Is Defensive Mentality Broken in FM22?

[phd_angel]

I saw a couple of famous YouTubers claiming that Defense mentality is a sure way to suffer goals. I must admit I agree with their assessment. Chances are I'll be scored, even against a slightly inferior team. Of course, my tactics is probably set for offensive, but, in general, what are your thoughts on the claim that defensive mentality is underpowered?... 

[JamieTC13]

1 hour ago, phd_angel said:

I saw a couple of famous YouTubers claiming that Defense mentality is a sure way to suffer goals. I must admit I agree with their assessment. Chances are I'll be scored, even against a slightly inferior team. Of course, my tactics is probably set for offensive, but, in general, what are your thoughts on the claim that defensive mentality is underpowered?... 

My mate done a test with defensive mentality and attacking. He holidayed for a year with exactly the same team, tactics and everything but just change the mentality from defensive to attacking and on the attacking mentality his team come second but when he done it on defensive mentality they come 13th.

[phd_angel]

4 minutes ago, JamieTC13 said:

My mate done a test with defensive mentality and attacking. He holidayed for a year with exactly the same team, tactics and everything but just change the mentality from defensive to attacking and on the attacking mentality his team come second but when he done it on defensive mentality they come 13th.

There you go. I'm not crazy then. Thanks.

My Very Defensive mentality usually works very well in the last 3 to 5 minutes. Total parked bus. 

[Sunstrikuuu]

20 minutes ago, JamieTC13 said:

My mate done a test with defensive mentality and attacking. He holidayed for a year with exactly the same team, tactics and everything but just change the mentality from defensive to attacking and on the attacking mentality his team come second but when he done it on defensive mentality they come 13th.

Mentality affects a lot of stuff.  A tactic that's built for an Attacking mentality probably won't work with a Defensive mentality, because the players won't be behaving in the same way.  So I don't find that test particularly compelling.  Nor do I think that the Defensive mentality is broken.  I do think it's hard to use, though.  It's tougher to get equivalent results to what you'd get with Attacking mentality, click all the buttons that do more pressing, which usually works out pretty OK.

The other piece here is that Defensive mentality tactics don't work well when you set them as your main tactic, tell the assistant to always use that tactic, then holiday.  If the opposition scores first, they'll lower their own mentality, and you won't have enough juice to equalize.  Defensive-mentality tactics just aren't a good fit for any situation where you're trying to score.

[herne79]

It’s perfectly possible to create a successful tactic with any mentality, just like it’s perfectly possible to create a terrible tactic with any mentality.

Mentality is just one piece of the puzzle and - just like all the other pieces of the puzzle - should not be viewed in isolation.

A defensive tactic on the other hand is a different kettle of fish and quite different to the defensive mentality.  That can certainly be more difficult to get right than something more aggressive.  Perhaps that’s what these famous YouTubers are referring to?

[Haiku]

I don't expect to win matches with defensive mentality, but to protect my lead. I found that Defensive and Very Defensive are inferior at protecting the lead. They are just way too passive and are perhaps useful for the final 5-10 minutes of the match, but holding on for more than that was never a good idea from my experience. I would much rather use cautious mentality and maximum time wasting if I want to see off the match. At the same time Very Attacking was never useful for me. My team just can't keep hold on the ball with this extreme mentality. I can't find the benefit of using Attacking over Positive either.

[Haiku]

2 minutes ago, herne79 said:

It’s perfectly possible to create a successful tactic with any mentality, just like it’s perfectly possible to create a terrible tactic with any mentality.

Yes, but it's definitely not difficult to create successful tactic on FM22. I'm not very familiar with real world tactics, but I created this one myself and I'm tearing leagues with all clubs I tried, Always perform above odds,

For anyone interested to have a look:

 

[phnompenhandy]

As said, it's no good as a starting tactic to be employed for a whole match. My main tactic is on attacking/positive mentality, but I have a backup tactic that is the same formation but defensive mentality with various team instructions scaled back. I use  it late on to see out a game I'm winning and my players are getting fatigued. I might even switch to it at half time if we're 2-0 up and we have another match in 3 days.

[SimonHoddle]

There s a way of playing defensively and winning because the bloody computer does it to me all the time lol! 
 

ive had a couple of games recently when 2 men have been sent off relatively early in the games for the opposition. On both occasions my free scoring team struggled to score against 9 men. When I get someone sent off I usually follow the assman instructions and go defensive- we always get battered. 
 

IMO SI don’t give enough detail on defensive football so we all do it a bit blind. I don’t have the time to properly examine various systems through trial and error so SI could do more with their plug and play defence.

[phd_angel]

12 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

As said, it's no good as a starting tactic to be employed for a whole match. My main tactic is on attacking/positive mentality, but I have a backup tactic that is the same formation but defensive mentality with various team instructions scaled back. I use  it late on to see out a game I'm winning and my players are getting fatigued. I might even switch to it at half time if we're 2-0 up and we have another match in 3 days.

This is exactly what I do, but am not usually happy with what I see... I may just go full on Very Defensive, to park the bus in the very final minutes.

[themadsheep2001]

Defensive mentality means risk adverse football, so you need to think about the kind of chances you create/football you expect to play when doing so. Defensive mentality isn't necessarily defensive football. 

[SimonHoddle]

2 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Defensive mentality means risk adverse football, so you need to think about the kind of chances you create/football you expect to play when doing so. Defensive mentality isn't necessarily defensive football. 

Which is really good advice. Shame SI don’t articulate this.

[themadsheep2001]

Personally, I've been wanting them to change how they describe it for about 5 years. But if you speak to any tactical mod they'll probably tell you the same thing: view the mentalities as levels of risk, rather strictly attack to defence. Yes some mentalities might tend to lean better into certain types of play, but particularly around the middle ones; counter, balanced, positive; they are extremely malleable when it comes to attacking or more defensive football and should really be seen as what kind of risk you want to take in your football. 

 

[DP]

6 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Defensive mentality means risk adverse football, so you need to think about the kind of chances you create/football you expect to play when doing so. Defensive mentality isn't necessarily defensive football. 

It should be though right? It’s too confusing otherwise. 
 

I mean, I personally think the whole tactical setup is more complex and has more variance than even real football - but that’s just me. Do teams in real life have a mentality other than ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ with a few varying shades of that? It’s all very poorly executed in the game with too much chance of various options clashing/cancelling each other. 
 

If FMs ‘defensive’ mentality doesn’t mean defensive football then it needs to be renamed or explained better.  

[themadsheep2001]

28 minutes ago, DP said:

It should be though right? It’s too confusing otherwise. 
 

I mean, I personally think the whole tactical setup is more complex and has more variance than even real football - but that’s just me. Do teams in real life have a mentality other than ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ with a few varying shades of that? It’s all very poorly executed in the game with too much chance of various options clashing/cancelling each other. 
 

If FMs ‘defensive’ mentality doesn’t mean defensive football then it needs to be renamed or explained better.  

I mean I literally just explained it in very simple terms, right above your reply to me...

[masno]

Defensive mentality can make good results, BUT needs a lot of attention from the player to create such a tactic. I already created a possessive tactic focused on the defensive mentality, the good thing is that you don't take unnecessary risks  in the attack, the bad thing is that sometimes players simply get to passive for it to work.

Defensive mentality worked better when you could change the team shape, so when you changed it to fluid, players would often risk it more together. But, nowadays in FM, is way easier for you to achieve better results with attacking tactics, for the simple fact that you need less changes and attention to achieve the same results.

[DP]

21 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I mean I literally just explained it in very simple terms, right above your reply to me...

Is there low risk attacking football then?

[themadsheep2001]

17 minutes ago, DP said:

Is there low risk attacking football then?

Well yes, as I've stated above in both my posts, you could build low risk attacking football if you wanted to, as long as you've got a clear idea of the type of chances you want/can create (i used to build Pep's Guardiola from counter, and once built a replication of Spain 2010 from defensive). I'm really not sure what you want at this point tbh, as my view of it is really as simple as my two previous posts

[phd_angel]

On 25/06/2022 at 15:31, themadsheep2001 said:

Personally, I've been wanting them to change how they describe it for about 5 years. But if you speak to any tactical mod they'll probably tell you the same thing: view the mentalities as levels of risk, rather strictly attack to defence. Yes some mentalities might tend to lean better into certain types of play, but particularly around the middle ones; counter, balanced, positive; they are extremely malleable when it comes to attacking or more defensive football and should really be seen as what kind of risk you want to take in your football. 

 

Thanks for your insights. But if mentality is risk, and if there is low-risk attacking and high-risk defending, then SI should call mentality as "risk mentality", and set options as "very high, high, medium, low, very low".

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, phd_angel said:

Thanks for your insights. But if mentality is risk, and if there is low-risk attacking and high-risk defending, then SI should call mentality as "risk mentality", and set options as "very high, high, medium, low, very low".

Again, Ive said this? Sorry but if people are going to respond to me, at least read what I've already said. You're literally telling me things I already believe and as I said, have been saying for the last 5 years 

[Freakiie]

1 hour ago, DP said:

Is there low risk attacking football then?

What would you call van Gaal's style at Bayern or United? I would argue it was definitely a low risk system, very systematic, possession as first priority until the opposition showed a bit too much space, at which point he'd use the pace and quality up front to strike. At the same time, I definitely wouldn't call it defensive football though, but it definitely was horribly boring football at times.

[phd_angel]

4 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Again, Ive said this? Sorry but if people are going to respond to me, at least read what I've already said. You're literally telling me things I already believe and as I said, have been saying for the last 5 years 

Dude, I'm basically agreeing with you. No need for overreacting. Are you feeling attacked or something?... Not my intention.

[themadsheep2001]

9 minutes ago, Freakiie said:

What would you call van Gaal's style at Bayern or United? I would argue it was definitely a low risk system, very systematic, possession as first priority until the opposition showed a bit too much space, at which point he'd use the pace and quality up front to strike. At the same time, I definitely wouldn't call it defensive football though, but it definitely was horribly boring football at times.

I'd place Guardiola at Barcelona in this category, and definitely Spain 2010. They can be horribly boring systems, especially if you get your patterns of attack wrong. 

[DP]

12 hours ago, Freakiie said:

What would you call van Gaal's style at Bayern or United? I would argue it was definitely a low risk system, very systematic, possession as first priority until the opposition showed a bit too much space, at which point he'd use the pace and quality up front to strike. At the same time, I definitely wouldn't call it defensive football though, but it definitely was horribly boring football at times.

I would call it low risk, possession based football. Would I call it attacking football? Not really. I don’t think there are many cases of low risk attacking football, it’s a bit of an oxymoron imo. I mean, in theory, yes but it doesn’t really play out that way. City always play a high line, they’re always attacking and, whilst they have more possession than say Liverpool, it’s not low risk. It’s just how they play. Strangling the game so that the opposition cannot get a foothold. 
 

Pep would never say he plays ‘low risk’ football. 
 

FM has too many variations, complexity and systems that can too easily cancel each other out. An overhaul is required to present this information in a more readable format to the player and tactical instructions, mentality, player roles all could do with some streamlining. It’s system upon system that’s been added together over years and it’s resulted in this complex soup that over complicates everything imo. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by DP

[Icy]

Probably it should be replaced by Risk management and just have it low, balanced and high.

The main problem is not that defensive mentalities are broken, it's just that in general they are not well balanced in terms of risk/benefit vs the attacking ones. In current ME in general you have more chances to win using positive or attacking than cautious or defensive as defensive means basically taking less risk and players will waste more time, pass between defenders with the hope of not loosing the ball, so it's basically useful if you are aiming to tie 0-0 into boring games to watch as usually low tier teams do. 

Then we have us, human managers. Most of FM players are only looking to win, to gain promotion etc and ending most of games 0-0 won't help you on that so that is why we end using the more risky mentalities. Either we win, over perform and have a lot of fun or we lose, get either bored of that save or fired and restart with a different team as obviously we won't have problems feeding our families or ending jobless if we are fired like a real coach would.

With both factors together, there are not enough incentives for humans to use the low risk mentalities.

As we already have pass length, pressing intensity, LOE and LOD, play from defense, width, etc there is no need for the extra layer of risk or mentalities that are overall modifiers of all these ones together? It can lead to confusion like what is the difference in players positioning and pressing when using defensive mentality with high LOE and LOD vs attacking mentality using low LOE and LOD? or playing with more width with defensive mentality vs playing narrower with attacking mentality? 

Again imho we just need risk management settings as single modifier not tied to other single modifiers like attacking width, LOE, LOD, pass length, urgency, etc as we can already define these individually.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Icy

[SimonHoddle]

Would love to show you my most recent match. I play 4312, positive, higH DL and LOE. Playing as spurs away to West Ham. Dominate for 65 mins 2-0 up. out performing in every metric. 
 

on 70 mins. I change mentality to balanced. Move the LOE and DL back one notch. Change always press to always drop back. And moved to counter attack. Within 1 min West Ham made it 2-1. By FT they had more shots in 20 mins then we had in previous 70. And they equalised.

in isolation this is completely rational. But it’s a repeat pattern of results and performances which always coincide with lowering mentality, pressing lines and intensity of press. 
 

SI HAVE to equip us with more information about what each adjustment does to a team. At the moment the game is repetitive- why ever change tactics if only one seems to work so comprehensively more than the other.

I also think more information could be provided about opposition mentality, press and LOEs. I’m sure in the example above, West Ham switched to attacking but the visual representation of the game isn’t yet good enough to really portray this so we do need feedback from assman/ tablet (hints are given but all too briefly)

I actually like this version a lot but defence is broken for the casual player. That’s a shame.

 

 

[sdx15]

3 hours ago, SimonHoddle said:

Change always press to always drop back

Aren't those the two extremes? While I agree it's really hard to create a defensive tactic that works in FM, your example doesn't look like a good tactical approach.  By completely abandoning pressing and lovering your LOE you're probably instantly taking away your biggest advantage in the match (since gegenpress is very useful) and giving your opponent some breathing space. That's just making you vulnerable at the back, especially as you also ask your team to counter the opposition which makes you lose the ball more often and that's exactly the opposite of what you want when you're trying to close the match up.

[SimonHoddle]

3 hours ago, sdx15 said:

Aren't those the two extremes? While I agree it's really hard to create a defensive tactic that works in FM, your example doesn't look like a good tactical approach.  By completely abandoning pressing and lovering your LOE you're probably instantly taking away your biggest advantage in the match (since gegenpress is very useful) and giving your opponent some breathing space. That's just making you vulnerable at the back, especially as you also ask your team to counter the opposition which makes you lose the ball more often and that's exactly the opposite of what you want when you're trying to close the match up.

I get what  you’re saying. But closing passing lanes. Playing narrow at the back, dropping back on losing possession should limit opposition chances. Not give them open season on my goal. Counter attack option should marginally increase risk but with Ansu Fati and Dane Scarlett up front I didn’t want to limit the chances to exploit an open opp defence with 2 lightning quick forwards. It should also push West Ham back a little.

all that ended happening is a glut of chances for West Ham. My neutral, slightly defensive,  system ceded complete control.. again in isolation it’s understandable. But it happens a lot. So your argument to keep playing on the front foot highlights my point, pick one system, make it attacking, never ever change. Kind of takes away the tactical thinking part of the match 

[sdx15]

4 hours ago, SimonHoddle said:

So your argument to keep playing on the front foot highlights my point, pick one system, make it attacking, never ever change. Kind of takes away the tactical thinking part of the match 

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to wrap up the match, I'm just arguing that you should do it by retaining possession rather than cedeing it. Lowering mentality, tempo and asking my players not to counter and to work the ball into the box and waste time at the end of the match works really well for me against weaker opposition. While that isn't exactly whar you want, it does show that making tactical changes in FM is still useful. You just have take into account that this game is still far from a perfect simulation so not every tactical approach works.

I do, however, maintain that abandoning the press against BPL opposition makes you too vulnerable at the back, both in real life and FM.

[Freakiie]

To be fair, seeing out matches is difficult in real life as well. How often haven't we seen a team take their foot of the gas pedal and just get severely punished for it? You give the opposition room to breathe, they will become much more dangerous. I also don't think a lot of teams try to see out a match by parking the bus, as sdx pointed out, they generally will lower tempo and retain possession, rather than just cede possession and hope the opposition doesn't do anything with it.

Especially with a formation like the 4-3-1-2. Assuming it's what the tactic creator calls the 4-3-1-2 with 3 CMs, your strength will be numbers in midfield and your weaknesses will be the flanks and if you completely cede possession like you did, the lack of a player in the DM strata probably won't help either. On the other hand, the AI will go very aggressive late in the match if they're losing, so you're basically telling your team to let the opposition do what they want in the same moment the AI goes "Wait, we're losing, time to throw everything forward". So, now your players are just back pedalling, the opposition wingers (which most attacking AI formations tend to have) are having a field day against your narrow formation and while I don't know how good WHU is at your stage in the save, they're generally a solid PL team and they will have the quality to hurt you.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Freakiie

[SimonHoddle]

12 hours ago, Freakiie said:

To be fair, seeing out matches is difficult in real life as well. How often haven't we seen a team take their foot of the gas pedal and just get severely punished for it? You give the opposition room to breathe, they will become much more dangerous. I also don't think a lot of teams try to see out a match by parking the bus, as sdx pointed out, they generally will lower tempo and retain possession, rather than just cede possession and hope the opposition doesn't do anything with it.

Especially with a formation like the 4-3-1-2. Assuming it's what the tactic creator calls the 4-3-1-2 with 3 CMs, your strength will be numbers in midfield and your weaknesses will be the flanks and if you completely cede possession like you did, the lack of a player in the DM strata probably won't help either. On the other hand, the AI will go very aggressive late in the match if they're losing, so you're basically telling your team to let the opposition do what they want in the same moment the AI goes "Wait, we're losing, time to throw everything forward". So, now your players are just back pedalling, the opposition wingers (which most attacking AI formations tend to have) are having a field day against your narrow formation and while I don't know how good WHU is at your stage in the save, they're generally a solid PL team and they will have the quality to hurt you.

All fair points. As does @sdx15

couple of replies.

i) my 4312 system should be vulnerable on the wings throughout the match. But it only seems to weaken when I change from positive to balanced

ii) I don’t go defensive. I’ve learnt that lesson in recent FMs. I go very neutral. The press is always at 75%. Reducing it seems FM suicidal. This small change in mentality creates a big change in dynamic.

iii) when you go defensive and deeper in 22 (or at least when I go deeper and defensive in 22) I seem to concede a lot of goals through balls over the top. This is wholly unrealistic and needs work. IRL deep defensive football can = loads of crosses and shots from distance. But it shouldn’t offer balls over the top of a high defence. I think the FM algorithm/ programming acknowledges a change in momentum but creates the wrong chances and goals to replicate this. That is what I find particularly annoying. 
 

iv) ultimately attacking football IRL in recent years is the dominant force so I get the bias. I just don’t think FM represents defence properly, describes  defensive tactics properly or gives us the tools to create defensive systems properly. 

 

[themadsheep2001]

"I think the FM algorithm/ programming acknowledges a change in momentum but creates the wrong chances and goals to replicate this. That is what I find particularly annoying. "

This isn't how it works, for what it's worth. 

"iii) when you go defensive and deeper in 22 (or at least when I go deeper and defensive in 22) I seem to concede a lot of goals through balls over the top."

This sounds directly related to you saying how you back off. A lot of people think defending balls over the top is about getting deeper. But its also about stopping the supply as well. 

And you say you can't make defensive tactics properly, but what do you mean? Because you can make both deeper defending tactics and tactics using the lower mentalities. And they aren't necessarily the same thing .

[SimonHoddle]

6 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

"I think the FM algorithm/ programming acknowledges a change in momentum but creates the wrong chances and goals to replicate this. That is what I find particularly annoying. "

This isn't how it works, for what it's worth. 

"iii) when you go defensive and deeper in 22 (or at least when I go deeper and defensive in 22) I seem to concede a lot of goals through balls over the top."

This sounds directly related to you saying how you back off. A lot of people think defending balls over the top is about getting deeper. But its also about stopping the supply as well. 

And you say you can't make defensive tactics properly, but what do you mean? Because you can make both deeper defending tactics and tactics using the lower mentalities. And they aren't necessarily the same thing .

To your final point. SI should explain this better

[SimonHoddle]

15 minutes ago, SimonHoddle said:

To your final point. SI should explain this better

And to your second point. I don’t get this. I keep my pressing at 75% of total. LOE and DL drop. Ergo there should be less space behind. More crosses yes. More long shots yes. Not more balls in behind my defence. 
 

are you saying IRL teams don’t stop through balls by lowering their DL but by increasing their press? Say that to Liverpool and Man City who both struggled against spurs last season because of their high lines. Like I say above, I never decrease my press intensity to less than 75%.. although maybe that’s a problem. maybe I should. So confusing.
 

I just wish SI would comprehensively explain the impact of each adjustment. The reason being is this isn’t real life. So the game has its own laws. Which a lot of us don’t understand.
 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by SimonHoddle

[themadsheep2001]

I didn't say anything other than balls over the top are a threat from both end (defensive line, quality of defender Vs attacker) and supply (line of engagement, time, space and options for player on ball, quality of marker vs player on ball). That's pretty much all I work to in FM, and I rarely concede balls over the top, regardless of how high or low up the pitch I play. I apply the same concepts from football to FM, that's pretty much how I have played for the last 10 years. I don't really overcomplicate FM beyond that. 

Its not one or the other, both in real life or FM. And that goes for every aspect, they are all interlinked, both in real life and in FM. 

[Draakon]

On 30/06/2022 at 01:51, SimonHoddle said:

Would love to show you my most recent match. I play 4312, positive, higH DL and LOE. Playing as spurs away to West Ham. Dominate for 65 mins 2-0 up. out performing in every metric. 
 

on 70 mins. I change mentality to balanced. Move the LOE and DL back one notch. Change always press to always drop back. And moved to counter attack. Within 1 min West Ham made it 2-1. By FT they had more shots in 20 mins then we had in previous 70. And they equalised.

in isolation this is completely rational. But it’s a repeat pattern of results and performances which always coincide with lowering mentality, pressing lines and intensity of press. 
 

 

Here you're mixing two different things together - mentality and defensive line with LOE.

Your description of giving momentum away is in my opinion caused by two things:

1) lower LOE and defensive line, giving West Ham time and space in possession to build up their attacks

2) AI very often switches to more attacking mentality and instructions in around 70-80' when they're down. It's probably coded to their match plans and you need to be aware of that.

 

So, you gave away midfield and West Ham took full advantage. Sure, they probably took more risks while going to attack, but I suspect that if you just changed your lines and ticked the counter-attack box, then your general formation and roles is not suitable for this sort of tactics. And you need to be aware, that going for a counter-attack means you lose possession more often, so once again giving away the ball and chance to attack for West Ham. 

What I'm trying to say here is that your switch from positive->balanced made less of a difference in this game than other changes in instructions. So it's not the question of mentality.

 

Having said that, I admit that defensive mentality through the full 90 minutes is not something that works well. At least it doesn't work well with a very defensive formation and that's something counter-intuitive for most managers. The game indicates that if you want to play defensive football (defensive or cautious mentality) you need more roles with defending or support instructions. It's not so simple. There are examples in these forums about successful tactics which combine mostly supporting roles with attacking mentality, making it work in attack (with balanced mentality and only supporting players would not lead to goalscoring chances). Similarly, I've found that my otherwise defensive formation (lower DL, lower LOE, play for counter-attacks, more direct passing) works better with balanced mentality and 3 attacking roles. Really really defensive formation (mentality + lines + roles and instructions are all defensive) suits only for parking the bus and rarely works for full 90 minutes. It's OK to try it if you're clear underdog or want to protect the lead, but you shouldn't start the game with it even against slightly stronger opponents.

 

[SimonHoddle]

7 hours ago, Draakon said:

Here you're mixing two different things together - mentality and defensive line with LOE.

Your description of giving momentum away is in my opinion caused by two things:

1) lower LOE and defensive line, giving West Ham time and space in possession to build up their attacks

2) AI very often switches to more attacking mentality and instructions in around 70-80' when they're down. It's probably coded to their match plans and you need to be aware of that.

 

So, you gave away midfield and West Ham took full advantage. Sure, they probably took more risks while going to attack, but I suspect that if you just changed your lines and ticked the counter-attack box, then your general formation and roles is not suitable for this sort of tactics. And you need to be aware, that going for a counter-attack means you lose possession more often, so once again giving away the ball and chance to attack for West Ham. 

What I'm trying to say here is that your switch from positive->balanced made less of a difference in this game than other changes in instructions. So it's not the question of mentality.

 

Having said that, I admit that defensive mentality through the full 90 minutes is not something that works well. At least it doesn't work well with a very defensive formation and that's something counter-intuitive for most managers. The game indicates that if you want to play defensive football (defensive or cautious mentality) you need more roles with defending or support instructions. It's not so simple. There are examples in these forums about successful tactics which combine mostly supporting roles with attacking mentality, making it work in attack (with balanced mentality and only supporting players would not lead to goalscoring chances). Similarly, I've found that my otherwise defensive formation (lower DL, lower LOE, play for counter-attacks, more direct passing) works better with balanced mentality and 3 attacking roles. Really really defensive formation (mentality + lines + roles and instructions are all defensive) suits only for parking the bus and rarely works for full 90 minutes. It's OK to try it if you're clear underdog or want to protect the lead, but you shouldn't start the game with it even against slightly stronger opponents.

 

I get what you’re saying but it’s still confusing. if I’m 2-0 up going into 70th min surely it is intuitive to start locking up the shop. Defending deeper. Pressing less higher up and condensing the match. It is clearly  programmed into AI to attack around 70th min when losing, so it’s logical to respond to that with a counter attacking instruction to exploit their space. The argument that all of the above gives momentum away suggests you should never ever choose these options (if not at 2 up with 20 mins to go, then when????). I also go from positive to neutral to lower the chances of a turnover.

I think that every post on here suggests that there is a complete lack  of clarity as to the meaning and impact of several different instructions.

that’s on SI who choose not to share a comprehensive manual. Idk why they avoid doing that but it’s clearly intentional and IMO frustrating 
 

[themadsheep2001]

2 hours ago, SimonHoddle said:

I get what you’re saying but it’s still confusing. if I’m 2-0 up going into 70th min surely it is intuitive to start locking up the shop. Defending deeper. Pressing less higher up and condensing the match. It is clearly  programmed into AI to attack around 70th min when losing, so it’s logical to respond to that with a counter attacking instruction to exploit their space. The argument that all of the above gives momentum away suggests you should never ever choose these options (if not at 2 up with 20 mins to go, then when????). I also go from positive to neutral to lower the chances of a turnover.

I think that every post on here suggests that there is a complete lack  of clarity as to the meaning and impact of several different instructions.

that’s on SI who choose not to share a comprehensive manual. Idk why they avoid doing that but it’s clearly intentional and IMO frustrating 
 

Why is it intuitive? You're already in control. What is the reason for changing here, other than it's something you thought you should do? Not only that, shutting up shop in the way you describe it is not the only way to take the sting out of a match and slow it down. 

My personal view is that it can be a terrible decision to give the ball back to a side who are looking to attack, particularly when your original plan is working and you're not sure your changes will. It's not a case of never, no one is saying that so avoid making this assumption. But I'm not sure you're playing what's in front of you. 

Not only that, once they got the first goal and it was obvious your change hadn't worked, why didn't you change it back?

Just because you attempt to shut up shop, does mean it's actually the right call. Doesn't always mean it's the wrong call either. But in this case it wasn't working, the fact you could see them steam rollering you should have been sign it was the wrong option. 

They aren't programmed to attack on the 70th minute either, but they do get desperate late on, depending on manager settings (or even earlier again dependent on manager settings )

The issue here is as Draakon says, less to do with mentality and a series of decisions based on assumptions rather than necessarily playing what's in front of you. A comprehensive manual probably wouldn't have prevented what happened here tbh.  

 

[Draakon]

6 hours ago, SimonHoddle said:

I get what you’re saying but it’s still confusing. if I’m 2-0 up going into 70th min surely it is intuitive to start locking up the shop. Defending deeper. Pressing less higher up and condensing the match. It is clearly  programmed into AI to attack around 70th min when losing, so it’s logical to respond to that with a counter attacking instruction to exploit their space. The argument that all of the above gives momentum away suggests you should never ever choose these options (if not at 2 up with 20 mins to go, then when????). I also go from positive to neutral to lower the chances of a turnover.

I think that every post on here suggests that there is a complete lack  of clarity as to the meaning and impact of several different instructions.

that’s on SI who choose not to share a comprehensive manual. Idk why they avoid doing that but it’s clearly intentional and IMO frustrating 
 

It depends on what your original tactic is.

I play with control possession tactics and positive mentality in games where I'm favourite. I don't usually switch those tactical instructions in the game unless I need to, but in your situation (2:0 up, looks equal game and opponents have some chances, might be better to switch to more defensive) it makes sense to switch from positive->balanced and left everything else unchanged.

Switch from positive->balanced essentially means that my players will take less passing risks. Why should they, we're 2:0 up. So - we start to circle possession more in the back, between defenders and midfielders and spending up time in doing so. That's the best kind of defence I can imagine. I don't change my LOE and pressing instructions, because my aim is still to win the ball back as soon as possible.

[SimonHoddle]

7 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Why is it intuitive? You're already in control. What is the reason for changing here, other than it's something you thought you should do? Not only that, shutting up shop in the way you describe it is not the only way to take the sting out of a match and slow it down. 

My personal view is that it can be a terrible decision to give the ball back to a side who are looking to attack, particularly when your original plan is working and you're not sure your changes will. It's not a case of never, no one is saying that so avoid making this assumption. But I'm not sure you're playing what's in front of you. 

Not only that, once they got the first goal and it was obvious your change hadn't worked, why didn't you change it back?

Just because you attempt to shut up shop, does mean it's actually the right call. Doesn't always mean it's the wrong call either. But in this case it wasn't working, the fact you could see them steam rollering you should have been sign it was the wrong option. 

They aren't programmed to attack on the 70th minute either, but they do get desperate late on, depending on manager settings (or even earlier again dependent on manager settings )

The issue here is as Draakon says, less to do with mentality and a series of decisions based on assumptions rather than necessarily playing what's in front of you. A comprehensive manual probably wouldn't have prevented what happened here tbh.  

 

It’s intuitive because that’s what most managers do IRL at some point in the match when ahead. They’ll bring on defensive players and shut up shop. I do get what you’re saying and I should have reverted.

There is however a problem with defensive football in 22. I will stick to that original point of this thread. It isn’t clearly described and too often it fails.

[Draakon]

It's still different.

If you want to shut up shop, you don't counter-attack, at least not very often. That's where you went wrong. You counter-attack when you want to score - you lure the opponent out and then try to break with fast wingers and strikers, via dribbling and/or long balls. Counter-attack is a high risk, high reward venture. It needs to work just once or twice in a game, but most often it doesn't.

If your'e leading the game, there's no need to counter-attack if you don't want to (don't need to) score another goal. There's no point in risking to lose possession. It makes sense when you're 1:0 up, because the second goal would give you the cushion you need, but leading 2:0 and wanting to slow things down against similar-bigger opponents - you should avoid counter-attacks and instead concentrate on possession and time wasting instead.

[HUNT3R]

16 minutes ago, Draakon said:

It's still different.

If you want to shut up shop, you don't counter-attack, at least not very often. That's where you went wrong. You counter-attack when you want to score - you lure the opponent out and then try to break with fast wingers and strikers, via dribbling and/or long balls. Counter-attack is a high risk, high reward venture. It needs to work just once or twice in a game, but most often it doesn't.

If your'e leading the game, there's no need to counter-attack if you don't want to (don't need to) score another goal. There's no point in risking to lose possession. It makes sense when you're 1:0 up, because the second goal would give you the cushion you need, but leading 2:0 and wanting to slow things down against similar-bigger opponents - you should avoid counter-attacks and instead concentrate on possession and time wasting instead.

To give a different point of view, often I don't change much when I'm 2-0 up. Maybe just subbing tired players or perhaps a more defensive sub.

If I am playing against a team where I am a little concerned about the strength of an all out attack against me, I'll switch to more of a counter attacking style. If it's a strong team, they're going to need to attack heavily. I want them to over-commit. That allows me to score another goal and the game is sealed. At 3-0, they'll concede defeat and I can see out the game in any way that I want.

[Draakon]

1 minute ago, HUNT3R said:

To give a different point of view, often I don't change much when I'm 2-0 up. Maybe just subbing tired players or perhaps a more defensive sub.

If I am playing against a team where I am a little concerned about the strength of an all out attack against me, I'll switch to more of a counter attacking style. If it's a strong team, they're going to need to attack heavily. I want them to over-commit. That allows me to score another goal and the game is sealed. At 3-0, they'll concede defeat and I can see out the game in any way that I want.

Obviously it depends on a game you have. When you have momentum and lead 2:0 after the first half, there's really no need to change your tactics. Just carry on what you're doing and if AI doesn't change anything, neither should you.

There are games where you manage to score once or twice and find yourself in strong position, but momentum is not on your side and you have been rather lucky to score (goal from a set piece or out of nowhere). Or it has been back and forth game, but your players have been better at finishing and it could have easily been different, so having the lead you want to cement your defence a bit to avoid conceding the next goal. These are situations when you ask - how do I shut it up and secure my lead? 

[XaW]

1 hour ago, SimonHoddle said:

It’s intuitive because that’s what most managers do IRL at some point in the match when ahead. They’ll bring on defensive players and shut up shop. I do get what you’re saying and I should have reverted.

There is however a problem with defensive football in 22. I will stick to that original point of this thread. It isn’t clearly described and too often it fails.

You are missing a key thing for going defensive later on. It's not like everything is equal, other than the mentality is lower. If you want to go defensively later on, you need to switch a whole lot more than mentality! I'd say more conservative role for most players (attacking->balanced, balanced >defensive), removing counter-press, easing off pressing (or increasing to avoid giving the other team too much time), lowering LoE (also situational), changing roles completely (a RPM in DM is not a very defensively secure role for example, complete wingbacks to fullbacks, etc).

Closing down the game is not a one click option (unless you have a version saved!).

Personally, I have a defensive tactic saved that I can put in if I think we need it, but I rarely change to it, unless I really think we have lost all momentum and I see loads of chances for the opponent and I really feel the need to change things to retain the win. If we continue to have a 2 goal lead and I rarely see chances against, I don't change things for the sake of changing.

In a more general thoughts, I think that very few clubs start with a defensive mindset in any match at all. Most will try to play their own way, but change when they can't impose themselves, though most teams will want to counter whenever possible to try to get a goal, even if they are under siege for the most of the match. Even Burnly under Dyche had 2-3 players going forward at all possible chances to try to counter in a goal, and that mindset, I'd say is more towards balanced, but with a very low block with very high pressure in the defensive third.

One thing I do agree is that mentality is a poor description for what it does. As @themadsheep2001 has written, it's got a lot to do with risk level, but it also impacts the mentality of the individual player roles (increasing or decreasing their individual mentality), so switching the label is not a great solution either imo. I very rarely use anything else than Balanced or Positive unless it's the final moments of the game and I'm desperate for a goal or to not concede.

[themadsheep2001]

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

To give a different point of view, often I don't change much when I'm 2-0 up. Maybe just subbing tired players or perhaps a more defensive sub.

If I am playing against a team where I am a little concerned about the strength of an all out attack against me, I'll switch to more of a counter attacking style. If it's a strong team, they're going to need to attack heavily. I want them to over-commit. That allows me to score another goal and the game is sealed. At 3-0, they'll concede defeat and I can see out the game in any way that I want.

This. If I'm managing fitness, I might rotate a couple of players and if I'm in control of the ball, look to retain safe possession as much as possible. Or look to pick off a team trying to play more aggressively, get a third goal and watch them collapse. 

[SimonHoddle]

1 hour ago, XaW said:

You are missing a key thing for going defensive later on. It's not like everything is equal, other than the mentality is lower. If you want to go defensively later on, you need to switch a whole lot more than mentality! I'd say more conservative role for most players (attacking->balanced, balanced >defensive), removing counter-press, easing off pressing (or increasing to avoid giving the other team too much time), lowering LoE (also situational), changing roles completely (a RPM in DM is not a very defensively secure role for example, complete wingbacks to fullbacks, etc).

Closing down the game is not a one click option (unless you have a version saved!).

Personally, I have a defensive tactic saved that I can put in if I think we need it, but I rarely change to it, unless I really think we have lost all momentum and I see loads of chances for the opponent and I really feel the need to change things to retain the win. If we continue to have a 2 goal lead and I rarely see chances against, I don't change things for the sake of changing.

In a more general thoughts, I think that very few clubs start with a defensive mindset in any match at all. Most will try to play their own way, but change when they can't impose themselves, though most teams will want to counter whenever possible to try to get a goal, even if they are under siege for the most of the match. Even Burnly under Dyche had 2-3 players going forward at all possible chances to try to counter in a goal, and that mindset, I'd say is more towards balanced, but with a very low block with very high pressure in the defensive third.

One thing I do agree is that mentality is a poor description for what it does. As @themadsheep2001 has written, it's got a lot to do with risk level, but it also impacts the mentality of the individual player roles (increasing or decreasing their individual mentality), so switching the label is not a great solution either imo. I very rarely use anything else than Balanced or Positive unless it's the final moments of the game and I'm desperate for a goal or to not concede.

I do all of the above btw. Players roles and instructions always change to fit the tactic. My real frustration is seeing my team concede more goals from balls over the top of my defence the deeper I get. It doesn’t add up. My last 2 games of the recent save were Man U and Arsenal away ( tough run in). We were 3rd in FA and CL final so good season. I thought I’d mix it up by playing deep CA football. We got hammered in both xG and actual goals in both games. A lot of chances came from balls over the top of a supposedly deep defence which was never actually deep
 

 

 

[XaW]

1 minute ago, SimonHoddle said:

I do all of the above btw. Players roles and instructions always change to fit the tactic. My real frustration is seeing my team concede more goals from balls over the top of my defence the deeper I get. It doesn’t add up. My last 2 games of the recent save were Man U and Arsenal away ( tough run in). We were 3rd in FA and CL final so good season. I thought I’d mix it up by playing deep CA football. We got hammered in both xG and actual goals in both games. A lot of chances came from balls over the top of a supposedly deep defence which was never actually deep

A question to that, how do you sett pressing aggressiveness, LoE, and DL? Because if you have a low DL, but high press and LoE you will "force" your defenders to move further up than the DL dictates. If you only concede through long balls, I'd suggest lowering both LoE and DL, but maintaining a high press, and thus creating a mid/low block that should be harder to break down by through balls or over the top. Also, the player roles will be impactful. I'd suggest a Pressing Forward to make sure the defenders won't have time to pinpoint long passes as accurately even if you have minimized the room due to a low DL. Of course, doing this too heavily will open some half-spaces if they chose to play a more direct shorter play through your lines, but these are the benefits and drawbacks you have to balance based on the opposition strengths.

[herne79]

Taking this right back to the opening post for a moment:

On 24/06/2022 at 20:54, phd_angel said:

I saw a couple of famous YouTubers claiming that Defense mentality is a sure way to suffer goals. I must admit I agree with their assessment. Chances are I'll be scored, even against a slightly inferior team. Of course, my tactics is probably set for offensive, but, in general, what are your thoughts on the claim that defensive mentality is underpowered?... 

I'd actually propose that using the Defensive Mentality can be somewhat overpowered.  It can help with possession retention, remaining solid in defence and help to create fewer but better quality chances.  Case in point:

Spoiler

That's a 4-1-2-3DM tactic which uses the Defensive Mentality.

The key to this, as with any tactic using any mentality, is to set things up in a balanced manner which compliments your players.

However, note that while this tactic uses the Defensive Mentality, it is not a Defensive Football tactic.  Defensive Mentality does not equate to Defensive Football.  They are two different things.  We can play Defensive Football using any mentality - it is not restricted to just the Defensive mentality.  I think this is where people get confused and, to be fair, the confusion stems from the lack of clarity in the Tactic Creator.  The TC implies we should use a certain mentality to promote a certain brand of football - the Defensive Mentality for Defensive Football; the Counter Mentality for Counter Attacking football; the Attacking Mentality for Attacking Football and so on.

imo trying to set up an effective Defensive Football tactic using the Defensive Mentality is indeed harder to set up than other tactical systems.  I think much of the time people use the mentality and then layer on way more additional instructions than are needed and end up getting swamped.  It turns into a "sure way to suffer goals" as the OP notes.  And again all that stems from a lack of clarity in the TC.  It's the same with setting up overly aggressive attacking systems - layer upon layer of additional instructions are used which can lead to people getting "FM'd" - dominating matches but losing to the AI's only attack.

TL;DR - if you want to play Defensive Football there is no need to use the Defensive Mentality, but if you do use that Mentality for that brand of football use it with great caution.

btw - @Cleon wrote a great guide a few years ago about the Defensive Mentality / Defensive Football which is pinned to the top of the Tactics Forum.  It may be a little old now but still relevant: https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/344134-the-school-of-defensive-arts-2015

[SimonHoddle]

2 hours ago, XaW said:

A question to that, how do you sett pressing aggressiveness, LoE, and DL? Because if you have a low DL, but high press and LoE you will "force" your defenders to move further up than the DL dictates. If you only concede through long balls, I'd suggest lowering both LoE and DL, but maintaining a high press, and thus creating a mid/low block that should be harder to break down by through balls or over the top. Also, the player roles will be impactful. I'd suggest a Pressing Forward to make sure the defenders won't have time to pinpoint long passes as accurately even if you have minimized the room due to a low DL. Of course, doing this too heavily will open some half-spaces if they chose to play a more direct shorter play through your lines, but these are the benefits and drawbacks you have to balance based on the opposition strengths.

Really appreciate the advice. It’s kind of what I do tbh. Pressing centre forward ✔️. Lower DL and LOE but press intensity on 75% ✔️ 

you’re right, everything you say is logical. Time and again though I get beaten by multiple balls over the top. I have v high quality fast CBs so can’t blame concentration. 

I think the whole opp instructions of MM and always press also play a big part. But, again, I think SI fail to comprehensively explain the output of these inputs. If I’m saying MM an opp CF does that mean my CBs will be dragged out and wide. If that is the case why ever MM an opponent….

it’s too ambiguous. 

[HUNT3R]

23 minutes ago, SimonHoddle said:

If I’m saying MM an opp CF does that mean my CBs will be dragged out and wide.

This is what man marking is and what is always has been IRL and in FM. As you mention it's obviously extremely risky to use a DC to man mark. IRL and in FM, zonal marking is what's considered 'normal' these days. Specific man marking happens though. I remember quite a few teams having a midfield player who would specifically man mark Messi everywhere he went.

 

Tbf as well, this behaviour you would be able to spot fairly easily and quite quickly in the ME.