Have you ever perfomed bad with an attacking

[TaPele]

A few days ago I started a topic about how useless defensive tactics were at least in FM21. We had an interesting discussion and I've learnt some concepts about the game's instructions and mentalities. Now I've come up with another question:

I changed my tactics towards a more attacking one (with attacking mentalities and a few different roles) and I started to get good results. In addition to that, I've started to watch a YouTube series where the Youtuber plays with an attacking style and got promoted the frist year. Also, as I wrote in the other post, my dad plays with a possitive mentality and an attacking tactic with very agressive roles and got promoted from Vanarama North to EFL 1 and got promoted every season he played.

So, it might be true that it's possible to use the cautious/defensive mentality with the right roles and succeed (this is what I've concluded from the other post). But, now I go beyond that, isn't the game set up for attacking teams? Isn't it true that attacking teams perform great no matter their players or roles (though of course they influence)? At least up to a certain point where it gets harsh to get promoted (EFL 1, in the English leagues system might be that point)

Have you ever had a bad season using an attacking tactic? I've only once saw an AI team getting relegated having played with an attacking mentality at least against me.

[Experienced Defender]

Quote

Have you ever perfomed bad with an attacking

Attacking what? Attacking team mentality OR attacking/attack-minded style of play? 

[Prolix]

23 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Attacking what? Attacking team mentality OR attacking/attack-minded style of play? 

The question is explained in the rest of the OP. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 minute ago, Prolix said:

The question is explained in the rest of the OP. 

So what's the answer? I am obviously stupid, as I seem unable to find it anywhere within the OP. He is only talking about "attacking teams", "attacking tactics" and stuff like that, but fails to explain what exactly he means by these phrases. 

[crusadertsar]

What exactly do you mean by an attacking tactic? 

What formations are you talking about? What team mentality? What mix of duties? 

[Prolix]

4 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

So what's the answer? I am obviously stupid, as I seem unable to find it anywhere within the OP. He is only talking about "attacking teams", "attacking tactics" and stuff like that, but fails to explain what exactly he means by these phrases. 

You know you were poking fun at the incomplete thread title.

[CARRERA]

yes the game in its current state favours aggressive set ups as many teams play quite low risk. So if you want to win, going with a more aggressive setup seems most promising. 

Once AI behavior changes to more aggressive playstyles it will balance out.

also I think you still misunderstand what exactly mentalities do or what playing defensive / offensive actually mean. 

picking a defensive mentality is neither made for scoring goals nor for being defensively solid. It’s made for not taking any risks at all e.g. don’t tackle, don’t press, don’t Mark, don’t cross, don’t shoot, don’t make any Long/risky passes don’t even go forward. I’m overdoing a bit here but I guess you get the point. 

picking a more aggressive mentality tho is all about winning the game e.g. tackle more, press more, mark tighter, Win the ball back quickly, shoot more, cross more, move forward, go for risky passes. Basicly everything you need to score a goal and win the match.

having that in mind you can adjust that very basic style of play to your favour by adjusting roles, duties and team instructions and therefor create a certain style of play. The Formation you pick does also come into play for effective how effective your desired style can be executed 
 

you also have to keep in mind what style the Teams you Face will come up with. They press aggressively and bring their players up the pitch with tempo? You may be able to sit back, soak up the pressure and the. launch a quick counter attack. On the other hand if the other team sits deep, defending cautiously you might push up from the back by yourself and patiently wait for space to open up for the one pass that brings your striker into scoring position 

Edited April 5, 2021 by CARRERA

[herne79]

I'm using the Cautious mentality and this is how my Board view my performance for their desired attacking play style.

Playing "attacking" or "defensive" football is about much more than just mentality .

[Experienced Defender]

2 minutes ago, Prolix said:

You know you were poking fun at the incomplete thread title.

Absolutely not. The reason I opted to quote the thread title specifically is that it perfectly sums up the entire opening post. I already tried to explain to the OP the difference between team mentality and playing style in the other thread he mentioned here, but he is now repeating the same theory, only from the opposite side of the same coin.

[TaPele]

I'm so sorry! I never realised the title was incompleted! I meant attacking tactics/formations. To be precise, using wingbacks in attack duties (or even in support), four centre backs (less than five), few or none defensive midfieldes (I don't mean midfielders in with defensive duties, but roles like the anchor man or the half back) and of course possitive/attacking mentality.

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by TaPele

[TaPele]

42 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

but he is now repeating the same theory, only from the opposite side of the same coin.

That's not true at all. I've learnt what you told me about how mentalities work, having to do with the level of risk as CARRERA wrote here too. What I'm wondering now is the following: Well, defending is much more than mentaility and it is an existing way to play the game but is it convenient to use for us who fancy it IRL? Everyone seems to succeed with attacking tactics, then, Is it possible for an attacking tactic to fail? Have you ever gone through that? If it isn't, then the game is completely ruined because we all want to win, then who will play with a tactic that tends to lose (a defensive one)? And hence, it is ridiculous to play defensively (as I kinda concluded from the other post but wanted to ask in a more direct way here)

If any of you has ever failed with attacking tactics, then all the successful agresive tactics have to do with the player's quality and the duties but I have the feeling that using an agressive tactic is enough for performing well in the game

By "failing" I don't mean necessarily to get relegated or be knocked out of competitions in the first round but to have bad forms and basically to get few points. Is that possible with agressive tactics?

Edited April 5, 2021 by TaPele

[TaPele]

49 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I'm using the Cautious mentality and this is how my Board view my performance for their desired attacking play style.

Playing "attacking" or "defensive" football is about much more than just mentality .

I'm quite interested in your case. Could you show me your tactic? I can't think of attacking football with cautious mentality... I mean, every team wants to win and for doing so it has to attack. Then every team plays attacking football at some point of the game, some as soo as it begins while some other when they find the chance to counter-attack. I suppose that with cautious mentality you seek the second option but what could you do when you recover the ball?

Edited April 5, 2021 by TaPele

[Experienced Defender]

@TaPele May I ask you a question: please look carefully at the two tactics bellow and tell me which one is more attacking in your opinion:

The tactic 1:

CFat

IFat          AMsu         IWsu

DLPsu    CMde

 

WBsu   CDde  CDde  FBat

SKde

Mentality - Defensive

In possession - play out of defence, overlap left

In transition - counter-press, distribute quickly

Out of possession - much higher D-line, higher LOE, more urgent pressing

The tactic 2:

TMat   PFat

 

DWsu    CMde  BWMsu    DWsu

 

NFBde   NCBde  NCBde    NFBde

GKde

Mentality - Attacking

In possession - much more direct passing, early crosses, narrow width

In transition - counter, regroup, slow pace down, take long kicks

Out of possession - lower D-line, much lower LOE, force opposition outside

?

[TaPele]

27 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

@TaPele May I ask you a question: please look carefully at the two tactics bellow and tell me which one is more attacking in your opinion:

The tactic 1:

CFat

IFat          AMsu         IWsu

DLPsu    CMde

 

WBsu   CDde  CDde  FBat

SKde

Mentality - Defensive

In possession - play out of defence, overlap left

In transition - counter-press, distribute quickly

Out of possession - much higher D-line, higher LOE, more urgent pressing

The tactic 2:

TMat   PFat

 

DWsu    CMde  BWMsu    DWsu

 

NFBde   NCBde  NCBde    NFBde

GKde

Mentality - Attacking

In possession - much more direct passing, early crosses, narrow width

In transition - counter, regroup, slow pace down, take long kicks

Out of possession - lower D-line, much lower LOE, force opposition outside

?

First, thanks for taking the time to come up with this little test. IMO, the first one is more attacking since it looks more aggressively for scoring given more players go up on the field. But now I realise my problem comes at understanding how mentalities work in their opposite phase of the game. How attacking mentalities work when defending and viceversa?

Edited April 6, 2021 by TaPele

[CARRERA]

2 minutes ago, TaPele said:

But now I realise my problem comes at understanding how mentalities work in their opposite phase of the game?. How attacking mentalities work when defending and viceversa?

It’s simple

defensive mentality = cautious at defending, cautions at attacking 

attacking mentality = aggressive at defending, aggressive at attacking 

those are the default settings for mentalities. The higher/lower to a greater extend.

[Experienced Defender]

2 minutes ago, TaPele said:

IMO, the first one is more attacking

Yes  

 

3 minutes ago, TaPele said:

But now I realise my problem comes at understanding how mentalities work in their opposite phase of the game?. How attacking mentalities work when defending and viceversa?

What do you mean by "their opposite phase of the game"? 

[TaPele]

6 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

What do you mean by "their opposite phase of the game"? 

CARRERA's answered me. Thanks!

Now, in the first tactic players would take much less risks when attacking, wouldn't they? If that so, how is a FBAt supposed to take less risks if he's supposed to go up on the pitch. By definition it takes risks...

But I'm still wondering if any of you has ever underperfomed with attacking/aggressive tactics.

[CARRERA]

24 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Now, in the first tactic players would take much less risks when attacking, wouldn't they? If that so, how is a FBAt supposed to take less risks if he's supposed to go up on the pitch. By definition it takes risks...

Understand it as some kind of scaling. Like 1-20 or 1-100 while under an attacking mentality a FBa will take risks 100/100 while a FBa on a defensive mentality might only take risks on that scale up to lets say 75/100 or maybe even only  50/100. you can see that when going to the PI‘s menu of a player where you can see their individual mentality (top right). If you change your teams mentality it will also change. 

But honestly you don’t need to go into that much Detail, its just for understanding purpose. Better think of how you want your team to play. then pick a formation that complements that style of play and pick a mentality that overlaps most with your desired style of play. pick your roles and duties than and last but not least fine tune your setup with TI‘s

i know basicly everything Is possible and you properbly can turn any formation / mentality into any style of play. But don’t go for any super fancy stuff unless you fully understand the method of tactics creation. 
 

oh and yes you can fail with an aggressive setup if you become overly aggressive it will turn into a complete mess where your players will basicly cross and shoot from Hopeless positions where you end up with 30 shot off goal playing 0:0 or loosing 0:1. more risks doesn’t necessarily mean more goals and more titles ;-)

Edited April 6, 2021 by CARRERA

[Nima2708]

2 hours ago, TaPele said:

I'm quite interested in your case. Could you show me your tactic? I can't think of attacking football with cautious mentality... I mean, every team wants to win and for doing so it has to attack. Then every team plays attacking football at some point of the game, some as soo as it begins while some other when they find the chance to counter-attack. I suppose that with cautious mentality you seek the second option but what could you do when you recover the ball?

I often play tiki taka with cautious mentality. 

Because you dont want to give away the ball to much. Same time you dont want your players dont try anything.

 

so maybe you can change team instructions, like higher line of eg, dont use work the ball .....

so you find a balance. You can also use playerroles and pi 😊

[maximilli]

From my experience, hyper-attacking tactics are the most successful, but I have not yet played FM21. If you look at the most successful tactics though, even for underdog teams, hyper-attacking tactics still seem to dominate. Obviously you can still create an attacking tactic that fails, especially if you push it to the extremes like playing without CBs. But overall, good attacking tactics will give you more success than good balanced or defensive tactics.

[herne79]

8 hours ago, TaPele said:

I'm quite interested in your case. Could you show me your tactic? I can't think of attacking football with cautious mentality... I mean, every team wants to win and for doing so it has to attack. Then every team plays attacking football at some point of the game, some as soo as it begins while some other when they find the chance to counter-attack. I suppose that with cautious mentality you seek the second option but what could you do when you recover the ball?

I wrote about it a couple of years ago, I'm still playing in essentially the same way.  Start from the top and read through the blue highlighted posts on pages one and two:

Developing my 4123DM Wide ("Tiki-Taka") - Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com)

However if you want to go straight to the tactic, it's here (note I'm not using the same def line and LoE settings now, I've reduced them a bit and I'm only using the Cautious mentality):

https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/465977-developing-my-4123dm-wide-tiki-taka/?do=findComment&comment=11716380

I do suggest you read the other blue highlighted posts I mention though as they give lots of description about the principles involved .

One thing to understand - your chosen mentality changes a lot of team instructions, so a pretty low defensive line (for example) will be set by default when choosing the Cautious mentality.  If you then change TIs yourself those changes will be in relation to the starting point set by the Mentality.  So with the Def Line, it's set low by default by the Cautious mentality but increasing it to "high def line" in the TIs yourself isn't actually setting a high def line - it just sets it a bit higher than the starting point.  This is where confusion can begin when using the tactic creator.

If it helps, think of it on a 1-5 scale.  Using the Cautious mentality would set by default a def line of 2.  Then changing the def line TI yourself to "higher" would only increase it to 3; increasing it to "very high" would be 4.  However starting with the Balanced mentality, def line gets set by default to 3.  Setting a higher def line increases it to 4 and very high = 5.  (These numbers are not exact, they're just for demonstration purposes).  Hopefully you get what I mean and you can apply the same theory across several different TIs.

Anyway, overall then attacking football (or defensive football) is about how you set up your system in combination with all factors involved, not just Mentality.  TIs, PIs, roles, duties, player attributes, player Traits and (of course) Mentality all play a factor and will be driven by your desired style of play.  There are lots of different ways to play attacking football - above I'm playing a game based around possession with intent (I average 63% possession, have scored the 3rd most in the division, conceded the least and my right "winger" is my top scorer); I have another system based more on a traditional English 442 which is fairly fast and direct but doesn't use much pressing, the "Regroup" tactical setting and a Balanced mentality.  And yes you could absolutely use the Attacking mentality in an attacking system if you want to.  So there's more than one way to skin a cat, it just depends on how you want your team to play.

[zyfon5]

7 hours ago, maximilli said:

From my experience, hyper-attacking tactics are the most successful, but I have not yet played FM21. If you look at the most successful tactics though, even for underdog teams, hyper-attacking tactics still seem to dominate. Obviously you can still create an attacking tactic that fails, especially if you push it to the extremes like playing without CBs. But overall, good attacking tactics will give you more success than good balanced or defensive tactics.

From my limited experience here, most of the tactics that are seeking help from this forum are the ultra attacking tactics that you mentioned here so I am not sure if ultra attacking tactics are definitely going to be more successful or easier to find success. And I have tried these so called 'plug and play' tactics that rarely outperforms the tactics that I design myself which are way more balanced. I will argue that attacking tactics are much easier to set up since there is more margin of error if things go wrong due to the limitations of the match engine but you can definitely find success playing a balanced or defensive tactic. There is also the problem of definition of what separates an attacking tactic from a defensive one. What is the thing that separates them? Number of goals? Possession? Goals conceded? Because you can have a tactic on 'Balanced' mentality that will score tons of goals and a tactic on 'Attacking' mentality that only concede 10 goals across 38 game season.

[Tsuru]

Balance is always the key, I think. If you choose lower mentalities, you will have to adjust them to be not too passive. If you choose higher mentalities, you will have to adjust them to defend smartly and avoid leaving unnecessary spaces on the defence. On past versions I think it was easier to start on a Balanced mentality, now for me it looks a little bit dull, when I use it I have to set it up very specifically or the team looks like it doesn´t know how to play or what to do.

During last season I used a counter attack strategy on positive mentality with great success, we finished 2nd on National League 15 points ahead of the 3rd team - but the team lacked offensive power and we fall on the playoffs. This season I am using a positive-direct 4231, which can variate to a balanced-direct 4231 when we are winning. I am still learning how it can work and it looks very nice, but sometimes we also lack offensive power as we did on the counter systems and the team is almost the same. So I think the problem is with the players that I have - and not with the tactics or its intensities, as the players are not really suited to a possession style due to low passing, anticipation, marking and tackle.

What we can conclude? Tactics are important, but I think we overvaluate them. The players are much, much more important, and create a tactic suited for them, even if it is a simple one, will do better than a very good one that is not adequate to any of them.

Edited April 6, 2021 by Tsuru

[maximilli]

1 hour ago, zyfon5 said:

And I have tried these so called 'plug and play' tactics that rarely outperforms the tactics that I design myself which are way more balanced.

Attacking tactic doesn't mean plug and play tactic. If you create an attacking tactic that fits your team vs a defensive or balanced tactic, the attacking tactic will outperform the others.

 

1 hour ago, zyfon5 said:

but you can definitely find success playing a balanced or defensive tactic.

Yes, you can have balanced or defensive tactics that still give you success. I've won several UCLs with a patient possession tactic. That doesn't mean that attacking tactics aren't better though.

 

1 hour ago, zyfon5 said:

What is the thing that separates them?

To me hyper-attacking are tactics that use at least positive mentality, higher tempo, high line and pressing, and usually 3+ attacking roles. And better means getting more points, because that's what ultimately matters. But usually attacking tactic will score more goals and also give a bigger goal difference.

[zyfon5]

1 hour ago, maximilli said:

Attacking tactic doesn't mean plug and play tactic.

I'm referring here to the plug'n,play tactics. Not specifically attacking tactics as there are download tactics that plays on cautious or balanced mentality. Most of the time the tactics that I design to fit the players I have outperform these tactics not to mention being more consistent.

 

1 hour ago, maximilli said:

Yes, you can have balanced or defensive tactics that still give you success. I've won several UCLs with a patient possession tactic. That doesn't mean that attacking tactics aren't better though.

There is a difference between easier to set up and better tactics. My opinion is that attacking tactics seems better because there is more margin of error due to limitations in the ME.

 

1 hour ago, maximilli said:

To me hyper-attacking are tactics that use at least positive mentality, higher tempo, high line and pressing, and usually 3+ attacking roles. And better means getting more points, because that's what ultimately matters. But usually attacking tactic will score more goals and also give a bigger goal difference.

Applying your definition, none of the tactics that I have used in all my FM saves are attacking tactics. It is a miracle that I managed to overachieve every save. And some of my tactics that use quite conservative instructions (lower tempo, no high press) score more goals and points than a tactic on 'Attacking' mentality with high tempo and high pressing.

And I have seen a lot of people that used these combination of 'attacking' instructions seek help in this forum and as soon as they drop some of these instructions and balance out their tactics they perform better and are more consistent at scoring points. So are these so called 'attacking' tactics really much better? A question to ponder.

[zyfon5]

1 hour ago, Tsuru said:

Balance is always the key, I think. If you choose lower mentalities, you will have to adjust them to be not too passive. If you choose higher mentalities, you will have to adjust them to defend smartly and avoid leaving unnecessary spaces on the defence. On past versions I think it was easier to start on a Balanced mentality, now for me it looks a little bit dull, when I use it I have to set it up very specifically or the team looks like it doesn´t know how to play or what to do.

During last season I used a counter attack strategy on positive mentality with great success, we finished 2nd on National League 15 points ahead of the 3rd team - but the team lacked offensive power and we fall on the playoffs. This season I am using a positive-direct 4231, which can variate to a balanced-direct 4231 when we are winning. I am still learning how it can work and it looks very nice, but sometimes we also lack offensive power as we did on the counter systems and the team is almost the same. So I think the problem is with the players that I have - and not with the tactics or its intensities, as the players are not really suited to a possession style due to low passing, anticipation, marking and tackle.

What we can conclude? Tactics are important, but I think we overvaluate them. The players are much, much more important, and create a tactic suited for them, even if it is a simple one, will do better than a very good one that is not adequate to any of them.

Totally agreed. Those downloadable tactics that you can find on the internet also seems to conclude to this. A tactic that is absolute useless for an underdog team can be absolutely OP for a top team. There are very few tactics that are consistent across different levels of teams.

[maximilli]

13 minutes ago, zyfon5 said:

Applying your definition, none of the tactics that I have used in all my FM saves are attacking tactics. It is a miracle that I managed to overachieve every save.

Overachieving is very easy in FM. The game isn't that complicated. You could play preset gegenpress tactic, give all the responsibilities to staff, except main team tactics and player signings, and eventually still win UCL with a midtable team.  Question is, could you overachieve even more if you played very attacking? I think you could.

 

16 minutes ago, zyfon5 said:

And some of my tactics that use quite conservative instructions (lower tempo, no high press) score more goals and points than a tactic on 'Attacking' mentality with high tempo and high pressing.

Is that only FM21 or also previous FMs? FM20 I've played way too many hours and would be willing to bet my house on it that lower tempo, low press tactic isn't going to outperform my attacking tactic. I've had 100 goals for, 15 conceded, 0 games lost in season tactic with low tempo, direct passing and high mentality, but that still included high press. For FM21, the highest points per game tactics I've seen have all been very attacking, but since I don't have it myself, I'm open to you or others sharing their results and tactics that aren't attacking and do better.

 

26 minutes ago, zyfon5 said:

And I have seen a lot of people that used these combination of 'attacking' instructions seek help in this forum and as soon as they drop some of these instructions and balance out their tactics they perform better and are more consistent at scoring points.

I've seen more people complain about gegenpress being too effective. Most of the tactics that get posted here aren't that attacking but might have too many contradictory instructions and removing those helps.

[zyfon5]

2 minutes ago, maximilli said:

Overachieving is very easy in FM. The game isn't that complicated. You could play preset gegenpress tactic, give all the responsibilities to staff, except main team tactics and player signings, and eventually still win UCL with a midtable team.  Question is, could you overachieve even more if you played very attacking? I think you could.

Maybe depends on what your definition of attacking is. From my experience, once I have found the balance the tactic becomes very good which is not necessary equating to going more attacking. I have gone more attacking and play better but also drop high pressing and play better. So there is no definite answer in my opinion.

 

5 minutes ago, maximilli said:

Is that only FM21 or also previous FMs? FM20 I've played way too many hours and would be willing to bet my house on it that lower tempo, low press tactic isn't going to outperform my attacking tactic. I've had 100 goals for, 15 conceded, 0 games lost in season tactic with low tempo, direct passing and high mentality, but that still included high press. For FM21, the highest points per game tactics I've seen have all been very attacking, but since I don't have it myself, I'm open to you or others sharing their results and tactics that aren't attacking and do better.

I have not played enough FM21 to draw a conclusion so my experience is limited to FM20 and previous. And I am classifying my tactics based on his definition. Some of my tactics are definitely attacking tactics according to my definition. According to his definition, your tactics are also not an attacking tactic since you do not play with 3+ attacking roles and no higher tempo. I do not doubt the results of the tactics that are being tested on various websites but a player that designs a good tactic can easily be better than that. (like -10 goal difference across 80 games is a good tactic for a subpar team? FM players here can easily beat that with their own save). They are good tactics in a general setting but individual teams not so much.

 

16 minutes ago, maximilli said:

I've seen more people complain about gegenpress being too effective. Most of the tactics that get posted here aren't that attacking but might have too many contradictory instructions and removing those helps.

Depending on what you define as gegenpress i suppose. Technically any tactics that has counter press as their instruction is a gegenpress tactic regarding whether they are actually an attacking tactic.

[Experienced Defender]

13 hours ago, TaPele said:

Now, in the first tactic players would take much less risks when attacking, wouldn't they? If that so, how is a FBAt supposed to take less risks if he's supposed to go up on the pitch. By definition it takes risks...

But I'm still wondering if any of you has ever underperfomed with attacking/aggressive tactics

Imagine that team mentalities do not exist in the game. There are only roles, duties, team instructions and player instructions, but no mentalities.

Would you believe if I told you that both "attacking" and "defensive" tactics would still be possible to create without using team mentalities in essentially the same way as with the mentalities?

[Experienced Defender]

13 hours ago, TaPele said:

I'm still wondering if any of you has ever underperfomed with attacking/aggressive tactics

For your information, most people who come here to ask for tactical help use exactly such tactics - attacking and aggressive.

[pheelf]

I think the problem here lies in using the same metrics to define success in a higher mentality tactic and a lower mentality tactic.

15 minutes ago, maximilli said:

Is that only FM21 or also previous FMs? FM20 I've played way too many hours and would be willing to bet my house on it that lower tempo, low press tactic isn't going to outperform my attacking tactic. I've had 100 goals for, 15 conceded, 0 games lost in season tactic with low tempo, direct passing and high mentality, but that still included high press. For FM21, the highest points per game tactics I've seen have all been very attacking, but since I don't have it myself, I'm open to you or others sharing their results and tactics that aren't attacking and do better.

 

This kind of thinking is exactly the problem. Of course a lower mentality based tactic isn't going to outperform a higher mentality based one. One seeks to create chances to score more than the other. It would be utterly bizarre if using a lower mentality resulted in a tactic that was more effective at attacking than a higher mentality one. Ultimately, the whole purpose of football is to outscore your opponent so therefore I don't understand why it would be a shock to anyone that choosing an approach which is more geared toward scoring goals would be more effective. 

What I would add though is that I feel that playing high tempo, high pressing of a higher mentality perhaps isn't punished enough in the ME which may go some way to explain why they are OP. Seeing repeated examples of human controlled teams storming up the leagues playing a gegenpressing style from the 8th division to the Premiership is ridiculous and needs changing as it's completely unrealistic.

Teams which are amongst the worst in a league trying to play on a higher mentality against better teams should really be getting battered on a regular basis rather than being able to over perform to the extent they are currently able. It feels as if all the downsides of using such an aggressive approach aren't really being represented in the ME.

The fact that on promotion I don't ever have to think about altering my tactic to make it more cautious is indicative of the problem that exists.

Best Regards

[maximilli]

2 minutes ago, pheelf said:

I think the problem here lies in using the same metrics to define success in a higher mentality tactic and a lower mentality tactic.

 

This kind of thinking is exactly the problem. Of course a lower mentality based tactic isn't going to outperform a higher mentality based one. One seeks to create chances to score more than the other. It would be utterly bizarre if using a lower mentality resulted in a tactic that was more effective at attacking than a higher mentality one. Ultimately, the whole purpose of football is to outscore your opponent so therefore I don't understand why it would be a shock to anyone that choosing an approach which is more geared toward scoring goals would be more effective. 

What I would add though is that I feel that playing high tempo, high pressing of a higher mentality perhaps isn't punished enough in the ME which may go some way to explain why they are OP. Seeing repeated examples of human controlled teams storming up the leagues playing a gegenpressing style from the 8th division to the Premiership is ridiculous and needs changing as it's completely unrealistic.

Teams which are amongst the worst in a league trying to play on a higher mentality against better teams should really be getting battered on a regular basis rather than being able to over perform to the extent they are currently able. It feels as if all the downsides of using such an aggressive approach aren't really being represented in the ME.

The fact that on promotion I don't ever have to think about altering my tactic to make it more cautious is indicative of the problem that exists.

Best Regards

We agree then. I want the game to be harder and more realistic. Maybe FM21 is though I haven't seen any evidence for that. In FM20 I sometimes intentionally use tactics I consider more realistic or try to recreate real-life ones that are more defensive just to make the game more difficult. But if the question is what's the absolute best tactic even for underdogs, then imo you can't beat a very attacking approach. Some people seem to disagree with me. I don't want to argue anymore though. Just enjoy the game everyone.

[pheelf]

9 minutes ago, maximilli said:

We agree then. I want the game to be harder and more realistic. Maybe FM21 is though I haven't seen any evidence for that. In FM20 I sometimes intentionally use tactics I consider more realistic or try to recreate real-life ones that are more defensive just to make the game more difficult. But if the question is what's the absolute best tactic even for underdogs, then imo you can't beat a very attacking approach. Some people seem to disagree with me. I don't want to argue anymore though. Just enjoy the game everyone.

No argument from me, you're completely accurate in what you say.

[lfds89]

I believe people are confusing mentality with intent.

Would you pick a defensive tactic for a season long? I would never do it. You pick defensive tactics in games you only want to defend, for instance, 2nd leg where you are clearly underdog and won the 1st (thinking about the recent Porto vs Juve); or just moments of the game where you are leading and don't want to concede (last 10 minutes of a game).

If you pick a tactic with defensive intent for the whole season, of course it will be outperformed by attacking intent tactics. It's supposed to. One tactic doesn't want to concede and is trying not to lose, the other is actually trying to win games.

[TaPele]

3 hours ago, pheelf said:

It feels as if all the downsides of using such an aggressive approach aren't really being represented in the ME.

The fact that on promotion I don't ever have to think about altering my tactic to make it more cautious is indicative of the problem that exists.

This is what I meant. Very aggressive teams seem unstoppable in the game, so who would choose a defensive tactic if being extremely aggressive seem to work? It's ridiculous.

Edited April 6, 2021 by TaPele

[Robson 07]

9 hours ago, Tsuru said:

If you choose lower mentalities, you will have to adjust them to be not too passive. If you choose higher mentalities, you will have to adjust them to defend smartly and avoid leaving unnecessary spaces on the defence.

Taking a step back for a second, that just says throw everything in the middle.  Beef up a passive approach; water down an aggressive one.  Everything ends up in the middle?  That can't be right.  You're left with no flavours, it's just offering up a middling landing.

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, TaPele said:

This is what I meant. Very aggressive teams seem unstoppable in the game, so who would choose a defensive tactic if being extremely aggressive seem to work? It's ridiculous.

It seems that you have finally found the answer to your question, which is great, isn't it. Just use aggressive/attacking tactics and you'll never have a problem in FM. Can't be simpler than that 

[Freakiie]

1 hour ago, Robson 07 said:

Taking a step back for a second, that just says throw everything in the middle.  Beef up a passive approach; water down an aggressive one.  Everything ends up in the middle?  That can't be right.  You're left with no flavours, it's just offering up a middling landing.

Not really, an attacking mentality with lowered DL/LOE will still take much more risk due to the inherent player mentality than a defensive tactic with higher DL/LOE.

Of course you don't have to do so, but if you don't you will have a rather extreme tactic and while you might want that extreme (gung ho when you're a goal down or shutting up shop when you want to protect a lead), if you want to play these mentalities as your base mentality you probably want to tone them down a notch, as you don't want to go into every trying to park the bus or trying to rush forward with 10 man desperate for a goal. As Tsuru pointed out balance is key.

[TaPele]

43 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

It seems that you have finally found the answer to your question, which is great, isn't it. Just use aggressive/attacking tactics and you'll never have a problem in FM. Can't be simpler than that 

Glad that after all these posts someone has clearly stated it. But that's the problem. I enjoy playing defensive football (not having the ball, counter-attacking, solid team defensively, direct passes). But it seems it's not useful (or at least as useful as aggressive tactics) which is ridiculous beyond one's likes. It's ridiculous that certain playing style performs way worse than another playing style when IRL doesn't exist a huge difference between both. Of course, we should analyse each individual team since it's not the same the major league of a certain country vs. the major league of another country, let alone lower leagues and the diffetent categories. But TBH is absolutely senseless that only by setting out an attacking mentality and some basic roles you can rush through the lower English leagues to the Premier while I'm 100% confident that by using a more defensive approach that isn't possible. That's the clear difference I want to point out...

Edited April 6, 2021 by TaPele

[Experienced Defender]

6 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Glad that after all these posts someone has clearly stated it. But that's the problem. I enjoy playing defensive football (not having the ball, counter-attacking, solid team defensively, direct passes). But it seems it's not useful (or at least as useful as aggressive tactics) which is ridiculous beyond one's likes. It's ridiculous that certain playing style performs way worse than another playing style when IRL doesn't exist a huge difference between both. Of course, we should analyse each individual team since it's not the same the major league of a certain country vs. the major league of another country, let alone lower leagues and the diffetent categories. But TBH is absolutely senseless that only by setting out an attacking mentality and some basic roles you can rush through the lower English leagues to the Premier while I'm 100% confident that by using a more defensive approach that isn't possible. That's the clear difference I want to point out...

You obviously failed to realize that I was sarcastic in my comment, but never mind. Believe whatever you want if that makes you feel better 

[Falahk]

23 hours ago, herne79 said:

I'm using the Cautious mentality and this is how my Board view my performance for their desired attacking play style.

Playing "attacking" or "defensive" football is about much more than just mentality .

If I remember correctly, then this playing style requirement only take into account how many shoots you fire at the opposing teams goal 

For example my board was extreamly happy with my cautious Brazilian box that averaged rhoughly 35% possession, but created a lot of chances on the break

[CARRERA]

28 minutes ago, TaPele said:

I enjoy playing defensive football (not having the ball, counter-attacking, solid team defensively, direct passes).

Right here is the point of your misunderstanding. 
 

your understanding of defensive football translates into FM as follows, lets break it down:

not having the ball is a Part of more defensive mentalities

direct passes tho and quick transitions aka counter attacks is a part of more ATTACKING mentalities. 

So you can create that style of play by picking a defensive mentality and increase in possession and transitional risks. Focusing more on soaking up pressure. 
 

OR you can create that style of Play by picking an attacking mentality with lowered risks out of possession like lower lines, less pressing and narrow defending. focusing more on counterattack quickly 

[Freakiie]

20 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Glad that after all these posts someone has clearly stated it. But that's the problem. I enjoy playing defensive football (not having the ball, counter-attacking, solid team defensively, direct passes). But it seems it's not useful (or at least as useful as aggressive tactics) which is ridiculous beyond one's likes. It's ridiculous that certain playing style performs way worse than another playing style when IRL doesn't exist a huge difference between both. Of course, we should analyse each individual team since it's not the same the major league of a certain country vs. the major league of another country, let alone lower leagues and the diffetent categories. But TBH is absolutely senseless that only by setting out an attacking mentality and some basic roles you can rush through the lower English leagues to the Premier while I'm 100% confident that by using a more defensive approach that isn't possible. That's the clear difference I want to point out...

It has been pointed out multiple times already, but in real life there's basically no highly successful team around (outside of the occasional short tournament setting) that repeatedly plays with a defense first mindset and the few bigger teams that consistently do play with more passive mindsets regularly end up tripping up against much smaller opponents as those teams will be perfectly happy to just lean back and do nothing, which completely undoes the "let them have the ball and counter" strategy, something that for example Spurs or United have run into multiple times this season.

At the same time, I feel you still struggle with what really is "defensive" and "attacking" football, as what you're mentioning is not necessarily "defensive" football at all. Heynckes' Bayern sat deeper and didn't bother with possession, but do you want to call them a defensive team? No, they were incredibly direct and focused towards goal the moment they got the ball, often had lower possession due to it, but at no point would I ever consider that style as "defensive" football, since in possession their aim was always to score a goal, not to prevent the opposition from scoring. Can you play that style and be very successful with it in FM? Yes, easily, as for example the hoofball thread that has been pointed out before has shown and there are plenty of other examples if you look around the forum. On the other hand, Van Gaal's style, especially at United, had all the possession, no direct passing, but it sure as hell was defensively solid because the squad was told to take zero risks and when you endlessly play the ball between your CBs and goalie your opposition can't score since they don't have the ball. Yet according to your description of "defensive" football it should be Heynckes' Bayern that's a defensive team and van Gaal's United that's an attacking team?

8 minutes ago, Falahk said:

If I remember correctly, then this playing style requirement only take into account how many shoots you fire at the opposing teams goal 

For example my board was extreamly happy with my cautious Brazilian box that averaged rhoughly 35% possession, but created a lot of chances on the break

Well what other metric would you use to judge attacking football if not for the goals/shots? Possession by itself is by no means an indication for attacking football. If you're scoring lots of goals I'd say the fans will be plenty happy with your way of attacking!

[herne79]

9 hours ago, TaPele said:

I enjoy playing defensive football (not having the ball, counter-attacking, solid team defensively, direct passes).

That's not defensive football.  That's either counter attacking football or, perhaps, direct football.

So yes, trying to play actual defensive football for an entire season, week in week out, every match for 90 minutes is indeed "ridiculous".  No team on the planet plays like that and, as it turns out, you don't want to either.  If you want to understand better how to play counter attacking football or perhaps direct football (I think you actually want to play counter attacking football), that's a different kettle of fish and perhaps an idea for you to start a new topic to learn more .

[Tsuru]

13 horas atrás, Freakiie disse:

On the other hand, Van Gaal's style, especially at United, had all the possession, no direct passing, but it sure as hell was defensively solid because the squad was told to take zero risks and when you endlessly play the ball between your CBs and goalie your opposition can't score since they don't have the ball.

And just to compliment here and add another examples, if you use an attacking 4231 with a split block, with the four players upfront pressing, you can also be high defensively solid, as you will allow your opponents less time on the ball and make it harder for them to build up and create chances. Less chances = less goals.

On the other hand, if you play with a low block and invite too much pressure from opponents maybe you are not defensively solid at all, because they will attack you, park on your field and don´t let you create anything until they score. 

Sometimes for a weaker team is even easier to attack because it doesn´t have enough defensive power to absorb pressure correctly, and maybe lack attacking power to press the other teams when it is losing, so better attack and try to score than wait for opponents to score first.

16 horas atrás, Robson 07 disse:

Taking a step back for a second, that just says throw everything in the middle.  Beef up a passive approach; water down an aggressive one.  Everything ends up in the middle?  That can't be right.  You're left with no flavours, it's just offering up a middling landing.

As Freakile said, I don´t think it is because "the middle" from Attacking is very different from "the middle" in Defensive, due to mentality player change. And also the selection of roles and duties has a great impact on "the middle".

Edited April 7, 2021 by Tsuru

[TommyToxic]

Having a attacking mentality makes players take more risk on and off the ball, press higher etc. Your players generally just go for it. My experience is that making tactics with a attacking/positive mentality is much easier than with defensive/cautious. This is regardless of my players and league. That's just the experience of a casual player.

[TaPele]

15 hours ago, CARRERA said:

not having the ball is a Part of more defensive mentalities

direct passes tho and quick transitions aka counter attacks is a part of more ATTACKING mentalities. 

 

15 hours ago, Freakiie said:

No, they were incredibly direct and focused towards goal the moment they got the ball, often had lower possession due to it, but at no point would I ever consider that style as "defensive" football, since in possession their aim was always to score a goal, not to prevent the opposition from scoring

So yes, the core of the discussion lays on the definition of "defensive". Of course all of us want to score, since all of us want to win so "defensive" football doesn't mean lower your players and wait only for recovering the ball and kicking it off your side of the field without intentions of scoring.

THESE two answers are the key! Without possession I want what FM calls a "defensive" mentality, players at the back all together preventing the rival from scoring, a highly solid team. But once we recover the ball I want what FM calls an "attacking" mentality, several players rushing to score and direct passing. Then, that's the issue... Anyway, with this post I tried to point out that if you choose a highly aggressive tactic you will success, maybe a small team intended to end at the middle of the table reachs the playoffs but you will never get relegated or almost relagated with an aggressive tactic (or at least, I was asking if this is possble to happen since you seem unbeatable with this kind of tactics) I'm kind of concluding that using them you are granted at least a good league position.

[HUNT3R]

20 minutes ago, TaPele said:

THESE two answers are the key! Without possession I want what FM calls a "defensive" mentality, players at the back all together preventing the rival from scoring, a highly solid team. But once we recover the ball I want what FM calls an "attacking" mentality, several players rushing to score and direct passing. Then, that's the issue...

@herne79 has already mentioned this, but you're talking about 'classic' counter attacking. Sit deep, prevent space in the final third, win the ball and counter attack. It's different from being defensive (park the bus, not really looking to score etc) so it's important to distinguish between the two, as he said.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, TaPele said:

Without possession I want what FM calls a "defensive" mentality, players at the back all together preventing the rival from scoring, a highly solid team. But once we recover the ball I want what FM calls an "attacking" mentality, several players rushing to score and direct passing.

No you don't want those things.  What you want is what FM calls the "Cautious" Mentality in combination with a suitable formation and player roles/duties.

From everything you have said, you want a deep formation, such as a 4141DM, using the Cautious mentality with one or two suitably placed players with an attack duty - such as a pacey winger and/or fullback.  That will let the opposition have the ball while you sit deep in a tight formation, drawing in the opposition until they overcommit players forward, you win the ball and make a fast counter attack using your well positioned pacey player(s).

You should also be aware (as it isn't mentioned anywhere in game) that when there is such a counter attack about to start there is a trigger in the match engine which makes your players ultra attack minded for the duration of the counter.

That's just one way of setting up a counter attacking tactic.  There are other ways but that's a decent starting point.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, TaPele said:

Without possession I want what FM calls a "defensive" mentality, players at the back all together preventing the rival from scoring, a highly solid team

But that has nothing to do with the team mentality. That can be achieved under any team mentality. You can switch between all possible styles of football - attacking, defensive, moderate/flexible, slow/patient, fast etc. - without ever changing the team mentality. 

Defensive football = low defensive block = lower or much lower Line of engagement (under any mentality) 

"Attacking" football = high defensive block = higher or much higher Line of engagement (under any mentality) 

1 hour ago, TaPele said:

But once we recover the ball I want what FM calls an "attacking" mentality, several players rushing to score and direct passing

Again, that's not an "attacking" or any particular mentality but fast-transition football. Which in the specific case of your intended playing style means counter-attacking football - solid and compact low defensive block coupled with quick attacking transitions once your players have won the ball. And such style of football works better under a bit higher team mentality than under low ones. Simply because higher mentalities - among other things - mean faster attacking transitions (assuming all else being equal).

In FM terms, counter-attacking football is a perfect example of playing a defensive style under a non-defensive team mentality. Other (i.e. more passive) defensive styles of football - such as catenaccio or parked bus - are a different story.

But in order to play defensive (a.k.a. low-block) football successfully, it is necessary to have defensively reliable players both in defense and midfield, in addition to a well-designed and logical tactic. And that's a major reason why in lower leagues defensive football is very unlikely to succeed even if the tactic itself looks good - simply because players don't have necessary attributes to play defensive football effectively.