cmonreds

Yup, that is a good suggestion, similiar to yonko's goalscorers. These stats will come, the plan is to first play for three seasons with the current tactic.

There is never a stupid question, appreciate your suggestion and I had a look at them when I saw your post. They look decent, still I want to continue with the current tactic. Have you tried the presets? Will judge current tactic after the 3rd season. Increase width, consider 3-2 rest defence and applying roles that staggers positioning in central midfield are most likely changes if things doesn't work.

Happy new year everyone, Good suggestions, in the end the tactic(s) might have to utilize width, one option is like in the 2-2 in this thread and as you describe. Classic Barca/Pep from 2010-11 is also my favourite. The two books below about Barcelona are written about that season. FM24 with introduction of the IFB enables using the Abidal role as well. The thread/tactics has moved slightly away how Pep's principles. No "extreme" width and players not staggered like Xavi and Iniesta centrally. One solution would be to replicate the tactic(s) from 2010-11 using either HB or IFB to create the different build-ups, also the IF role would be included in the tactic if replicating those tactics. As football has become more intense, Pep's tactics evolvied to how City currently plays has big advantages compared to the Barca period. By using the wide attackers for width and the fullbacks moving inside either in defence or midfield players has to run less, as well as concentrating on defending against counter attacks in the centre of the pitch (most dangerous area). I have tested the last uploaded tactics for 1,5 season with Rennes. No IW's or players staying wider and only 3-2 and 2-3 versions used. Often when two Mezzala's get's forward and creates a front line of 5 players the IW's will be positioned quite wide. Also, the 3-2 is useful to have as well when playing against teams with 2 strikers. Against teams playing with just one striker I prefer the 2-3. During the first season in many matches attacking mentality were used. Important to say that nn FM the rest defences are not static and instead quite dynamic in regard to how many opposition players staying forward (rest attack), if a clear overload players from the 1st line will also get further up the pitch. I do not have the complete oversight but attributes and difference between the roles can influence the rate of how often and when this happen. Stats from testing: 1st season No incoming transfers and this is the squad used in the 1st season. League Matches PSG matches Monaco matches Nice matches 2nd season (half played) Has been some injuries, major as well from the 1st eleven, Attacking players out for the rest of the season. League Matches vs Nice (Route one), when they scored we chased the win. Before that dominating The 2nd season will be challenging due to injuries. It has effected performance/results. Will play for three seasons before changing the tactic.

Hi Yonko, Thanks for your inputs and advice. Yes the IW's have PI get further in all the versions of the tactic throughout the thread, as you say to get some more attacking punch. Agree with you on allocation of attacking duty/duties dependant on the opposition formation. The thread has not reached that point yet, where this has been examined/analysed. Any experiences or advice on this would be great. Also agree with you on very fluid being demanding on attributes/quality of players. In possession and attacking wise (lots of roaming) players needs to be good at reading the game and make decisions, movement without and with the ball, very good at both the mental and technical aspects of passing, the added compactness of the tactic also puts an extra toll on the already important skill of receiving and quickly controlling the ball (first touch/technique). Add teamwork, workrate and out of possession attributes to the mix as well. Still, it should be possible to pull it of with Rennes in the Ligue 1 in a few seasons. Fully agree with you on the special/cutting edge attacking player, during the thread this input from others as well has led to this being included in the tactic duty wise at first. Attributes wise in a few seasons a special attacking player might arise from the younger players at Rennes, untill then and also my preference is doing this duty wise. I really like your explanation of the classic and modern Guardiola tactic, and also bringing in the 2nd attacking threat. For the very fluid duty structure/frame with balanced/positive mentality and two defending duties (2-3 rest defence) this has to be attribute wise (already one attacking duty allocated). I am a keen admirer of Guardiola tactically, still the thread and discussed tactic differs with some of his principles. The main one being not to maintain width with one player staying wider at each flank. Width and wide areas will still be used but to a lesser extent compared to Guardiola. Think Emery and Aston Villa. Also currently the 2-3 rest defence is preferred due to three players in the 2nd line and better positioned to apply quicker counter pressing, this ties in with the compact shape (reduced width). I now probably have to play for 2-3 seasons to see what results the tactics brings. Possession is benchmarked at 65 % average in the league when team cohesion is at full and the squad has evolved. If the tactic does not bring the intended results/statistics, all your advices will be taken aboard with hindsight.

Here are the tactics if anyone wants to try/test and improve on their own. el Rondo 3-2 is on balanced mentality mostly for training/achieving tactical familiarity all three used mentalities which is attacking, positive and balanced. If switching the 3-2 to attacking the CF can/should be on attacking duty. el Rondo_2-3_Control.fmf el Rondo_2-3_Dominate.fmf el Rondo_3-2.fmf

The tactical process can be ending with enjoying the sweet spot Attacks are good and can be difficult to prevent for the oppositiion. In a very fluid duty structure and not utilizing width this might be the best that I can achieve for finding the optimum. Waiting to see if someone has any pointers/ideas that can improve things. It was the input from HanziZoloman that pushed me in the right direction on this. Easy to get stuck and to narrow minded on own concepts when doing this.

Summary The thread and tactics has gone back and forth, concentrated around what is summarized in the below image. The lack of consistent penetration and creating chances in possession has been the fault with the tactics tried. Improvement of this should not be at a too heavily cost/reduction in possession and defensive solidity. Data analytics have been used for analysing how the tactic and changes plays out. Also width has been a big topic in the thread. It is reduced and aimed for minimum width to achieve chance creation. The IW's has no PI for lateral position (stay wider/sit narrower), this can reduce chance creation as there are no fullbacks/wingback coming wide. Still roaming and IWB's in a 2-3 shape leads to escpecially the IWB's and sometimes the Mezzala's with decent frequency going wide in the available space there. Passes and crosses from the two IWB's from two matches: All of this has led to the following tactical set showing most promise in finding the optimum between possession, defensive solidity and creating chances: Attacking mentality with 2 defend and 2 attacking duties, and positive mentality where attacking duties are reduced to 1 This could be complemented with a 3-2 rest defence version, for matches where it is more important to cover defensive space against counter attacks than counter pressuring. The 3-2 will be more defensive by nature within the very fluid duties structure as no attacking duties are allocated. Also a 2-2 rest defence version can complement the tactical set with the possibility for adding an attacking duty. The 2-2 can free one player contributing to attacks either wide or central. My preference would be central to keep the compact shape, still this will most likely be the DM being changed to RPM for most effect, I am not totally convinced by the testing of this role. The advantage of using a WB instead of a CWB in a 2-2 is the possibility to add instructions that tweaks the position lateral (stay narrower). Brief testing of the two first tactics are very promising. The dominate version has been tested on both home and away matches, no in-game management/subs just too see how it fares. Too create chances it is very good. The IW's on attacking duty leads to both goalscoring and assisting with short crosses/passes from the byline close to the goal. Two videos shows the attacking play and generally also how most goals are conceded, from set-pieces and crosses/wide play: The 1st match is at home vs Brest (possession: 73 %): Home vs Brest The 2nd match is away vs Lens (possession: 68%): Away vs Lens A question to the community: Training set-pieces: does this just train the described attributes or does it also have an in-game effect? 2nd question to the community: Has anyone tested the following: A DM (or any position) only trained for the position they train in, changing between different roles as DM(s) and HB as in image below, and achieved full tactical familiarity for both ?

I will write a summary of the thread as it is a lot written if newcomers wants to participate, also with the reasoning for my answers to your last post

Same variables for testing. Testing match: Away vs Lille currently at 7th place in the league. Normal tactic (left imaes) / AML IW(a) role in the tactic (right images) Team Comment: Difference in xG can be due to randomness. As the first match tested decrease of long shots with the attacking duty. Again CCC's created with the attacking duty. Possession slightly lower again (2-3 %), acceptable when creating. Attacking duty can be removed when possession is the aim to see out mathces. Change in pass completion in attack decreased with attacking duty (opposite to former match, no pattern and can be due to randomness). Increase in crosses with attacking duty can also be due to randomness. Slight increase in progressive passes (10%) and decrease in final 3rd passes, same pattern as previous test match. Own team's OPPDA again higher with the attacking duty (the pattern not the numbers is important, the huge difference for this match could be an outlier/extreme exception). Avg. positioning in possession Comment: The positioning of no. 2 on the left/normal image and slightly on the right image indicates that something was at fault at that side during the match. Lille aimed for wing play in a 4231 and this could influence this/be the cause (Note: they played with a 433 during the match, deviating from the match summary formation) A 3-2 rest defence provides better coverage for defensive zones, no goals/CCC's where produced against due to using a 2-3 rest defence. This could be noise. One more thing is that the Mezzala at the side of the IW(a) is slightly more higher positioned, the logical reason or this is that the IW(a) higher positioning leads to him doing the same,due to available space as well moving close to him for short passes. The same pattern in the previous testing match. Avg. positioning out of possession Comment: Purpose of avg. positioning out of possession for the whole team is to look further into the positioning of the IW(a) positioning compared to the rest of the team. Again the same pattern the IW(a) positioned higher. Passing map Comment: The IW(a) positioned higher for avg. passing on attacking duty, still not higher than the opposite IW(s) as in the previous test match. There can be something with Lille's tactic disturbing our play. There is something odd here. Their right side during/in match looked like the left image below, as compared to the end of match summary in the right image below. Managerial/AI trickery or bug? Player Shots/passes/crosses Left/normal: 3 shot attempts one saved, no crosses one key pass (yellow). Right/IW(a): no shots, two crosses, two key passes where one led to a CCC. Comment: Again the IW(a) creates more chances, no pattern can be confirmed in regard to passing directions and central involvement as this was opposite compared to previous test match. Can be due to Lille having a better defence than LASK. Dribbles/offsided/avg. positioning in/out of possession and heat map Left image/normal: 7 dribbles/1 offside. Right image/IW(a): seven dribbles. Comment: Not much to say, could be randomness resulting in the heat map. IW(a) dribbles more vertical and forward directed. Probably no/minimal available space in centre due to Lille having a decent defence. Summary: The IW(a) creates more than the IW(s), for the team as a whole possession is slightly decreased. The reduction in final 3rd passes are due to more "directness" and chance creation with the attacking duty. The IW(a) out of possession higher up the pitch, is compensated for with the tactic/teams shape and has not led to a weaker defence.

Testing attacking duty/special player Decided to the left AML as a IW(A) since he is better as an IW and has the tactical familiarity for that role, this will produce more correct results/data. Will get a first glimpse of how the role behaves and if it has any effect on the overall team for the tactic. Testing match: Against Lask in the CL, they are currently in the 35th position in the League phase table. Normal tactic (left images) / AML IW(a) role in tactic (right images) Team Comment: xG higher with the IW(a) also due to a penalty. More CCC's. The variation in stats can be due to randomness and prolonged testing is needed. Still, possession drops slightly (acceptable when creating more chances), more accurate passes - attack and more progressive passes can lead to the decrease in final third passes (being more direct/penetrates the defence reduces passes in final 3rd). OPPDA reduced, can be random or the attacking duty inclined to defend less. Comment: The very small change in positioning in possession (team deeper/IW(a) slightly higher) are due to randomness. Nothing can be drawn from this, unless tested for more matches. Comment: When both IW's are on support duty, there is a tendency and also randomness in the match which leads to one of them sometimes positioned higher than the other. Perhaps with an attacking duty the pattern will be more regular for the attacking IW being this player. No big influence on the teams overall passing map (as with positioning). Player Left image (normal): Finishing off 2 half chances/1 shot blocked - Passes/Crosses: 2 key passes / 1 cross attempt. Right image (IW(a)): One shot saved - Passes/Crosses: 4 key passes (2 CCC's) / total 6 cross attempts Comment: The IW with attacking duty is more of a creator, an IF(a) will probably be more of a goalscorer. The attacking duty leads more penetration and actions from the IW higher up the pitch. Also passing directions (green arrows) are more attacking with passes going slightly more forward. Left image (normal): 4 dribbles/1 offside, avg. positioning in/out of possession and heat map. Rigth image (IW(a)): 4 dribbles. Comment: Bigger distance between avg. positioning in/out of possession when the IW has support duty, compared to attacking duty. The rest of the teams positioning is verified to have the same pattern (support duties), indicating that attack duty will lead to the players avg. positioning out of possession to be higher and more biased to attacking. In the teams overall shape this is okay as other players will cover for him. Attacking duty has more penetrating dribbles higher up the pitch (the incident with the penalty below, can be a pattern or one time incident). Heat map more involved in central areas higher up, wide involvment can be due to receiving from corners/throw ins. Overall the attacking duty on the heat map/dribbles are more directed towards the opposition goal. The IW with attacking duty where directly involved in two goals. Assist to the CF: CF drops deep, IW(a) runs behind, cuts inside to the byline, short pass (data analytics recognise this as a pass) to the CF on the near post who scores Prelude to the penalty (AML/IW(a) fouled in the box) CF tackled, ball is loose, IW(a) picks up the loose ball and dribbles and is fouled inside the box. Summary: First impression is that one attacking duty worked well, the duty can be assigned to the strongest own player or at the opposition weak side. When changing duties for the same role (players trained in it), the change in support/attacking duty has very low penalty/reduction of tactical familiarity. This gives the freedom and versatility to change this as appropriate.

Thanks for your suggestion and tip about thread. Things have to improve further.. I probably spend to much time on this, but are taking things step by step and want to fully understand why things work or does not work. How the rest defence is set-up is maybe the most important thing. Which roles used for rotational play and how many players used in the rest defence and the 1st and 2nd line influences counter pressure and recycling possession. Even though the roles/players in a 3-2 will venture forward when there is just 1-2 opposition players staying forward, they do it later, more selldom and are positioned deeper in average positions during matches. With a 3-2 you basically only attack with five players which are outnumbered by the opposition defence. When the tactic is emphasizing outplaying the opposition with quick and short passing this very often is not possible higher up the field du to attacking players being outnumbered with a 3-2 rest defence. The 3-2 is demanding more quality of the attacking five due to them being outnumbered. Changing to a 2-3 puts three players in the 2nd line with broader coverage of the pitch for the 2nd line, this leads to a stronger possibility of a more effective counter press if loosing the ball. The 2nd line is positioned higher up the pitch leads to more passes higher up the pitch and increasing the chance of key passes from the 2nd line. The best version of the 2-3 rest defence tested is where the 2nd line consists of a DM and two IWB's. The IWB's in the 2nd line will contribute wide by going outside the compact shape far more often than the IFB's in the 1st line in a 3-2 rest defence. Avg. positions in possession and passing map for a 2-3 (left) and a 3-2 with CM's (right) below: When having three players in the 2nd line, to avoid being to vertically compact the MC's role should change from Central Midfielders to Mezzala's / APM's or a combination of those (I use Mezzala's when testing). For a very fluid tactic. a 2-3 only uses two defend duties, this gives the possibility for allocating an attacking duty (max 3 non-support duties for very fluid on positive/balanced mentality) to create the brilliant attacking player as you mentioned. For attacking mentality this can be increased to two attacking duties. Against 433 the 2-3 rest defence yields very good results due to that formation only has one central player in the forward/AM strata. During testing it fared decently well also against 4231, 422, 3412 and 3421 (AM). For the 2-3 it is possible to instruct the DC's to stay wider (this was done during a match against 442). Lastly changing the DM role to Half-back gives a 3-2 rest defence where the IWB's constitutes the 2nd line. Summarized: The 3-2 is better to cover defensive space whilst the 2-3 is better for counter-pressing. In possession the 3-2 is better for recycling possession deeper, whilst the 2-3 is better for possession and chance creation. I have not tested/pondered about the opposition style of play such as wing play (if counter attack set up with wide players), passing length/directness. The 2-3 gives better results and chance creation compared to the 3-2 I have used in the tactic. Testing below:

The advantage of not using width/extreme width in possession is that the teams stays in a compact shape in all phases of the play. This leads to quicker transitions and effective counter pressing. the draw back is that it can be easy for the opposition to prevent your teams attacking play by staying compact. When not utilizing width, it is important to be able to play through the opponents being compact. This requires players with decent ability to move and find offensive positions as well as ball skills and passing. The youtube video below shows the tactic doing this: Mastering tight and contested space

My assumption is that the CF will drop deeper a little less and to a larger extent also leading the line and earlier threatening the space behind the defenders. The tactic does not use TI counter for transitions and using a CF can make up for this a little bit. Results with CF: Results with DLF: Results are better with the CF, I want to check why this is the cause. Here I use the data analytics from the match and not from the Data Hub. vs Montpellier playing 4231 (CF (left images) - DLF (right images)) I start with how the roles generally influences the tactic and other players/roles in the team. Comment: The stats are generally better with a CF, this can solely be due to randomness and how the match played out. To validate more data is needed (more matches). Comment: The right image and no. 20 was a substitute (normally the match are replayed due to the principle of all else being equal when testing/making asummptions based on data). Still the teams shape and the roles average positioning in posession is quite the same, except the team is positioned slightly lower with the DLF. This can be just randomness/how the match played, or because the DLF more frequent moves deeper and hinders team mates (central) positioning higher up the pitch. Comment: The CF are more involved in posession involved in more passing combinations. Also the passing is more skewed to the left with the DLF. Can be randomness with data from just one match. Then compare stats for the roles: Shots/goals Comment: Not much to say, finishing inside the penalty area. Too little data to make assumptions, even though the CF bagged two goals. Move onto qualitative analysis and watching the goals: Comment: The first goal scored are a through ball behind the defence. This the DLF even with roaming do to a lesser extent. The second goal is a cross from the rigth IW, due to the CF more eager to run behind, selldom happens when playing with a DLF. Both goals a result of the CF role's behaviour. Passing/crossing (delivered & received) Comment: The CF contributes more vertical in central areas, the DLF acting more lateral and drifting to the left (right footed). Also the DLF has more passes going backwards. Individual average positions/heat map Comment: Here we see the same pattern as above. Note that the DLF's behaviour by dropping deep and to the left can influence the whole teams passing and positioning. Will look for this in the next matches. vs Bordeaux playing 433 (CF (left images) - DLF (right images)) Comment. The difference in results can be due to randomness, as the two first Bordeaux goals where from corner/free kick situations when using a DLF. Comment: Nothing other than the no.9 is playing in a role he is comfortable in when playing as a DLF. As CF he is positioned deeper because he does not master the role. Yildirim (no.9) is according to ability just one star for the CF role (one reason why this role has not been used). This is an example of when not to draw final conclusions on tactics when players are not suited for a role in it. There might be false results. Comment: The CF involved in 33 passing combinations. The DLF involved in 46 passing combinations. The DLF drops slightly deeper and to the left for passing. Shooting Comment: Neither the CF or the DLF has a shot at goal. Comment: Nothing other than DLF dropping deeper and to the left. Comment: Nothing vs Le Havre playing 433 (CF (left images) - DLF (right images)) Comment: Difference in statistics due to randomness. Comment: With the DLF the team for the 2nd time positions themselves slightly deeper. Comment: CF involved in 47 passing combinations. The DLF 57 passing combinations. Differences in average passing positions for the front 5. With the CF the front 5 are on a line, with the DLF he is the furthest forward and the four others more withdrawn. The rest of the team slightly more withdrawn. Shots/goals Comment: Goal scored by CF could also have been scored in the DLF role. As seen in the rigth image with the DLF on attack duty, same assister with the rigth IW. Passes/crosses Comment: The CF deepest involvment is defensive set-pieces. Percentage wise the DLF drops slightly deeper, and more to the left. Comment: The biggest blue dots shows the pattern mentioned above. Some of the smaller dots are related to corners/throw ins. vs Rakow playing 4231 (CF (left images) - DLF (right images)) Comment: Randomness causes the difference in statistics. No clear patterns. Comment: No.8 substitute in the 83rd minute (left image). The team positioned slightly higher with the DLF role, Comment: The CF involved in 61 passing combinations. The DLF involved in 105 passing combinations (master's the role). Comment: Yildirim is a decent choice for DLF role as seen by his two goals well inside the box. Comment: The DLF heavily involved in central areas in all phases of the build-up/possession. Rakow played in a 4231 and this can have made the space available for him to exploit and shine. Comment: Nothing vs Clermont playing 3412 (CF (left images) - DLF (right images)) Comments: Clermont goals in both matches from corners. Differences in statistics due to randomness. Big difference in number of crosses and medium difference for OPPDA. Comments : Again the CM's slightly deeper positioned when playing with a DLF. This is logical as the DLF drops deeper and occupies the space the CM's can move into. This again can have an effect on the positioning for the players positoned deeper than the CM's. Comments: CF involved in 35 passing combinations. DLF involved in 48 passing combinations. Comment: The DLF has more shots. Comments: The DLF slightly biased to the left in passing involvment. Comment: Nothing, DLF biased to the left. Summary: The data from the matches where Kalimuendo has played in the CF/DLF roles, equally adept at playing both roles, the results are more emphasized. The DLF drops deeper and contributes in build-ups there. He is biased to moving to the left side of the pitch, this I do not know why is happening. The tactic is symmetrical and the players filling the role are right footed. The latter can be part of the cause why this is happening. There is a tendency when playing with a DLF that the CM's are positioned deeper and also the rest of the team are slightly deeper. This is because the DLF occupies space the CM's could move into. This has a chain reaction also affecting the Libero/DM. There is a tendency that the CF will stay more central than the DLF and also make more runs behind the opposition defenders. I want the CM's to be higher up in possession without making them Mezzala's, as well as earlier in possession threatening the space behind the opposition defence without using Countr as a TI. Changing the DLF to CF can increase the ratio of both and there is no consistent results that using a CF reduces possession. The DLF contributes more in the build-up in deeper areas and creates overloads in midfield. Still the teams compact shape as well as the 2nd line of the rest defence together with the CM's constitutes a a four man central midfield which shoud be sufficient for controlling the midfield. There is also the opportunity to use other rest defence set-ups where players are moved from the 1st line to the 2nd line of the rest defence in a 2-3 or 1-4 for the purpose of controlling the midfield. Notes: The tactical familiarity for the DLF role is fluid, as for the CF it is at the low levels during testing. This can further enhance performance with that role both for players filling it as well as the team when this is also fluid.

Tactical theory about rest defence: https://spielverlagerung.com/2021/07/05/tactical-theory-the-various-forms-of-rest-defence/ For different opponents and their formations and playing styles various set-ups for rest defence should be utilized. The link gives a good explanation of this. This post will concentrate on rest defences with 5, 4 and 3 players. The more players used in the rest defence the fewer players will be going forward to contribute in attacks/offensive play. The balance is dependant of the risk you willing to take and the opposition formation/players staying forward. A five man rest defence can be counter productive if the opposition is sitting back with just one player staying forward. Note: In FM24 players in the rest defence can frequent/infrequently venture forward and contribute in these situations, but it is better to structure the rest defence so players are positioned higher up the pitch, if there is no need for them to stay back. Rest defences can be divided and termed the 1st line and the 2nd line. The image shows this from a 3-2. Their primary tasks and benefits are: 1st line: cover defensive space - passing outlets. 2nd line: Better positioned to apply counter pressure/press early - passing outlets further up the pitch closer to the opposition goal, can also create chances. For FM players in the rest defence as far as I have tested is constituted by players from the defence and defensive midfield strata which doesn not venture forward/has attacking duties. The number in the rest defence should equal or be +1 to number of opposition players staying forward/posing attacking threats in counter attacks. Rest defences can include wide players but mostly concentrates on the central areas of the pitch. How the rest defence is set up should reflect the opposition. There can be 2 to 6 players in the rest defence, but 3 to 5 is the not extreme versions. Does anyone have any experiences on the below set-ups? and from which opposition formations/tactical styles/match scenarios are the experiences? Five man rest defence 3-2 2-3 1-4 Four man rest defence 3-1 2-2 1-3 Three man rest defence 1-2 2-1 Rest defence influences the positioning of the other players (attacking). Notice the width of IW's in the 2-3 rest defence compared to the 3-2. All TI's and PI's are the same except for players in the rest defence chaning roles.

That is good to hear, The advantage of using data analytics is that it is hard data/facts, a lot of information summarized and available at a glance. A lot of game time and watching matches required to get the same amount of information.

This tactic might be it. 3-2 rest defence shape. Tweaks made from the former 3-2 tactic for TI's are low crosses and stay on feet removed. PI's IW's has neither sit narrower or stay wider, this creates sufficient width, CM's moves into channels, and Libero and DM has not hold position. Removing hold position for those ensures that there is no gaps in positioning between the different stratas and they are close proximity passing outlets and presses early if the ball is lost. Average position in possession. Short distance between players and the team keeps the compact shape. In regard to using CWB's and IW's stay wider this shape will not be acchieved. Distance between average positions in and out of possession, no players has to run for longer distances = quick transitions and the teams shape are kept in all phases of play. Passing map The tactic has two versions, positive mentality for control and attacking mentality to dominate. el Rondo_Control.fmf el Rondo_Dominate.fmf Will update results forthcoming.. August/september 2023

Business Intelligence and improve operations from data is my thing, you got that right, for football the core activity where the value creation/production occurs is on the pitch. I agree and you have a point about distance run. By being compact/keeping possession there should be less distance run both for in and out of possession. I am not saying the ME/game is perfect, my preference for tactics creation are totally different than the current editor. The biggest difference being now you have to choose described roles and TI's, would be much better to position the players for different areas of the pitch for both attacking/defending, assigned passing length and multiple directions with priorities, allowed to run with ball/shoot/cross at different areas of the pitch. What is now instructions/roles could instead be descriptions based on how you set-up your tactics. Still, I enjoy the game, there are no other decent alternatives for people who likes football and wants manage a team. Started a thread in the tactics discussion forum, will test this tactic during the holidays. It should be decent/quite good for what I want to acchieve. Against Reims in Ligue 1 which are gegenpressing and quite a good team, the tactic performed (related to your comment about high pressing and being battered). For me the very fluid description with several support duties saves the possession based style in FM. You will se better pressing, players change positions both in defence and attack. Does the tactic work a 100 % as I want to, no it does not, but it is something I can use and enjoy. I wish you well for the holidays and hope you can enjoy FM as it is, there is no point in playing it if you dislike the game.

A lot of matches and testing whilst posting. One clear impression is that with very fluid tactics the higher mentalities works better, atleast for the tactics trying to acchieve in this thread. In too many matches goals were conceded and possession could also drop when changing to lower mentality. A lot of lessons learned by posting in this thread can be applied to the origin tactic. It har worked for me before starting this thread, but when applying attacking duties to the CWB's and pushing mentality to attacking I belive this is a very good tactic. Dependant on the oppostion and how they defend, attacks will find and utilize space in different ways. Through the centre or both flanks, key passes as either through balls from different depths, ball worked into box in passing combinations, passes or crosses from the flanks. It has been tested only from the 17th March 2024 in the save game after test of other tactic, possession is still high with major increase in XG and goals scored. OPPDA as low as 3.65. Team cohesion only at good and tactical familiarity not a full, still the tactic yields results. The first draw, a goal was conceded when switching mentality to positive. Typical passing map looks like: Finishing Key passes / chances created This is the tactic named after the thread. Tactic: el Rondo.fm These training schedules is slightly biased towards possession but should develope attributes broadly. 1st team schedules:Pre Season.fmfNo Match.fmf1_Friday.fmf1_Saturday.fmf1_Sunday.fmf2_Tuesday Saturday.fmf2_Tuesday Sunday.fmf2_Wednesday Saturday.fmf2_Wednesday Sunday.fmf2_Thursday Sunday.fmf Reserves/youth team schedules:yth_No Match.fmfyth_1_Friday.fmfyth_1_Saturday.fmfyth_1_Sunday.fmfyth_2_Tuesday Saturday.fmfyth_2_Tuesday Sunday.fmfyth_2_Wednesday Saturday.fmfyth_2_Wednesday Sunday.fmfyth_2_Thursday Sunday.fmf

This is a process which is not finished, the gut feeling for what is the best for now are these three tactics, based on the results and data analytics so far. Advantages is using the same roles, good for tactical familiarity, not tested yet though. I haven't written about set-pieces but they are focused on maintaining possession as well, and based upon Barcelona during Guardiola. For the AMR a winger cut inside, crossing from byline for all versions of the tactic can be equally good as the IW role. More passing risk is added for the central midfielder with an attacking duty on this side/flank (both for the attacking version). If using two IW's I would enable swap positions between these. If opting for replacing the right IW with a winger your team will get crosses from both sides. If opting for using wingers you will acchieve what the 2-1 rest defence acchieves in a 2-2 rest defence, which should increases strength in centre areas, one more player preventing counter attacks against. If you test the tactic both as for now or with a winger, please give feedback of thow it goes. Possibly for very fluid tactics three defensive duties in a 3-2 might be too defensive. A 2-2 rest defence allocating one attacking duty for balanced/positive versions and 2 attacking duties for attacking versions might be a better option. Set Pieces_tiki taka_(Pep_Barca).fmf TeamWorkRate_Attacking.fmf TeamWorkRate_Positive.fmf TeamWorkRate_Balanced.fmf

I have used the allowed amount of size to upload in the post updating mathces, therefore continuing here. MARCH 2024 Played against Lorient at home. Mid-table team that we should beat. They line up in 3421 (AML/AMR) and the 2-2 version were selected to get one extra man in midfield. Pretty dull match with two goals that ended 1-1. After the match the tactic and progress was reviewed with data analytics which can be seen below. Review/data analytics after Lorient match Less shooting and xG than average, we haven't had any penalties given in the league as I can remember. xG has increased from 0.77 in September and currently averaging at 1. The xG for the 16 matches played since then is averaging at 1.22. Still quite low compared to comparable teams acchieving xG around 2.0. Decent defence and conceding slightly more goals than expected. The low xG is worrying as we are probably overacchieving with the amont of points we have got. If/when this starts to regress we will most likely start to loose and draw more matches. Fewest crosses in the league but accurate crossing. Crossing set to mixed both as PI and TI with how to deliver them. Due to quite decent crossing and decision ability as well as ability to receive them for the 1st picks playing the league games, the completion stats are good. In the cups playing the 2nd picks crosses are often set to low as TI. This is due to worse ability to both deliver and receive crosses from those players. Often there has been high crosses with low players are unable to receive. We cross the least of all teams. Can increased crossing or facilitate for crossing be a way to improve the xG ? The amount and completion of passes are as they should be in an extreme possession tactic. Still only 13% of those are in the final third and 36% in the opposition half. In september the numbers were 13% and 35% so the number are almost the same. Except the DLF hardcoded to take more passing risks all other players are set to passing risk medium/mixed. Can increased passing risk for more players help to progress play into opponents own 3rd and increase the xG ? In amount of passes the numbers are quite good for final 3rd passes compared to other teams, it is the percentage of final 3rd passes of the passing total that we want to increase. Shooting is a result of passing and crossing enabling finishes. Our shot map for the last five matches indicates to many long shots. When this happens when all players are set to do this less there is something not working as it should in the tactic. We do it even though we should not do it, this is the last option players should choose. The tactic presses high, has a high DL and tackling is done by stay on feet. The tactic do not prevent short GK distribution from the opposition GK by pressing their defenders. Instead the press commences as a high block more where the team should be more unified. The 3-2 version which has more men staying back in central areas has the purpose of being solid in defence. Should stay on feet when tackling as a TI be removed as the team are quite strong in tackling? How to better the OPPDA ? Defensively the tactic is decent, but there is room for improvement. Changing the 3-2 to a 2-2 rest defence The best finishers in the squad are the DLF's and IW's. In the 3-2 set-up 2/3 are positioned wide. The best crossers are the fullbacks. Changing to a 2-2 with one CWB allows for one IW to move more central (sit narrower)l as well as facilitating for one fullback to move forward for wide delivery. The shape of the back three in the 3-2 rest defence is good for passing, this is replicated by switching positions for the Libero and CD and changing duty for the Libero to defend. The IFB's are changed to left CWB (attack) and rigth IWB (support). Left Mezzala changed to CM (support/roaming) to tie things up. Width is still maintained and comparison between the current 3-2 and the new 2-2 below: Passing map Tested the same match several times. The pattern is more finishing inside the box, increased crossing where the CWB (left) consistently gets forward and contributes in creating chances. Amount of crosses varies and can be inflated by short corners, especially from the right side. No.3 (CBW) stays back for corners (Delegated) his crosses are from open play. Changing the AMR to winger can further increase crossing if that is wanted. For Rennes the finishing of the wide attacking players are better than for the central midfielders, so opting for the IW role at AMR. Images below (the best test) are 1) CCC's and half chances 2) Crosses 3) crosses completed/chances created/key passes Transitions - comparing average positions for in and out of possession to see the distance between the averages. This is one of the reasons why the LCB are libero defend, to move slightly up the pitch to close gaps/cover space. The AMR due to staying wider needs a little more time to get back into a defensive shape. The DC drops deeper by himself in possession, for this player ability to position and making correct decisons are important. These transitions movements and the increased risk by more crossing and increasing passing risks, leads to crossing and passing risks staying at mixed/medium. Will play next matches with this tactic. League The attacking play is really picking up.. Average possession with the tactic for the last three matches: 58,7 %. Average xG: 1,34. Average xGA: 1,74. xGA is mainly corners and crosses against, also a few double chances against gave high numbers. Haven't been caught on the break or been outnumbered in the slightly risky 2-2 set-up. Strasbourg (RCSA) played 442 and the 2-2 managed that well. Europa League At home against Villareal. Started with positive mentality, when they equalized went attacking untill the 85th minute when switching to balanced. The 2nd leg was a big surprise, had to play two 1st picks in midfield because of injury, beautfiul football played. April 2024: League Results not awful, still possession are decreasing to much. Decent defenc, attacking wise not consistent enough. Avg. possession: 59,5 . Avg xG: 1,09 . Avg xGA: 0,60. Europa League Quarter Final May 2024: League The last two 2-2 draws conceded late goals on balanced mentality. The tactic fares better with positive or attacking mentality. Avg. possesion: 60,3. Avg xG: 1,39. Avg xGA: 1,0.

Any PI's for the LB or AML? In the 2-2 version with CBW he often formed a 4 in the attack, the doubling up on players on his flank often gave him space to move into. I briefly tested Cross from byline / Cut inside for the CWB and that was very promising. It is possible to add PI's as cross more, cross centre to further tailor the CWB's delivery from wide dependant on the opposition weaknesses/strengths and own teams weaknesses/strengths. A few such small tweaks can be effective and a way for improving chance creation.

Looks good, how often do you reap the rewards of your left flank by creating chances / assists ?

Nice, appreciate you sharing your tactical ideas