Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About ajsr1982

  • Rank

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing

Recent Profile Visitors

1,321 profile views
  1. I might be wrong here (the standard caveat), but at a philosophical level, if you're saying you're definitely going to use fluid or very fluid, then are the roles and duties the real issue? Roles, yes, but the impact of your duties will be watered down by moving to the fluid end of the scale. At a technical level, I would be worried by trying to play this way. There are an increasing number of teams that will simply not come out and close you down, and you end up simply passing the ball around in front of them. You'd need a Plan B for that eventuality. My first thoughts would be that you wouldn't want to go higher than a Standard mentality, as you're trying to encourage recycling of possession unless a gap appears. I think you would benefit from a Structured or even Very Structured team shape, with lots of PIs. Looks like you want your team to be conservative in its use of the ball in deeper positions, and more aggressive in higher positions, with lots of movement. If you don't get that movement right, your players will naturally look to recycle the ball on lower mentalities. If you're really stuck for a starting point, might I humbly suggest @Vince Lombardi's 4-6-0 in his excellent American Football thread? This creates, I think, some of the football you're looking for. It has great movement from deep positions and creates good overloads through the centre of the pitch. I score lots of goals that look like tries in rugby. For example, my RM plays it inside to the RCM. He plays it inside to the AMC. The LCM makes a run off him and receives the ball, but then the LM has made a run inside the full back and ends up finishing off the move after a series of short simple passes because I always have a man over. I have decent passers of the ball, but I also have a number of good dribblers, which can be crucial in opening up those stubborn defences.
  2. Don't be afraid to experiment. Sometimes things just click. I have a winger with some weaknesses according to his attributes, but he works brilliantly as an AP/A in the AML slot. I might be wrong here (someone can confirm?), but a run of good form should aid his development as well. By the same token, don't be afraid to be ruthless and cut him. With some players, you just can't make it work. Knowing when to draw the line and get a better alternative is important. With him struggling to learn new tricks, it looks like he has attitude issues. I'd check out the 'Motivating' attribute on some of your staff to see if there's an issue there as well.
  3. Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread a little, but I thought the answer to my query may help you some. I've noticed that players who come through your youth system - that is, those who come from your yearly youth intake as opposed to the 17 year-olds you mentioned above - often perform above and beyond what you'd expect if you objectively observed their attributes. I always find this really rewarding. I've also noticed that if you can get a player to 'preferred', 'icon' or 'legend' (I think they're the categories) status - shown in the club information screen, you'll get supposedly inferior players playing their heart out for you. If your players like you, it helps as well! I have a 19-year-old who came through my ranks currently picking up 'Young Player of the Month' awards in Serie A, despite being a middling Serie B player by all appearances. Lovely stuff, and certainly encourages a long-term approach to home-grown talent, I'd think. Of course, I could be imagining this. If someone could give us the definitive answer on some of this, that would be great.
  4. unsporting realist

    It means he evolved from Luis Suarez into Robbie Savage. Good luck.
  5. Really like this, Rashidi. It's an excellent demonstration of a) how to adapt one overarching system to deal with the approach of different opposition, b) how to create overloads to help control certain areas of the pitch, and c) how important it is to have the right players to carry out what you're trying to achieve. As ever, I think the issues most people (including myself) is that they know what they want to achieve, but they don't really know which buttons to press (allied with an unwillingness to experiment and learn, it must be said). For example, I can't imagine many people would switch to a higher mentality in order to affect the defensive width of their midfield; it's probably counter-intuitive and needs know-how in terms of how to balance it off with roles and duties. But this was nicely demonstrated here, and another arrow in the quiver for people to use.
  6. Well he uses a 4-4-1-1 whenever I run into him. So that's three different systems we've seen him use already in this thread. I guess the underlying point here is that this iteration of the game is changeable. It adapts to you, according to how you play. Not only over the course of seasons, but also in-game - if they go a goal ahead/behind, the AI changes their approach. I can't help but think that even if you did copy Mourinho's tactics, the way the game is wired means that he'd be able to adapt and come up with another way of beating everyone. Also, it's nice to retain some of the mystery, no? Trying to beat something that isn't wholly visible and understandable is part of the challenge of FM.
  7. On the difference between Move Into Channels and Roam From Position... It varies for each position and role, slightly. Move Into Channels for a centre forward means he's going to target the gaps between the defenders. In a back four this would primarily be the gap between CBs and FBs. Roam From Position means he is going to effectively leave his post to go looking for the ball, or to find space. There are many different interpretations of both on this forum, so expect the above to be challenged. I've tried to keep it simple. As for your low ratings, I wouldn't get too hung up on it. Match ratings are based an algorithm that will naturally perform better for some positions than others and hence I'd only use them as a guide. The main thing is that your centre forward is doing what you want/expect of him in the match. That's up to you to watch the game and decide. For example, if he's taking 50% of his chances, that might be acceptable to you, and actually, it might not matter that he's only touched the ball 17 times (which might be the thing bringing his rating down). By the way, your system looks okay to me, broadly speaking. I think you could get that right back on an attack duty (or as a WB/S) so you have a regular crossing supply on both flanks.
  8. Target Man ideas

    This is based purely on observation, but here are the issues I see with the use of the TM. First of all, we know that having a TM means that the rest of the team are more likely to look for him 'early'. That is, defenders and midfielders will go long towards him. Let's put that in the back pocket for now. We also need to consider the point at which players will make forward runs. If we're looking for a supporting (third man) run for the TM to lay off to, or flick on to, I think you want your third man run to take place either just before, or maybe just after (ie, while the ball is in flight) the long pass is played up to the TM. Your third man run might be a CM trying to get on the end of it, or an IF/AF bending a run inside a full back. The point I'm making is that it's a speculative run. Personally, I don't see too much of this, even from players with attack duties. Maybe it's because I tend to play at lower levels and the Off The Ball attribute is generally lower. My observations though are that a CM/A, for example, won't burst forward until the players ahead of him have possession. That's too late to get the TM to feed him in the way we might expect a 'traditional' TM to do. Likewise, I don't see the AF making a run 'in case' the TM wins the header. All that means it's very hard to get your TM to work in a Mark Hately/Emile Heskey fashion, in my opinion. Feeding him with plenty of crosses to get on the end of things in the area is a good option, but for supporting play, I think you want to get the ball into his feet and have players making runs off him once he's got hold of the ball. That means you probably need a slightly slower build up play than the TM duty, with its ball attracting properties, allows. Normally I'll go for a modified DLF, or DF, depending on whether I want the player in question to keep it simple or not.
  9. This can happen quite often. A few things I use are: - Make sure you have the opposition formation widget on your screen. It shows you when they change formation. After you score, you'll often see it change to 'Attacking 4-3-3' or something like this. - If they change to an attacking formation, you need to respond. You don't need to go crazy here, but make sure you have adequate cover in defence, as well as a couple of attacking outlets. A low block system with 2-3 attacking duties typically does okay here in my experience. - Use your subs. Tired players make mistakes. Keep an eye on condition and body language, and replace those players if you can. You might also want to drag off players with low concentration and determination in these instances, or players with low defensive attributes.
  10. I'm a big fan of the 4-1-4-1, but look, if you're trying to achieve a certain style, then make incremental changes and see what the impact is. The first iteration of that might be removing TIs which 'double-up' with the Counter mentality. After that, I'd look at changing some of the attack duties to support duties, perhaps using FBs instead of WBs. Try a customized CM/S rather than a BWM/S to help keep your shape in the middle of the pitch. Is the HB doing what you want, or is an Anchor okay? All I would say is that when you change something, make sure you observe and you're happy with the difference it makes, then move on to the next thing. Overall though, you need to make yourself harder to break down. Maybe you even want to make two systems, which allows you to play more expansive in games you think you can win more easily.
  11. I'm a little confused as to what your go-to formation currently is, but I'm going to assume it's the 4-1-2-3 you manually wrote out. My primary concern would be that you're effectively still playing a 4-3-3 as one of the weakest teams in the league. Can you really afford to defend with only seven men behind the ball? If I was Man City, I'd fancy those odds. We also need to take a look at the Counter mentality. By default, it does certain things. The ones relevant to you are: - Lowers tempo (and shortens passing) - Lowers D-line - Plays narrower Lots of your TIs add another layer on to these. Your D-line is even deeper, and your passing is even shorter and slower. To make things worse, you've told your team to close down more. When you add all of those things up, this is what you'll get. A team with inadequate defensive cover on the flanks that often has only seven men behind the ball. However, those seven don't hold their position; they chase the ball all over the place, which makes them easy to pull around. What's more, the d-line has dropped so far back that there's even more space to operate in. The only real advantage you may have here - leaving three men out to create a potential 3v2 overload for fast attacks, is crippled by your TIs to slow the play down to a snail's pace. What's more, your team's morale is probably shot, which is why they crumble after the first goal. Look at real world examples of managers who are survival experts, and look at how they play in the bottom half of the Premier League. You may want to look at channelling your inner Pulis/Allardyce. They don't do exactly the same thing, actually, but in your shoes, I'd be looking at a low block system with strong, aerially good defenders. Full backs included. Players who can play D LC or D RC are more favourable than D/WB L or D/WB R here. Then you want a CF that can hold the ball up, pacy wide players (you may want one who can deliver the ball right on to the head of your CF), and a hard working central midfield, with a possible allowance for a set-piece expert. If you have a potentially lethal front two, then by all means go with it, but you want to keep the midfield narrow if you're going with a four, would be my advice. As you consolidate and establish yourself as a top flight team that can attract better players, then you can transition into more specialist systems. I know it's not particularly pretty, but it's effective. Look at the turnaround Bournemouth had this season when Eddie Howe stopped trying to play pretty football.
  12. There's absolutely nothing wrong with your approach. It's just personal preference.
  13. Good question, and the honest answer is that I don't tend to make reactive changes in-game. I'll deal with the defensive angle first, because it's easier. We've all seen how many AI teams react to going a goal down. 'Attacking 4-3-3', or some other risky approach. I feel comfortable that my Standard/Structured 4-1-4-1 offers enough in defence to deal with this. It's a low block system, and it has a couple of attacking outlets to catch out any teams that over-commit. Now, that isn't necessarily going to hold true of all systems. However, the general principles set out at the start should still hold true here. Restrict space and maintain some balance between defence and attack. Attacking-wise, I very, very rarely change my system in term of team mentality. The reason for that is that I find anything above Standard at this level results in too much speculative play for my liking. Remember, your players aren't likely to be blessed in two key areas. 1 - making the right choice, and 2 - executing whatever choice they make. Therefore, I keep things at Standard to try to enforce fewer risky decisions, and shooting from silly areas. What I might do is change my approach to scoring a goal if things aren't working. There are loads of ways to do that, but the most common things I try are: - Moving the playmaker to another part of the pitch if he's trying to work in congested areas. Assuming I'm using one, that is. - Switching the attack/support roles around. So, whatever is on the left flank switches with whatever's on the right. - Quite simply, personnel changes. Players play the same role in different ways, so sometimes putting a winger on who is quick but has poor delivery (or vice versa) can change things. Alternatively, putting a different type of centre forward on. In that case though, I might switch to, say, a TM over an AF.
  14. Invisible wing back

    It's not 100% of the time, but I think it's important to understand that the game is ultimately a model. It's a damned good one, but it has rules. In reality we see a lot of tight, intricate play between wingers and FBs near the touchlines, but I'm not sure FM is wired to fully replicate this. Think about where your players receive the ball, and which direction they will a) be facing when receiving it, and b) be facing after moving with it. Most players will move into space, unless you tell them to run at the FB. The space is usually inside, which means the pass out to the FB becomes a difficult one. Stating the obvious, better players are better at making difficult passes, and are more likely to try them. This is all about making space. Create a gap for the FB/WB to run into, and things should happen naturally.
  15. Invisible wing back

    In this particular instance, this is the answer. In general, I find any sort of wide midfielders/wingers, etc aren't the primary supply for overlapping FBs. Rightly or wrongly, of course; just my observations. The best way is to create space with the WM by occupying the opposition FB. Your WB/FB then moves into that space, and is best fed by a central player (usually a CM of some description).