Oakland Stomper

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Oakland Stomper

  • Rank
  1. Rashidi, Thanks for letting this thread remain open. I skipped over FM 2016, and this discussion has helped me understand how the game has evolved. I'm getting a better picture of why my old tactics aren't nearly as effective. Whether Richard was correct in his guidelines or not is certainly open to discussion, but once I made the adjustments that he suggested, my results improved dramatically. FM 2017 is proving to be a great challenge. Thanks once again -OS
  2. In my somewhat limited viewing of Atletico this year, I think that they've further evolved away from being primarily a counter attacking team. They've also used the 4-1-4-1 very, very often. Actually I think that there can be a fairly in-depth discussion as to whether this is a 4-1-2-2-1/4-3-3 or a 4-1-4-1/4-5-1. When you look at the video clips early in the thread, they seem, in my view to be playing with an attacking tactic that uses "drop much deeper" and "play narrower" TI's. Achieving the level of closing down that is visible is very difficult with the counter mentality in FM. Another key aspect of Simeone's tactics is their highly structured approach. The roles are very distinct and remain the same no matter who is in the line-up. Viewed within the FM team mentality, they do tend to open up quite a bit in attack. Its actually this rapid opening of the playing area when moving from defending to attacking Simeone's team has mastered.
  3. I'm sure that this has worked well, but I have to ask, why play on the counter with Real? It would seem ill suited to a team with so much talent and such a high reputation.
  4. The Artisan tactic that you posted was my primary in the waining days of FM 2015. Remember that he didn't mimic the Simeone's set pieces which are a key aspect of Atletico's strategy. I haven't had much of a chance to try to replicate this in FM 2016. What I've had has gone into trying to develop a Gasperini 3-4-3 which has been about as effective a Genoa's season to date.
  5. Uploaded the steam upgrade and now this message appears when I attempt to load and all versions of FM and I can access neither the games or the editors. Ideas?
  6. Chris, How has your tactic been progressing?
  7. Great thread Chris! Way back in the CM days, I was the person who designed the 4-5-1Norway formation that gave people fits. The tactical limitations of the game then along with the text only feedback prevented me from knowing what was really going on "under the hood" but it worked (I qualified Northern Ireland for the WC using it). Drillo used statistical analysis for every aspect of his analysis and tried to transfer this into his tactical model. In a sense, he was one of the first to try to apply the "moneyball" concepts to soccer. There is some solid information on this in "Inverting the Pyramid." I also have a book with a presentation which he made titled " An Analysis of Goal Scoring Strategies in the World Cup in Mexico, 1986. Anyway, I've been a follower, though not adherent to Drillo's concepts since the WC 1994 and there are some things that I've learned that I think might be applicable here. The absolute key for Drillo is to catch the other off balance or as he put it imbalanced. He advocated fast restarts whenever possible and this needs to be included, though I would say that he likes the long throw-in against an established defense. Drillo would never use a fluid mentality. In fact, he was probably one of the most structured managers ever. He was a firm believer in specialized players and viewed them as game changers. Of course every player in his side had to have high levels work rate and teamwork, but this was is almost a given with Norwegian players, especially in the 1990's. How you arrange the roles in order to arrive at the minimum of 4 specialists is open and flexible (see below) I think that he actually used a 4-5-1 as opposed to a 4-1-4-1. This isn't as semantic as it sounds. He wanted the midfield band to prevent balls from getting to the defense and to do this there must not be any gaps. In the numerous matches that I've watched, it didn't look to me as if the most central players was dropping off much if at all. As Cleon pointed out, the outside midfielders were not defensive midfielders. You can't get the outside target man role (which was a part of the tactic that was not used all of the time) when playing them in this role. In fact, the roles of these players was changed to fit the personnel and I think to a degree the opponent. At times one might have been a wide midfielder on either attack or support, while the other might have been a winger on attack. I think that setting the relationship between the outside backs and outside midfielders needs to be flexible and is critical to making this work effectively. Theoretically both central midfield "runners" would be B2B, bit this varied a bit and I think that you identified this to a degree. Leonhardsen was the ultimate player in this role and not a BWM. When Strand played, they were effectively a matched set, but when Mykland played, I think that he was more of a Roaming Playermaker. To me, the striker in this system is the quintessential Defensive Forward. Drillo's 'keepers played a very conventional role. The key here is that he will always play the ball long. Drillo felt that getting the ball deep into the other team's half was essential and that you didn't want the ball in your own GK's hands. In fact he said that this was the most dangerous time for a team. I do think that "Counter-attacking" is the way to go. Remember that the goal was to get the ball into the opponents "backyard" as quickly as possible and you need to create space in that area. Raising the tempo via a TI will make it more realistic, but also keep in mid that with the counter mentality, you central defenders will send more balls forward. Really the devil will be in the details, which means lots of work on PI's and somewhat less on the TI's and that should probably be the next level of the discussion. Anyway, I look forward to the evolution of this thread while I return to trying to craft an updated version of my Rosenborg/Eggen philosophy.
  8. My experience with the patch is similar to yours. My 4-1-4-1, Attacking/Flexible with cautious TI's designed to create space for quick counters is getting crushed. Prior to the patch I rarely lost with it.
  9. I think that the key to replicating Atletico is understudying the basic premises which Simeone brings to the game. Key is organization. They defend AND attack in a very set and precise manner. All players have role and they stick to it. Simeone is a structured, some might even say a very structured manager. This does not preclude flair and creativity; I think that there are a lot of misconceptions in this regard. In 2013/14 they played a deep narrow 4-4-2 that countered quickly through Costa. This year they play much higher and somewhat wider because until Griezmann broke through/adapted, they didn't have speed guy up top. Another key change this year has been the use of the the 4-1-2-3 and the 4-1-4-1. Some would say that these are one in the same but they aren't. The 4-1-2-3 is very narrow, almost using 3 true forwards and also very direct. Generally its been used against clubs who use three central defenders, Juventus in the first leg of their CL group and Rayo this past weekend for example. In the latest La Liga match they really pressed hard which can be seen in Griezmann's first goal. Simeone is known a tinkerer and I also think that he chooses team shape based on the players that are available. So going forward I'd say that Atletico's current 4-4-2 looks something like this: Standard Structured Gk : Moya WB-r (a): JuanFran WB-l (a): Ansaldi/Siqueira CD (d): Miranda/Gimenez CD (d): Godin/Gimenez WM-r (a): Arda B2B (s): Gabi CM (d): Tiago WP-l (s): Koke F9 (s): Garcia early, Griezmann now TM (s): Mandzukic Team instructions are situational, variable and evolve during a match. "Get Stuck In", "Exploit the Flanks" and "Higher Tempo" would seem to be standard. "Play Narrower" no longer is though. Player instructions would follow the above pattern. Saul is a different WP than Koke and Suarez is a different CM (d) than Tiago for example. These are just some of my observations and not meant stimulate discussion.
  10. I don't think that will do it. The outside forwards didn't close down the outside backs. Rather they were clearly zone marking. This seems to be standard procedure for Simone's sides no matter what formation that they play. Against Sevilla the previous weekend, Atleti was clearly in a 4-1-4-1/4-5-1 with the outside players much more withdrawn. The narrowness of the tree forwards vs. Juve is a method that has been used successfully against teams playing with 3 central defenders and in this instance I think that it was effective.
  11. I think that the OP was speaking about the specific match vs. Juve. If so, Atleti didn't use their usual 4-4-2/4-4-1-1. Instead it was a 4-1-2-2-1/4-3-3 that I hadn't seen from Simone since the 2012-13 season (granted I'm only able to watch @7-8 of their matches per season). The back 4 were pretty much as usual, with the two DC's staying narrow and tight and the FB's (not WB's) making sporadic runs forward; Juanfran seeming to do so more than Ansaldi. The three midfielders played a narrow triangle with Tiago at the base playing mostly as a DM and Koke and Niguez breaking into any seems that they could find. I would say that they were CM-S's. The front three are hard to make happen in FM I'm afraid. They also stayed narrow for the most part, almost like three true forwards. Once they got into the Juve 18, they were rarely more than 3-4 meters apart and interchanged often. The wide forwards did drop when out of possession, but didn't join in the midfield line very often. Actually even Mandzukic even drops pretty deep when out of possession. Hope that this helps.
  12. I watched the entire match vs. Hellas Verona yesterday, and Cagliari played nothing like previous Zeman teams. Whether this is down to his instructions or his players inability to adjust to what he's asking them to do is open to question, but they were slower in the build up and seemed more like a counter-attacking side. The one thing that that they still exhibited was defensive fragility. Zeman clearly doesn't practice this aspect of the game much, if at all. I can see his stay at Cagliari ending soon.
  13. I hear you on both counts MJ. I use this time of year to tinker with tactics while I await the new edition of the game. So I continued to evolve your tactic and created a Counter version. It was quite promising in its first match. My reasoning is that its pretty typical for matches to be played in 30+C weather in MLS and two of the teams play at altitude, Colorado at 1700m and Real Salt Lake at 1300m. No team could chase an opponent around the pitch under these conditions.
  14. Grubby and Allan, Remember that with success your professional and club reputation rises. Hence, opponents will be more reactive and this is more the case if you're at a big club. I would suggest staying with the Attack version of the tactic and allow the players more creative freedom and movement. It could be that you've become predictable. Also rotate your attacking players a little. My B2B midfielders have different instructions based on ability. I sometimes switch their sides, but they bring their instructions along with them. If none of that works, try the Control version which allows less freedom and more predictable movement. I outlined above my 3 consecutive loses after winning the CONCACAF Champions League and doing this got my team out of that funk. Changing from what the A.I. has become conditioned to expect seems to work.
  15. If you scan through MJ's posts you'll find some of the answers. In his first year at Standard he played Control most of the time because he had slow defenders. With ManU he plays Attacking all of the time because they're a big club. I'd really say to simply use your judgement. I have San Jose top of the table with no major additions and an only modestly edited squad. A few of the edits were improvements, but most were reductions on CA. Basically I have a revved up USL Pro team playing way over their heads with these tactics. Usually I play Attacking at home and Control on the road (except against Chivas). To be realistic, I slow my team if I get a goal or two in the hot weather/high altitude matches. Adapting this system to suit Seattle would be a challenge because Dempsey doesn't fit any of the roles. Martins would be a good candidate for center forward (DF), but IRL, he'd pick up cards like mad. I'm not sure if Alonso would be a very good Regista, but then again, I'm using Sam Cronin their with success, so never mind. I think that the best team in MLS to use this tactic with would be FC Dallas because of their pace.