Jump to content

Totally fed up of the game, decided to try to get its secrets revealed through analysing the tactics


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

As I said before. If I'm not missing something, my main point is: What else? I'm done

The first games with this tactic were impressive, exactly what I planned beside the results. Then it plummeted. I might think the AI took notes on the change and prepared itself but, why? Why every other save I see they stick to one tactic and use it all throughout the season without problems and then every minor change I do seems to be noticed by the AI and cancelled?

Also as I wrote above, my team hit the woodwork thrice last game. Every keeper I face seems to be a mixture between Neuer, Buffon and Lloris, they've made insane saves. So, every time it goes like this: 

TACTIC "A" --> Looks good, some wins, nice kick-off season. few games later turns out as a disaster.  

So I supposed I have to change. Again, I've seen tons of "let's play" on YouTube where the YouTuber sticks to a tactic and succeeds, but it seems that I (and most of us, seems) have to struggle thinking for changing almost constantly.

TACTIC "B" --> Works great, tons of chances and nice goals. Next games: Tons of chances, but most of the go to the woodwork or to the super keepers, then lose.

And so on. 

  • Also, most of my players have pretty good stats compared to the other teams's
  • With this new tactic I had more xG than the other team in most games

This is what I was trying to say. I'm completely clueless on what to do and it goes beyond to Barnet or this save, because even if I moved to another team or start a new game I know it would be the same because only my first season in FM21 was successful. Then it was all like this.

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

15 minutes ago, TaPele said:

 

  • Also, most of my players have pretty good stats compared to the other teams's
  • With this new tactic I had more xG than the other team in most games

So what's the problem then? You will lose games sometimes, even if you put together a pretty good tactic, your team is well motivated, better than the other team etc. etc. That's football.

Edited by afced7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, afced7 said:

So what's the problem then? You will lose games sometimes, even if you put together a pretty tactic, your team is well motivated, better than the other team etc. etc. That's football.

The problem is that it's sometimes but quite often. Im 11th and was supposed to be in the top three teams... What do you mean by "well motivated"?

Last game was xG: 0,8 vs. 1,2 and I lost (I know FM usually does that, anyway) and my keeper basically gave them a goal. I will run out of bottles to throw...

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another more clear way to say it:

  • I've got great players (in terms of attributes and numbers only it seems)
  • Tactic "A", maybe more focused on defense -> LOSE
  • Tactic "B", more aggressive but considering the defense -> LOSE
  • Against teams with defensive/cautious mentality -> Score thousands of goals and defeat me
  • Against teams with possitive/attacking mentality -> Score thousands of goals and defeat me

So, at least most teams have players with worse attributes and no matter how I play or how they play they win. Once I come to create chances their keeper is Neuer and my players don't score. :(

 

*(I'm exaggerating a bit for making it clear, I win but form time to time)

 

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy if it works for you now, but I don't know why you are so adamant on playing a 3-4-1-2, 3-5-2 or similar with a very particular playstyle that is the hardest to pull off in FM and maybe in real life as well with a 6th tier team if you don't consider yourself an expert player and are "fed up of the game". This is some challenge I'd might come up with if I'm bored with playing more convenient tactics and overperform easily. I've read somewhere in here that you said you want to use this formation cuz you say it should be good defensively since it has 5 defenders, but many coaches would agree that in some way 3-5-2 is more offensive than the classic 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 shape. I personally believe that this shape only works if either you are so good that you can easily keep the ball and if you lose it press hard at the opponent right away to force them play a long ball so you'll never have to fall back into a 5-3-2 shape anyway and just enjoy the benefits of the 3-1-2-4 attacking shape (which you don't want with this style of play), or you have very specific players in midfield that are able to cover the entire pitch without allowing too much space, where I really don't know if you'll have those in this team in Tier 6.

If you are interested in some real life example you can look at Nagelsmann and Leipzig at the end of this season where if they played weak teams like Bielefeld or Bremen they could just park their Wing Backs in the front attacking line and enjoy life with 80% possession falling back into 5-3-2 maybe once a half, but when they played the same system against Dortmund they weren't strong enough to keep and win the ball back fast and their midfield three of two more or less pure playmaker types and a former Striker/RM as supposed "aggressive leader" got totally torn apart twice as they just aren't able to cover all the space that's open on the wings.

The question here is if you really want to stay with this formation and playstyle as a non-expert player with this type of team, or if you'd be willing to try something else to get better results and not be as frustrated. Can you get good results this way, sure, but I'd say you won't maximize them which should be the aim for you if you still are getting frustrated with the game and all that. At this level tier 6 and team probably a mediocre to solid 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 being a little bit more proactive when the favorite would get similar results as this tactical style if it's set up really well.

Edited by Gdansk
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TaPele said:

The problem is that it's sometimes but quite often. Im 11th and was supposed to be in the top three teams... What do you mean by "well motivated"?

Last game was xG: 0,8 vs. 1,2 and I lost (I know FM usually does that, anyway) and my keeper basically gave them a goal. I will run out of bottles to throw...

If you are predicted Top 3 why do you want to play with lower line of engagement, lower d-line and pure transition offense??? You'll play against cautious 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2 stuff often, these teams just keep 4-5 players behind all the time giving you zero space for your supposed counter attack transition football while being happy with a draw against your top 3 team if you don't want to come out. Nobody can force you to play different but then you need to accept that results won't be optimal.

I mean if you can you could upload your savefile on here and I or others could try play with the team. I'm bored with my games and looking into funky tactics again right now anyway so would enjoy playing a few games.

Edited by Gdansk
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gdansk said:

I'm happy if it works for you now, but I don't know why you are so adamant on playing a 3-4-1-2, 3-5-2 or similar with a very particular playstyle that is the hardest to pull off in FM and maybe in real life as well with a 6th tier team if you don't consider yourself an expert player and are "fed up of the game". This is some challenge I'd might come up with if I'm bored with playing more convenient tactics and overperform easily. I've read somewhere in here that you said you want to use this formation cuz you say it should be good defensively since it has 5 defenders, but many coaches would agree that in some way 3-5-2 is more offensive than the classic 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 shape. I personally believe that this shape only works if either you are so good that you can easily keep the ball and if you lose it press hard at the opponent right away to force them play a long ball so you'll never have to fall back into a 5-3-2 shape anyway and just enjoy the benefits of the 3-1-2-4 attacking shape (which you don't want with this style of play), or you have very specific players in midfield that are able to cover the entire pitch without allowing too much space, where I really don't know if you'll have those in this team in Tier 6.

If you are interested in some real life example you can look at Nagelsmann and Leipzig at the end of this season where if they played weak teams like Bielefeld or Bremen they could just park their Wing Backs in the front attacking line and enjoy life with 80% possession falling back into 5-3-2 maybe once a half, but when they played the same system against Dortmund they weren't strong enough to keep and win the ball back fast and their midfield three of two more or less pure playmaker types and a former Striker/RM as supposed "aggressive leader" got totally torn apart twice as they just aren't cover all the space that's open on the wings.

The question here is if you really want to stay with this formation and playstyle as a non-expert player with this type of team, or if you'd be willing to try something else to get better results and not be as frustrated. Can you get good results this way, sure, but I'd say you won't maximize them which should be the aim for you if you still are getting frustrated with the game and all that. At this level tier 6 and team probably a mediocre to solid 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 being a little bit more proactive when the favorite would get similar results as this tactical style if it's set up really well.

Thanks for answering, but does all that thinking on the formation and the numbers like "3-1-2-4 against this", "3-5-2 against that" and so on has something to do?. I don't know I've played so differently throughout the season and always failed...

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Im 11th and was supposed to be in the top three teams

I dont understand why you are so obsessed with a transitional style of play and utilizing a low block. I can understand, that you are looking for some different approach, but i cant remember any top side playing with a low block against underdog teams. Because thats what you will most likely be faceing as a top 3 side. You dont nessecarily have to play a high pressing system, but falling back and looking for the break might simply not be possible. 

Edited by CARRERA
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TaPele said:

Thanks for answering, but does all that thinking on the formation and the numbers like "3-1-2-4 against this", "3-5-2 against that" and so on has something to do?. I don't know I've played so differently throughout the season and always failed...

Because against some teams you won't have problems, in your situation probably because they don't come out anyway and don't trouble you and you can score some goal with your better players while in other games teams will exploit you on the wings or just chill because you don't threaten them and score a lucky set piece or long shot, so if you don't know a lot about tactics it probably only seems random to you while in reality it will have some patterns that cause the different results. If you can upload the savefile from your games folder I'll take a look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gdansk said:

If you are predicted Top 3 why do you want to play with lower line of engagement, lower d-line and pure transition offense??? You'll play against cautious 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2 stuff often, these teams just keep 4-5 players behind all the time giving you zero space for your supposed counter attack transition football while being happy with a draw against your top 3 team if you don't want to come out. Nobody can force you to play different but then you need to accept that results won't be optimal.

I mean if you can you could upload your savefile on here and I or others could try play with the team. I'm bored with my games and looking into funky tactics again right now anyway so would enjoy playing a few games.

Agree with uploading the save file because to be honest stuff like this: 

  • I've got great players (in terms of attributes and numbers only it seems)
  • Tactic "A", maybe more focused on defense -> LOSE
  • Tactic "B", more aggressive but considering the defense -> LOSE
  • Against teams with defensive/cautious mentality -> Score thousands of goals and defeat me
  • Against teams with possitive/attacking mentality -> Score thousands of goals and defeat me

Is pretty useless feedback.

6 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Thanks for answering, but does all that thinking on the formation and the numbers like "3-1-2-4 against this", "3-5-2 against that" and so on has something to do?. I don't know I've played so differently throughout the season and always failed...

Probably not helping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, afced7 said:
  • I've got great players (in terms of attributes and numbers only it seems)
  • Tactic "A", maybe more focused on defense -> LOSE
  • Tactic "B", more aggressive but considering the defense -> LOSE
  • Against teams with defensive/cautious mentality -> Score thousands of goals and defeat me
  • Against teams with possitive/attacking mentality -> Score thousands of goals and defeat me

I've talked more in detail about that throughout this topic

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TaPele said:

TACTIC "A" --> Looks good, some wins, nice kick-off season. few games later turns out as a disaster.  

So I supposed I have to change. Again, I've seen tons of "let's play" on YouTube where the YouTuber sticks to a tactic and succeeds, but it seems that I (and most of us, seems) have to struggle thinking for changing almost constantly.

TACTIC "B" --> Works great, tons of chances and nice goals. Next games: Tons of chances, but most of the go to the woodwork or to the super keepers, then lose.

 

I might have misconstrued this, but it sounds like you make significant changes when things start to go awry.  Going back to my previous response; if you have a good idea of how you want to play, and approach it accordingly, you can be confident of a solid tactic.  One that might require one or two minor tweaks match-to-match, but not require big role or philosophy changes.

That said, philosophically, it might be worth re-evaluating what you are trying to achieve.  You don't often see a top-3 team (for their division) fielding a counter-attacking 3-5-2/5-3-2 with a target man.  Part of this is because most counter-attacking teams focus on the flanks; exploiting the areas behind the oppositions attacking full-backs.  This is very hard with wing-backs, as they are often begin too deep in transition, and there is no support to achieve overloads.  A more typical counter-attacking system, would be a 4-4-2 (if you want a target man) or having two pacy players up-front who work the channels (with the pass into space instruction)

Out of interest, have you watched a game on full game highlights?  This can be a very good way of identifying issues (that might not be obvious from extended/comprehensive highlights).

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TaPele said:

I fancy teams more focused on defense and if this worked as it should having lower lines would mean that. That's what I play like that

Can you give some examples of teams who play in way you'd like to mimic?  Maybe we can take a look at them in detail, and see how we can apply it to FM?

Edited by Geoff Newman
grammar corrections
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TaPele said:

Thanks Geoff. My tactic changed considerably since that. I don't know how to call it but playing like this is getting quite near what I looked for: Solid defense, lethal, aggressive and quick counter. 

How do I know if my players fit or not? I used to think about attributes but they all have better attributes than the average player in the league but they keep wasting clear chances.

I'm in 2024 so that Barnet you will find isn't the same I'm playing with. Huge thanks!

20210619171052_1.jpg

This new tactic isn't that direct and "counter-attacking focused" is it? I've unselected "more direct passes" or "higher tempo" and let the tactic instructions adjust to the mentality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know somebody has told you in the beginning of this thread that on positive the lines are pretty high on default but if I'm not totally blind lower d-line on Attacking is still significantly lower than standard on balanced so this is not something I'd go for anyway and while being a top team never ever.

You still have regroup which can be fine in some games but if you play at home against a team playing cautious 4-2-3-1 this is just destined to be a boring game with nothing happening so you open yourself up to being suprised by set pieces or long shots since you never try to win the ball from them while they'll just chill and wait for their chances.

Edited by Gdansk
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Geoff Newman said:

Can you give some examples of teams who play in way you'd like to mimic?  Maybe we can take a look at them in detail, and see how we can apply it to FM?

Oh, it's not necessary... I'm not trying to mimic someone in particular. In fact, if I had to and having learned more about FM I might come across it's not possible to do so in FM. However, in terms of football I look up to Carlos Bilardo (I don't know if you know him)

We've reached a point where you use your time in my save, you are willing to search for examples in real life and so on and I'm completely grateful for doing so instead of insulting me and anwering sarcasticaly but it's a game for having fun. It's clear that my apporach to FM has turned into trigonometry or chemistry where you have to do everything with a level of detail and precision that's not worth it, that I don't seem to understand and where if you fail your experiment blows up (as a metaphor with chemistry).

Anyway, I know that with a gegen press or a Guardiola approach this game is a piece of cake...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TaPele said:
4 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, so you are actually a "great tactician", but the "stupid unrealistic game" is working against you.

I never said that. Actually, that's what I came here, because after a while I considered I wasn't a great tactician, or to be precise because I wanted to learn how the game works

 

1 hour ago, TaPele said:

Now I want to be promoted. I don't care that much about realism but about the mysteries of the game. If I simply managed to understand how it works, that would be it

Good. Then please stop blaming the game for your tactical failures and start listening to suggestions that many people have already provided you with here :thup: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think of the following:

If Barcelona decided to go for a lower lineas approach and so on, the other team wouldn't be able to pierce through their deffense anyway. De Jong would recover the ball easily because their rivals lack Barcelona's quality and then Messi and Griezmann would score in the blink of an eye.

That is not the case here...

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Oh, it's not necessary... I'm not trying to mimic someone in particular. In fact, if I had to and having learned more about FM I might come across it's not possible to do so in FM. However, in terms of football I look up to Carlos Bilardo (I don't know if you know him)

We've reached a point where you use your time in my save, you are willing to search for examples in real life and so on and I'm completely grateful for doing so instead of insulting me and anwering sarcasticaly but it's a game for having fun. It's clear that my apporach to FM has turned into trigonometry or chemistry where you have to do everything with a level of detail and precision that's not worth it, that I don't seem to understand and where if you fail your experiment blows up (as a metaphor with chemistry).

Anyway, I know that with a gegen press or a Guardiola approach this game is a piece of cake...

While I'd agree that the game can be too easy in some ways, if you are a top team and you set up a coherent possession and/or pressing scheme up, this is something that still should be rewarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TaPele said:

f Barcelona decided to go for a lower lineas approach and so on, the other team wouldn't be able to pierce through their deffense anyway. De Jong would recover the ball easily because their rivals lack Barcelona's quality and then Messi and Griezmann would score in the blink of an eye

But the problem is that most of those other teams would be more than happy with a 0-0 draw against Barca, so they would be happy if Barca played low block against them. However, Barca would not be happy, which is why they don't play like that ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

Good. Then please stop blaming the game for your tactical failures and start listening to suggestions that many people have already provided you with here :thup: 

I'm trying to do... but anyway I can still be at the game's throat. Why can't a system like mine be successful? Geoff for instance sayd that "Part of this is because most counter-attacking teams focus on the flanks; exploiting the areas behind the oppositions attacking full-backs". So the game's been set up for working when you counter-attack through the flanks. That's a non-intuitive point and has to do with how the game works

The game seems to be set up in a way that only certains combinations will succeed

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TaPele said:

Just think of the following:

If Barcelona decided to go for a lower lineas approach and so on, the other team wouldn't be able to pierce through their deffense anyway. De Jong would recover the ball easily because their rivals lack Barcelona's quality and then Messi and Griezmann would score in the blink of an eye.

That is not the case here...

That's just not the case and as long as you don't understand that you won't understand why your system doesn't work. Teams that are happy with a draw against Barcelona would never give them the space to attack. Look into Atletico, they desperately needed to develop attacking schemes as about 13 teams in LaLiga i they'd just play defensive 4-4-2 would look at them and be like are you serious, thanks for the 0-0.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Gdansk said:

While I'd agree that the game can be too easy in some ways, if you are a top team and you set up a coherent possession and/or pressing scheme up, this is something that still should be rewarded.

You've used the words I couldn't come up with.

This is what I meant, Experienced Defender: The game is set up in a way that forces you to only succeed according to your possition and expectations instead of according to your player's and tactics quality. If you are an underdog do this and win, if you're a top team do that and will win.

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TaPele said:

The game is set up in a way that forces you to only succeed according to your possition and expectations. If you are an underdog do this and win, if you're a top team do that and will win.

I have to heavily disagree on this. Principles of football are very well represented by the game and also how they play out. However, when creating a tactic, you also have to consider what the other team is doing and where they expose space to your team. No team can protect all areas of the pitch, so you need to find that space and build your attacks through that area. Usually defending teams do protect the space behind their defensive line and the space in front of their defensive line with one or more DM's. So its very likely, that you can exploit space on the flanks and in front of their midfield. A good solution to build up your attack could be using your central pivot, to attempt quick switch of play patterns from one flank to the other.

Transitional styles usually dont come out to be too effective against underdog teams, because they try to exploit space behind the defense and heavily rely on 1v1 situations or numerical advantage in the final third. The latter is very unlikely, since defensive teams try to keep numbers behind the ball.

And this is not how FM works, this is how football works. Educate yourself with google and look up certain tactical principles and you will see them work in FM as well.

Edited by CARRERA
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

But the problem is that most of those other teams would be more than happy with a 0-0 draw against Barca, so they would be happy if Barca played low block against them. However, Barca would not be happy, which is why they don't play like that ;)

The ball wouldn't just be there one team would have to pick it up. Let's suppose the other team, let's say Alaves, has the ball (as in my case). Would they simply waste time so the game ends 0-0? That would be logical but I don't think they'd do it. They would try to go forward because in the end (specially in leagues) every team wants to win. Then Barcelona would struck and that's it. Barcelona 1 - 0 Alaves and this is it. 

You say, "Barca would not be happy, which is why they don't play like that". This a quite common mistake, low lines doesn't mean "be happy with a draw". Here's another concept the game might use as intuitive while it's not.

Either way, my team isn't that superior I guess...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, CARRERA said:

A good solution to build up your attack could be using your central pivot, to attempt quick switch of play patterns from one flank to the other.

Could you please develop this idea?

Quote

Transitional styles usually dont come out to be too effective against underdog teams, because they try to exploit space behind the defens and heavily rely on 1v1 situations or numerical advantage in the final third. The latter is very unlikely, since defensive teams try to keep numbers behind the ball.

Clearly my first tactic was purely transitional and I've understood why it failed. But what about the second? It relies much more on attacking and playing much less direct, with a considerable higher amount of time spent creating chances.

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites

First game you have coming up is this. How do you think you'll create any chances against these guys keeping 5 guys back with a BWM being their most attacking CM? This is as if Spain would have played against Sweden and be like okay cool that you wanna play defensive 442 only wanting a 0:0 and nothing else but look at us regrouping and not pressing you at all.20210620001039_1.thumb.jpg.14a88826e761421dacdb9ba4d30f0381.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gdansk said:

First game you have coming up is this. How do you think you'll create any chances against these guys keeping 5 guys back with a BWM being their most attacking CM? This is as if Spain would have played against Sweden and be like okay cool that you wanna play defensive 442 only wanting a 0:0 and nothing else but look at us regrouping and not pressing you at all.20210620001039_1.thumb.jpg.14a88826e761421dacdb9ba4d30f0381.jpg

To my understanding, my two wingbacks would go up on the pitch and play with the AM, the TM and the AF. Yes, my three defenders would stay behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Why can't a system like mine be successful?

Because of a flawed tactic, for example. Or because you insist on imposing a tactical style that may not be suitable for your team and its reputation, quality (relative to the league) and so on. 

It is not primarily about playing "defensive" or "attacking" football. It's more about how you play a particular style of football. Sometimes only one single tweak can mean that decisive difference between a poor and great tactic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Because of a flawed tactic, for example. Or because you insist on imposing a tactical style that may not be suitable for your team and its reputation, quality (relative to the league) and so on.

That's what I said. Why are there some tactical styles suitble for certain teams and not for others? The same goes for the quality.

Though I don't like this distinction but why is it like "big teams" playing as "big teams" have success most of the time but "big teams" playing as "underdogs" don't? I think there's some favouring by the ME...

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Could you please develop this idea?

I had to go into your save, but honestly, im not willing to invest that time.

However, a good starting point would be to create mobility on both wings with your WB's and build up through that area. A double pivot in central midfield will help your players to recycle possession and utilize the space in front of the others team midfield. A double pivot can be created by using two holding roles in midfield. Either 2 defend duty, or one defend duty and a support duty DLP. Passing range should be standard, to allow some longer range passes. 

If your Wingbacks tempt to cross without looking for the cut-back to your CM's, then either lower their individual mentality, lower the overall tempo or add Work ball into box. you have to test that.

If a double Pivot cant be created, due to lack of supporting roles in front of the two, you may need to change the formation or that specific pattern may not be suitable to your desired formation. (actually i fortgot how your team plays) :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've got another quite interesting case: Do a research on Edgardo Bauza and San Lorenzo in Copa Libertadores 2014

San Lorenzo is the fifth biggest team in Argentina (so a big team in South America). It hadn't won a Copa Libertadores ever up until 2014. Bauza plays a more low-line style, more "deffensive" if I may keep using those terms. However, San Lorenzo played with "cautious mentality" and managed to win the cup despite being the "big team" instead of an "underdog"

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TaPele said:

This new tactic isn't that direct and "counter-attacking focused" is it? I've unselected "more direct passes" or "higher tempo" and let the tactic instructions adjust to the mentality.

Apologies in advance, I'm going to mention some things that you might already know - I have no intention to be patronising.

When you change mentality, it makes small changes to a lot of different areas.  For example, if you check the "In Possession"  instructions on Balanced and then again on Attacking you will notice the following:

  • Width: Standard to Fairly Wide
  • Passing Directness: Standard to Slightly More Direct
  • Tempo: Standard to Higher

Similarly, you will see slight changes to defensive line and line of engagement.  So, even without increasing the sliders, you are still playing Slightly More Direct with a Higher tempo.

Counter is an In Transition instruction.  This means that when you win the ball back, you will look to get the ball forward immediately and push players forward, too, most notably the central midfielders and wing-backs.  This will naturally be more direct, and higher tempo.  But, when the counter is no longer viable, your In Possession instructions will take hold.  If you're players are still trying to force the ball into strikers when the options aren't there, you're going to turn over the ball a lot.  Even more so, if their roles don't necessarily provide additional options in the box.

Also, think about the roles.  a Target Man operates similarly to a playmaker, in so much as teams will try to get the ball to him as much as possible.  If he's marked by someone who is beating him in aerial duels, you are going to be in for a rough day.  If you don't have enough players around him to lay the ball off, you're going to be in for a rough day.

6 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Oh, it's not necessary... I'm not trying to mimic someone in particular. In fact, if I had to and having learned more about FM I might come across it's not possible to do so in FM. However, in terms of football I look up to Carlos Bilardo (I don't know if you know him)

It's not necessarily about mimicking someone.  But looking at the philosophies and shapes and translating them to FM is a very good gateway into understanding how tactics work.  Bilardo is a great example, because he employed a lot of different formations throughout his career, but often stuck to one very pragmatic philosophy.  His teams employed a lot of compactness and aggression, whilst giving freedom to his attacking players.  Without delving too deep right now, I'd be looking at a Cautious Mentality as a starting point for his systems.  I appreciate it is a time-sink, but it might be worth checking out some threads in these forums specifically on Bilardo or other 3-5-2 tactics.

17 minutes ago, TaPele said:

If Barcelona decided to go for a lower lineas approach and so on, the other team wouldn't be able to pierce through their deffense anyway. De Jong would recover the ball easily because their rivals lack Barcelona's quality and then Messi and Griezmann would score in the blink of an eye.

Why don't Barcelona play with a low block?  Other than the comments mentioned by others, one of the reasons for a high pressing system, is it wins the ball back in dangerous positions.  It is a lot easier to score if you've stolen the ball off the opposition defender, than it is if it's in your own goalkeeper's hands.  It is also a lot easier to prevent your opposition from scoring if they are being forced to turn over possession early.

 

24 minutes ago, TaPele said:

I'm trying to do... but anyway I can still be at the game's throat. Why can't a system like mine be successful? Geoff for instance sayd that "Part of this is because most counter-attacking teams focus on the flanks; exploiting the areas behind the oppositions attacking full-backs". So the game's been set up for working when you counter-attack through the flanks. That's a non-intuitive point and has to do with how the game works

The game seems to be set up in a way that only certains combinations will succeed

Apologies, I may not have been clear.  I meant that IRL most successful counter-attacking teams focus on the flanks/channels. This is because it is looking to attack the space that is available - behind the oppositions full-backs.  This is hard to do in a 3-5-2 with a target man, especially at Vanarama National level.

Also...damn; the replies are coming in quicker than I can respond!

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TaPele said:

The ball wouldn't just be there one team would have to pick it up. Let's suppose the other team, let's say Alaves, has the ball (as in my case). Would they simply waste time so the game ends 0-0? That would be logical but I don't think they'd do it. They would try to go forward because in the end (specially in leagues) every team wants to win. Then Barcelona would struck and that's it. Barcelona 1 - 0 Alaves and this is it. 

You say, "Barca would not be happy, which is why they don't play like that". This a quite common mistake, low lines doesn't mean "be happy with a draw". Here's another concept the game might use as intuitive while it's not.

Either way, my team isn't that superior I guess...

Okay, I give up. Good luck :Bowen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Geoff Newman said:

Apologies in advance, I'm going to mention some things that you might already know - I have no intention to be patronising.

When you change mentality, it makes small changes to a lot of different areas.  For example, if you check the "In Possession"  instructions on Balanced and then again on Attacking you will notice the following:

  • Width: Standard to Fairly Wide
  • Passing Directness: Standard to Slightly More Direct
  • Tempo: Standard to Higher

Similarly, you will see slight changes to defensive line and line of engagement.  So, even without increasing the sliders, you are still playing Slightly More Direct with a Higher tempo.

Counter is an In Transition instruction.  This means that when you win the ball back, you will look to get the ball forward immediately and push players forward, too, most notably the central midfielders and wing-backs.  This will naturally be more direct, and higher tempo.  But, when the counter is no longer viable, your In Possession instructions will take hold.  If you're players are still trying to force the ball into strikers when the options aren't there, you're going to turn over the ball a lot.  Even more so, if their roles don't necessarily provide additional options in the box.

Also, think about the roles.  a Target Man operates similarly to a playmaker, in so much as teams will try to get the ball to him as much as possible.  If he's marked by someone who is beating him in aerial duels, you are going to be in for a rough day.  If you don't have enough players around him to lay the ball off, you're going to be in for a rough day.

It's not necessarily about mimicking someone.  But looking at the philosophies and shapes and translating them to FM is a very good gateway into understanding how tactics work.  Bilardo is a great example, because he employed a lot of different formations throughout his career, but often stuck to one very pragmatic philosophy.  His teams employed a lot of compactness and aggression, whilst giving freedom to his attacking players.  Without delving too deep right now, I'd be looking at a Cautious Mentality as a starting point for his systems.  I appreciate it is a time-sink, but it might be worth checking out some threads in these forums specifically on Bilardo or other 3-5-2 tactics.

Why don't Barcelona play with a low block?  Other than the comments mentioned by others, one of the reasons for a high pressing system, is it wins the ball back in dangerous positions.  It is a lot easier to score if you've stolen the ball off the opposition defender, than it is if it's in your own goalkeeper's hands.  It is also a lot easier to prevent your opposition from scoring if they are being forced to turn over possession early.

 

Apologies, I may not have been clear.  I meant that IRL most successful counter-attacking teams focus on the flanks/channels. This is because it is looking to attack the space that is available - behind the oppositions full-backs.  This is hard to do in a 3-5-2 with a target man, especially at Vanarama National level.

Also...damn; the replies are coming in quicker than I can respond!

Huge thanks for helping me out! Stop apologising, you've been as clear as air!

Link to post
Share on other sites

your team plays against DEFENSIVE 4-2DM-1BWM-2-1 system. With a NFB. There is zero space. You can't attack into space if there is none. Really hopeless and you need to develop your own game if you want to play like this

This guy Edgardo Bauza seems to be a really fitting real life example for what you are doing here. This neighbour was about to get Argentina missing the World Cup as he seems to be totally incapable of giving his teams solutions against defensive teams with the ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Gdansk said:

This guy Edgardo Bauza seems to be a really fitting real life example for what you are doing here. This neighbour was about to get Argentina missing the World Cup as he seems to be totally incapable of giving his teams solutions against defensive teams with the ball.

You shouldn't consider his experience as a manager in Argentina. That was weird, he should have been given much more time and Argentina's national team has been a complete mess(i) [:lol:] last years. If I complain about my Barner players a team that's given away two Copa America to Chile is much terrible...

But there's another great example, the very Bilardo and Alejandro Sabela both played with a "cautios/defensive mentality" style while managing Argentina, one of the "biggest" national teams. Though Sabela didn't win the World Cup, Bilardo did, despite playing as an "underdog" while being a "big team"

Either way, as I posted on another topic, I never saw a team with a cautios/defensive mentaility to win something in the game. No one showed me one in that topic if I remember correctly. Do you know of any? (either human or AI controlled)

Edited by TaPele
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TaPele said:

You shouldn't consider his experience as a manager in Argentina. That was weird, he should have been given much more time and Argentina's national team has been a complete mess(i) [:lol:] last years. If I complain about my Barner players a team that's given away two Copa America to Chile is much terrible...

But there's another great example, the very Bilardo and Alejandro Sabela both played with a "cautios/defensive mentality" style while managing Argentina, one of the "biggest" national teams. Though Sabela didn't win the World Cup, Bilardo did, despite playing as an "underdog" while being a "big team"

Yeah Bilardo won the World Cup. In 1986. You think that has a great deal of relevance to football today? Also talking about managers who have won cups isn't especially relevant to what you're trying to do: win promotion and race to the Premier League, you can get by with a bit of luck in cups, e.g. Chelsea 2012 CL, but the league table rarely lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TaPele said:

the very Bilardo and Alejandro Sabela both played with a "cautios/defensive mentality" style while managing Argentina, one of the "biggest" national teams

Team mentality is a tactical instruction in FM, not in real-life football. So how can they play with the "cautious/defensive" or any other mentality? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TaPele said:

You shouldn't consider his experience as a manager in Argentina. That was weird, he should have been given much more time and Argentina's national team has been a complete mess(i) [:lol:] last years. If I complain about my Barner players a team that's given away two Copa America to Chile is much terrible...

But there's another great example, the very Bilardo and Alejandro Sabela both played with a "cautios/defensive mentality" style while managing Argentina, one of the "biggest" national teams. Though Sabela didn't win the World Cup, Bilardo did, despite playing as an "underdog" while being a "big team"

Either way, as I posted on another topic, I never saw a team with a cautios/defensive mentaility to win something in the game. No one showed me one in that topic if I remember correctly. Do you know of any? (either human or AI controlled)

Teams like City, Liverpool will play Balanced or Cautious away against other good teams as well. But they don't refuse attacking bad teams like you do.

Taking some guy that won the World Cup in 1986 as an example why you can't sit back against teams playing defensive in 2021 is pretty funny though. I've watched games from the 80s and 90s and it's boring af, nobody does any pressing, bad teams will send people forward against way better opposition like they don't care. This is not at all comparable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Experienced Defender said:

Team mentality is a tactical instruction in FM, not in real-life football. So how can they play with the "cautious/defensive" or any other mentality? :confused:

It's just a metaphor. We can apply FM mentality to real-life teams. Simeone's teams are more "cautious" while Guardiola's would have "possitive"

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TaPele said:

It's just a metaphor. We can apply FM mentality to real-life teams. Simeone's teams are more "cautious" while Guardiola's would have "possitive"

No because Simeone plays quick transitions while cautious in FM tones down tempo/passing and all the risk taking which is the exact opposite.

Please look up how this guy Bauza performed in the league with his Libertadores winning teams... Being good at defending in some cup games, yes (but in Libertadores most teams will attack against Quito and San Lorenzo) while in the league as one of the top teams completely useless.

Edited by Gdansk
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gdansk said:

But they don't refuse attacking bad teams like you do.

This is ridiculos. How would I refuse to do that if I'm playing with attacking mentality, two strikers and a central advanced midfielder? I might refuse to have the ball maybe...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TaPele said:

This is ridiculos. How would I refuse to do that if I'm playing with attacking mentality, two strikers and a central advanced midfielder? I might refuse to have the ball maybe...

you give the other team years of time on the ball and when you win the ball and try to hoof it up to your guys they'll have 4-5 guys already standing there against your 2-3 guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TaPele said:

It's just a metaphor. We can apply FM mentality to real-life teams

Even if we can, the mentality is just one of many elements of a tactic. Therefore, playing on a cautious/defensive/etc, mentality means nothing without a proper context. 

 

2 minutes ago, TaPele said:

Simeone's teams are more "cautious" while Guardiola's would have "possitive"

Simeone's style is a compact low block, but not necessarily a "more cautious" team mentality (speaking in FM terminology).

Not sure how Pep's style should be interpreted in FM in terms of team mentality, because I am not his fan and therefore am not familiar enough with details of his playstyle. 

Anyway, you are obviously confusing team mentalities with tactical styles. They are not the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny story: I've just faced Wrexham (They are 7th. in the VNL) in the FA Challenge Trophy and saw what you were talking about.

They used a pretty similar formation as the one I uploaded here, 5-3-2 and played with cautious mentality. I also played with cautious since I was clearly worse than them. We lost via penalties but as some of you suggested I focused on the game and analysed it rather than on the result and saw all what we have been discusing here. How we cut their options off by going backwards and how defensively solid we were.

The first game we draw 1-1 and the second one 0-0. Honestly I don't have the best penalty takers in the world so I wasn't confident at all... but it's good to see how the game played out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TaPele said:

I also played with cautious since I was clearly worse than them.

You must disabuse yourself of this idea. Banish it entirely: it is not correct, and it is not helping you.

First of all it begs the obvious question: if Wrexham were clearly better than you, why did they play on cautious mentality? (Answer: it doesn't work like that.)

Edited by Prolix
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prolix said:

You must disabuse yourself of this idea. Banish it entirely: it is not correct, and it is not helping you.

First of all it begs the obvious question: if Wrexham were clearly better than you, why did they play on cautious mentality? (Answer: it doesn't work like that.)

Wow... I mistook everything here then...

I thought that it worked like "if you play against a weaker team/a team with cautious or defensive mentality, then go attacking or positive" and viceversa...

Why do you say it's not correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...