Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About imabearlol

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sassuolo's Duncan I trained Thiago Maia as a B2B and that worked well too.
  2. Really? Got him with Celta, he was transfer listed by request. Maybe depnds on your save then.
  3. Mauricio Lemos became world class for me on my save.
  4. This thread is very interesting and I will play as Darmstadt in my next save.
  5. I use this in possession systems which emphasise a slow, patient buildup. As you are not taking advantage of transitions, extra creativity helps to unlock an entrenched defence. I don't like to use it personally in fast attacking systems as I like to setup my runners from deep and I don't want them trying risky moves before they have a chance to get up the pitch.
  6. Got a 4312 working very well in FM2016, I talked about it in this thread further down. With the Daggers as well, no less.
  7. I usually preoder the FM series every year, but without knowing what possible new features there would be for 2017 I won't be doing it this time around. I just don't like buying things without knowing what they are first. If the new features aren't worthwhile then I will save my money and play 2016 with an updated database, particularly as finances have become tighter over the last few years. Once I know what new features will be in I will be able to make an informed decision on whether to purchase or not. Until then, it would just be guesswork. As far as I remember they have announced the new features at the same time as the preorder, so I don't understand why they needed to change this approach? It turned a perfectly good process into an unknown.
  8. Why do I understand it or why is this the case? If you want to know why this is, you need to know how they originated. The philosophies are based on the Tactical Theorems and Frameworks: http://fmsweden.se/upload/filer/tactical_theorems_and_frameworks__09.pdf Up until this years edition the way mentalities and philosophies interacted was different. If you look at the PDF you can see what mentalities each player has in each strata. The CFs and mentalities are linked in a way to give context to the managerial type they were based on. For example Very Fluid is based on Global Mentality, with everyone on the same mentality (11) but with high CF to emulate the style described. Now in this years version the philosophies have increasingly compact vertical length as you go up in Fluidity. I don't know the official reason behind this but I imagine it was done to make things easier. Not only that but as mentalities become closer together, you tend to require higher CF for attacking action to take place, particularly on more defensive systems. If everyone has a low mentality for example, attacks would be few and far between as everyone wants to play low risk football. This is because you can't dictate the movements of players as in Juego de Posicion, you can only rely on their creativity to break away from their set mentality to attack. This means more Fluid structures tend towards Collectivist systems, while more Structured systems tend toward Individualist systems. For example, take this analysis on Crystal Palace: http://spielverlagerung.com/2015/10/25/crystal-palace-analysis-overachieving-with-individuality-and-wing-focus/ If you want to play with Individual focus like this, you need to give space to your most potent attackers. You want them to do most of the heavy lifting, and you don't want your less creative players to have any CF. This is why if you wanted to emulate this team you might opt for a Highly Structured approach. My concern is the other spectrum - that collectivist systems don't necessarily need to have high CF if you can dictate and model player movement better in real life. But as you can't do so, if you try and emulate certain football systems from their descriptions (as people commonly do when trying to translate a tactic from real life to in-game), then you will find it hard to succeed in some cases.
  9. I really think the concept of philosophy makes it difficult to emulate certain modern styles from the fact that Creative Freedom and compactness are still tied together. This means it is problematic when trying to assign philosophies to real-life styles as you have in section 8. Let's take Juego de Posicion, a concept quite popular in Spain and the Netherlands (http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/11/26/juego-de-posicion-a-short-explanation/). Initially, the creative freedom you would think to assign to emulate this would be Highly Structured right? But there is no way to get the sort of movements required in this philosophy to work using such a mentality as the low CF prevents players from making any such movements in the first place. Therefore you need to start from a much more Fluid system than you would like. Another area I find problematic is the concept of "compactness" (http://spielverlagerung.com/2015/05/08/tactical-theory-compactness/). The only way to achieve this is to set a more Fluid philosophy even though you may not necessarily want high CF. I do understand why CF is tied to vertical compactness and mentality but it does make it difficult to emulate certain styles directly. You almost have to implement a totally different system that works in a completely different way but somewhat behaves like the one you want. I apologise if this is not coming across well as it's a difficult concept to try and explain. Really what I'm trying to say is that I feel it's much more difficult to emulate a certain style of football than how you have done it in section 8. My intention isn't to take away from the rest of your post but to try and create some discussion around philosophy and how to successfully emulate certain styles with it.
  10. You should really explain the reason if you suggest something. Myself I would not play with these roles in the DM slot in a 3-1-4-2 as the entire point of the system is to get an extra man higher up the pitch to help dominate the midfield. Otherwise you may as well play a 4-4-2.
  11. My approach is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of my team and players first of all. Then you try and create a tactic that plays to your strengths and hides your weaknesses. Once you have got some stability and are able to make some of your own signings you can then transition to more of your desired style. TLDR: First tailor the tactic to suit your team, and over time tailor the team to suit the tactic. It's hard to be any more specific than that because you haven't shown us the team you have.
  12. I've got a 3-4-1-2 and a 3-1-4-2 working but it requires world class defenders, particularly the middle CD needs to be able to win the vast majority of clearances/balls played over the top to the opposition striker. It works decently well with a possession system that pushes high up the pitch as your back 3 will spread out and cover the width of the pitch well. As long as they can win most of the passes played to the opposition forwards then the extra man in Midfield you gain really lets you dominate the game. If I was to run this system on any team other than a world class one I would use wingbacks instead of wingers in the ML/R slots.
  13. Apologies, I couldn't find the article yet, but I did manage to find uncle sam's old post on this. I took some of his images (hope this is ok) to see if I could understand it better myself. Here you can see how the formation works how I described where it morphs into a 3-4-3 lopsided diamond. Here is how he described the diamond part of the formation: You can see the way it morphs into a 3-4-3/4-4-2 diamond shape anyway in the image above. So the way it attacks and defends is actually very similar but the diamond has the advantage in the passing lane aspect when the box formation is actually a box and not a diamond. I think that is the principle anyway.
  14. I think it's a counter shape because the natural positions of the midfield diamond cut out the natural passing lanes of the magic box, while the opposite is not true - the diamond passing lanes in midfield are diagonal and free unless the box is broken, at which point it is no longer a box. I also think it's easier for the diamond to form an offensive or defensive 3 man unit (offensive with the 2 CMs and AM, defensive with DM and 2 CMs) depending on the phase of the game, while the magic box would have to morph into a lopsided diamond to get the same effect. Otherwise, you require a fullback to provide that extra man in midfield if you want to keep the box in offense (which is how I understand the box formation to work - it morphed into a lopsided diamond and had one fullback push up to form a sort of 3-4-3). Without staggering the box the only passing lanes you have are horizontal or vertical which I see as a huge disadvantage of the tactic. I think this article explains how important diagonal passing is to advance play http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/09/16/the-half-spaces/ I think I read somewhere that explained it more comprehensively though I can't find the article at the moment. I'll try and dig it up.
  15. Have you considered what you are going to do against counter formations like the 4-4-2 Diamond?
  • Create New...