FM23: The Art of Possession Football

[Skywalk3r83]

Love this! Used the tactic for the remainder of the season with Ajax. Brian Brobbey as a F9 did score a couple of goals, even though he’s not very suited as a F9. 

[yonko]

13 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

Thinking of your post watching Spain in the World Cup.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/live/football/61047682/page/2

And what is your point?

[phnompenhandy]

1 minute ago, yonko said:

And what is your point?

Look at the passing map. So much possession, tiki taka passing in the middle of the pitch with next to no end product, a.k.a. purpose. Spain occasionally play attractive possession-based football at major tournaments, but other times under inferior management it descends into a style that might be possession-dominant but has no end purpose. I know you don't want to hear that, but I think it's a worthwhile observation given your objections to terminology.

[Cleon]

Getting high possession on FM is relatively easy. Being productive with it, is another thing. Once you get past 60% imo you're just keeping the ball for the sake of it and not really attacking. This game for example 81% possession, won the game but I could have won this 5 or 6-0 if we didn't mess around with the ball as much, as we didn't attack when we should have and slowed everything down just to retain the ball. It's just pass, pass, pass for the sake of it.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Cleon

[Bradjc94]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

Getting high possession on FM is relatively easy. Being productive with it, is another thing. Once you get past 60% imo you're just keeping the ball for the sake of it and not really attacking. This game for example 81% possession, won the game but I could have won this 5 or 6-0 if we didn't mess around with the ball as much, as we didn't attack when we should have and slowed everything down just to retain the ball. It's just pass, pass, pass for the sake of it.

Do you think a shift in mentality from Positive to Attacking would possibly result in more chances being taken?

[Cleon]

2 hours ago, Bradjc94 said:

Do you think a shift in mentality from Positive to Attacking would possibly result in more chances being taken?

Probably not it would likely result in more wasted chances. You hit a certain point possession wise (imo that is 60%+) where you are just keeping the ball for the sake of it and just passing around, without really probing. More attacking isn't always better. I wrote this previously;

One thing you will have noticed that I’ve not spoken about yet is the team mentality. The reason for not mentioning this topic yet is because, for me, it’s the least important part of the whole tactical creation. I know other people value this aspect as being really important and that’s fair enough but for me, I want to keep it simple.

In simple terms, the mentality is the base attacking intent of the team. This may be described as a measure of risk-taking. More positive mentalities instruct the team to take more risks, and more defensive ones instruct the team to take fewer risks. Essentially it's a risk modifier that affects a number of other teams and player instructions like width, passing directness, tempo, line of engagement and defensive line. The higher your mentality the more risk your players are willing to take in these specific areas of the game.

The team mentality also impacts individual player mentality, you can see the change this has on the player and his role by going to the player on the tactic screen, clicking the position, and then clicking his player instructions. You’ll notice when you change team mentality his own mentality is adjusted to reflect the change.

Like I said above, rather than overcomplicating things and making out mentality more complex than it actually is, I always play with a balanced mentality. This doesn’t mean I don’t take lots of risks or play conservative, I can still be as attacking if not more than someone plays on an attacking mentality. Sounds strange, doesn’t it? But not really if you think about it. It all comes down to efficiency and how you use the ball and make the most of it. Being more aggressive doesn’t equal more attacking.

I’ll show some analysis of how mentality changes impact the 4-2-2-2 box formation when we get into the actual analysis parts. But for now, some time ago I wrote this about the 4-2-3-1 and it should give you a good grasp of why I play with a balanced mentality with actual examples. I have debated adding this or not but I think it is useful and relevant to tactical building and because I’m trying to show step by step what I do, I think it fits.

For the purpose of this analysis, I compare a balanced mentality against an attacking mentality only.

Now, these average position images might confuse people at first and you’ll think I’ve got them the wrong way around.

That is the attacking average position map which looks deeper than you might imagine. There is a reason for this and we will come around to that a bit later in the analysis.

Believe it or not, these are actually the average positions for the players in the standard mentality structure that I am using. Yet it’s more attacking face value and players are positioned a lot different compared to the first screenshot I posted. A lot of the players are more attacking. The average positions are interesting in both screenshots.

You’d have expected the attacking mentality to be a lot more aggressive with the average positions for when they had the ball (the purple icon with the number in it). Yet it’s actually the standard mentality screenshot which looks more aggressive. In the first image, you can see even the defence is deeper when out of possession too.

There are a number of reasons why it could be like this;

The attacking mentality is making defenders hit the ball earlier than normal as they look to hit the front players a lot more quickly decision-wise than you’d see in the standard mentality. This is entirely plausible. In the standard mentality system players likely have more time and spend longer on the ball, meaning they move upfield much more because they aren’t looking to rush play.

In the standard system, players seem to be more spread out, especially in the central areas. One of the reasons behind this is likely the initial space a player has. In the standard one, the space is likely in front of the players, meaning they have time to work the ball and play with it at their feet. In the more attacking system, that space likely doesn’t exist due to its aggressive nature. The higher mentality should on paper push them further forward but as you can see in the images, this isn’t happening. This suggests the space isn’t there and the players are having to drop deeper to find space or by them being closer to the opposition players, it’s involuntary pushing them deeper and negating the actual attacking mentality.

Those are some of the reasons why this might happen and are the likely causes. But now let’s add some more context and briefly show the match stats to see if there is much difference between the two.

Attacking Mentality Stats

  

You can see I won the game 1-4 and despite the scoreline, I was incredibly lucky in terms of the score. An own goal and two goals on and after 90 minutes really flattered us. We played well on face value with the score but that doesn’t tell the true story.

The individual stats show us a little bit more of how the players play. Interestingly I notice the keeper's pass completion and have just realised that I’ve not actually set it up so he distributes it to the defenders. I’ll have to look into this more and see if his long distribution is worth the sacrifice for passes completed if it puts us on the front foot quickly.

The player's condition is also in the low 70s for most people. I’ll need to compare this with the standard mentality one and see if there is a drastic difference.

Standard Mentality Stats

  

We created a few more chances but overall there isn’t much difference between both sets of match stats and the score. We won the game 1-3. The times of the scoring were better though and it looks like we didn’t leave it to the last minute or rely on our own goal. Could this be a sign of the way we attack? Possibly.

I think the biggest noticeable difference is the condition, players seem to end the game with a much higher percentage left compared to the attacking mentality one further up. This is expected because they are less gung-ho in their approach and should conserve energy better. But due to the average positions above, it wouldn’t have surprised me to see it a little lower than it actually was.

The goalkeeper's distribution is still the same as I played the match the exact same way with the exception of one being done with an attacking mentality and one without.

Attacking Mentality Match Analysis

Here we can see just how much space there is between the fullbacks and the inside forward on my left-hand side. It’s quite the distance and one simple ball from the opposition's fullback to the wide player takes out my inside forward from this phase of play. It puts me on the back foot immediately because now my midfield has to shift across and deal with it or my fullback is left with a 1v1 situation. Or alternatively, my inside forward could try and sprint back to make up the ground he has lost.

If you want that to happen then it seems pointless having him so high, to begin with. You could play him deeper by the use of a different mentality and help him conserve more energy as well as reduce the space. We can also use the player's settings or role/duties to manipulate this but that brings up a host of other issues and isn’t really an option for this demonstration. The reason being is I need and want this space that appears just not as much of it. Space and time are what will win me the game by creating intelligent movement.

Here we have my left wingback Zeca on the ball. Instead of driving forward with the ball, which he can do because he has the space available and the time ahead of him, he is already looking to launch it to the strikers. However you can see the striker and inside forward aren’t positioned the best, nor are they really making a run forward, especially the one in front of him, that’s the inside forward he is launching the ball to. This is an issue as this inside forward is going towards the sideline rather than away from it. So when the ball is played what can he really do as he is going away from goal? Not only that but the opposition has plenty of cover to now allow the fullback to be caught in a 1v1 situation.

This is a rushed decision and my side is wasting good opportunities where the player can venture forward more. Instead, they’d rather look for the longer option regardless of how those players might be marked or what positions they are in. This is because the mentality is also a risk factor, the higher the mentality the more likely a player will take risks, or as most people would say, do dumb ****. I’m not saying on the lower mentality there isn’t a chance that this doesn’t happen as it very well could. However, if you’ve set the roles up correctly and have the right balance in the set up then it’s less frequent that you’ll see this happening. Whereas currently, this is very common to see.

At times when this kind of pass works, it's great and we look deadly but it doesn’t happen enough and for most parts, wastes the move or just cheaply gives possession away. Another thing is that when this happens, it also means the striker or inside forward isn’t making those dangerous runs because they’re not getting the chance to do them. Instead, they get backed into corners or are surrounded by too many of the opposition's players. So trying to move the ball forward quickly isn’t always the best for this reason. It also makes it harder for the supporting players to catch up with play and is often why you might see people say things like their striker is very isolated and not getting a good supply. It might not be for this exact reason but it’s likely it’s something along these lines.

In this situation, we have a move where the wingback is pushed on and is offering width. Then the inside forward is making a run forward too as is the striker. However, my Segundo Volante who is on the ball (Yuri) is driving forward with it but he has no real support as players are positioned too high on this occasion or surrounded by players who can easily cut out the pass or make the tackle. This is the downside of an attacking mentality when players get positioned too high, it means they have limited space to work with due to the high starting points.

It also makes it incredibly difficult for the player on the ball to pick out a pass and often sees him just crack a shot from distance. Which happens on this particular occasion. I also see posts relating to this and people pointing out the good positions they think my inside forward, wingback and even striker have taken up. I guess they have if you look at it but when you add context to it and the player's position on the ball, it’s clear to see he is isolated with what he can do. The attacking side of things is cut off from him. Not all the time though and it comes back to the frequency aspect of how often something happens. You’ll find that in attacking setups this is much more common.

In this screenshot, we can see why my defence is deep and that is because the opposition striker is very deep in my half, admittedly we’ve just won possession but we won that at the halfway line. So we see that the defence is deeper than everyone else and likely too deep. This is because of the space the striker has, he’s making them stay deeper than they should. Also, using the Segundo Volante role doesn’t help here as we have possession of the ball so are already looking to attack. And it’s a role I want to use, however it looks like it's too aggressive for this set-up and how attacking it is. He is making more risky decisions and being overly aggressive. The role is very aggressive, to begin with, and then the added mentality isn’t helping the situation. He’d be better by playing deeper and slightly more cautious than usual.

That would then provide two things. One would be to cover for the defence and pick up the opposition players who are playing between my centre-backs and the defensive midfielders. Secondly, it should allow the defenders to push up more because the defensive midfielders would become responsible for picking up the striker instead. At the minute due to the aggressive nature, the defensive midfielders push up and leave the defenders playing as a separate unit to the rest of the side. Again there are ways to combat this slightly by the use of different roles, maybe an even higher defensive line but I’m supposedly already playing with those anyway. And changing roles defeats the purpose of what I’m creating and how I want to play.

Another thing happening in this screenshot is that Nilmar, who is my inside forward is the one who won possession back and as soon as he gets the ball he is already looking to hit the striker with those more direct/long balls. The issue with this is when that happens my striker becomes isolated or the ball is cut out by the opposition defenders. Support is lacking because Nilmar is supposed to be the support player. Again if he looks around though, he has space and time to play and decides against it. You can see when we get the ball my players are looking to get the ball forward as fast as possible. This is what mentality does on the higher ones, players take more risks and look to get the ball to the front players in the quickest, fastest possible way.

Yet again another situation where the side is looking to get the ball to the front far too quickly again. This time we see Yuri do a long ball up to where the inside forward is. Typically the ball is cut out and instantly we are on the back foot again. We aren’t being clever with the ball at all and aren’t using it wisely. When these kinds of passes are pulled off properly it's a thing of beauty but it happens nowhere near frequent enough. Not only this but it’s making the whole side deeper than it actually should be. Every time we get into situations like this, the same thing happens. We look to go from the front to the back in the quickest possible way. But because the ball gets cut out time and time again players are always deeper than they should be. Hence the average positions we saw at the very start.

Here is another perfect example of what happens when we attack recklessly at speed and without precision. The ball is lost and a simple ball back into my own final third means my defenders yet again cannot push up because they have to deal with the opposition striker who stays high up the pitch. It’s killing my play because it's not precise and well-thought-out football. The players highest up the field are isolated or drifting too deep because the rest of the side just cannot push up and are being bogged down.

It just goes to show though that because someone is meant to be positioned high up the pitch because of his mentality, doesn’t mean he is. All sorts of factors play a part in why he might be higher than normal or deeper than usual. So far in the examples, you see players dropping off the front for two main reasons;

• Bogged down and can’t move upfield because we move the ball too fast for anyone to catch up. Going from a to b quickly isn’t always beneficial.
• The second reason is, that it’s hard to find space so players come deep in the hope of finding it.

It’s like a never-ending cycle, for this game at least. We still won the game and scored four goals but like I pointed out at the start, the score line is flattering when you take into consideration the own-goal and the two very late goals. On a different day, this could have been a 1-1 draw without those bits of luck.

I’m not saying never play attacking football with this shape, far from it. It’s more about understanding how the shape plays on different mentalities and how it differs. If you want to play attacking football then play it. Just beware of how everything links together. Also, remember that attacking doesn’t always translate to attacking.

Standard Mentality Match Analysis

It’s early in the game but you can see how deep my entire side is. Not only that, but my defensive midfielder is also picking up the opposition striker meaning my defence can stay intact and start moving higher up the pitch. My side is closing down and chasing the ball but I think you can already see how the small difference of the defensive midfielder picking up the striker is helping my back line and freeing them up, so they can push higher up. This is allowing me to reduce the space the opposition has in my own half as the defence is moving advanced upfield towards my own midfielders.

Nilmar has the ball and this time drives infield because he isn’t rushing. And my Segundo Volante is in acres of space in the centre of the pitch and is a little bit more reserved in the build-up play and isn’t looking to attack constantly when we get possession of the ball. He’s being more clever in his play.

Due to the team, not all advancing forward and beyond the ball, it means we actually have space to run into and people creating and using space as we all move together. In this picture, we have Yuri who can drive forward with the ball or play two different kinds of ball. One is a through ball straight down the middle for the inside forward to run onto. Or he can play it straight into the patch of the inside forward which is actually the more risky pass in this scenario due to how the opposition defender near the inside forward is positioned.

Yuri passes the ball through the middle, so basically a through ball for my inside forward to run onto. Now had the side not moved together and at a relatively steady pace, this move wouldn’t have happened. Or if it was on a higher mentality than standard, the chances are the ball would have been played the first time from Yuri instead of him driving forward a little with the ball at his feet first. Our play now is more dangerous because we are playing as a unit, all of the team moving up and down the field at the same time. This is one of the reasons why the average positions in this mentality structure are actually higher than the attacking ones. Because we are moving and working as a cohesive unit.

Bruno manages to get onto the end of the ball but is fouled literally on the edge of the box and we win a free kick in a dangerous place.

In the attacking section further up, I showed the inside forward playing closer to the opposition's fullback(A) and leaving my own wingback exposed and susceptible to 1v1 scenarios. However now, we can see my inside forward is much deeper and inside my own half picking up the opposition's wide player. This means my wingback is free and can recover any loose balls or pick the player up should my inside forward not get the ball. Less pressure on the wingback is great as it means he is less likely to be exposed. Not only this but if he wins the ball back, he can also run with it down the wing and channel, which would put the opposition on the back foot.

I win possession of the ball back here deep inside my own half. But if you look at my players' positioning, it’s not bad because they have space. The left-sided inside forward and the deep-lying midfielder are already doing their job. The inside forward is pushing up behind the fullback into where the space is. While the deep-lying forward keeps the two central defenders busy. Yuri the Segundo Volante can be seen unmarked in the centre of the pitch. So my defenders play him the ball.

Yuri passes the ball to the attacking midfielder, Lucas Lima. He then hit it the first time into the path of the inside forward because he was already aware of his run. Now Bruno Henrique is onside and away causing them all kinds of problems. You will have noticed that in attacking mentalities the space is in front of the opposition players and when playing on lower mentalities or using players further down the pitch, then the space exists behind the opposition. This is a prime example of what I’m usually talking about. Due to me being deeper this makes the opposition higher up when they break forward. So when they lose the ball we get situations like this and I can hit them with clever counterattacks or clever direct forward balls.

There was no chance of this happening on the attacking mentality because the player was either too advanced or forced to come deep because he was marked, bringing the marker with him. Also because it encourages getting the ball forward quickly, Yuri might have bypassed Lucas Lima in this move and looked to hit the striker or even the inside forward much earlier. This can make moves break down. On this occasion though we are more calculated in our play and it’s not rushed. Instead, the players are deciding when to take risks and the risks they do take are more likely to be successful.

This is the same move just shown from a different angle to better illustrate it. The inside forward Bruno Henrique drove forward with the ball when he received it from Lucas Lima. You can see that the opposition centre-backs have been split, one of them has gone very deep leaving the striker alone in space. While the other one has gone across to deal with the inside forward. Now Bruno Henrique can do a simple sideways pass to Ricardo Oliveira who has lots of time and space. He drives forward a little bit after receiving the ball and lets go of a fierce shot which flies past the goal by inches. It’s a brilliantly worked team move which should have seen a goal scored. It all started with my central defender too.

I’m not saying people can’t play on higher mentalities far from it. But you have to realise how they differ from the lower mentalities. Not only this but it’s vital you understand how the mentality works with the roles and duties you use. If you use aggressive roles and an aggressive mentality like a Segundo Volante on an attacking mentality, then you’ll see him venture forward constantly with disregard for any danger he might be leaving behind. While on a lower mentality you should see him play slightly differently and work better and make more intelligent runs and passes. He will still take risks but those risks will happen as and when he believes the right time to take them. Rather than allowing the mentality of the team to decide he should do it more frequently.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Cleon

[Cleon]

22 hours ago, Cleon said:

Getting high possession on FM is relatively easy. Being productive with it, is another thing. Once you get past 60% imo you're just keeping the ball for the sake of it and not really attacking. This game for example 81% possession, won the game but I could have won this 5 or 6-0 if we didn't mess around with the ball as much, as we didn't attack when we should have and slowed everything down just to retain the ball. It's just pass, pass, pass for the sake of it.

The tactic used here btw was on a different save and I wasn't using the tactic in the original post. 

It was this one. I'm currently writing an article that is showcasing the 5-2-2-1 formation and take a real deep dive into the way it functions and plays. On top of this, I want to show it playing two different contrasting styles with small tweaks to the team instructions. The above one is more possession based and uses the ball to nullify the oppositions threat, while being a really weak team. I'm purposely using weaker teams this year because most people showcases stuff with world class teams usually which is easy to achieve any style. I wanted to show it working at the lower levels and progressing through the leagues. I started in the Brazilian 6th tier here.

So above we have the possession version which averages 63% + and below in the low possession one, averaging around 30%

Exact same roles just team instructions differ and impacts the style of play and how we use the ball. I hope to have it finished early next week.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Cleon

[yonko]

On 06/12/2022 at 22:59, phnompenhandy said:

Look at the passing map. So much possession, tiki taka passing in the middle of the pitch with next to no end product, a.k.a. purpose. Spain occasionally play attractive possession-based football at major tournaments, but other times under inferior management it descends into a style that might be possession-dominant but has no end purpose. I know you don't want to hear that, but I think it's a worthwhile observation given your objections to terminology.

That may be your personal interpretation but it doesn't mean Spain's possession didn't have a purpose. The lack of end product is more to do with the individual players rather than style of play. Spain currently lack players like David Villa and Fernando Torres in attack. I don't think people realize how much difference they made for Spain 2008-2012 era. 

Also, let's not forget that Morocco played very well organized and did great job at denying space. But that doesn't make there was lack of purpose on Spain's part. It's games like this that people tend to justify using terms that are nonsense. But just because a team lack end product or lost a game, it doesn't mean that possession didn't have purpose or whatever. 

[yonko]

23 hours ago, Cleon said:

Getting high possession on FM is relatively easy. Being productive with it, is another thing. Once you get past 60% imo you're just keeping the ball for the sake of it and not really attacking. This game for example 81% possession, won the game but I could have won this 5 or 6-0 if we didn't mess around with the ball as much, as we didn't attack when we should have and slowed everything down just to retain the ball. It's just pass, pass, pass for the sake of it.

I will disagree with the "for sake of it" part. That term will never make sense to me. High possession is kept to dominate and control the game. Keeping the ball is simultaneously attacking and defensive strategy. You dictate terms while limiting what the opposition can do due to them not having the ball. There is a lot more to it than just "passing the ball for the sake of it". It's always a means to an end and never "for the sake of it".

[Cleon]

You used the term in the original thread yourself too, so your argument is moot. But either way can we just drop the pointless posts with the sniping and trying to make something a big deal when it really isn't, when the thread has moved on? It doesn't help. I don't care what terminology you use or how you view it, it has no bearing on the info here and certainly doesn't help the discussion. Everyone has their own opinions and uses different terminology/interpretations.  You just come across as trying to cause an argument and keep it going, which I really don't care for.

So please stop and only post if you're going to aide the topic and not try derailing it with every post you make here. Thanks buddy. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Cleon

[typ2603]

On 07/12/2022 at 09:40, Cleon said:

Getting high possession on FM is relatively easy. Being productive with it, is another thing. Once you get past 60% imo you're just keeping the ball for the sake of it and not really attacking. This game for example 81% possession, won the game but I could have won this 5 or 6-0 if we didn't mess around with the ball as much, as we didn't attack when we should have and slowed everything down just to retain the ball. It's just pass, pass, pass for the sake of it.

How would you actually add impetus in your team in this game then? Going by your book, is the primary way through substitutions with different types of players/who have different traits?

[Cleon]

8 minutes ago, typ2603 said:

How would you actually add impetus in your team in this game then? Going by your book, is the primary way through substitutions with different types of players/who have different traits?

That could be one way. I had impetus and created a decent amount of chances, although we wasted a few and our shots on target were low. The opposition are a division higher than us so the context matters in that regard. As the AI is more adaptive and responds way faster to your style in game on FM23, once they started to sit back and hit me on the counter I could have conceded possession and possibly attacked them more over ball retention. That would have meant changing some TI's and possible being more like the first tactic I posted above an hour or so ago.

[latrell]

Hi cleon will you be posting your up coming article on here about 5-2-2-1 formation ive heard of your name round these forums you have a demi god reputation when it comes to fm   i was enjoying this thread until Spain's exit lol.

[BnadnerB]

Hi @Cleon in your book you state you don’t make certain changes unless **** really hits the fan, but in this thread you do make those changes (TI’s, player roles etc), has your opinion on this changed or am I reading into it wrong 

[HurkaDurk69]

20 hours ago, Cleon said:

You used the term in the original thread yourself too, so your argument is moot. But either way can we just drop the pointless posts with the sniping and trying to make something a big deal when it really isn't, when the thread has moved on? It doesn't help. I don't care what terminology you use or how you view it, it has no bearing on the info here and certainly doesn't help the discussion. Everyone has their own opinions and uses different terminology/interpretations.  You just come across as trying to cause an argument and keep it going, which I really don't care for.

So please stop and only post if you're going to aide the topic and not try derailing it with every post you make here. Thanks buddy. 

You know the discussion started again because @phnompenhandy started it again with the last comment on pg1, which you liked. 

 

You can't go on about 

20 hours ago, Cleon said:

But either way can we just drop the pointless posts with the sniping and trying to make something a big deal when it really isn't, when the thread has moved on?

20 hours ago, Cleon said:

You just come across as trying to cause an argument and keep it going, which I really don't care for.

So please stop and only post if you're going to aide the topic and not try derailing it with every post you make here. Thanks buddy. 

 

Still, great article 

Edited December 9, 2022 by HurkaDurk69

[Cleon]

11 hours ago, BnadnerB said:

Hi @Cleon in your book you state you don’t make certain changes unless **** really hits the fan, but in this thread you do make those changes (TI’s, player roles etc), has your opinion on this changed or am I reading into it wrong 

No it's not changed. What TI's did I change? The drop off etc? That's because the game has reworked how the defensive line behaves, so I could foolishly sit back and allow the fast strikers to cause me constant issues or just adapt. The AI is also a lot more adaptive now on FM23 after it's seen a lot of rework to how they "think". Think of the game more like a game of chess now and the AI looking to cut off your threat more than it ever did before and cause you issues through changes of their own. In turn we have to be more aware of the context of the game now too.

12 hours ago, latrell said:

Hi cleon will you be posting your up coming article on here about 5-2-2-1 formation ive heard of your name round these forums you have a demi god reputation when it comes to fm   i was enjoying this thread until Spain's exit lol.

On my site and likely on here too yeah

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Cleon

[agiannop]

Hello Cleon,

Playing in England Lower Leagues , don't have any player to perform in these roles: Half Back , roaming playmaker and F9. Can i use different roles ? any recommendations?

What would you do in this scenario? Would you change the tactic? or stick with it with whatever you have?

 

Thanks

[Cleon]

23 minutes ago, agiannop said:

Hello Cleon,

Playing in England Lower Leagues , don't have any player to perform in these roles: Half Back , roaming playmaker and F9. Can i use different roles ? any recommendations?

What would you do in this scenario? Would you change the tactic? or stick with it with whatever you have?

 

Thanks

I'm also in the lower leagues playing this way. While I'm attributeless and star ratingless, I imagine all my players have single digit attributes.

You can use any roles in any league, in any nation. Everything is relative to the level you are. No role is better/worse just because you're a poorer side in the lower leagues, it's still the same regardless.

You can use different roles if you want but I don't know what you're trying to create or achieve.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Cleon

[agiannop]

3 hours ago, Cleon said:

I'm also in the lower leagues playing this way. While I'm attributeless and star ratingless, I imagine all my players have single digit attributes.

You can use any roles in any league, in any nation. Everything is relative to the level you are. No role is better/worse just because you're a poorer side in the lower leagues, it's still the same regardless.

You can use different roles if you want but I don't know what you're trying to create or achieve.

this is what i have in mind , still want to play possession football:

Half Back -> Defensive mid SUP

roaming playmaker -> advance playmaker SUP

F9 -> DLF SUP

does this setup makes any sense?  Thanks

[The3points]

On 07/12/2022 at 04:40, Cleon said:

Getting high possession on FM is relatively easy. Being productive with it, is another thing. Once you get past 60% imo you're just keeping the ball for the sake of it and not really attacking. This game for example 81% possession, won the game but I could have won this 5 or 6-0 if we didn't mess around with the ball as much, as we didn't attack when we should have and slowed everything down just to retain the ball. It's just pass, pass, pass for the sake of it.

Why have you drawn the line at 60%? For me the opposite (but perhaps why I struggle with FM23). 60% is where you've got enough to attack and kill them off. That's why I like Much Shorter (kill them off and keep the ball) and Slightly Higher Tempo (attack quickly in short bursts)

Anyway, not with your tactic specifically, but I've seen a lot of loose and lost balls in the buildup, right before the final third, even with 2 CDs, an IWB, an FB a DLP-D as the axis. You've got Lower Tempo, but still play much faster. Do the roles really make that much of a difference?

[Panosgeo79]

On 07/12/2022 at 13:04, Cleon said:

Probably not it would likely result in more wasted chances. You hit a certain point possession wise (imo that is 60%+) where you are just keeping the ball for the sake of it and just passing around, without really probing. More attacking isn't always better. I wrote this previously;

One thing you will have noticed that I’ve not spoken about yet is the team mentality. The reason for not mentioning this topic yet is because, for me, it’s the least important part of the whole tactical creation. I know other people value this aspect as being really important and that’s fair enough but for me, I want to keep it simple.

In simple terms, the mentality is the base attacking intent of the team. This may be described as a measure of risk-taking. More positive mentalities instruct the team to take more risks, and more defensive ones instruct the team to take fewer risks. Essentially it's a risk modifier that affects a number of other teams and player instructions like width, passing directness, tempo, line of engagement and defensive line. The higher your mentality the more risk your players are willing to take in these specific areas of the game.

The team mentality also impacts individual player mentality, you can see the change this has on the player and his role by going to the player on the tactic screen, clicking the position, and then clicking his player instructions. You’ll notice when you change team mentality his own mentality is adjusted to reflect the change.

Like I said above, rather than overcomplicating things and making out mentality more complex than it actually is, I always play with a balanced mentality. This doesn’t mean I don’t take lots of risks or play conservative, I can still be as attacking if not more than someone plays on an attacking mentality. Sounds strange, doesn’t it? But not really if you think about it. It all comes down to efficiency and how you use the ball and make the most of it. Being more aggressive doesn’t equal more attacking.

I’ll show some analysis of how mentality changes impact the 4-2-2-2 box formation when we get into the actual analysis parts. But for now, some time ago I wrote this about the 4-2-3-1 and it should give you a good grasp of why I play with a balanced mentality with actual examples. I have debated adding this or not but I think it is useful and relevant to tactical building and because I’m trying to show step by step what I do, I think it fits.

For the purpose of this analysis, I compare a balanced mentality against an attacking mentality only.

Now, these average position images might confuse people at first and you’ll think I’ve got them the wrong way around.

That is the attacking average position map which looks deeper than you might imagine. There is a reason for this and we will come around to that a bit later in the analysis.

Believe it or not, these are actually the average positions for the players in the standard mentality structure that I am using. Yet it’s more attacking face value and players are positioned a lot different compared to the first screenshot I posted. A lot of the players are more attacking. The average positions are interesting in both screenshots.

You’d have expected the attacking mentality to be a lot more aggressive with the average positions for when they had the ball (the purple icon with the number in it). Yet it’s actually the standard mentality screenshot which looks more aggressive. In the first image, you can see even the defence is deeper when out of possession too.

There are a number of reasons why it could be like this;

The attacking mentality is making defenders hit the ball earlier than normal as they look to hit the front players a lot more quickly decision-wise than you’d see in the standard mentality. This is entirely plausible. In the standard mentality system players likely have more time and spend longer on the ball, meaning they move upfield much more because they aren’t looking to rush play.

In the standard system, players seem to be more spread out, especially in the central areas. One of the reasons behind this is likely the initial space a player has. In the standard one, the space is likely in front of the players, meaning they have time to work the ball and play with it at their feet. In the more attacking system, that space likely doesn’t exist due to its aggressive nature. The higher mentality should on paper push them further forward but as you can see in the images, this isn’t happening. This suggests the space isn’t there and the players are having to drop deeper to find space or by them being closer to the opposition players, it’s involuntary pushing them deeper and negating the actual attacking mentality.

Those are some of the reasons why this might happen and are the likely causes. But now let’s add some more context and briefly show the match stats to see if there is much difference between the two.

Attacking Mentality Stats

  

You can see I won the game 1-4 and despite the scoreline, I was incredibly lucky in terms of the score. An own goal and two goals on and after 90 minutes really flattered us. We played well on face value with the score but that doesn’t tell the true story.

The individual stats show us a little bit more of how the players play. Interestingly I notice the keeper's pass completion and have just realised that I’ve not actually set it up so he distributes it to the defenders. I’ll have to look into this more and see if his long distribution is worth the sacrifice for passes completed if it puts us on the front foot quickly.

The player's condition is also in the low 70s for most people. I’ll need to compare this with the standard mentality one and see if there is a drastic difference.

Standard Mentality Stats

  

We created a few more chances but overall there isn’t much difference between both sets of match stats and the score. We won the game 1-3. The times of the scoring were better though and it looks like we didn’t leave it to the last minute or rely on our own goal. Could this be a sign of the way we attack? Possibly.

I think the biggest noticeable difference is the condition, players seem to end the game with a much higher percentage left compared to the attacking mentality one further up. This is expected because they are less gung-ho in their approach and should conserve energy better. But due to the average positions above, it wouldn’t have surprised me to see it a little lower than it actually was.

The goalkeeper's distribution is still the same as I played the match the exact same way with the exception of one being done with an attacking mentality and one without.

Attacking Mentality Match Analysis

Here we can see just how much space there is between the fullbacks and the inside forward on my left-hand side. It’s quite the distance and one simple ball from the opposition's fullback to the wide player takes out my inside forward from this phase of play. It puts me on the back foot immediately because now my midfield has to shift across and deal with it or my fullback is left with a 1v1 situation. Or alternatively, my inside forward could try and sprint back to make up the ground he has lost.

If you want that to happen then it seems pointless having him so high, to begin with. You could play him deeper by the use of a different mentality and help him conserve more energy as well as reduce the space. We can also use the player's settings or role/duties to manipulate this but that brings up a host of other issues and isn’t really an option for this demonstration. The reason being is I need and want this space that appears just not as much of it. Space and time are what will win me the game by creating intelligent movement.

Here we have my left wingback Zeca on the ball. Instead of driving forward with the ball, which he can do because he has the space available and the time ahead of him, he is already looking to launch it to the strikers. However you can see the striker and inside forward aren’t positioned the best, nor are they really making a run forward, especially the one in front of him, that’s the inside forward he is launching the ball to. This is an issue as this inside forward is going towards the sideline rather than away from it. So when the ball is played what can he really do as he is going away from goal? Not only that but the opposition has plenty of cover to now allow the fullback to be caught in a 1v1 situation.

This is a rushed decision and my side is wasting good opportunities where the player can venture forward more. Instead, they’d rather look for the longer option regardless of how those players might be marked or what positions they are in. This is because the mentality is also a risk factor, the higher the mentality the more likely a player will take risks, or as most people would say, do dumb ****. I’m not saying on the lower mentality there isn’t a chance that this doesn’t happen as it very well could. However, if you’ve set the roles up correctly and have the right balance in the set up then it’s less frequent that you’ll see this happening. Whereas currently, this is very common to see.

At times when this kind of pass works, it's great and we look deadly but it doesn’t happen enough and for most parts, wastes the move or just cheaply gives possession away. Another thing is that when this happens, it also means the striker or inside forward isn’t making those dangerous runs because they’re not getting the chance to do them. Instead, they get backed into corners or are surrounded by too many of the opposition's players. So trying to move the ball forward quickly isn’t always the best for this reason. It also makes it harder for the supporting players to catch up with play and is often why you might see people say things like their striker is very isolated and not getting a good supply. It might not be for this exact reason but it’s likely it’s something along these lines.

In this situation, we have a move where the wingback is pushed on and is offering width. Then the inside forward is making a run forward too as is the striker. However, my Segundo Volante who is on the ball (Yuri) is driving forward with it but he has no real support as players are positioned too high on this occasion or surrounded by players who can easily cut out the pass or make the tackle. This is the downside of an attacking mentality when players get positioned too high, it means they have limited space to work with due to the high starting points.

It also makes it incredibly difficult for the player on the ball to pick out a pass and often sees him just crack a shot from distance. Which happens on this particular occasion. I also see posts relating to this and people pointing out the good positions they think my inside forward, wingback and even striker have taken up. I guess they have if you look at it but when you add context to it and the player's position on the ball, it’s clear to see he is isolated with what he can do. The attacking side of things is cut off from him. Not all the time though and it comes back to the frequency aspect of how often something happens. You’ll find that in attacking setups this is much more common.

In this screenshot, we can see why my defence is deep and that is because the opposition striker is very deep in my half, admittedly we’ve just won possession but we won that at the halfway line. So we see that the defence is deeper than everyone else and likely too deep. This is because of the space the striker has, he’s making them stay deeper than they should. Also, using the Segundo Volante role doesn’t help here as we have possession of the ball so are already looking to attack. And it’s a role I want to use, however it looks like it's too aggressive for this set-up and how attacking it is. He is making more risky decisions and being overly aggressive. The role is very aggressive, to begin with, and then the added mentality isn’t helping the situation. He’d be better by playing deeper and slightly more cautious than usual.

That would then provide two things. One would be to cover for the defence and pick up the opposition players who are playing between my centre-backs and the defensive midfielders. Secondly, it should allow the defenders to push up more because the defensive midfielders would become responsible for picking up the striker instead. At the minute due to the aggressive nature, the defensive midfielders push up and leave the defenders playing as a separate unit to the rest of the side. Again there are ways to combat this slightly by the use of different roles, maybe an even higher defensive line but I’m supposedly already playing with those anyway. And changing roles defeats the purpose of what I’m creating and how I want to play.

Another thing happening in this screenshot is that Nilmar, who is my inside forward is the one who won possession back and as soon as he gets the ball he is already looking to hit the striker with those more direct/long balls. The issue with this is when that happens my striker becomes isolated or the ball is cut out by the opposition defenders. Support is lacking because Nilmar is supposed to be the support player. Again if he looks around though, he has space and time to play and decides against it. You can see when we get the ball my players are looking to get the ball forward as fast as possible. This is what mentality does on the higher ones, players take more risks and look to get the ball to the front players in the quickest, fastest possible way.

Yet again another situation where the side is looking to get the ball to the front far too quickly again. This time we see Yuri do a long ball up to where the inside forward is. Typically the ball is cut out and instantly we are on the back foot again. We aren’t being clever with the ball at all and aren’t using it wisely. When these kinds of passes are pulled off properly it's a thing of beauty but it happens nowhere near frequent enough. Not only this but it’s making the whole side deeper than it actually should be. Every time we get into situations like this, the same thing happens. We look to go from the front to the back in the quickest possible way. But because the ball gets cut out time and time again players are always deeper than they should be. Hence the average positions we saw at the very start.

Here is another perfect example of what happens when we attack recklessly at speed and without precision. The ball is lost and a simple ball back into my own final third means my defenders yet again cannot push up because they have to deal with the opposition striker who stays high up the pitch. It’s killing my play because it's not precise and well-thought-out football. The players highest up the field are isolated or drifting too deep because the rest of the side just cannot push up and are being bogged down.

It just goes to show though that because someone is meant to be positioned high up the pitch because of his mentality, doesn’t mean he is. All sorts of factors play a part in why he might be higher than normal or deeper than usual. So far in the examples, you see players dropping off the front for two main reasons;

• Bogged down and can’t move upfield because we move the ball too fast for anyone to catch up. Going from a to b quickly isn’t always beneficial.
• The second reason is, that it’s hard to find space so players come deep in the hope of finding it.

It’s like a never-ending cycle, for this game at least. We still won the game and scored four goals but like I pointed out at the start, the score line is flattering when you take into consideration the own-goal and the two very late goals. On a different day, this could have been a 1-1 draw without those bits of luck.

I’m not saying never play attacking football with this shape, far from it. It’s more about understanding how the shape plays on different mentalities and how it differs. If you want to play attacking football then play it. Just beware of how everything links together. Also, remember that attacking doesn’t always translate to attacking.

Standard Mentality Match Analysis

It’s early in the game but you can see how deep my entire side is. Not only that, but my defensive midfielder is also picking up the opposition striker meaning my defence can stay intact and start moving higher up the pitch. My side is closing down and chasing the ball but I think you can already see how the small difference of the defensive midfielder picking up the striker is helping my back line and freeing them up, so they can push higher up. This is allowing me to reduce the space the opposition has in my own half as the defence is moving advanced upfield towards my own midfielders.

Nilmar has the ball and this time drives infield because he isn’t rushing. And my Segundo Volante is in acres of space in the centre of the pitch and is a little bit more reserved in the build-up play and isn’t looking to attack constantly when we get possession of the ball. He’s being more clever in his play.

Due to the team, not all advancing forward and beyond the ball, it means we actually have space to run into and people creating and using space as we all move together. In this picture, we have Yuri who can drive forward with the ball or play two different kinds of ball. One is a through ball straight down the middle for the inside forward to run onto. Or he can play it straight into the patch of the inside forward which is actually the more risky pass in this scenario due to how the opposition defender near the inside forward is positioned.

Yuri passes the ball through the middle, so basically a through ball for my inside forward to run onto. Now had the side not moved together and at a relatively steady pace, this move wouldn’t have happened. Or if it was on a higher mentality than standard, the chances are the ball would have been played the first time from Yuri instead of him driving forward a little with the ball at his feet first. Our play now is more dangerous because we are playing as a unit, all of the team moving up and down the field at the same time. This is one of the reasons why the average positions in this mentality structure are actually higher than the attacking ones. Because we are moving and working as a cohesive unit.

Bruno manages to get onto the end of the ball but is fouled literally on the edge of the box and we win a free kick in a dangerous place.

In the attacking section further up, I showed the inside forward playing closer to the opposition's fullback(A) and leaving my own wingback exposed and susceptible to 1v1 scenarios. However now, we can see my inside forward is much deeper and inside my own half picking up the opposition's wide player. This means my wingback is free and can recover any loose balls or pick the player up should my inside forward not get the ball. Less pressure on the wingback is great as it means he is less likely to be exposed. Not only this but if he wins the ball back, he can also run with it down the wing and channel, which would put the opposition on the back foot.

I win possession of the ball back here deep inside my own half. But if you look at my players' positioning, it’s not bad because they have space. The left-sided inside forward and the deep-lying midfielder are already doing their job. The inside forward is pushing up behind the fullback into where the space is. While the deep-lying forward keeps the two central defenders busy. Yuri the Segundo Volante can be seen unmarked in the centre of the pitch. So my defenders play him the ball.

Yuri passes the ball to the attacking midfielder, Lucas Lima. He then hit it the first time into the path of the inside forward because he was already aware of his run. Now Bruno Henrique is onside and away causing them all kinds of problems. You will have noticed that in attacking mentalities the space is in front of the opposition players and when playing on lower mentalities or using players further down the pitch, then the space exists behind the opposition. This is a prime example of what I’m usually talking about. Due to me being deeper this makes the opposition higher up when they break forward. So when they lose the ball we get situations like this and I can hit them with clever counterattacks or clever direct forward balls.

There was no chance of this happening on the attacking mentality because the player was either too advanced or forced to come deep because he was marked, bringing the marker with him. Also because it encourages getting the ball forward quickly, Yuri might have bypassed Lucas Lima in this move and looked to hit the striker or even the inside forward much earlier. This can make moves break down. On this occasion though we are more calculated in our play and it’s not rushed. Instead, the players are deciding when to take risks and the risks they do take are more likely to be successful.

This is the same move just shown from a different angle to better illustrate it. The inside forward Bruno Henrique drove forward with the ball when he received it from Lucas Lima. You can see that the opposition centre-backs have been split, one of them has gone very deep leaving the striker alone in space. While the other one has gone across to deal with the inside forward. Now Bruno Henrique can do a simple sideways pass to Ricardo Oliveira who has lots of time and space. He drives forward a little bit after receiving the ball and lets go of a fierce shot which flies past the goal by inches. It’s a brilliantly worked team move which should have seen a goal scored. It all started with my central defender too.

I’m not saying people can’t play on higher mentalities far from it. But you have to realise how they differ from the lower mentalities. Not only this but it’s vital you understand how the mentality works with the roles and duties you use. If you use aggressive roles and an aggressive mentality like a Segundo Volante on an attacking mentality, then you’ll see him venture forward constantly with disregard for any danger he might be leaving behind. While on a lower mentality you should see him play slightly differently and work better and make more intelligent runs and passes. He will still take risks but those risks will happen as and when he believes the right time to take them. Rather than allowing the mentality of the team to decide he should do it more frequently.

Cleon when you referring to agressive roles you arr speaking about roles that have forward runs or take more risks or dribble more i assume?

So you prefer to use such roles with cautious in Positive or Attacking mentality

 

Furthermore in your possession tactic you play as fairly narrow but in a narrow formation too.

I got that you want to play as close as possible to find passes but isnt an overkill?I see though your WB give you width 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Panosgeo79

[Cleon]

14 hours ago, agiannop said:

this is what i have in mind , still want to play possession football:

Half Back -> Defensive mid SUP

roaming playmaker -> advance playmaker SUP

F9 -> DLF SUP

does this setup makes any sense?  Thanks

Play it and see, see how you retain and use the ball.

5 hours ago, The3points said:

Why have you drawn the line at 60%? For me the opposite (but perhaps why I struggle with FM23). 60% is where you've got enough to attack and kill them off. That's why I like Much Shorter (kill them off and keep the ball) and Slightly Higher Tempo (attack quickly in short bursts)

Anyway, not with your tactic specifically, but I've seen a lot of loose and lost balls in the buildup, right before the final third, even with 2 CDs, an IWB, an FB a DLP-D as the axis. You've got Lower Tempo, but still play much faster. Do the roles really make that much of a difference?

I didn't draw the line at 60% exactly, I more meant once you get past 60%+ then you're attacks become more slowed down, as you're doing more passes for the sake of passing imo. If others think differently that's fine. But for me, there's a point somewhere with possession which is around 65% ish, where you start to kill your own attacking moves because instead of doing something and taking a shot in 2 passes, it starts taking 4 passes and so on.

The roles make a huge difference as these determine what a player is actually trying to do in the game. Not only that but they determine the positions a player takes up, what kind of movement he'll take up, passing lanes, players running off them and so on. The roles and duties are the biggest impact on your tactics.

If you're seeing a lot of loose balls in the final third then play could be too fast for your players, maybe the players don't have unmarked players in front of them. Perhaps the front line has become a bit static from making runs far too early and play not being able to catch up with them. Could be many reasons why.

2 hours ago, Panosgeo79 said:

Cleon when you referring to agressive roles you arr speaking about roles that have forward runs or take more risks or dribble more i assume?

So you prefer to use such roles with cautious in Positive or Attacking mentality

 

Furthermore in your possession tactic you play as fairly narrow but in a narrow formation too.

I got that you want to play as close as possible to find passes but isnt an overkill?I see though your WB give you width 

Yeah those things makes a role aggressive imo.

In more attack minded mentality structures I prefer more cautious roles and duty selections as the attacking intent is already there, I don't feel the need to double down on that. And on more cautious mentalities, I prefer more attack minded roles because they lack that attacking intent without them. I wrote about that in the Low-Block defensive football guide I wrote last month.

No it's not overkill because I still have some width from the WB's. But too much width and spacing would be a real issue for combination play. In the tactic in the original post, we like to play central, go wide to create width naturally then back inside with the ball, into the space created. As show in the examples.

[Panosgeo79]

Is there a correlation between mentality and attack/support duties in your mind and the style you want to achieve?

 

 

[Cleon]

28 minutes ago, Panosgeo79 said:

Is there a correlation between mentality and attack/support duties in your mind and the style you want to achieve?

 

 

I answered you in the last reply didn’t I? I said I prefer using more cautious/support roles/duties on higher mentalities. And more aggressive roles/duties on lower mentalities.

[Panosgeo79]

19 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I answered you in the last reply didn’t I? I said I prefer using more cautious/support roles/duties on higher mentalities. And more aggressive roles/duties on lower mentalities.

I meant do you use a specific number

 

For example I think positive and possesion style suits at most 2 attacking duties .

In the past you could play amazing possesion with no even one attacking duty but from FM 20 I think that changed.

Balanced I find 3 attacking looks good in possession 

Do you follow something like that?

Edited December 10, 2022 by Panosgeo79

[maximilli]

13 minutes ago, Panosgeo79 said:

In the past you could play amazing possesion with no even one attacking duty but from FM 20 I think that changed.

In 20 and 21 I did well with AF being the only attacking duty. In 23 I find my previous approaches to be toothless. Like recent Spanish game against Morocco, 77% possession and only 1 shot on target. Have switched to 3 attacking duties and now my xG has gone up significantly.

[Cleon]

29 minutes ago, Panosgeo79 said:

I meant do you use a specific number

 

For example I think positive and possesion style suits at most 2 attacking duties .

In the past you could play amazing possesion with no even one attacking duty but from FM 20 I think that changed.

Balanced I find 3 attacking looks good in possession 

Do you follow something like that?

No I don’t follow anything like that at all. I just choose what is the best fit for what I’m trying to create. I look at what the roles offer and the settings they have and choose the best fit.

[Cleon]

Pass and move while retaining possession. This would have been a great goal;

 

Fast, zippy, patient build up creating space and passing lanes while using the entire of the pitch.

 

[yonko]

On 08/12/2022 at 01:24, Cleon said:

You used the term in the original thread yourself too, so your argument is moot. But either way can we just drop the pointless posts with the sniping and trying to make something a big deal when it really isn't, when the thread has moved on? It doesn't help. I don't care what terminology you use or how you view it, it has no bearing on the info here and certainly doesn't help the discussion. Everyone has their own opinions and uses different terminology/interpretations.  You just come across as trying to cause an argument and keep it going, which I really don't care for.

So please stop and only post if you're going to aide the topic and not try derailing it with every post you make here. Thanks buddy. 

@phnompenhandyquoted me and referenced the Spain vs Morocco game. Then you made a post and used a term that I disagree with. Therefore I replied to both of you. I can state my opinion just as much as you can. It doesn't matter what you don't care for. I'm chiming in on the topic by calling it wrong to use a term like "possession for the sake of it" as there is no such thing. Possession always has a purpose. And it is not a possession tactic unless you dominate possession with high percentage. Facts, buddy. 

[herne79]

43 minutes ago, yonko said:

Possession always has a purpose.

Actually in FM terms it doesn’t.  I think this is where the confusion may be coming from.  It’s perfectly possible in FM to set up a very high percentage possession system but very low shots, let alone goals.  Players will indeed keep possession merely for the sake of it without any other purpose because that is what the tactical instructions are effectively telling them to do.

What Cleon is driving at is by relaxing some of those tactical instructions (and thus the ridiculously high possession numbers) our players will start to have an actual purpose other than just keeping the ball: ie., patiently attacking the opposition, high possession numbers, having more shots and scoring more goals.

I’ve made possession heavy systems where I’ll get well in excess of 70% possession but the number of chances created I can count on the fingers of one hand and actually score a goal once in a blue moon, which is utterly pointless.  Players kick the ball around with little or no thought to attacking because that’s what their instructions tell them to do.  So I change some TIs, alter a role or three and the result?  Lower (although still 60%+) possession but much more attacking intent and goals.

So the “facts” are as Cleon is saying - set up a possession tactic too far and it’ll be pointless because the tactical instructions will essentially tell your team to keep possession for possession’s sake.  Therefore don’t aim for quite such high possession numbers (although still dominate possession) to give our teams much better attacking intentions 👍.

[Cleon]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

Actually in FM terms it doesn’t.  I think this is where the confusion may be coming from.  It’s perfectly possible in FM to set up a very high percentage possession system but very low shots, let alone goals.  Players will indeed keep possession merely for the sake of it without any other purpose because that is what the tactical instructions are effectively telling them to do.

What Cleon is driving at is by relaxing some of those tactical instructions (and thus the ridiculously high possession numbers) our players will start to have an actual purpose other than just keeping the ball: ie., patiently attacking the opposition, high possession numbers, having more shots and scoring more goals.

I’ve made possession heavy systems where I’ll get well in excess of 70% possession but the number of chances created I can count on the fingers of one hand and actually score a goal once in a blue moon, which is utterly pointless.  Players kick the ball around with little or no thought to attacking because that’s what their instructions tell them to do.  So I change some TIs, alter a role or three and the result?  Lower (although still 60%+) possession but much more attacking intent and goals.

So the “facts” are as Cleon is saying - set up a possession tactic too far and it’ll be pointless because the tactical instructions will essentially tell your team to keep possession for possession’s sake.  Therefore don’t aim for quite such high possession numbers (although still dominate possession) to give our teams much better attacking intentions 👍.

Exactly this but he already knows this as he was talking the exact same way and using the same terminology as me in the original thread. He also knows I'm talking about FM. He even posted about having the exact issues you discussed above not only in that thread but in various others in the last 18 months too. But he’s saying it doesn’t exist now when his posting history about Possession is rife with the things you’ve just touched upon 🤷🏼‍♂️

I wrote about Possession earlier too in this thread and spoke about how people misinterpret the context of a game and after a certain Possession point, your shot quality etc all start to suffer. 
 

The Right Balance

There’s more to a system having lots of possession though. Some of you dislike it when I say this as you don’t agree and that’s fine. But in my opinion, in Football Manager terms, there is such a thing as too much possession. At a certain point, your chance creation suffers and so does the shot quality.

If a team has the ball for long periods of time without creating any meaningful chances or putting pressure on the other team's defence, they may start to lose momentum and become predictable. This can allow the other team to get organized and start to defend more effectively, making it difficult for the team with too much possession to break through and score. It is important for teams to find a balance between maintaining possession and creating scoring opportunities so that they can keep the other team on their toes and prevent them from gaining an advantage.

Sometimes it happens in my game and if I’m not paying attention it could really impact the result. In the image above I won the game while having 82% of the possession. That seems really impressive as it was a competitive match too. But as we delve deeper it's not as good as it looks.

I always tell people that I aim to have 50% of the shots we have, to be on target. I think the real-life numbers are somewhere closer to 37-39%. But I think a good gauge in Football Manager is to aim for 50% which should be manageable for most people give or take a couple of per cent. We did that in the screenshot above. However, the quality of the shots was really poor and the xG reflects this.

We were unable to create anything meaningful because in this game I wasn’t paying attention and just wanted the game to play out, so I could have an example to use. The opposition was very stubborn and disciplined in defence so they made it really hard for us. We were basically living off scraps and the two goals we scored came from set pieces.

Without these two set-piece goals, it would look like we dominated the game and from a possession standpoint, we did. But when you start to break it down with chance creation and shot quality it becomes clear we were poor. If the opposition had counterattacked better and been able to grab a goal against the run of the play, we’d have lost. It’s why we see so many people think they dominate games and the opposition hit them with a sucker punch because the context of how you are playing is vital.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Cleon

[Super Bladesman]

7 hours ago, Cleon said:

The Right Balance

There’s more to a system having lots of possession though. Some of you dislike it when I say this as you don’t agree and that’s fine. But in my opinion, in Football Manager terms, there is such a thing as too much possession. At a certain point, your chance creation suffers and so does the shot quality.

But this is absolutely logical - I completely agree with you. It's alright having 70% possession but surely that just means you're giving the opponent more time to get a good defensive block set up, making them harder to break down and giving them the best seat in the house to watch you ping the ball pointlessly around defence and midfield. I'm with you - having the ball is great, but you've got to do something with it!

[vrig]

1 minute ago, Super Bladesman said:

But this is absolutely logical - I completely agree with you. It's alright having 70% possession but surely that just means you're giving the opponent more time to get a good defensive block set up, making them harder to break down and giving them the best seat in the house to watch you ping the ball pointlessly around defence and midfield. I'm with you - having the ball is great, but you've got to do something with it!

See Louis van Gaal's Manchester United for a real life example. I vaguely remember someone making their debut at Old Trafford and one of their teammates telling them not to worry, because they'd have plenty of time to get back in shape before United were ready to attack!

Van Gaal even tried to fix this problem by - in his words - "provoking space." Or in FM terms, going from high press to mid-block so that his forwards had somewhere to go when the ball was won.

Briefly seemed to be working after the introduction of Rashford into the team who, along with Martial and Lingard, were an effective front 3 for that approach, for a time anyway. Teams started sitting deep and staying there, LVG had no other solution, and the football was utterly dire, whilst also being highly susceptible to counter attacks.

[BnadnerB]

Are there any recommended rules for balancing support/attack duties throughout the team? Such as a fullback on support with the IW on attack ahead?

 

Or that the Mez on attack should be on same flank as the IW on attack?

[Cleon]

53 minutes ago, BnadnerB said:

Are there any recommended rules for balancing support/attack duties throughout the team? Such as a fullback on support with the IW on attack ahead?

 

Or that the Mez on attack should be on same flank as the IW on attack?

It depends what you want and how you want the players to link up. It comes down to personal preference really 

[CARRERA]

I don’t really want to dive too deep into that discussion about the purpose of possession, but I just want to add, that the purpose doesn’t always have to contain creating lots of chances and scoring goals. The purpose could also be to simply defend with the ball and or / rest your players by not giving the ball to the opposition. That’s a common approach under certain circumstances.

[Cleon]

I've stated several times in the thread I'm speaking purely about FM here and shown examples of what I've meant.  I've also stated if you disagree with the terminology and have your own opinions that's fine. But let's not keep dragging the same argument on, it's pointless. If people want to keep discussing it then provide examples of things happening consistently not just as one offs to back up what you're saying or show examples of what they mean from inside the game. 

If not, please let's put a line under it now eh? It doesn't help the discussion when people are stuck up on the terminology when that doesn't really matter.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Cleon

[llama3]

22 hours ago, CARRERA said:

I don’t really want to dive too deep into that discussion about the purpose of possession, but I just want to add, that the purpose doesn’t always have to contain creating lots of chances and scoring goals. The purpose could also be to simply defend with the ball and or / rest your players by not giving the ball to the opposition. That’s a common approach under certain circumstances.

I think game state plays a part in this - if you're 2-up and looking to kill the game with 20 minutes to go, sure it's pretty smart to just pass it around at a low tempo and drag the opponents out. If you're 0-1 down, it makes a lot less sense...

On 12/12/2022 at 18:20, BnadnerB said:

Are there any recommended rules for balancing support/attack duties throughout the team? Such as a fullback on support with the IW on attack ahead?

 

Or that the Mez on attack should be on same flank as the IW on attack?

I wrote about that in my Pairs & Combinations guide - things to give an idea to get some partnerships that work, but still lots of nuance and context to it

[yonko]

On 11/12/2022 at 15:52, herne79 said:

Actually in FM terms it doesn’t.  I think this is where the confusion may be coming from.  It’s perfectly possible in FM to set up a very high percentage possession system but very low shots, let alone goals.  Players will indeed keep possession merely for the sake of it without any other purpose because that is what the tactical instructions are effectively telling them to do.

What Cleon is driving at is by relaxing some of those tactical instructions (and thus the ridiculously high possession numbers) our players will start to have an actual purpose other than just keeping the ball: ie., patiently attacking the opposition, high possession numbers, having more shots and scoring more goals.

I’ve made possession heavy systems where I’ll get well in excess of 70% possession but the number of chances created I can count on the fingers of one hand and actually score a goal once in a blue moon, which is utterly pointless.  Players kick the ball around with little or no thought to attacking because that’s what their instructions tell them to do.  So I change some TIs, alter a role or three and the result?  Lower (although still 60%+) possession but much more attacking intent and goals.

So the “facts” are as Cleon is saying - set up a possession tactic too far and it’ll be pointless because the tactical instructions will essentially tell your team to keep possession for possession’s sake.  Therefore don’t aim for quite such high possession numbers (although still dominate possession) to give our teams much better attacking intentions 👍.

No, it's still not possession for possession sake. It's possession to dominate and control the game. It's simultaneously attacking and defensive strategy. Dominating the possession limits the opposition from having the ball and creating their own chances. That's purpose too. Creating chances and scoring goals is not the only purpose and if those are low then it doesn't mean it's for possession sake or there is no purpose. That is what I've come to realize thinking about it and discussing it with other people.  

There is a scale range of how much you want to dominate possession and how much you want to focus on creating scoring chances and scoring goals. Hence why I said for me if the tactic averages less than 60% possession then I wouldn't call it possession tactic. Of course in some games you may get 55% and other games you get 75% depending on the opposition's quality and their tactic setup. But I'm talking about average possession for the season. 

[aderow]

Possession is such an interesting thing in FM. I remember back in FM10 having over 70% possession one match against Arsenal, the most I'd ever had by far at that point, and lost 2-0 to two counterattacking goals scored by Bendtner. I remember winning the Champions League final against Inter, in that same save, 5-0 with 35% possession. Neither was by design as back then I knew slightly less than I do now and possession wasn't on my mind. Just scoring as many goals as possible. But somewhere along the way I got it in my head that top teams don't just win matches, dominate the ball so I set out to try to replicate that in game. 

Initially I thought that playmakers were absolutely necessary for a possession based system. But tactic I created that gave me the highest possession numbers didn't have any whatsoever. I thought my team needed to have a more attacking mentality, with the idea that my players would be positioned higher up the pitch and pin my opposition in their half. It turned out my teams were better at keeping the ball on a more cautious mentality (probably because I like to use more attacking duties). I thought you needed to set your team up to play one and two touch football in order to get higher possession numbers. Over the years, I've had times where my teams have been better at keeping the ball when my players were given the freedom to and told to dribble. 

As it's been said many times already, you can make the same type of system many ways, it just comes down to what you need to make it work with whatever players you have at your disposal. What helped me a lot when trying to figure out what worked with my team was watching portions of full matches. First time I did was a truly eye opening experience; being able to instantly see the impact a change to a duty or instruction has. From time to time I'll watch a bit on full match to diagnosis issues/when I'm testing things out. 

I've made a few different systems over the years that satisfies that part of me that believed I needed to dominate both on the scoresheet and in possession numbers. I think the reason it always takes me so long to settle on something that I think checks off all the boxes for me is because, even when making something that focuses on possession, my top priority has and will always be goal scoring; there were and are simply things I will not compromise on because I feel they'll ultimately jeopardize my ability to put the ball in the back of the net. So I fully understand where Cleon is coming from on that matter in regards to FM.

In my experience with FM, there's a fine line between bossing possession while creating something in attack and unwittingly killing off the game by passing it around in the back and middle of the pitch. Like most things in FM, it's really comes down to balancing risk. Making a possession based system? There's the risk of blunting your attack in the name of ball retention. How much attacking risk are you willing to take on at the expense of possession? (Something I routinely do when my team has lots of the ball and are doing nothing with it, is take on more of that risk. I'll make changes that should deliberately reduce our possession) At the end of the day, even if I want the ball, I want to put it in the net and do so as much as possible (maybe we create chances with riskier passes or create opportunities to counter since I'm allowing my opposition more of the ball).

At the end of the day, dominating possession is fun, and it's aesthetically pleasing, but only when you're dominating the scoresheet as well. 

Edit: It's really amazing how far FM has come. Maybe one day I'll finish my FM16 save and join the rest of you in the future 

Edited December 15, 2022 by aderow

[dzek]

Hi @Cleon, I have a more general question.

Which is most important from formation(tactic & roles), TIs, PIs do you think?

Can you sort them by importance of them?

[Cleon]

9 hours ago, Theodoros Yiorkas said:

Hi @Cleon, I have a more general question.

Which is most important from formation(tactic & roles), TIs, PIs do you think?

Can you sort them by importance of them?

They're all part of the same thing, so equally as important as each other.

[Rainer]

In the end none of these alleged systems work in anybody's real save, so I think we should stop acting like "Cleon" is someone special.

[Cleon]

11 minutes ago, Rainer said:

In the end none of these alleged systems work in anybody's real save, so I think we should stop acting like "Cleon" is someone special.

I'm special enough for you to create an account and this being your first post to be about me though 

The systems work well for others too. Other people have posted their success using the same or adapting them. So not sure what your point is, especially as the article is about possession, how to retain it, how to use it etc above the formation itself.

[dodge_10]

Hey Cleon! I really liked this thread!

One question: I tried to use the same formation/instructions that you said before but I changed the role of F9 to DLP on support, the Roaming Playmaker to Advanced Playmaker on support and HB to Anchor.

I really like the possession game but I think that sometimes I cannot score because my players is playing safe and cant create a lot of opportunities. Do you have any advice here?

What can I do to be a little more agressive or create more chances to score? 

Edited December 17, 2022 by dodge_10

[Cleon]

10 hours ago, dodge_10 said:

Hey Cleon! I really liked this thread!

One question: I tried to use the same formation/instructions that you said before but I changed the role of F9 to DLP on support, the Roaming Playmaker to Advanced Playmaker on support and HB to Anchor.

I really like the possession game but I think that sometimes I cannot score because my players is playing safe and cant create a lot of opportunities. Do you have any advice here?

What can I do to be a little more agressive or create more chances to score? 

You changed the striker role from the more aggressive one to a more passive one. A DLF is a creator above all, so isn't very good at leading the line. If you have a DLF on support then you need both the wide players getting into the box. Ideally out of the front 3, you want atleast 2 attacking the box constantly and then support from the midfield. The DLF drops off and plays 90% of his game outside the box and doesn't lead the line.

You've changed a fundamental role in the HB to a anchor, which then changes what the BPD's do and the frequency. Using anything other than a HB means they're a lot more passive with their passing and don't spread as wide as when using a HB.

The advanced playmaker doesn't move about as much as a RPM and doesn't use the width as well. A roaming playmaker basically has a free role, meaning play is less predictable and they use the pitch better.

The roles and duties I used were to create a specific playstyle and use the ball in a very specific way, as highlighted in the thread. What you need to do is think about the changes you've made and how they alter that playstyle and the reasonings behind the changes.

Your asking me how to be more aggressive and create more but you made changes on your own. So why did you change things, what is the reasonings behind the roles you choose? As that will answer a lot of your questions. You need to have a reason behind the changes you've made and why. And understand how this changes the play.

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Cleon

[Bradjc94]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

You changed the striker role from the more aggressive one to a more passive one. A DLF is a creator above all, so isn't very good at leading the line. If you have a DLF on support then you need both the wide players getting into the box. Ideally out of the front 3, you want atleast 2 attacking the box constantly and then support from the midfield. The DLF drops off and plays 90% of his game outside the box and doesn't lead the line.

 

Is there a striker role that would do a job similarly to the False 9, and maintain that level of aggression you mentioned? Would it have to be Pressing Forward on the support mentality?

[Cleon]

14 minutes ago, Bradjc94 said:

Is there a striker role that would do a job similarly to the False 9, and maintain that level of aggression you mentioned? Would it have to be Pressing Forward on the support mentality?

Yeah the PF would be a good choice. I wrote about strikers quite recently and how to select the best role to fit your tactics.

https://www.viewfromthetouchline.com/2022/09/09/choosing-the-best-striker-role/

[Hovis Dexter]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

Yeah the PF would be a good choice. I wrote about strikers quite recently and how to select the best role to fit your tactics.

https://www.viewfromthetouchline.com/2022/09/09/choosing-the-best-striker-role/

Excellent article. Thank you.

[Cleon]

23 minutes ago, Hovis Dexter said:

Excellent article. Thank you.

Thanks. I did post it on here too but it didn't get much love