Keeping Games Tight: Too Difficult?

[Haribo1681]

This is a really general thought, but I'm interested to know if anyone shares my experience of this or if it's just me.

I think it's too difficult/unrealistic in FM at the moment to keep a game tight and cagey.

This comes from my most recent match, a trip to Old Trafford with my West Ham side. We've grown into a team that's finished 3rd in the Premier League twice in a row and reached the semi-finals of the Champions League. Playing away to United is always tough because their forwards are so good on FM, so the logical approach here is to reduce risk, be a bit more compact and try to limit the number of opportunities.

To me, this means keeping the 4-2-3-1 formation that's served us so well in attack, but playing a standard DL instead of higher, match that with a lower LOE rather than standard and switching the right and left backs to play as FB(s) rather than WB(s) to try and keep our shape and hopefully be difficult to break down but without parking the bus. I wouldn't want to change formation to play, say, 4-4-1-1, because my experience tells me that this just invites pressure and a good team will tear you apart that way instead, so you might as well try to retain some form of attacking threat and just accept that the game will be like a basketball match.

My thought here is that good attacking players are too effective at adapting to situations - play a high line and they will drop it in behind or cross from deep and score that way. Player a standard or lower DL, they'll either cross to the penalty spot and score from there or just smash it in from outside the box. It seems as though whatever changes you make to be more defensive, the AI can just easily adapt and do as it pleases - but once you're in front, they're too slow to adjust to get back into the game.

Watching the stats in (at least my) FM games, there are way too many shots - in this particular game with United, there had been a total of 30 shots by the 60th minute and United were 4-1 up, so either my attempt to make the game tight was either completely ineffective (aka: "it's your tactics"), which to me means it's too difficult to make a game cagey or matches involving two good sides are just way more open than they are in real life. One save I'd love to create in FM is one based on a really defensively solid side that is a threat on the break but concedes hardly anything, but that just doesn't seem possible, so I just always gravitate towards possession-based attacking games.

Anyway, this is part-observation, part-rant - I'd be interested to know if anyone else experiences this or if there are effective ways to stop games from being wide open, shot-fests.

Many thanks!

[FulchesterFred]

2 hours ago, Haribo1681 said:

This is a really general thought, but I'm interested to know if anyone shares my experience of this or if it's just me.

I think it's too difficult/unrealistic in FM at the moment to keep a game tight and cagey.

This comes from my most recent match, a trip to Old Trafford with my West Ham side. We've grown into a team that's finished 3rd in the Premier League twice in a row and reached the semi-finals of the Champions League. Playing away to United is always tough because their forwards are so good on FM, so the logical approach here is to reduce risk, be a bit more compact and try to limit the number of opportunities.

To me, this means keeping the 4-2-3-1 formation that's served us so well in attack, but playing a standard DL instead of higher, match that with a lower LOE rather than standard and switching the right and left backs to play as FB(s) rather than WB(s) to try and keep our shape and hopefully be difficult to break down but without parking the bus. I wouldn't want to change formation to play, say, 4-4-1-1, because my experience tells me that this just invites pressure and a good team will tear you apart that way instead, so you might as well try to retain some form of attacking threat and just accept that the game will be like a basketball match.

My thought here is that good attacking players are too effective at adapting to situations - play a high line and they will drop it in behind or cross from deep and score that way. Player a standard or lower DL, they'll either cross to the penalty spot and score from there or just smash it in from outside the box. It seems as though whatever changes you make to be more defensive, the AI can just easily adapt and do as it pleases - but once you're in front, they're too slow to adjust to get back into the game.

Watching the stats in (at least my) FM games, there are way too many shots - in this particular game with United, there had been a total of 30 shots by the 60th minute and United were 4-1 up, so either my attempt to make the game tight was either completely ineffective (aka: "it's your tactics"), which to me means it's too difficult to make a game cagey or matches involving two good sides are just way more open than they are in real life. One save I'd love to create in FM is one based on a really defensively solid side that is a threat on the break but concedes hardly anything, but that just doesn't seem possible, so I just always gravitate towards possession-based attacking games.

Anyway, this is part-observation, part-rant - I'd be interested to know if anyone else experiences this or if there are effective ways to stop games from being wide open, shot-fests.

Many thanks!

Completely agree. The number of shots peppered in on goal when you play slightly defensive is just plain wrong. Compact and deep should make it v difficult fir the opposition to find space. The opposite happens. 
there is also a boost for a team that scores early. I think that boost is overpowered.

[herne79]

42 minutes ago, FulchesterFred said:

Compact and deep should make it v difficult fir the opposition to find space.

It can do but there is a big difference between compact & deep and overly compact & overly deep.  Just like (at the other end of the scale) being overly aggressive can leave us open to being FM'd frequently.

The Tactic Creator is like a toy box with lots of toys to play with inside.  But we don't have to play with all the toys at once.  So for example if we start by using a passive Mentality there is seldom need to layer on top tactical instructions which makes our systems even more passive.  It's overkill.  Something along the lines of Defensive mentality with a reduced def line + reduced pressing + lower LoE might seem on the face of it seem sensible (and therein perhaps lies the real issue) but all it'll actually do is swamp our defence with massive pressure until it cracks wide open.

My current Bari side for example are getting great results using a counter attacking 532 system which uses Regroup and Less Urgent pressing.  In fact it only uses 4 TIs in total (and zero PIs): those 2 plus Counter and prevent short GK distribution.

So yeh, it can make it very difficult for the opposition to find space, but it needs to be set up right in the first place - and that's not as clear as perhaps it could be on how to go about doing it.

[Platinum]

Most of my games are tight, I play cautiously with a Balanced mentality and a disciplined approach that doesn't let players deviate from there instructions

[Haribo1681]

11 minutes ago, herne79 said:

It can do but there is a big difference between compact & deep and overly compact & overly deep.  Just like (at the other end of the scale) being overly aggressive can leave us open to being FM'd frequently.

The Tactic Creator is like a toy box with lots of toys to play with inside.  But we don't have to play with all the toys at once.  So for example if we start by using a passive Mentality there is seldom need to layer on top tactical instructions which makes our systems even more passive.  It's overkill.  Something along the lines of Defensive mentality with a reduced def line + reduced pressing + lower LoE might seem on the face of it seem sensible (and therein perhaps lies the real issue) but all it'll actually do is swamp our defence with massive pressure until it cracks wide open.

My current Bari side for example are getting great results using a counter attacking 532 system which uses Regroup and Less Urgent pressing.  In fact it only uses 4 TIs in total (and zero PIs): those 2 plus Counter and prevent short GK distribution.

So yeh, it can make it very difficult for the opposition to find space, but it needs to be set up right in the first place - and that's not as clear as perhaps it could be on how to go about doing it.

Agree with all of this - I think it's a huge understatement to say that it's not as clear as it could be about how to be more solid defensively.

I also agree that switching on all the defensive options, parking the bus and hoping to keep a team out should, more often that not, invite pressure and ultimately result in defeat.

My original comment was more around taking a more-cautious-than-normal approach when playing a team of a similar or slightly better standing only to see them find space all over the park and create a host of chances.

Sticking with the above example, it was setup with balanced mentality, standard DL, standard or lower LOE, shorter passing, POOD and GK distribute to CB/FB, so theoretically fairly balanced, but still sticking to the team's principles or short passing. The game itself was fairly even, just that their players made the right decisions every time in attack to find players in space and then take advantage of it.

One thought I did have was about the formation - AFAIK FM views 4-2-3-1 as 'very attacking', which is fine but plenty of teams IRL play 4-2-3-1 without being cut to ribbons - maybe in FM, switching to 4-4-1-1 would be sensible. That said, quite a few games where I'm favourite are kept pretty tight by the AI with us having the lion's share of possession but not creating anything, so it must be possible...

tl;dr - this isn't one of those 'the AI has an unfair advantage' posts; more: it's more difficult to be solid defensively than it should be.

[burbigo3]

I thought I was the one having my games tight.

Edited November 17, 2022 by burbigo3

[Zemahh]

5 hours ago, herne79 said:

My current Bari side for example are getting great results using a counter attacking 532 system which uses Regroup and Less Urgent pressing.  In fact it only uses 4 TIs in total (and zero PIs): those 2 plus Counter and prevent short GK distribution.

Would love to see you make a thread about it. Always loved reading your tactical challenges and the attacking possession article you've written, but don't think I've seen your take on counter-attacking yet. Anyway, apologies for off-topic. 

[zyfon5]

15 hours ago, Haribo1681 said:

This is a really general thought, but I'm interested to know if anyone shares my experience of this or if it's just me.

I think it's too difficult/unrealistic in FM at the moment to keep a game tight and cagey. One save I'd love to create in FM is one based on a really defensively solid side that is a threat on the break but concedes hardly anything, but that just doesn't seem possible, so I just always gravitate towards possession-based attack

The best season in my current Chelsea save had us conceding only 13 goals across the season while casually scoring 104 points using a tactic that is based on attacking through transitions. These kind of tactic is definitely possible with the right kind of players and systems. And I definitely think you should not drop your defensive line when using a 4231 formation. Contrary to popular belief, the 4231 formation is not a good defensive formation in FM unless you are using the version with 2 DM. Sometimes dropping back your defensive line does not mean you are more secure defensively. For example, I tend to press even higher if the opposition played some weird narrow formations knowing that they cannot escape the press with limited width. If I had dropped back the defensive line, it will be exactly what the opposition wanted.

[herne79]

16 hours ago, Haribo1681 said:

One thought I did have was about the formation - AFAIK FM views 4-2-3-1 as 'very attacking', which is fine but plenty of teams IRL play 4-2-3-1 without being cut to ribbons - maybe in FM, switching to 4-4-1-1 would be sensible.

IRL teams can tend to play a 4231 using (in FM terms) 2 x DMC and ML/MC/MR which is naturally more "defensive" rather than the usual FM version of the more aggressive 2 x MC with AML/AMC/AMR.  It's actually a pretty good starting point .

[Haribo1681]

3 hours ago, herne79 said:

IRL teams can tend to play a 4231 using (in FM terms) 2 x DMC and ML/MC/MR which is naturally more "defensive" rather than the usual FM version of the more aggressive 2 x MC with AML/AMC/AMR.  It's actually a pretty good starting point .

Possibly, but using that setup in FM leaves a massive gap between the midfield line and the forward - similar story if playing 2xDM and then AML/AMC/AMR - the centre of the pitch is wide open.

If anything, I think 4-4-1-1 has more potential to play out in FM like teams IRL do when operating a more defensively-minded 4-2-3-1 - I saw Sunderland do this last weekend and in defence they were essentially setup in a 4-4-2 with a back four, four in a line in midfield and then two up front. They dropped right off, only pressed in their own half and essentially offered minimal space to play in the middle - and they were effective at it. In attack, it was a clear 4-2-3-1 with 3 AMs looking to collect the ball from a target man.

[herne79]

48 minutes ago, Haribo1681 said:

Possibly, but using that setup in FM leaves a massive gap between the midfield line and the forward

No more so than in any other formation which doesn't use anyone on the AM line.

Remember - your formation is your defensive formation.  When attacking use roles, duties and the other tactical settings to attack in whatever way you choose .

[FulchesterFred]

5 hours ago, herne79 said:

No more so than in any other formation which doesn't use anyone on the AM line.

Remember - your formation is your defensive formation.  When attacking use roles, duties and the other tactical settings to attack in whatever way you choose .

Interesting. So your formation is your shape when the opponent has the ball. But it’s pretty similar when my team has the ball! 

[Svenc]

40 minutes ago, FulchesterFred said:

Interesting. So your formation is your shape when the opponent has the ball. But it’s pretty similar when my team has the ball! 

It stays that way if you'd give every player a hold position instruction/defend duty (and the player has no PPMs that "make him run forward at every opportunity", etc. Otherwise, eventually, they're going to leave their position in the formation during the attack. An attacking wing back bombing forward, a box to box central midfielder not staying in the CM position but eventually venturing forward towards the edge of the box, etc.

Otherwise, the side would just keep its (defensive) formation and advance into the opposition final third that way, with no movement in between the lines. E.g.

A 4-2-3-1 with every player told to hold position/given a defend duty. Top heavy formations in general advance the most advanced players deep into opposition territory by total default. However, both CMS as well as the wide backs stay back in position as instructed.

A 4-1-4-1. Aside of the lone forward, nobody is prone to getting anywhere near to the box.

 

 

This has always been pretty basic FM101. Therefore, if you'd be intent on keeping things "tight" at some point of a match or from kick off with lesser shots, going with less top heavy formations and advancing less players has always been a good place to start. By doing the 4-1-4-1 kinda thing on a prior release from kick-off in every match, and additionally just playing keep-ball when in possession to dawdle time, I was getting this string of results -- against oppostion the AI considered underdogs, so likewise didn't pick exactly attacking tactics all the same. As so very few players would advance, most of the shots were entirelly set piece based affairs too (shots which you can influence likewise, like -- by actually not advancing much players into the opposition area under set piece tactics).

Edited August 22, 2021 by Svenc

[Icy]

It'a always confusing to think that the shape you see id the defensive one, a quick change that might help could be as simple as just showing only your own half of the field with your players there in their defensive shape, instead of the full field, because not any team has a forward in the opposite area while their defenders are close to his own (I know, some press and tv shows it that way as well)

Something as simple as this, and we all would know it's the defensive shape, no more doubts or questions in the forums.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Icy

[Haribo1681]

I decided to turn this into a bit of experiment as this particular save feels like it could be a bit dead now - as soon as I start thinking more about why the team won't play as expected than how to get results I start to lose interest.

Anyway, I decided to test out a change of shape for the next three games, where we were predicted be marginal underdogs and away from home in all three, so I'd expect the opposition to look to take the initiative, giving us a chance to try to be solid and hard to break down without being overly defensive and inviting pressure. I considered switching to a 4-4-1-1, but we don't have the options in wide midfield positions (especially as Zaniolo was suspended for the next three league games).

This meant a 4-3-3 with 2 x FB(s), a DM in front of the back four and a playmaker/central midfield pair in the middle. A fairly aggressive approach to winning the ball back and an overall cautious mentality to balance that aggression and hopefully focus on keeping shape without the ball, then patiently retaining possession when we do it have. Overall, this feels like a balanced and neutral setup, so I'd expect the use of cautious mentality to reduce risk and increase solidity.

It didn't really work out like that; instead, Chelsea, who admittedly had won their first 12 games prior to this, found space all over the park and barraged our defence. They scored after five minutes, we forced an equaliser around 15 mins and then had to endure them racking up the efforts until they eventually forced a winner.

The two following games were a bit different - we couldn't get anywhere near Szoboszlai for RBL and he had acres of time in space in midfield, so it was only a matter of time before he played some kind of 60-yard pass over our defence for one of their forwards to score - we offered nothing in attack. The Liverpool game was tight - they're second in the league (we were third). They had a ton of corners but creating hardly any chances, until Diop got sent off for a foul on Mane midway through our half which denied a goalscoring opportunity. After this, they scored a corner from a header.

So, what have I learned from this? Making what I think are sensible, logical decisions to try and keep games tight produced a mixed bag. We greatly reduced our goal threat but ceded control of all three games in different ways and ultimately lost all three. The Liverpool game was the one that turned out the nearest to how I would have expected, with there being few chances and the match ultimately being won on a set piece and turned by a dubious red card - it could realistically have gone either way as Alisson had a good game in goal for them.

I still think it's too difficult to make changes and reduce the openness of games compared to real life - that's not say that it's not possible to create solid, defensive tactics or effective counter-attacking, just that it's more difficult than it should be. In particular, it was way too easy for Chelsea to either play defence-splitting passes at will or for their wide players to get to the byline and find teammates in space around the penalty spot - it could and should have been four or five.

[FulchesterFred]

And here we go. 10 match unbeaten run. Playing amazing attacking football 4312. Playing away at extremely pacey Man U. So go slightly….SLIGHTLY…defensive 433. Slightly deep. Regroup. Counter. Obviously get overwhelmed. This is why this game frustrates. It’s illogical. Losing is fine but every time I defend I lose. Every time I attack I win. I don’t want to play the same formation over and over again. The balance is wrong.

[Haribo1681]

Final post on this thread, I promise...

I wasn't going to play another match in this sequence, but the next fixture was away to Sevilla in the Champions League; we'd already qualified in first place, so I had nothing to lose. Again, they were marginal favourites, so this struck me as a good chance to test a more defensive variant of our usual 4-2-3-1 formation. We switched to 4-4-1-1, keeping a high line, standard LOE (to try and be compact) and then looking to retain possession to effectively defend with the ball. Understandably the risk here could be that a medium-intensity press and a high line could invite the ball over the top, but I wanted to limit their space in midfield. The use of balanced mentality should allow us to see how the game progresses without inviting unnecessary pressure and with wide players on attacking mentalities supported by full-backs rather than wing-backs, we should have a reasonably balanced setup that keeps two banks of four to protect our penalty area. The idea being that any shots at goal should be from distance and we should be able to restrict their xG.

Well, that didn't really happen - they scored after three minutes and then proceeded to exploit all kinds of gaps in our defence; if I had to guess, they were playing a kind of counter-attacking style, where they would quickly string together three or four incisive, vertical passes to get their wide attackers either in behind or one-vs-one with our full backs. They accrued 12 shots in total by half time, 11 of which were from inside our penalty area. Ultimately, none of their 15 attempts in this game were blocked, so they had enough space to get every one of their shots off.

We changed shape second half to our usual 4-2-3-1, higher LOE, more urgent pressing and positive mentality so generally more aggressive. An incredible 50-yard pass from their right back under pressure on the touchline put En-Nasyri through on goal after two minutes of the second half for 2-0 so the game was effectively over. They had less shots after that and we came into the game a bit more, but ultimately they made it 3-0 with a really well-worked goal from the edge of the box in stoppage time.

All in all, these four games have been a bit disappointing; not so much the results (although losing all four wasn't great), but more that what I thought were fairly sensible, logical changes designed to affect the game and reduce the opposition's threat didn't really do that, apart from the Liverpool game - which kind of makes it worse, because that suggests it might be possible.

Conclusions (based purely on my experience, so not in any way definitive): -

• The sheer number of shots and chances in games between theoretically evenly-matched sides is too great
• If the AI chooses to attack you, its players are too effective at exploiting gaps/errors/space - they play the right ball and make the right decision too often, even when it should be extremely difficult to do so
• There's not enough information available to the manager about where those potential gaps/spaces might occur and where they appear in matches - both scout reports and AssMan/analyst guidance in these areas is useless
• Creating solid, balanced tactics is a guessing game, unless you have in-depth knowledge of how tactics work in the game
• Compared to real life, it's too difficult to be solid defensively and too easy to be expansive in attack

Anyway, I don't mean this be a rant, just an observation from my fairly limited experience as someone who hasn't played FM for a decade before FM20 that it seems like attacking tactics are easier to setup than less attacking (let alone out-and-out defensive). I would have expected all four of these games to be tight, evenly balanced and with few chances, but it seems like attacking is more powerful than defending.

[FulchesterFred]

1 hour ago, Haribo1681 said:

Final post on this thread, I promise...

I wasn't going to play another match in this sequence, but the next fixture was away to Sevilla in the Champions League; we'd already qualified in first place, so I had nothing to lose. Again, they were marginal favourites, so this struck me as a good chance to test a more defensive variant of our usual 4-2-3-1 formation. We switched to 4-4-1-1, keeping a high line, standard LOE (to try and be compact) and then looking to retain possession to effectively defend with the ball. Understandably the risk here could be that a medium-intensity press and a high line could invite the ball over the top, but I wanted to limit their space in midfield. The use of balanced mentality should allow us to see how the game progresses without inviting unnecessary pressure and with wide players on attacking mentalities supported by full-backs rather than wing-backs, we should have a reasonably balanced setup that keeps two banks of four to protect our penalty area. The idea being that any shots at goal should be from distance and we should be able to restrict their xG.

Well, that didn't really happen - they scored after three minutes and then proceeded to exploit all kinds of gaps in our defence; if I had to guess, they were playing a kind of counter-attacking style, where they would quickly string together three or four incisive, vertical passes to get their wide attackers either in behind or one-vs-one with our full backs. They accrued 12 shots in total by half time, 11 of which were from inside our penalty area. Ultimately, none of their 15 attempts in this game were blocked, so they had enough space to get every one of their shots off.

We changed shape second half to our usual 4-2-3-1, higher LOE, more urgent pressing and positive mentality so generally more aggressive. An incredible 50-yard pass from their right back under pressure on the touchline put En-Nasyri through on goal after two minutes of the second half for 2-0 so the game was effectively over. They had less shots after that and we came into the game a bit more, but ultimately they made it 3-0 with a really well-worked goal from the edge of the box in stoppage time.

All in all, these four games have been a bit disappointing; not so much the results (although losing all four wasn't great), but more that what I thought were fairly sensible, logical changes designed to affect the game and reduce the opposition's threat didn't really do that, apart from the Liverpool game - which kind of makes it worse, because that suggests it might be possible.

Conclusions (based purely on my experience, so not in any way definitive): -

• The sheer number of shots and chances in games between theoretically evenly-matched sides is too great
• If the AI chooses to attack you, its players are too effective at exploiting gaps/errors/space - they play the right ball and make the right decision too often, even when it should be extremely difficult to do so
• There's not enough information available to the manager about where those potential gaps/spaces might occur and where they appear in matches - both scout reports and AssMan/analyst guidance in these areas is useless
• Creating solid, balanced tactics is a guessing game, unless you have in-depth knowledge of how tactics work in the game
• Compared to real life, it's too difficult to be solid defensively and too easy to be expansive in attack

Anyway, I don't mean this be a rant, just an observation from my fairly limited experience as someone who hasn't played FM for a decade before FM20 that it seems like attacking tactics are easier to setup than less attacking (let alone out-and-out defensive). I would have expected all four of these games to be tight, evenly balanced and with few chances, but it seems like attacking is more powerful than defending.

You articulate it perfectly. It again refers to my point about unfair AI advantage. I don’t believe the game is scripted . And I also recognise that a good player will be able to out manoeuvre the AI most of the time. But…as the AI works in pure logic it understands every game component. I still don’t really understand the concept of always man mark! We are being underfed from the assman and analysts and SI comprehensively fail to explain the game nuances with every version. I recently heard on the forum there is no point playing a BWM in a low block cos he’ll just charge about everywhere. SI should be making this clear.

as I have said before. I know every rule of chess and will still lose to a competent AI by being cleverly out thought. I want the same from FM. Not frequent mystery performances and results cos I’ve put my DL back a few yards.

Edited August 24, 2021 by FulchesterFred

[zyfon5]

2 hours ago, Haribo1681 said:

Final post on this thread, I promise...

I wasn't going to play another match in this sequence, but the next fixture was away to Sevilla in the Champions League; we'd already qualified in first place, so I had nothing to lose. Again, they were marginal favourites, so this struck me as a good chance to test a more defensive variant of our usual 4-2-3-1 formation. We switched to 4-4-1-1, keeping a high line, standard LOE (to try and be compact) and then looking to retain possession to effectively defend with the ball. Understandably the risk here could be that a medium-intensity press and a high line could invite the ball over the top, but I wanted to limit their space in midfield. The use of balanced mentality should allow us to see how the game progresses without inviting unnecessary pressure and with wide players on attacking mentalities supported by full-backs rather than wing-backs, we should have a reasonably balanced setup that keeps two banks of four to protect our penalty area. The idea being that any shots at goal should be from distance and we should be able to restrict their xG.

Well, that didn't really happen - they scored after three minutes and then proceeded to exploit all kinds of gaps in our defence; if I had to guess, they were playing a kind of counter-attacking style, where they would quickly string together three or four incisive, vertical passes to get their wide attackers either in behind or one-vs-one with our full backs. They accrued 12 shots in total by half time, 11 of which were from inside our penalty area. Ultimately, none of their 15 attempts in this game were blocked, so they had enough space to get every one of their shots off.

We changed shape second half to our usual 4-2-3-1, higher LOE, more urgent pressing and positive mentality so generally more aggressive. An incredible 50-yard pass from their right back under pressure on the touchline put En-Nasyri through on goal after two minutes of the second half for 2-0 so the game was effectively over. They had less shots after that and we came into the game a bit more, but ultimately they made it 3-0 with a really well-worked goal from the edge of the box in stoppage time.

All in all, these four games have been a bit disappointing; not so much the results (although losing all four wasn't great), but more that what I thought were fairly sensible, logical changes designed to affect the game and reduce the opposition's threat didn't really do that, apart from the Liverpool game - which kind of makes it worse, because that suggests it might be possible.

Conclusions (based purely on my experience, so not in any way definitive): -

• The sheer number of shots and chances in games between theoretically evenly-matched sides is too great
• If the AI chooses to attack you, its players are too effective at exploiting gaps/errors/space - they play the right ball and make the right decision too often, even when it should be extremely difficult to do so
• There's not enough information available to the manager about where those potential gaps/spaces might occur and where they appear in matches - both scout reports and AssMan/analyst guidance in these areas is useless
• Creating solid, balanced tactics is a guessing game, unless you have in-depth knowledge of how tactics work in the game
• Compared to real life, it's too difficult to be solid defensively and too easy to be expansive in attack

Anyway, I don't mean this be a rant, just an observation from my fairly limited experience as someone who hasn't played FM for a decade before FM20 that it seems like attacking tactics are easier to setup than less attacking (let alone out-and-out defensive). I would have expected all four of these games to be tight, evenly balanced and with few chances, but it seems like attacking is more powerful than defending.

May I know what is the logic behind playing out of defence and shorter passing when you are clearly looking to hit the advanced forward with a pass and break with it? What I suspect happened is you ended up with lots of meaningless passing and the opposition simply just waits for you to make a mistake (and you definitely will with this 4411 formation) and destroyed you from transitions. The statistics seemed to confirm my suspicion with you dominating lots of possession and only one good chance in the entire game while the other team gets some fairly good chances throughout the game. Notice how you get almost no meaningful chances in the first half and only get a few good shots after you played more aggressive and the other team leading 2-0 which will prompt the AI to sit back and defend the lead.

In short the AI is playing exactly like how you intend to play. Instead of you sitting back and happily conceding meaningless possession, the roles have been reversed and the AI is lecturing you how to play counter attack football.

Edited August 24, 2021 by zyfon5

[zyfon5]

35 minutes ago, FulchesterFred said:

You articulate it perfectly. It again refers to my point about unfair AI advantage. I don’t believe the game is scripted . And I also recognise that a good player will be able to out manoeuvre the AI most of the time. But…as the AI works in pure logic it understands every game component. I still don’t really understand the concept of always man mark! We are being underfed from the assman and analysts and SI comprehensively fail to explain the game nuances with every version. I recently heard on the forum there is no point playing a BWM in a low block cos he’ll just charge about everywhere. SI should be making this clear.

as I have said before. I know every rule of chess and will still lose to a competent AI by being cleverly out thought. I want the same from FM. Not frequent mystery performances and results cos I’ve put my DL back a few yards.

Taking the chess example: If lets say you do not know how to do castling in chess and ended up losing with it, is it your fault or is it the game fault for not hinting you how to do castling? Using the same analogy, if you do not know how the BWM works, do you think SI should release a detailed video on everything about the BWM when there are tons of youtube videos and FM articles on it? And keep in mind that FM is a much more complex game than chess with endless permutations.

Edited August 24, 2021 by zyfon5

[herne79]

6 minutes ago, FulchesterFred said:

But…as the AI works in pure logic it understands every game component.

The AI essentially reacts to your performance during a match and/or your form / reputation before a match (in relation to it's own).

So if you are doing well in the league, expect the AI opponents to be a little more cautious than usual against you.  Likewise if you are doing well during a match expect the AI to either play more passively or they could start to play more aggressively to grab a goal or two.  Basically that's the AI logic and very far from "understanding every game component".  It doesn't have some sort of insight into the game's code.

The AI having an unfair advantage couldn't be further from the truth - it's us human managers who have the unfair advantage because we can use every game system in far more creative ways than any AI manager can.

Tactics are not some sort of code to crack.  The key is understanding how they combine with your players - they are two sides of the same coin.  So if, for example, you don't consider your fullback has the Trait to get forward often and you just allocate the Wingback attack role/duty along with an aggressive Mentality without a thought to that Trait, you tread the tight rope of over stretching yourself, being open to attacks down his flank and getting "FM'd".  Likewise if one of your midfielders has not much in the way of Determination and Work Rate, you should probably not make him a Box to Box midfielder and make sure his midfield partner is set up accordingly to compensate.  Then again if you notice your heavy pressing system isn't working in a particular match or your defensive strategy is inviting more and more pressure and you don't do something to address it (or what you do doesn't work), that isn't the AI's fault.

[Haribo1681]

29 minutes ago, zyfon5 said:

May I know what is the logic behind playing out of defence and shorter passing when you are clearly looking to hit the advanced forward with a pass and break with it? What I suspect happened is you ended up with lots of meaningless passing and the opposition simply just waits for you to make a mistake (and you definitely will with this 4411 formation) and destroyed you from transitions. The statistics seemed to confirm my suspicion with you dominating lots of possession and only one good chance in the entire game while the other team gets some fairly good chances throughout the game.

You say 'clearly looking to' - that wasn't the case at all! If I wanted to play that way I would have used more direct passing and probably switched counters on. My forward isn't particularly good at any roles that aren't on attack duty and he has the 'likes to beat offside trap' trait, so the aim was to try and get more possession, then play him in when the opportunity arises. I've played shorter passing and POOD pretty much constantly for three seasons with an AF(a) in a 4-2-3-1 and we've done pretty well all the way through.

If playing a player in one particular role totally changes the characteristics of the rest of the tactics, then, in my opinion, the manager should receive more/better feedback that this is the case - something like a note or a warning that this chosen role contradicts the chosen playing style.

[herne79]

2 hours ago, Haribo1681 said:

Creating solid, balanced tactics is a guessing game, unless you have in-depth knowledge of how tactics work in the game

As I said above, it's not a code to crack - the key is paying attention to your players.  I'm also playing as West Ham in 2023 using a 4231 formation - we're currently 3rd in the league, through to the knockout stages of the Champions League (playing Juventus ) and haven't lost a league match all season.

I'll include my tactic below along with my usual line up (don't copy it).  Both fullbacks have the Trait to get forward often, so both have a support duty otherwise they might be too aggressive in attack, ignoring their defensive duties.  I'll put them onto defend if I think I'm leaving my flanks exposed.  Rice is my midfield general and pairs well with the attacking Soucek (who also has the Trait to get forward often).  Demir is a new signing but very creative - no need to give him a playmaking role as he kind of does it himself already and it might detract from my DLP's effectiveness anyway.  In defence I've opted for solid centre backs.  Consistency and Determination are my two primary goals for all my players to have (Demir and Pedro need work but are coming along nicely).  As far as TIs go, they tend to be my starting point and I'll alter them if needed during a match.

Looking at your set up, you have the very aggressive Bailly in defence who could be a liability at inopportune moments and lacks consistency (I could have signed him for free but turned him down); Menino is a decent enough DLP but I'd question if he's as capable as someone such as Rice to cover the attack minded Soucek; and Zaniolo is basically looking to shoot from distance rather than play in his strike partner of Berisha who - in my game at least - isn't up to the job and looks more 2nd division than Premier League.  I also could have signed Zaniolo but again turned it down - I don't like his Traits.

I really don't mean to pick holes.  You tactic looks solid enough.  But I'd question your transfer policy in some areas and how those players then fit into your system.  Two sides of the same coin - tactics and players.

[Haribo1681]

1 minute ago, herne79 said:

As I said above, it's not a code to crack - the key is paying attention to your players.  I'm also playing as West Ham in 2023 using a 4231 formation - we're currently 3rd in the league, through to the knockout stages of the Champions League (playing Juventus ) and haven't lost a league match all season.

I'll include my tactic below along with my usual line up (don't copy it).  Both fullbacks have the Trait to get forward often, so both have a support duty otherwise they might be too aggressive in attack, ignoring their defensive duties.  I'll put them onto defend if I think I'm leaving my flanks exposed.  Rice is my midfield general and pairs well with the attacking Soucek (who also has the Trait to get forward often).  Demir is a new signing but very creative - no need to give him a playmaking role as he kind of does it himself already and it might detract from my DLP's effectiveness anyway.  In defence I've opted for solid centre backs.  Consistency and Determination are my two primary goals for all my players to have (Demir and Pedro need work but are coming along nicely).  As far as TIs go, they tend to be my starting point and I'll alter them if needed during a match.

Looking at your set up, you have the very aggressive Bailly in defence who could be a liability at inopportune moments and lacks consistency (I could have signed him for free but turned him down); Menino is a decent enough DLP but I'd question if he's as capable as someone such as Rice to cover the attack minded Soucek; and Zaniolo is basically looking to shoot from distance rather than play in his strike partner of Berisha who - in my game at least - isn't up to the job and looks more 2nd division than Premier League.  I also could have signed Zaniolo but again turned it down - I don't like his Traits.

I really don't mean to pick holes.  You tactic looks solid enough.  But I'd question your transfer policy in some areas and how those players then fit into your system.  Two sides of the same coin - tactics and players.

Then that makes tactics essentially pointless because a couple of 'wrong' purchases here and there mean that you can't implement a way of playing or adapt a tactic to amplify or accommodate the individualities of those players.

It's probably worth pointing out as well that Bailly and Berisha are not first choices. Menino was signed to be a more progressive choice at DLP to avoid stack of aimless passes between midfield and defence.

We've done well to this point, finished third twice in the EPL and reached the CL semi finals beating Bayern in the quarters - but only ever by out-scoring teams, which becomes a lottery. We don't normally play this defensively, but this string of four games became an experiment after we got dismantled by Manchester United despite my attempts to make the game cagey.

My point is still that it's more difficult than it is in real life to tone down the attack and keep games tight.

[herne79]

19 minutes ago, Haribo1681 said:

Then that makes tactics essentially pointless because a couple of 'wrong' purchases here and there mean that you can't implement a way of playing or adapt a tactic to amplify or accommodate the individualities of those players.

You're missing the point.  Of course you can implement a way of playing, in fact it's the exact opposite of "you can't implement a way of playing or adapt a tactic to amplify or accommodate the individualities of those players."  You absolutely can adapt a tactic in fact I'd go so far as to say you should adapt (but still retain your desired style of play) based on your players.  My point is that I suggest you haven't really adapted your system (or adapted insufficiently) to accommodate your (questionable) purchases - in fact I'm not even sure you could adapt sufficiently to accommodate one or two of them.  Or, if they are not first choices, are you sure your first choices are up to the task?  Your second choices aren't which makes me concerned about your first choices.

31 minutes ago, Haribo1681 said:

We've done well to this point, finished third twice in the EPL and reached the CL semi finals beating Bayern in the quarters - but only ever by out-scoring teams, which becomes a lottery

Good results.  When you say "only ever by out scoring teams", in what way?  What's your goals scored for and against when you finished 3rd twice?

 

26 minutes ago, Haribo1681 said:

My point is still that it's more difficult than it is in real life to tone down the attack and keep games tight.

I agree that in FM it isn't as clear on how to go about setting up "defensively" (deep and compact) than it is to be more aggressive.  It is however quite possible to do so it's perhaps more a communication thing.  The AI does it quite regularly after all and if the AI can do it there is no reason why we can't.

[Haribo1681]

27 minutes ago, herne79 said:

You're missing the point.  Of course you can implement a way of playing, in fact it's the exact opposite of "you can't implement a way of playing or adapt a tactic to amplify or accommodate the individualities of those players."  You absolutely can adapt a tactic in fact I'd go so far as to say you should adapt (but still retain your desired style of play) based on your players.  My point is that I suggest you haven't really adapted your system (or adapted insufficiently) to accommodate your (questionable) purchases - in fact I'm not even sure you could adapt sufficiently to accommodate one or two of them.  Or, if they are not first choices, are you sure your first choices are up to the task?  Your second choices aren't which makes me concerned about your first choices.

Good results.  When you say "only ever by out scoring teams", in what way?  What's your goals scored for and against when you finished 3rd twice?

 

I agree that in FM it isn't as clear on how to go about setting up "defensively" (deep and compact) than it is to be more aggressive.  It is however quite possible to do so it's perhaps more a communication thing.  The AI does it quite regularly after all and if the AI can do it there is no reason why we can't.

Like anything in life, it’s easy when you know how. But I do agree that if the AI can do it then it must be possible - I don’t think the AI has some hidden advantage or any games are predetermined or anything like that.

I don’t agree about making insufficient changes or players being completely unsuitable though - many more changes would move the tactic totally away from the playing style being attempted and if a couple of attacking traits render defensive changes ineffective to the point that matches become completely unpredictable then traits are overpowered (NB: I know it’s not as straightforward as that).

As a new or less-experienced player, playing with tactics in FM does feel like trying a crack a code because of how heavily everything is interlinked and how little information there is as to how these relationships effect each other or how they play out on the pitch.

At the end of the day, I know I’m wrong so I’m not looking to win an argument, just provide an observation that as an inexperienced player, this part of the game is overly difficult/complicated/punishing - in my opinion.

[FulchesterFred]

3 hours ago, zyfon5 said:

Taking the chess example: If lets say you do not know how to do castling in chess and ended up losing with it, is it your fault or is it the game fault for not hinting you how to do castling? Using the same analogy, if you do not know how the BWM works, do you think SI should release a detailed video on everything about the BWM when there are tons of youtube videos and FM articles on it? And keep in mind that FM is a much more complex game than chess with endless permutations.

Chess has quite a few permutations. I think it is the developers responsibility to build a comprehensive guide frankly. Otherwise we’re playing the game, they worked so hard to build, half blind, I don’t have the time to trawl through forums and videos made by v generous users. 

not a detailed video but a clear description of each role and where it does and doesn’t work. Also, for the love of god, explain always man mark/ always press. Because as an instruction in isolation its actually absurd. 

[FulchesterFred]

4 hours ago, herne79 said:

The AI essentially reacts to your performance during a match and/or your form / reputation before a match (in relation to it's own).

So if you are doing well in the league, expect the AI opponents to be a little more cautious than usual against you.  Likewise if you are doing well during a match expect the AI to either play more passively or they could start to play more aggressively to grab a goal or two.  Basically that's the AI logic and very far from "understanding every game component".  It doesn't have some sort of insight into the game's code.

The AI having an unfair advantage couldn't be further from the truth - it's us human managers who have the unfair advantage because we can use every game system in far more creative ways than any AI manager can.

Tactics are not some sort of code to crack.  The key is understanding how they combine with your players - they are two sides of the same coin.  So if, for example, you don't consider your fullback has the Trait to get forward often and you just allocate the Wingback attack role/duty along with an aggressive Mentality without a thought to that Trait, you tread the tight rope of over stretching yourself, being open to attacks down his flank and getting "FM'd".  Likewise if one of your midfielders has not much in the way of Determination and Work Rate, you should probably not make him a Box to Box midfielder and make sure his midfield partner is set up accordingly to compensate.  Then again if you notice your heavy pressing system isn't working in a particular match or your defensive strategy is inviting more and more pressure and you don't do something to address it (or what you do doesn't work), that isn't the AI's fault.

What happens if your defensive strategy always invites heavy pressure? However much you tweak it. As seems to be a lot of people’s experience.

i understand your player role points.

I think the AI has some advantage. A programmer will surely arm the AI with comprehensive understanding of each role, tactics, timing of decisions etc. More than I have. That’s not to say the human hasn’t got the ultimate upper hand but there are things it will see better than a player

[herne79]

1 hour ago, FulchesterFred said:

What happens if your defensive strategy always invites heavy pressure? However much you tweak it. As seems to be a lot of people’s experience.

Don't get me wrong, I agree it is harder to set up an effective sit deep & compact system than a more aggressive strategy.

1 hour ago, FulchesterFred said:

think the AI has some advantage. A programmer will surely arm the AI with comprehensive understanding of each role, tactics, timing of decisions etc. More than I have. That’s not to say the human hasn’t got the ultimate upper hand but there are things it will see better than a player

But come on, really?  If the AI were anywhere near that smart we wouldn't win a match .  Also worth noting that anything the AI can do to us if we set up "defensively", we can give back in spades to the AI if they try to defend.  West Brom just tried to set up their 442 like that against me and Spurs didn't bother getting off the bus.  However to be fair Newcastle did almost catch me napping with their much more effective system.  It's almost like they were trying to prove a point :

[FulchesterFred]

46 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Don't get me wrong, I agree it is harder to set up an effective sit deep & compact system than a more aggressive strategy.

But come on, really?  If the AI were anywhere near that smart we wouldn't win a match .  Also worth noting that anything the AI can do to us if we set up "defensively", we can give back in spades to the AI if they try to defend.  West Brom just tried to set up their 442 like that against me and Spurs didn't bother getting off the bus.  However to be fair Newcastle did almost catch me napping with their much more effective system.  It's almost like they were trying to prove a point :

I don’t like Spurs getting beaten 7-0 by West Ham 😂 

So attacking football nearly always wins….

[herne79]

24 minutes ago, FulchesterFred said:

So attacking football nearly always wins….

I was trying to show that when the AI sets up defensively they're not always successful at doing it, despite them "having an advantage" .

I also play various systems which are most certainly not "attacking" but still have success.  I mentioned an example of that above in my Bari save (2nd reply from the top, just below your first reply).

31 minutes ago, FulchesterFred said:

I don’t like Spurs getting beaten 7-0 by West Ham 😂 

As a West Ham fan with a twin brother, wife and father in law who all support Spurs it's hard to think of a better result for me .

[FulchesterFred]

15 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I was trying to show that when the AI sets up defensively they're not always successful at doing it, despite them "having an advantage" .

I also play various systems which are most certainly not "attacking" but still have success.  I mentioned an example of that above in my Bari save (2nd reply from the top, just below your first reply).

As a West Ham fan with a twin brother, wife and father in law who all support Spurs it's hard to think of a better result for me .

Haha. Only in FM you understand!

[zyfon5]

18 hours ago, Haribo1681 said:

You say 'clearly looking to' - that wasn't the case at all! If I wanted to play that way I would have used more direct passing and probably switched counters on. My forward isn't particularly good at any roles that aren't on attack duty and he has the 'likes to beat offside trap' trait, so the aim was to try and get more possession, then play him in when the opportunity arises. I've played shorter passing and POOD pretty much constantly for three seasons with an AF(a) in a 4-2-3-1 and we've done pretty well all the way through.

If playing a player in one particular role totally changes the characteristics of the rest of the tactics, then, in my opinion, the manager should receive more/better feedback that this is the case - something like a note or a warning that this chosen role contradicts the chosen playing style.

If your aim is to just control possession then your tactics have worked however you will lose the game because there is no penetration in the attack from your set up: no runs from deep, no players willing to make a risky pass, no overloads. And why do you expect the same tactical instructions to work for a different tactic and different players?

[zyfon5]

15 hours ago, FulchesterFred said:

What happens if your defensive strategy always invites heavy pressure? However much you tweak it. As seems to be a lot of people’s experience.

There are two types of defensive strategy in football: you can either control the ball so that your opponent will not be able to score without it or you can concede possession and control the spaces that the opponent can attack you.

With the help of statistical analysis, we now know that the further the shot is from the goal, the harder it is to score and headers are inefficient shots. We also know that transitions (shots created within 10s of a loss of possession) tend to generate very high quality shots. We also know that a lot of the high quality shots are generated from the two half spaces. So any defensive strategy will need to defend in a compact shape and protect the two half spaces basically allowing the opposition to take as much of these inefficient shots as possible while minimizing the threat from transitions either from counter pressing or having a good set up to defend transitions.

Alternatively if you are looking to defend with the ball, you will need to set up the team so that they do not lose possession easily by constantly having passing options and press resistant players. These teams also often deploy high pressing to minimize opponents time on the ball and to force a mistake to create transition opportunities for themselves.

[FulchesterFred]

18 hours ago, zyfon5 said:

There are two types of defensive strategy in football: you can either control the ball so that your opponent will not be able to score without it or you can concede possession and control the spaces that the opponent can attack you.

With the help of statistical analysis, we now know that the further the shot is from the goal, the harder it is to score and headers are inefficient shots. We also know that transitions (shots created within 10s of a loss of possession) tend to generate very high quality shots. We also know that a lot of the high quality shots are generated from the two half spaces. So any defensive strategy will need to defend in a compact shape and protect the two half spaces basically allowing the opposition to take as much of these inefficient shots as possible while minimizing the threat from transitions either from counter pressing or having a good set up to defend transitions.

Alternatively if you are looking to defend with the ball, you will need to set up the team so that they do not lose possession easily by constantly having passing options and press resistant players. These teams also often deploy high pressing to minimize opponents time on the ball and to force a mistake to create transition opportunities for themselves.

Appreciate what you’ve written and I see how that translates to the match. But my team (having spent millions) is of immense quality with the ability to play through a high press, keep the ball etc. But when I play deep, counter attack with these high quality players I end up having dozens of shots peppered in on my goal. it just comes back to the point that this years version is relentlessly unforgiving of defensive football.
 

I’m not Jose. I don’t have the time in my life to study each intricacy of positioning. but every time and I mean EVERY time I set up with a defensive formation, regroup and counter. We get bombarded. However I nuance the tactic. We get bombarded. 
 

the game shouldn’t be so inaccessible to the player who isn’t awash with time. It needs to say what works and what conflicts. And then the player can make educated choices. 
 

I’m also bored of the complete lack of transparency around tactics such as always press and always man mark. Like I said above, in isolation the instructions are idiotic. Why on earth would you always man mark someone who isn’t maradona. Always? Even in their own box?? And I’d you don’t always man mark an opposing striker I assume your CBS have the nous to get pretty bloody close to him when he’s 6 yards from goal. Same with always press or never press. Would you seriously not press someone whose clean through on goal???

im sure they have simple rationale but they’re ancient Tactical instructions which SI have never evolved, rarely explained and leave the player wondering about what will help their team defend better. Again,it’s poor communication and development from the makers unfortunately 

[zyfon5]

4 hours ago, FulchesterFred said:

Appreciate what you’ve written and I see how that translates to the match. But my team (having spent millions) is of immense quality with the ability to play through a high press, keep the ball etc. But when I play deep, counter attack with these high quality players I end up having dozens of shots peppered in on my goal. it just comes back to the point that this years version is relentlessly unforgiving of defensive football.
 

I’m not Jose. I don’t have the time in my life to study each intricacy of positioning. but every time and I mean EVERY time I set up with a defensive formation, regroup and counter. We get bombarded. However I nuance the tactic. We get bombarded. 
 

the game shouldn’t be so inaccessible to the player who isn’t awash with time. It needs to say what works and what conflicts. And then the player can make educated choices. 

Then it is sort of your fault? Playing subpar defensive tactics and having subpar performance is surprising to you? The truth is playing defensive is much harder than playing on the offensive because you have to react to every move the opposition make and not just slap the same tactic and expect it to work every time.  If you are not interested in learning every aspect of the tactical game, you should do yourself a favor and just avoid playing on the defensive.

I certainly do not agree that the game is inaccessible. FM is a manager simulation game, not how to do tactics 101. Most tactical instructions already have basic decsriptions attached to it and there is an official manual that described most things in the game. The onus lies with the player if they want to learn more about the tactical side of the game and learning football tactics are now easier than before with the abundance of information on the internet.

[FulchesterFred]

42 minutes ago, zyfon5 said:

Then it is sort of your fault? Playing subpar defensive tactics and having subpar performance is surprising to you? The truth is playing defensive is much harder than playing on the offensive because you have to react to every move the opposition make and not just slap the same tactic and expect it to work every time.  If you are not interested in learning every aspect of the tactical game, you should do yourself a favor and just avoid playing on the defensive.

I certainly do not agree that the game is inaccessible. FM is a manager simulation game, not how to do tactics 101. Most tactical instructions already have basic decsriptions attached to it and there is an official manual that described most things in the game. The onus lies with the player if they want to learn more about the tactical side of the game and learning football tactics are now easier than before with the abundance of information on the internet.

I wish with work, kids, life I had the time to learn like a professional coach but I don’t. It’s a game. Where we all pretend to be world class managers and the suspension reality that entails.

To make it playable SI obviously have to compromise on swathes of reality. I play FMT on iPad due to lack of time. With it being so stripped back tactics are hugely important. Yes I want a quick guide to every facet. The only other game I play is civilisation which has a instant guide to every single facet of the game (it doesn’t tell you right from wrong). It tells you what everything means. FM doesn’t have that. it really should have.
 

 

[darthrodent]

My biggest issue with the game is the inaccessibility to tactical feedback / knowledge as it pertains to success or failure. I didn't just win promotion first season with Birmingham City, I absolutely smashed the league. Why? No idea. It was kind of hollow because in my previous save I had failed miserably with Arsenal. I used the exact same tactical logic so why was I wildly successful with a mediocre Championship team and wildly unsuccessful with a Europe-chasing Premiership club? NO IDEA. I'm not privy to that information. The game doesn't communicate anything useful around my tactics. It's actually really disheartening and very frustrating.

Edited August 30, 2021 by darthrodent

[FulchesterFred]

24 minutes ago, darthrodent said:

My biggest issue with the game is the inaccessibility to tactical feedback / knowledge as it pertains to success or failure. I didn't just win promotion first season with Birmingham City, I absolutely smashed the league. Why? No idea. It was kind of hollow because in my previous save I had failed miserably with Arsenal. I used the exact same tactical logic so why was I wildly successful with a mediocre Championship team and wildly unsuccessful with a Europe-chasing Premiership club? NO IDEA. I'm not privy to that information. The game doesn't communicate anything useful around my tactics. It's actually really disheartening and very frustrating.

Could not agree more! It’s deliberately opaque. Just because you understand success or failure doesn’t mean you win everything. But you should be given the information to understand your wins and losses. People say the players like us complain when we lose. Actually I complain when I win as well because half the time I can’t explain it. 

[darthrodent]

1 hour ago, FulchesterFred said:

Could not agree more! It’s deliberately opaque. Just because you understand success or failure doesn’t mean you win everything. But you should be given the information to understand your wins and losses. People say the players like us complain when we lose. Actually I complain when I win as well because half the time I can’t explain it. 

That's exactly it, mate. I don't want the secret formula to win -- I used to get just as much enjoyment playing as lower teams hanging on for survival. What I want is ACTIONABLE INFORMATION. Let's take a hypothetical under-the-hood "FM-ometer" that can tell me what my problem is. Let's say it concludes that the reason my system failed last game is because the Decisions, Work Rate, and Teamwork is too low for both my DMs and my system is too high in Pressing. That information is forever hidden from me. How could I ever come to that conclusion by myself? Do I even know what Decisions does?

 

On the flip side, I absolutely walked the league with Birmingham City, Ivan Sunjic was absolutely immense in the Anchor role. It feels like I hit the tactic fruit machines and hit the Jackpot. I play the game the same way every time using the same logic and same knowledge of a 30 year playing career at a pretty high level. I have no idea why I was successful, it just sort of clicked. I didn't have to make any changes throughout the season, I played the exact same 4-1-4-1 system all the way through. It should have been cause for celebration what with the Premiership promotion, yet I was so dejected, it was such a hollow experience that I decided to make a thread about it.

 

If someone asked "What was it that made your Birmingham team so good?" I honestly don't think I could give a response. I look at teams like Liverpool, Man City, and Chelsea in real life. If you asked me the same question I could give you a 10-page synopsis on each of those teams: the style, the tempo, the philosophy, the pressing, all of it.

Edited August 30, 2021 by darthrodent

[Johnny Ace]

@darthrodent After many runs with the Blues, I'd love to see your tactic. I did it once, Leko was a god for some reason 

[CaptCanuck]

19 minutes ago, darthrodent said:

That's exactly it, mate. I don't want the secret formula to win -- I used to get just as much enjoyment playing as lower teams hanging on for survival. What I want is ACTIONABLE INFORMATION. Let's take a hypothetical under-the-hood "FM-ometer" that can tell me what my problem is. Let's say it concludes that the reason my system failed last game is because the Decisions, Work Rate, and Teamwork is too low for both my DMs and my system is too high in Pressing. That information is forever hidden from me. How could I ever come to that conclusion by myself? Do I even know what Decisions does?

 

On the flip side, I absolutely walked the league with Birmingham City, Ivan Sunjic was absolutely immense in the Anchor role. It feels like I hit the tactic fruit machines and hit the Jackpot. I play the game the same way every time using the same logic and same knowledge of a 30 year playing career at a pretty high level. I have no idea why I was successful, it just sort of clicked. I didn't have to make any changes throughout the season, I played the exact same 4-1-4-1 system all the way through. It should have been cause for celebration what with the Premiership promotion, yet I was so dejected, it was such a hollow experience that I decided to make a thread about it.

 

If someone asked "What was it that made your Birmingham team so good?" I honestly don't think I could give a response. I look at teams like Liverpool, Man City, and Chelsea in real life. If you asked me the same question I could give you a 10-page synopsis on each of those teams: the style, the tempo, the philosophy, the pressing, all of it.

I can sympathise with your POV.

What's helped (in regards to not getting annoyed by that conundrum you've laid out in this thread) me is to divorce tactics from results and think of them more purely as aesthetics, style, fancy frocks (or whatever term works best for you) that you hope to see play out when you watch the match/highlights.

Results are too driven by momentum, morale, and squad management IMHO, so that if you have a decent side and play a reasonably 'realistic' tactic for your side you will see greater success than you could otherwise expect. Hence your Brum experience.

[Nahuelzn]

The core issue for me is that the Match Engine is very direct by default (direct in the build up I mean, it generates a lot of chances very easily) and usually favors one team over the other way too much, even when both teams are even. And then get a lot of chances very easily. This makes defensive playing almost impossible because when you're the weaker team, you just concede a lot of chances to the other team and it's just waiting for a goal to happen. In reality, if you play a defensive tactic against a better team and it works, the other team should have some issues creating chances even if they have 65% of possession.

This also means that it's easy for the human manager to dominate the AI-team even when your team is weaker (although not by much), because AI managers by default are very cautious, so you end up being the "attacking" team most of the time in a situation where maybe in real life you would use a defensive system. And even more, the game doesn't penalize your tradeoff, because most of the time you can be offensive with almost no risk.

To be honest, even with all of the above, I find that FM21 compared to FM20 improves this and allows some defensive systems that works well and the trade-off issue has been noted. However, I think it still needs some more balancing. I understand defensive football is boring (and tight matches in FM are not enjoyable, it's true), but one should be able to play all styles theoretically, and then the game should reward you or not if you made the right decisions.

[FulchesterFred]

4 hours ago, Nahuelzn said:

The core issue for me is that the Match Engine is very direct by default (direct in the build up I mean, it generates a lot of chances very easily) and usually favors one team over the other way too much, even when both teams are even. And then get a lot of chances very easily. This makes defensive playing almost impossible because when you're the weaker team, you just concede a lot of chances to the other team and it's just waiting for a goal to happen. In reality, if you play a defensive tactic against a better team and it works, the other team should have some issues creating chances even if they have 65% of possession.

This also means that it's easy for the human manager to dominate the AI-team even when your team is weaker (although not by much), because AI managers by default are very cautious, so you end up being the "attacking" team most of the time in a situation where maybe in real life you would use a defensive system. And even more, the game doesn't penalize your tradeoff, because most of the time you can be offensive with almost no risk.

To be honest, even with all of the above, I find that FM21 compared to FM20 improves this and allows some defensive systems that works well and the trade-off issue has been noted. However, I think it still needs some more balancing. I understand defensive football is boring (and tight matches in FM are not enjoyable, it's true), but one should be able to play all styles theoretically, and then the game should reward you or not if you made the right decisions.

You’re right. Boring matches are part of football. If everyone played pep ball that would get boring (maybe not actually).

FM has to bolster defensive tactics. Otherwise it’s leaving reality behind.

too many players are saying the same thing. Defending is failing.

[zyfon5]

4 hours ago, FulchesterFred said:

You’re right. Boring matches are part of football. If everyone played pep ball that would get boring (maybe not actually).

FM has to bolster defensive tactics. Otherwise it’s leaving reality behind.

too many players are saying the same thing. Defending is failing.

My attempt at playing defensive tactics with an underdog team disagrees

8 hours ago, Nahuelzn said:

The core issue for me is that the Match Engine is very direct by default (direct in the build up I mean, it generates a lot of chances very easily) and usually favors one team over the other way too much, even when both teams are even. And then get a lot of chances very easily. This makes defensive playing almost impossible because when you're the weaker team, you just concede a lot of chances to the other team and it's just waiting for a goal to happen. In reality, if you play a defensive tactic against a better team and it works, the other team should have some issues creating chances even if they have 65% of possession.

This also means that it's easy for the human manager to dominate the AI-team even when your team is weaker (although not by much), because AI managers by default are very cautious, so you end up being the "attacking" team most of the time in a situation where maybe in real life you would use a defensive system. And even more, the game doesn't penalize your tradeoff, because most of the time you can be offensive with almost no risk.

To be honest, even with all of the above, I find that FM21 compared to FM20 improves this and allows some defensive systems that works well and the trade-off issue has been noted. However, I think it still needs some more balancing. I understand defensive football is boring (and tight matches in FM are not enjoyable, it's true), but one should be able to play all styles theoretically, and then the game should reward you or not if you made the right decisions.

 

[CaptCanuck]

1 hour ago, zyfon5 said:

My attempt at playing defensive tactics with an underdog team disagrees

 

C'mon. You played on the counter for one season and rode your keeper And then once your team rep goes up a wee bit, it's less effective. Think that is a better indicator of what FF is saying.

Think his observation still stands that trying a Simeone or Mou instead of a Pep or Klopp is going to be more difficult to replicate, based on the current ME.

[zyfon5]

4 minutes ago, CaptCanuck said:

C'mon. You played on the counter for one season and rode your keeper And then once your team rep goes up a wee bit, it's less effective. Think that is a better indicator of what FF is saying.

Think his observation still stands that trying a Simeone or Mou instead of a Pep or Klopp is going to be more difficult to replicate, based on the current ME.

I played with defensive tactics for two seasons and was equally effective on both not sure if you have read the whole thread. If you want to see how a top team can play counter attacking football and excel with it I can share my recent save with Chelsea which broke all kinds of premier league records while having less than 50% possession while only having the 3rd best squad in the league but that would be boring compared to an underdog team which is the first two seasons when I managed West Brom. And the keeper that you mentioned immediately failed to perform elsewhere when I left the club so I am not sure how much he mattered. 

And these are quotes taken directly 'defending is failing', 'defending is almost impossible because when you are the weaker team...' and it is clear my tactics disagrees with their quotes. Whether the ME favours which type of playstyle is not what I replied and I respect your opinion on it.

Simeone and Mou do not play with defensive tactics all the time. They like any sensible coaches know that they have to be on the offensive end on some matches and vice versa is true. Playing with defensive tactics for the whole season will not get them anywhere and the FM world is also not exempted from this. At the same time I have also seen a fair share of people who played with ultra offensive tactics and failed with it.

[FulchesterFred]

3 hours ago, zyfon5 said:

I played with defensive tactics for two seasons and was equally effective on both not sure if you have read the whole thread. If you want to see how a top team can play counter attacking football and excel with it I can share my recent save with Chelsea which broke all kinds of premier league records while having less than 50% possession while only having the 3rd best squad in the league but that would be boring compared to an underdog team which is the first two seasons when I managed West Brom. And the keeper that you mentioned immediately failed to perform elsewhere when I left the club so I am not sure how much he mattered. 

And these are quotes taken directly 'defending is failing', 'defending is almost impossible because when you are the weaker team...' and it is clear my tactics disagrees with their quotes. Whether the ME favours which type of playstyle is not what I replied and I respect your opinion on it.

Simeone and Mou do not play with defensive tactics all the time. They like any sensible coaches know that they have to be on the offensive end on some matches and vice versa is true. Playing with defensive tactics for the whole season will not get them anywhere and the FM world is also not exempted from this. At the same time I have also seen a fair share of people who played with ultra offensive tactics and failed with it.

I think you’re definitely streets ahead of me tactically. And I agree that each game should present its own dilemma and tactical solution. The problem is, as stated above, a lot of us don’t know why we’re winning or losing and therefore have no idea of what tactic might work. I don’t have time to understand the nuances and SI do very little to explain.

I don’t understand why, since I bought them, Trent Alexander Arnold and Andy Robertson (yes they’re playing for Spurs now people) can’t hit a single decent cross. I don’t understand why Kane misses so many sitters. I don’t understand how Calum Wilson can skin 4 of my defenders and score a worldly from inside his own half.

I don’t understand what always man mark means as it’s utterly illogical. Same with always press.

I don’t understand how someone on FM20 put 2 under 18 gks up front for Liverpool and got one of them to be top scorer.

ultimately I don’t understand too much about this game. I ain’t stooopid. Not very anyway. I get civilisation vi as it comes with a well written manual. It certainly doesn’t mean I win every time. Knowing what everything does.

I go back to my point. FM is opaque. Deliberately IMO. I really appreciate people like you exist and assist but I don’t want to copy tactics. I want to design my own knowing what will and won’t work. I want to know What parameters FM plays to because let’s face facts it’s a game, not real life. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by FulchesterFred

[Haribo1681]

On 30/08/2021 at 23:05, darthrodent said:

That's exactly it, mate. I don't want the secret formula to win -- I used to get just as much enjoyment playing as lower teams hanging on for survival. What I want is ACTIONABLE INFORMATION. Let's take a hypothetical under-the-hood "FM-ometer" that can tell me what my problem is. Let's say it concludes that the reason my system failed last game is because the Decisions, Work Rate, and Teamwork is too low for both my DMs and my system is too high in Pressing. That information is forever hidden from me. How could I ever come to that conclusion by myself? Do I even know what Decisions does?

 

On the flip side, I absolutely walked the league with Birmingham City, Ivan Sunjic was absolutely immense in the Anchor role. It feels like I hit the tactic fruit machines and hit the Jackpot. I play the game the same way every time using the same logic and same knowledge of a 30 year playing career at a pretty high level. I have no idea why I was successful, it just sort of clicked. I didn't have to make any changes throughout the season, I played the exact same 4-1-4-1 system all the way through. It should have been cause for celebration what with the Premiership promotion, yet I was so dejected, it was such a hollow experience that I decided to make a thread about it.

 

If someone asked "What was it that made your Birmingham team so good?" I honestly don't think I could give a response. I look at teams like Liverpool, Man City, and Chelsea in real life. If you asked me the same question I could give you a 10-page synopsis on each of those teams: the style, the tempo, the philosophy, the pressing, all of it.

I totally agree with you on this - I never feel like I have any idea why tactics and team selections succeed or fail, so it becomes a case of trying different things out until something clicks, then trying to preserve that for as long as possible until more seemingly unconnected minor changes are required to retain or rediscover form - hence why it often feels like trying to crack a code.

I've put a post in the main feedback thread where I think the Assistant Manager/backroom team feedback piece is where this really could be improved - not to the extent of suggesting which instructions to use (a push-to-win button like some seem to think is being requested), but just feedback as to what is happening in matches that we don't see by watching highlights - stuff like: 'our three attacking midfielders are often taking up similar positions so we're lacking space' or 'our left back is often short of options so resorts to playing long balls more than we'd like.' At the moment, I'm sure all this is visible if you watch games in full or have the understanding of the data that is collected, but time is precious so many of us cannot do this or simply don't know how. FM collects and presents huge amounts of data, but very little information to then make decisions upon.

This, combined with having such a large 'box of toys to play with' is why many of us struggle to make 'good' tactical choices - we don't know the affect that many of those tools have on the game and then we don't learn from the mistakes we don't know we make, so we accidentally issue conflicting instructions which cause problems and don't reflect what we actually want. For example - I was told earlier in this thread that using an Advanced Forward contradicts Play Out of Defence, because this makes my team string a couple of aimless passes together, then get frustrated and try to launch it in behind for the forward to chase, which then allows the opposition to counter. I've never seen this happen despite playing POOD and an AF for pretty much four seasons, but apparently this is obvious - in a perfect world, I don't want FM to tell me that this conflict exists because it might still be what I want, but I'd like some feedback from my backroom team that this series of events, which I cannot see, is happening.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Haribo1681
typos.

[FulchesterFred]

2 hours ago, Haribo1681 said:

I totally agree with you on this - I never feel like I have any idea why tactics and team selections succeed or fail, so it becomes a case of trying different things out until something clicks, then trying to preserve that for as long as possible until more seemingly unconnected minor changes are required to retain or rediscover form - hence why it often feels like trying to crack a code.

I've put a post in the main feedback thread where I think the Assistant Manager/backroom team feedback piece is where this really could be improved - not to the extent of suggesting which instructions to use (a push-to-win button like some seem to think is being requested), but just feedback as to what is happening in matches that we don't see by watching highlights - stuff like: 'our three attacking midfielders are often taking up similar positions so we're lacking space' or 'our left back is often short of options so resorts to playing long balls more than we'd like.' At the moment, I'm sure all this is visible if you watch games in full or have the understanding of the data that is collected, but time is precious so many of us cannot do this or simply don't know how. FM collects and presents huge amounts of data, but very little information to then make decisions upon.

This, combined with having such a large 'box of toys to play with' is why many of us struggle to make 'good' tactical choices - we don't know the affect that many of those tools have on the game and then we don't learn from the mistakes we don't know we make, so we accidentally issue conflicting instructions which cause problems and don't reflect what we actually want. For example - I was told earlier in this thread that using an Advanced Forward contradicts Play Out of Defence, because this makes my team string a couple of aimless passes together, then get frustrated and try to launch it in behind for the forward to chase, which then allows the opposition to counter. I've never seen this happen despite playing POOD and an AF for pretty much four seasons, but apparently this is obvious - in a perfect world, I don't want FM to tell me that this conflict exists because it might still be what I want, but I'd like some feedback from my backroom team that this series of events, which I cannot see, is happening.

Stuff about AF fascinating. How on earth were we meant to know that?

I also read somewhere you press useless players not talented players. So someone like Kevin de Bruyne who I always pressed (never man mark as hell draw my players out of position) I’m meant to ignore! 
 

it’s just so badly explained 

Edited September 1, 2021 by FulchesterFred