duty may easily end up competing for space and influence in the final third).

So if I changed the BBM to a different role to provide more defensive support that might improve things? Maybe a DLP? The attacking side of things works really well on the right. My main RB Dodo has the second highest average rating and assists behind the top one which is James Rodriguez. It might explain why the BBM gets generally poor ratings if he's just being ignored for James as they're in similar positions?

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, busngabb said:

So if I changed the BBM to a different role to provide more defensive support that might improve things? Maybe a DLP?

DLP on support duty (or carrilero) would be the most logical option(s) considering the rest of your setup. But you also need to take into account the player(s) playing there in terms of their suitability for the role (in terms of their relevant attributes, not what the game suggests). 

However, you would still need to change the RB role, given that the one on the left flank is also a FB on attack duty. And I explained earlier why having attack-duty fullbacks (or wing-backs) on both flanks can be problematic. 

9 minutes ago, busngabb said:

My main RB Dodo has the second highest average rating and assists behind the top one which is James Rodriguez. It might explain why the BBM gets generally poor ratings if he's just being ignored for James as they're in similar positions?

Quite possible. 

[crusadertsar]

You could totally play with two attacking fullbacks. But then you cannot have adventurous midfielders. You will need to use a double pivot in midfield. So something like DLP(support) and CM (defend). Two roles that hold position.

[Experienced Defender]

12 hours ago, crusadertsar said:

You could totally play with two attacking fullbacks. But then you cannot have adventurous midfielders. You will need to use a double pivot in midfield. So something like DLP(support) and CM (defend). Two roles that hold position

That's absolutely true 

However, it's also worth adding that an "attacking fullback" does not necessarily involve the attack duty. For example, WB on support is an attack-minded fullback - in some aspects even more than FB on attack - even though his duty is not attacking.

In other words, certain roles are inherently (more) attack-minded even without an attack duty.

[crusadertsar]

4 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

That's absolutely true 

However, it's also worth adding that an "attacking fullback" does not necessarily involve the attack duty. For example, WB on support is an attack-minded fullback - in some aspects even more than FB on attack - even though his duty is not attacking.

In other words, certain roles are inherently (more) attack-minded even without an attack duty.

Exactly, I didn't mean the duty specifically but just in general sense. "Attack-minded" is the word I should have used. As WB(s) or CWB(s) can still be very attacking in relation to other roles around them. Or with overlap instructions. It more about the relationship between individual mentalities.

And speaking of using a holding double pivot. It allows the creation of some great attacking movements while still being solid in defence.

For example, this is my current Brazilian-inspired tactical experiment. It plays as well as it looks. In fact its been working EVEN BETTER since the update. With the right role compinations and players you can get some really nice movements in the final third. I can even achieve 3-1-6 shape in attack, which AI cannot really handle most of the time. Its starting to feel rather like a cheat. 

But anyway this is just to prove that the Update did not really make tactics work worse. As long as you have a solid plan of attack. (And you do not need any of your central midfielders going forward to achieve penetration. If anything it's better when you play with two attack-minded wingbacks.)

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by crusadertsar

[busngabb]

Just wanted to say thanks for the help. I've made some changes based on the advice and have now won six in a row and have recovered back into the top 4 with a few games to go.

I've been wondering though how accessible this all is in the game. A lot will play it by choosing a default formation the like and just squad building and signing better players, which can work well. But  if you didn't know this stuff and didn't read it on the forums (Which a lot won't even consider doing) how would you find it out? Some of it is a good reflection of modern football, but a lot of it is very game specific. For example the issue with the defensive solidity on the right hand side of my formation. The assistant manager doesn't point it out despite a high score for tactical knowledge and although there is a slight hint in the boxes around the positions (It says some minor issues when a BBM is selected, saying no one is directly responsible for the area which isn't there when a DLP is selected) how would I ever really spot that?

On previous FMs I've always ended up using someone else's tactics and winning many titles, but despite winning nothing on FM 21 so far I've enjoyed it far more. Still a complete newb, I've no idea what the mentality really means and which I should be using against which teams, but I'm starting to spot a few more things now.

[FMunderachiever]

Ive started to notice the opponent scores more goals relative to XG for sure.

But ive noticed....the game seems to really respond to very aggressive shapes on the ball. Like a 442 but with two attack minded wingers absolutely bombing on, it seems like the dribbling ability from deep is unstoppable.