Jump to content

Are deffensive mentalities useful? I find this aspect of the game quite ridiculous...


Recommended Posts

Every time I use a deffensive mentality (cautious or deffensive) my team always manages to concede goals. I've used them in three different teams with decent tackling and marking but it's always the same. It's ridiculous and it's making me go nuts...

On the other hand, my dad plays with a tactic that only has two deffensive roles (the centre backs which, by the way are ball passing CB), his wingbacks are in attacking duty, his lines are completely forward on the field and plays with possitve mentality and finishes most games (almost every game) with zero goals conceded.I can't understand...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Every time I use a deffensive mentality (cautious or deffensive) my team always manages to concede goals. I've used them in three different teams with decent tackling and marking but it's always the same. It's ridiculous and it's making me go nuts...

On the other hand, my dad plays with a tactic that only has two deffensive roles (the centre backs which, by the way are ball passing CB), his wingbacks are in attacking duty, his lines are completely forward on the field and plays with possitve mentality and finishes most games (almost every game) with zero goals conceded.I can't understand...

Mentality simply refers to the ammount of risk your team takes. That is everything, from passing to shooting to positioning. You can create a very attacking but risk free side with the right duties and a "lower" mentality, just as you can play a risk taking ultra conservative low block if you choose. Your dad's tactic may well take advantage of high pressing against inferior sides, or his side may have a reputational inbalance against the Ai (i.e they dont consider him as strong so they attack more).

If you are simply putting everyone on defend or support, selecting the most conservative mentality and wondering why your team is inviting pressure... go back and look at the risk part. They will clear the ball into touch rather than pass, not take what seems to be an easy choice of a forward pass because it incurs a risk of losing the ball. Then when pressed you suddenly find you have no options and boom... you concede.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tend to use cautious when leading and the opposition has “gone attacking”. Personally, I see anything outside of Balanced or Positive as situational and this a reaction to in-game occurrences. By no means gospel, many differ in their views and have had tremendous results with attacking and very attacking approaches all season long. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Garrlor said:

Mentality simply refers to the ammount of risk your team takes

I'll write this down. But anyway. If I take almost no risk, how is it possible? I insist, my players have kinda decent marking and tackling, are they idiots and that's it? I can't understand! They always concede the most ridiculous goals no matter if I have five or four defenders...

Moreover, I've just selected the "catenaccio" tactic, so those are the instructions. I mean, I dropped from creating my own tactic though they were always balanced (a big striker paired up with a small one, etc) just in case I was doing something wrong. So, now I'm playing with catenaccio, with decent (though not great) five defenders, deffensive mentality and still concede goals. Come on! It's totally senseless. And I've been playing like this in three different teams in three different levels of the English leagues and it's always the same. I only managed to win a league with Chesterfield some months ago but I've forgotten the tactics :rolleyes: 

The point is that no matter what you do, the game is set up to favour attacking teams and that's completely upsetting...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TaPele said:

Every time I use a deffensive mentality (cautious or deffensive) my team always manages to concede goals

The mentality - whether defensive or attacking - does not define your style of play. Defensive or cautious mentality does not make you defensively solid. Nor does a more attacking mentality make you more potent and dangerous attacking-wise.

The team mentality is just one among many tactical elements, but not the most important one. How balanced and sensibly designed your setup of roles and duties is matters the most both in the defensive and attacking phases of play.

When it comes specifically to defensive solidity and stability, another key factor besides the setup of roles and duties is your level of defensive compactness - which is actually the distance between D-line and LOE (which can vary slightly depending on the type of formation you use). 

Sp if you want to get any meaningful and useful feedback, you need to post a screenshot of your whole tactic (instead of focusing only on the mentality).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here are my tactics:

Main tactic (The one I used the most and that have given the few points my team managed to get): https://imgur.com/WGWSorM

Second tactic: https://imgur.com/8vxtesT

Third tactic (the catenaccio): https://imgur.com/ndahItE

*The players selected may not be the ones that do play. I simply moved from one tactic to the other for taking the pictures, so players could have messed up...

What really drives me mad is that I know that if I make an offesive tactic I will win because it's clear the game is set up for attacking mentalities and tactics. However, I want to play defensively. So I'm kind of forced to stop playing the game: If I want to win, I shall not have fun and on the other hand it is not possible to have fun because I do not enjoy playing defensively and losing because my brainless players make stupid penalties. I mean, I know I should only care about winning, but, winning and not having fun...?

Now I wanted to know if any of you has ever made a tactic with cautious or defensive as mentality and succeded or if you know of someone who has. Alas, up until know I still think it is not possible to succeed in this game with a deffensive playing style...

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites

The mere fact that you use 3 so different tactics for the same team is already a big problem. There is absolutely no need for that. All you need is one tactic that optimally suits your players' strengths and weaknesses and then you can have a reserve one that should be nothing more than just a slightly tweaked variant of the main one. 

Now let's analyze your tactics one by one and see where the problems are.

The first tactic:

- your setup of roles and duties does not suit a short-passing game (so we already have one tactical contradiction)

- the right flank has poor defensive protection because the attacking CM can hardly offer sufficient defensive support to the lone wing-back (keep in mind that the formation is narrow)

- you want your players to play shorter passes but at the same time telling the keeper to take long kicks when distributing the ball (another tactical contradiction)

- you play with narrow defensive width (a.k.a. force the opposition outside) while using a narrow formation, which puts too much defensive pressure on your fullbacks as the only players on their respective flanks

- prevent short GK distribution makes little (if any) sense when you have only 2 players up front

- plus you use other aggressive defensive instructions all at the same time (more urgent pressing + tight marking + higher D-line + counter-press), which further compromises your defensive shape

The 2nd tactic:

- trying to play extremely defensive football with both wide midfielders on attack duties and attack-minded roles (insufficient defensive protection for the fullbacks)

- while here you have an optimal level of compactness, you have unfortunately also created a defensive overkill by combining the low lines of defense and engagement with an also low team mentality, which probably puts more pressure on your defense than your players can handle (especially over extended periods of time)

- you are then also combining tight marking and aggressive pressing, which tend to cancel each other out and therefore do not work well together (another overkill)

The 3rd tactic:

- the left flank is overly conservative, which means no attacking potency there (due to a combination of a holding midfield role and a defensive wing-back)

- the striker roles (TM and AF) should swap their sides around for the sake of better space creation and utilization and more logical attacking paterns (because the BBM as a runner role would make more sense behind the AF as the more attacking striker, whereas the DLP as a holding role makes more sense behind the TM)

- as in the previous (442) tactic, here again you have created a defensive overkill by putting even more passive instructions together (lower lines of defense and engagement + low pressing + low team mentality)

- and there is also an attacking overkill in the sense of being overly negative in possession (be more disciplined + time wasting + set pieces + narrow width + low tempo + low team mentality - all used at the same time)

CONCLUSION: Each of your 3 tactics contains a number of tactical contradictions along with a fair amount of tactical overkill + relatively poor balance of roles and duties. Therefore, your tactical issues are not caused by the use of a defensive (or any other) team mentality but as a result of all these imbalances in your tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Garrlor said:

Mentality simply refers to the ammount of risk your team takes. That is everything, from passing to shooting to positioning.

Building on this, I don't remember where this description originated, but I saw the mentality spectrum explained as follows:

"Mentality affects run timing, backtracking, passing choices and how risky a player's choices are in general. A player with an attacking mentality starts runs earlier, backtracks less, chooses to pass mostly forwards, and tries difficult stuff like slide tackles, shooting from tight angles, dribbling and through balls more often. A player with a defensive mentality starts runs later, backtracks more, chooses to pass mostly sideways/backwards, and avoids trying difficult stuff like slide tackles, shooting from tight angles, dribbling and through balls."

(If anyone knows the original source, please let me know so I can add it. I tried unsuccessfully to search for the original thread/post from which I copied it down.)

Edited by Prolix
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

- you are then also combining tight marking and aggressive pressing, which tend to cancel each other out and therefore do not work well together (another overkill)

Why do they cancel each other? Shouldn't be the other way around? If you press more, you are often nearer the player and mark him better. By doing this I tried to not let the rival get near my box. As soon as they come closer my team was supposed to run aggressively towards them, take them the ball and counter attack. I do not see the overkill. Moreover, I tried to bear in mind what I learnt from previous tactics: if you do not press, your team ends up conceding because they can't handle the other team (which is completely logical) but now you're telling me the opposite...

It would be great if you could explain me this particular point better.

Quote

trying to play extremely defensive football with both wide midfielders on attack duties and attack-minded roles (insufficient defensive protection for the fullbacks)

I put them on attack so I had more opportunities for attacking. If I had them on support, I would lack attack duties, which I found negative...

Quote

- you want your players to play shorter passes but at the same time telling the keeper to take long kicks when distributing the ball (another tactical contradiction)

I don't see at all a tactical contradiction there, but an addition of opportuinites. I sought to have more opportunities by using the goalkeeper together with the short passes.

The main problem is the following: I want a tactic cautious, with the lines backwards on the field but pressing, so we are not bombarded by the rival. As soon as we get the ball I want to do a few passes towards the other team's goal but short passes, not long passes from the defense to the attack. It might have to do with a misunderstanding: maybe there are short and at the same time direct passes and direct passes aren't only those of 60m but some shorter too...

By the way, thanks for the thorough explanation.

 

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

They honestly need to ditch the terms for mentality & just label it risk, very low risk to very high risk & everything in between 

Going Cautious doesn't mean your team will park the bus & become impenetrable the same going Very attacking doesn't mean you'll go & score 3 in the final 10 minutes of a game, TI's & roles are way more important 

In fact, I'd sod it all off together & let us choose the exact TIs & player mentalities we want than have mentalities  

You shouldnt need to choose a "mentality" in a tactic.

Your team instructions and player instructions should dictate what you want your players and team to do.

"Mentality" shouldnt even be a part of it.

 

The fluidity thing never meant anything and its still there.

 

If you could just tell your players what the hell you wanted them to do instead of being restricted by hard coded stuff and being bombarded with useless information and gobbeldygook everywhere, not only would you have a more enjoyable streamlined game, but youd have a game new players would actually pick up and play.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Defensive mentality is useless. It's far better to have a defensive formation like 5-3-2 or 4-1-4-1 with offensive mentality/duties than vice versa. What's the point of having offensive midfielder/winger on support duty when central/wide midfielder on attack duty tracks deeper and is more aggresive in attack phase?

And defensive mentality in combination with defensive formation is just suicidal. It's so passive-reactive and defence can't handle being in constant check. AI makes many stupid decisions in positioning. For offense that's not a problem - your attack is slowed or you lose the possesion. But defensive errors are costly. Truth is match engine knows what a good tackle is, positioning not so. That's why the best option is not to rely on AI decisions but to make your players run like chickens and offensive mentality + defensive shape guarantees you that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, bartex55 said:

Defensive mentality is useless.

It's really not though, that's the point, it's the low risk option, players will take less risk on the ball. It's all the TI's it affects that have you playing in your own half

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Johnny said, mentality is about how much risk you are willing to take both attacking and defensive wise. 

Being too risk avers though will lead to a passiv behavior which may lead to conceding goals.
you have to understand that pressing, tight marking and tackling are all relatively high risk behaviors. So if you cancel them out or just reduce them to a very low level (low mentalities), your players will most likely stand around and do nothing. 

You basicly need to find the sweet spot for your team between inviting pressure and becoming passive. combined with a fitting formation and the right set of roles and duties, defensive mentalities can be quite effective, especially for teams in the bottom half of your league. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Prolix said:

(If anyone knows the original source, please let me know so I can add it. I tried unsuccessfully to search for the original thread/post from which I copied it down.)

Was it the Mentality Ladder by I think, THOG?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, herne79 said:

In my experience the main issue with people using the Defensive (or Cautious) mentality is their additional use of "defensive" related Team Instructions and "defensive" related roles / duties.

Combining all of that can make your team overly passive resulting in your team getting swamped at the back with no outlet or respite.  If using such a passive mentality there is simply no need to layer on other additional passive tactical settings.  Case in point - that third tactic linked above: Defensive mentality + 3 defenders + 2 WBs and a DM all with a defend duty + lower def line + lower LoE + less pressing = much too passive, pinned in your own half and you lose.

Defensive mentality isn't "useless", nor is it ridiculous.  The issue is using all of those tactical settings in combination with each other when there is no need to do so.  The Defensive mentality already sets your def line low, with less pressing and so on.  Only add in additional instructions if you see on the pitch that there is a need to do so - don't just add them before you play matches because you think you should :thup:.

But what's the point of tactical presets then? And isn't AI using these presets with all additional TIs? 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every so often this topic gets raised and emanates from a lack of understanding caused by an unintentionally obtuse tactical creator. The natural and logical conclusion is that defensive mentality = defensive football based on the descriptions given in the tactical creator. As a result, a user would expect that lowering the mentality would make them more solid defensively. Unfortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth. It also leads to the incorrect notion that the lower end of mentalities are useless when players find their team actually becoming less effective defensively while sacrificing attacking potency.

Lower mentalities can be useful but you need to know what you're doing in order to make them work and more importantly you need to understand what the purpose behind them is. In my view, the purpose of them isn't to defend better but instead to defend more passively. That is why using a tactic which is designed to defend more proactively and then thinking that by dropping the mentality it will become stronger defensively is incorrect and usually can actually make you worse defensively.

I seldom use them to start a match regardless of the opponent as so much of my game plan in terms of defending, transitions and attacking is tied up in a more proactive (positive) style. I do however use a lower mentality in specific circumstances in a match where a more passive approach is more suitable.

For e.g. If I'm looking to hold onto a narrow lead toward the latter part of the game I may drop to cautious accompanied by a switch of duties of my attack duty full back to defend. Another example, my team has a comfortable lead against a weak opponent and I want to preserve my players condition then I might drop the mentality to defensive to vastly reduce the intensity of the tactic.

The attribute profile for your players to use a lower mentality effectively is completely different from that of a higher mentality. I think that point is often forgotten, lowering mentality isn't some sort of magic switch that can make players which can't defend suddenly become prime Maldini's. Remember, by lowering the mentality, you are giving more of your players an increased amount of defensive responsibility. As a result, I wouldn't expect a cautious mentality to work well unless my midfielders were good defensively, similarly I wouldn't expect a defensive mentality to work well unless both my midfielders and forwards were good defensively.

It's a shame that after all these years we still find ourselves in this situation but until the tactical creator is made more transparent we are going to be stuck in this cycle where the advice on the forum often contradicts what is presented by the game.

As for changing the labels of mentality to improve matters, I'm not sure what that would really achieve as it has already been done (for e.g. Counter -> Cautious, Control -> Positive) and we still have this problem. Scrapping mentalities altogether has been suggested before also but what would you do to replace it considering it acts as a simplification for both the user and the AI. In my view, that just adds busy work in an already click intensive game.

Changing mentalities rather than being a 2 click operation would become very unwieldy, having to deselect every TI for a mentality then having to select every TI for the mentality you wanted to change to, that would be an absolute nightmare, in my opinion. That is why I've always advocated for a more pictorial representation of tactical concepts in the creator which I see as being far less ambiguous rather than this relativistic version we have to work with now. I do however appreciate that creating such a thing in game is easier said than done.

Edited by pheelf
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TaPele said:

Why do they cancel each other?

Because tight marking asks a player to stick closer to the opponent who enters his area of defensive responsibility (man-oriented zonal marking), whereas aggressive pressing tells him to press aggressively as soon as an opponent moves into his area. Marking applies when the opposition player does not have the ball, while pressing applies only when he does have the ball. Therefore, in order for tight marking to be effective, the player doing it needs to be focused on the opponent, rather than running around to chase the ball. 

 

10 hours ago, TaPele said:

If you press more, you are often nearer the player and mark him better

No. Because of what I already said above - marking means trying to prevent an opposition player without the ball from receiving the ball from the teammate who has the ball at the moment, while pressing applies only when he already has the ball. 

 

10 hours ago, TaPele said:

I put them on attack so I had more opportunities for attacking. If I had them on support, I would lack attack duties, which I found negative

Distribution of duties within the system matters more than the mere number of them. And the "optimal" distribution varies from one tactical style to another. Because there needs to be consistency between different elements of a tactic. but in such a way that the tactic as a whole produces a coherent style of play. 

 

10 hours ago, TaPele said:

The main problem is the following: I want a tactic cautious, with the lines backwards on the field but pressing, so we are not bombarded by the rival. As soon as we get the ball I want to do a few passes towards the other team's goal but short passes, not long passes from the defense to the attack

That's okay, but then you need a different setup of roles and duties to support such tactical style (plus the right type of players able to play in such way effectively). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mitja said:

But what's the point of tactical presets then?

They are a starting point, nothing more.  They're to help inexperienced managers get started, give them ideas and adjust as they see fit.  Some give you a better starting point than others.

1 hour ago, Mitja said:

And isn't AI using these presets with all additional TIs? 

The AI may use them at times but the AI is perfectly capable of designing their own tactics and adjusting things as each match progresses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mitja said:

But what's the point of tactical presets then? And isn't AI using these presets with all additional TIs?

Well, the presets are unfortunately fairly poorly designed and with a lot of overkill, even though I am sure the intention was good on the part of SI. 

The AI using them does not mean they are good. In most cases, the reason why we lose matches to the AI is not their tactic being good but ours being bad (or not good enough). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, the presets are unfortunately fairly poorly designed and with a lot of overkill, even though I am sure the intention was good on the part of SI. 

The AI using them does not mean they are good. In most cases, the reason why we lose matches to the AI is not their tactic being good but ours being bad (or not good enough). 

Ok thanks. I'd like really like to know does AI use presets only or it builds it's own tactics too?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mitja said:

Ok thanks. I'd like really like to know does AI use presets only or it builds it's own tactics too?  

I am fully confident that @herne79 provided the correct answer in his post above :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so glad your bringing all this up. I play FM19 and will not be buying a new one until the tactic creation process is easier to understand. As you've said the descriptions are a total waste of time and the pre set tactics dont make sense or work. After it's all said and done you may very well find a decent tactic only for it to start to fail after a few good results (which is understandable as teams can scout what your doing) then you have to change things up but you dont understand what interacts with what...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone for answering: Here I've got a few other questions.

Why my players keep giving penalties? It's so frustrating... They've improved defensively but keep conceding goals through penalty kicks. Maybe it's because the tight marking?

How does the presence of a DLP influence on the game? Does him tend to give shorter passes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you sporsdicsmile for the explanation. I agree with what your saying but is this not simply your interpretation of the game? 

I see all options in the tactic creator as positive. All the choices are simply the differing ways in which you can win or set you team up to succeed otherwise why would they be there?? I've play sport all my life and never have I gone into a game thinking I cant win. How I or the team approach each game is different depending on the likily hood of us winning. 

This then feeds into my next point. Without a clearer tactics creator you'll especially be playing the same game over and over again. Why buy a slow defender and a TM when a deep line and a direct passes seem to be so hard to to figure out? Why bother using an anchor man and a treq because urgent pressing is almost a given? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TaPele said:

Thanks to everyone for answering: Here I've got a few other questions.

Why my players keep giving penalties? It's so frustrating... They've improved defensively but keep conceding goals through penalty kicks. Maybe it's because the tight marking?

How does the presence of a DLP influence on the game? Does him tend to give shorter passes?

If you have created a new tactic (or tactics) in the meantime, you need to post a screenshot of that new tactic, because without seeing your current tactic as a whole it's impossible to figure out why something happens. The game tends to "punish" illogical tactical decisions (like any kind of contradiction or/and overkill), so the penalties your players are conceding could be caused by a number of different reasons (including the tight marking that you mentioned). 

Even if a tactic itself is well-designed, there still can be a problem if your players are not suited to such style of play (for example, trying to play like a top team with a complete underdog or vice versa). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Thunderthump said:

Thank you sporsdicsmile for the explanation. I agree with what your saying but is this not simply your interpretation of the game? 

 

For sure. I do not claim tactical omnipotence, or to have the one and only truth in the matter. I can only really say things how I see them, and offer my insights to others so they can also try to understand and build on them. For sure there are different ways to view everything, and one of the beauties is that everyone can have a different view that can, in principle, work as well as any other.

The upshot is feel free to disagree with anything and everything I say!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @sporadicsmilesgave one of the best explanations about defensive/offensive tactics and systems. That´s why I personally prefer to call "low mentalities" and "high mentalities", because "attacking", "defending", "defensive" and "offensive" can be quite tricky.

I am also rethinking my own "solid defensive" concepts. I used to think they were about "not suffering goals", but this is an utopia. And so is thinking just lowering or raising mentality is the key to success. I really think balance is the real key on FM.

If you win more matches than loose or draw, you are on a good way. At the end of the competition the final table is really what matters - as so as the team is playing the way you want it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about formations.

Shapes like the 4231 defend aggressively.  When you counter press or transition to defence you immediately have players in positions that pressure the opposition full backs and defensive midfielder.  It is unlikely to fare as well in a low block as it may leave people ahead of the ball.

If you want to play differently, a more passive approach, this needs some thought.  A couple of considerations -

1) When you attack or counter attack from a low block your team may fly up the pitch leaving behind your defensive line and a very large gap to your central defenders.  For this reason you need a DM or one defensive duty central mid alongside another cautious CM role.

2) When you defend passively you won't be pinning opposition full backs (as you might have done in an aggressive 4231), and they will start attacking you and creating overlaps.  These need to be dealt with or your own fullbacks will be overwhelmed else your central mids get pulled out of the centre to deal with that problem which in turn creates another one.  For this reason it is very important to consider the formation you use in cautious/defensive systems.  Formations like 4141, 4411 and 442 give you much better field coverage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/03/2021 at 06:41, herne79 said:

In my experience the main issue with people using the Defensive (or Cautious) mentality is their additional use of "defensive" related Team Instructions and "defensive" related roles / duties.

 

On 28/03/2021 at 07:56, pheelf said:

Every so often this topic gets raised and emanates from a lack of understanding caused by an unintentionally obtuse tactical creator.

Unfortunately, SI bears a lot of culpability on this. I regularly receive messages in game from my assistant, advising me to switch to a Cautious mentality for an upcoming game where I am considered the underdog -- and recommended explicitly that "5-6 defend duties are suitable for a Cautious approach".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The point is that all of you have shown me what I was suspecting: It's impossible to have a quite successful season with a defensive/cautious mentality + low lines + not pressing (Let's say, a passive team). Which is ridiculous because there are successful managers who "park the bus". Hence, the game is only made for attacking and therefore, isn't an actual football simulator. And I don't even think of winning the Champions or the Premier (which is also possible with a passive playing style IRL), but not getting relegated...

What's more upsetting for me is not the fact that I will probably be relgated but the fact that I know that for succeeding I shall attack actively and not just wait for the other team to get into my box no matter in which league or level I'm playing... I'm still waiting for any example you might have of a successful passive-defensive team in the game, wether it's yours of you've heard of...

The game is full of subjective and unclear terms that do not help at all. For instance, what's "playing like a big team"? Not every big team plays in the same way. Also there are a lot of apparently overkilling instructions that do not seem to overkill at all. On the contrary, they just add up more options. For instance: If I play with shorter passes but counterattack I would get more chances that not counterattacking. The same goes for the kicking distance of the goalkeeper...

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 horas atrás, TaPele disse:

What's more upsetting for me is not the fact that I will probably be relgated but the fact that I know that for succeeding I shall attack actively and not just wait for the other team to get into my box no matter in which league or level I'm playing... I'm still waiting for any example you might have of a successful passive-defensive team in the game, wether it's yours of you've heard of...

I think this is uncommon even in real life. Let´s say, even Mourinho´s Inter was not completely passive - and it worked on a context before counter pressing was widely used. Leicester was not also passive, it used a very specific strategy to defend and counterattack, to negate and create spaces. Nowadays it is very, very hard to defend for 90 minutes in all games of the season if you don´t have a clear strategy to score and win (and I don´t know a real life team that does it despite the ones that are trying to desperately avoid relegation). FM has many flaws, but I think it tries to simulate what happens in real life and it does it fairly well.

I play on counterattack, but it is an "active" one, and in general I have been having good results. However I think it is not what you are looking for.

In the topic below Rashidi has an example of a good tactic that uses a Cautious mentality: 
 

Kb2.jpg.0ab75f9bb36adb1964e91ddc13d3c1a4.jpg

 

6 horas atrás, TaPele disse:

The game is full of subjective and unclear terms that do not help at all. For instance, what's "playing like a big team"? Not every big team plays in the same way. Also there are a lot of apparently overkilling instructions that do not seem to overkill at all. On the contrary, they just add up more options. For instance: If I play with shorter passes but counterattack I would get more chances that not counterattacking. The same goes for the kicking distance of the goalkeeper...

I really think that, if you want to play the game and like it, you should understand and follow FM´s logic, which is very specific and not intuitive at all times. After I accepted that my results improved a lot.

Edited by Tsuru
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TaPele said:

The point is that all of you have shown me what I was suspecting: It's impossible to have a quite successful season with a defensive/cautious mentality + low lines + not pressing (Let's say, a passive team). Which is ridiculous because there are successful managers who "park the bus". Hence, the game is only made for attacking and therefore, isn't an actual football simulator. And I don't even think of winning the Champions or the Premier (which is also possible with a passive playing style IRL), but not getting relegated...

What's more upsetting for me is not the fact that I will probably be relgated but the fact that I know that for succeeding I shall attack actively and not just wait for the other team to get into my box no matter in which league or level I'm playing... I'm still waiting for any example you might have of a successful passive-defensive team in the game, wether it's yours of you've heard of...

The game is full of subjective and unclear terms that do not help at all. For instance, what's "playing like a big team"? Not every big team plays in the same way. Also there are a lot of apparently overkilling instructions that do not seem to overkill at all. On the contrary, they just add up more options. For instance: If I play with shorter passes but counterattack I would get more chances that not counterattacking. The same goes for the kicking distance of the goalkeeper...

Can you name a successful team IRL that parks the bus every week? I can't and the closest example I can think of is Greece when they won the Euros in 2004 but that was a cup played over 6 games. My point is that being passive defensively and barely attacking doesn't lead to success IRL over the longer term so why would it be successful in a game that is supposed to be simulating football?

Contrary to popular belief, I actually think playing on a lower mentality is far riskier than a higher mentality. Being passive and allowing your opponent into dangerous areas of the pitch unchallenged exposes your team to a great amount of danger. You are intentionally ceding control of the game to your opponents and challenging them to try and break you down.

The problem with the approach is that your game plan gets reduced down to trying to be clinical with the few chances you get (the AI can do it, hence the term getting FM'd) and hoping that your defending is flawless for the entire game which is a huge ask especially if your team is one of the worst in the league. It's an approach which relies on the opposition's attack being incompetent rather than your defence being amazing especially when they are the better team.

I gave examples of where I use lower mentalities but as I also said it's not something I would use every game, all game, throughout an entire season and expect to be successful with. It's simply not designed for that purpose and is why when you see a lot of the so called 'supertactics' they don't tend to feature lower mentalities.

I agree with your last paragraph about the subjective and confusing terms. However, you've been given some really solid advice by others in the thread to put you on the right track when it comes to trying to create a lower mentality tactic, maybe, you should focus on listening to them rather than following the in-game advice/terms which I think everyone agrees are flawed.

Best Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pheelf said:

Can you name a successful team IRL that parks the bus every week? I can't and the closest example I can think of is Greece when they won the Euros in 2004 but that was a cup played over 6 games. My point is that being passive defensively and barely attacking doesn't lead to success IRL over the longer term so why would it be successful in a game that is supposed to be simulating football?

Couldn't agree more :thup: :applause:

Plus, defensive football and passive football are not necessarily the same thing. For exemple, counter-attacking styles of play are defensive by nature (simply because they apply a low defensive block), but are definitely not passive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Prolix said:

this. I regularly receive messages in game from my assistant, advising me to switch to a Cautious mentality for an upcoming game where I am considered the underdog -- and recommended explicitly that "5-6 defend duties are suitable for a Cautious approach"

Tactical knowledge, favoured formation and playing style of the Asst Manager come in to play here. I tend to sack, sorry agree mutual terminations, for the majority of staff...Asst Mgr especially, unless their attributes are well up there. Simply put, some are completely clueless and make recommendations from the viewpoint of a dullard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for your answers. They've helped :thup:

Now I would like you to analyse my dad's tactic. He manages Dulwich Hamlet (at the beginning of the game, in the Vanarama South) and by using this tactic he's made it to the EFL 1, fighting for a promotion. Of course he's signed great players though not spectacular ones... For me, it's kinda weird and also speaks volumes of how orientated to attacking the game is. This tactic only has two players with defensive duties and both wingbacks in attacking duties!!

Here it is: https://imgur.com/a/qKM8hIC

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TaPele said:

Thanks for your answers. They've helped :thup:

Now I would like you to analyse my dad's tactic. He manages Dulwich Hamlet (at the beginning of the game, in the Vanarama South) and by using this tactic he's made it to the EFL 1, fighting for a promotion. Of course he's signed great players though not spectacular ones... For me, it's kinda weird and also speaks volumes of how orientated to attacking the game is. This tactic only has two players with defensive duties and both wingbacks in attacking duties!!

Here it is: https://imgur.com/a/qKM8hIC

Look- there are plenty of things about that tactic that one might normally say aren't ideal e.g. no width on the right hand side, no defensive cover on the left hand side, 2 BPDs is probably overkill, extremely aggressive system not typically ideal for a lower league team etc etc.

However, there are actually quite a lot of things I like about this tactic. It reminds me very much of some of the Red Bull systems that have been employed. It completely packs the middle of the pitch (4 midfielders plus supporting target man will drop deep and the IWB will maraud through the centre as well), so many overloads and interchanges and runners in the half spaces and the centre. It looks like chaos but I can 100% see why this tactic has done well for your dad. In my experience having unpredictable and dynamic bodies in attack is key to success in the match engine and there are so many different sources of danger here, combined with the ultra high press. I think this would be fun to watch (plus the opportunites for long and direct counters with the BPD and the TM-AF combo). 

Sure, there are only 2 defensive duties but there is also a holding player in the middle (DLP) flanked by 2 B2Bs who will contribute defensively. Plus there are only 3 players on attack, so the remaining 5 support duty players will all help out defensively. Plus, when you're pressing so aggressively from the front and have so many bodies in the middle of the pitch there will usually be someone covering, but yeah I expect that this tactic will be open on the counter attack. But if it works, it works!

Because I'm a little more risk-averse, I'd probably change it to something like the following for the roles and duties:

       AF-TMs

          AMs

  CAR-DLP-CAR

FBa-CD-BPD-IWBa

That would provide more coverage on the flanks, more solidity in the midfield, although it would sacrifice a lot of the penetrative power. So maybe you could try the left centre mid as a B2B or Mez and maybe putting the DLP on defend or changing the TM to be on attack etc but this might also sacrifice some of the original dynamism and gung-ho attacking nature of this tactic. 

Edited by Flußkrebs
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's weird... He even got promoted in every first season. His first season got promoted to VNL, his second to EFL 2 and his third to EFL 1. Now he's fighting for getting to the Championship. I can't believe the match engine, is so clearly made for attacking teams. Or at least, it clearly favours attacking teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 horas atrás, TaPele disse:

Thanks for your answers. They've helped :thup:

Now I would like you to analyse my dad's tactic. He manages Dulwich Hamlet (at the beginning of the game, in the Vanarama South) and by using this tactic he's made it to the EFL 1, fighting for a promotion. Of course he's signed great players though not spectacular ones... For me, it's kinda weird and also speaks volumes of how orientated to attacking the game is. This tactic only has two players with defensive duties and both wingbacks in attacking duties!!

Here it is: https://imgur.com/a/qKM8hIC

I don´t think the game is oriented to attacking game - football is. I don´t know any RL team that parked the bus during 90 minutes for a whole season on a long championship and won meaningful titles. Even Karl Rappan´s Switzerland or Greece 2004 were designed for a short tournament run, let´s say, 6-7 games. And also context matters - they had nothing to loose, nobody expected them to win anything, so it really doesn´t make a difference. If it worked - as it did - ok, but if not, nobody would really care. It´s the same on FM when you play against a much stronger team in Defend mentality because you expect to loose anyway.

People talk very much about Catenaccio, but I really think it had a goal scoring system, as it evolved into a system in which the Libero was a very attacking player. And so about Mourinho´s systems. But you have to consider that in RL managers can adapt the players and train them to more specific systems and ways of play, which is more difficult to do on a football simulator like FM.

FM is not about being offensive or defensive, I think. It´s about balance. If you balance correctly mentality, formation, roles/duties and instructions, and hire players that are good for your division level, I really think you will do fine.

It´s very difficult to analyze your father´s tactic because I don´t know the players he hired and what he wanted with it. 

Edited by Tsuru
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TaPele said:

Thanks for your answers. They've helped :thup:

Now I would like you to analyse my dad's tactic. He manages Dulwich Hamlet (at the beginning of the game, in the Vanarama South) and by using this tactic he's made it to the EFL 1, fighting for a promotion. Of course he's signed great players though not spectacular ones... For me, it's kinda weird and also speaks volumes of how orientated to attacking the game is. This tactic only has two players with defensive duties and both wingbacks in attacking duties!!

Here it is: https://imgur.com/a/qKM8hIC

 

6 hours ago, TaPele said:

It's weird... He even got promoted in every first season. His first season got promoted to VNL, his second to EFL 2 and his third to EFL 1. Now he's fighting for getting to the Championship. I can't believe the match engine, is so clearly made for attacking teams. Or at least, it clearly favours attacking teams

To me, your dad's tactic looks like a so-called exploit plug'n'play tactic, which can explain why it is so successful despite being poorly designed from a logical standpoint. 

Nothing wrong with that, because everyone is free to play the game however they like :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize, as I have to amend (correct) my previous comment. Your dad's tactic actually does not look like a plug'n'play/exploit tactic, simply because it has too few attack duties for that kind of tactic. Where it does resemble an exploit PnP though is the use of overly and needlessly aggressive out-of-possession TIs. 

So, while your dad's tactic is probably not an exploit, it is still far from being sensibly designed either. Which only shows that the ME has its obvious flaws, but still does not support your bold assertion that the game "favors" attacking tactics by default. 

At the same time, I do agree that attack-minded tactics are easier to create compared to defensive-minded ones, simply because attacking styles generally allow for a greater margin of error (tactical imbalance) than those intended to be defensive. In other words, defensive football is more difficult to play because there are more factors that have to be taken into account when creating a tactic in order for the tactic to be really solid (including defensive set pieces, which many people tend to neglect as a factor). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/03/2021 at 22:01, Garrlor said:

Mentality simply refers to the ammount of risk your team takes. That is everything, from passing to shooting to positioning. You can create a very attacking but risk free side with the right duties and a "lower" mentality, just as you can play a risk taking ultra conservative low block if you choose. Your dad's tactic may well take advantage of high pressing against inferior sides, or his side may have a reputational inbalance against the Ai (i.e they dont consider him as strong so they attack more).

If you are simply putting everyone on defend or support, selecting the most conservative mentality and wondering why your team is inviting pressure... go back and look at the risk part. They will clear the ball into touch rather than pass, not take what seems to be an easy choice of a forward pass because it incurs a risk of losing the ball. Then when pressed you suddenly find you have no options and boom... you concede.

SI PLEASE change it so that mentalities actually mean what they say! I want Very Defensive to actually make my team stay back and defend. Right now in the game playing "defensive" is a joke.

Edited by Rooneye
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rooneye said:

SI PLEASE change it so that mentalities actually mean what they say! I want Very Defensive to actually make my team stay back and defend. Right now in the game playing "defensive" is a joke.

What you are referring to is primarily defined by how you set the D-line and LOE (along with a properly balanced and logical setup of roles and duties). The team mentality is of secondary importance in that particular regard.

On the other hand, where I can agree is that the in-game descriptions of team mentalities are fairly confusing and also partly inaccurate, so that's the area SI should primarily look to address.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rooneye said:

SI PLEASE change it so that mentalities actually mean what they say! I want Very Defensive to actually make my team stay back and defend. Right now in the game playing "defensive" is a joke.

To play defensive football, is not so much about overall team mentality but more about your formation shape, instructions, and your role and duty distribution. And as @Experienced Defender already mentioned your LOE and DL set-ups are very important. You could essentially play defensive football with Attacking team mentality if you set those up correctly.

For example I have only conceded 15 goals so far this season (and I'm in February in the game) and I have been playing a tactic with "Positive" team mentality all season long. How is that not defensive football?

So it's very possible to play defensively. It's just not as simple as slapping on a very defensive team mentality without actually setting up your roles and team instructions correctly.

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rooneye said:

SI PLEASE change it so that mentalities actually mean what they say! I want Very Defensive to actually make my team stay back and defend. Right now in the game playing "defensive" is a joke.

well, first of all, what does playing defensive mean for you? With a Very Defensive Mentality your team will be way more cautious both defensive and attacking wise. In other words, they will soak up preassure as much as posible and keep the ball as long as possible. It also makes your players to less run forward in attackin phase (obviously Roles / duties have a huge impact here as well)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

On 28/03/2021 at 07:16, Experienced Defender said:

Because tight marking asks a player to stick closer to the opponent who enters his area of defensive responsibility (man-oriented zonal marking), whereas aggressive pressing tells him to press aggressively as soon as an opponent moves into his area. Marking applies when the opposition player does not have the ball, while pressing applies only when he does have the ball. Therefore, in order for tight marking to be effective, the player doing it needs to be focused on the opponent, rather than running around to chase the ball.

TThis is new to me, it changes how I view my team behaving out of possession so definitely new things to try out. Interesting.  

 

On 02/04/2021 at 05:21, Experienced Defender said:

To me, your dad's tactic looks like a so-called exploit plug'n'play tactic

 

On 02/04/2021 at 06:38, Experienced Defender said:

it does resemble an exploit PnP though is the use of overly and needlessly aggressive out-of-possession TIs.


An aggressive high press is an exploit now? Why is it needlessly aggressive? that seems subjective.

 

On 02/04/2021 at 06:38, Experienced Defender said:

At the same time, I do agree that attack-minded tactics are easier to create compared to defensive-minded ones

If nothing else, the failstate in an attack effort is a failure to score, whereas the failstate in a defensive effort is conceding a goal, one of those outcomes is more punishing than the other skewing things further, making it feel worse.

 

Letting go of the old interpretation of the mentality slider and understanding it to be some abstract aversion to risk has made me a happier, if not entirely a better manager in the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, witticism said:

An aggressive high press is an exploit now?

No, it's not an exploit per se, but is a regular part of exploit tactics. That's was the point of my comment. 

 

3 minutes ago, witticism said:

Why is it needlessly aggressive? that seems subjective

Well, it is subjective in a sense. The reason I personally consider it "needlessly aggressive" is simply because I prefer intelligent over aggressive defending. And such approach has consistently worked for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...