Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gongmin

  • Rank

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    FC Porto

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Borussia Dortmund
  1. FM19 question here. I generally play a 4-1 type of defense and just realized both my 2 CB and first team DM all have the PPM Marks Opponent Tightly. I'm a bit worried if this might cause problems since I like to use a high line coupled with press. They have around 13 acceleration and pace which is not too bad in my division, by the way. Any advice?
  2. Unfortunately I no longer can at the moment. I'll definitely keep one spare in case this happens again.
  3. I had a player asking me for a new contract, I offered one but had to walk away from talks since the he and the agent were asking too much. After the interaction I choose the option "I offered one, but it isn't my fault you didn't accept". One day has passed since then and the happiness description does not match his opinion of me. "Completely opposes the manager" is in direct contrast with the "Appreciates your position as manager". Unsure if this is a bug, but there's definitely a contradiction though. Maybe it should update after a week or so?
  4. As title says. An option to drag and drop players between different mentoring groups would be a big time saver. Currently, I need to use the add player drop-down box twice in order to switch one player from one group to another. Edit: just realized this might belong in the UI forum. Can a mod change this for me, please?
  5. I'm not sure if this has been reported, but I was trying to schedule a Match Review the following day after a Sunday game and the option is unavailable. As long as the match happens between Monday and Saturday, the option is available though. I've added the Calendar view and the issue itself as screenshots.
  6. So I was in a pre-season game against Southampton where their striker had a superb 17 Acceleration coupled with 17 Pace and PPM "likes to beat offside trap". My defenders don't have acceleration above 14. How should I tackle this problem? I can't ask them to man-mark the guy, they'll just lose sight of him. Indeed, the two goals he scored were from balls over the top, so it should be a good idea to drop the defensive line, but at the same time I don't think so, because he has all that acceleration. Suggestions?
  7. Thanks for the reply Barside, I appreciate it. I did mostly some situational changes, keeping the positions as they were. The most relevant was changing the BBM to AP(S). It has been doing fine though. Right now I'm experiment with different role combinations on the midfield. I have another question though. How can one distinguish, while looking through a match, if a given turnover in possession was caused by the role, positioning, bad decisions, bad anticipation or bad off the ball of a player? I did some screenshots from a play, it's somewhat recurrent, but not specific of a given player, it's just an example (available here, on imgur). My left fullback applies pressure to the opposing winger, he tries to pass to the striker but the pass is intercepted by my box-to-box midfielder. He plays the ball to my left inside forward who dribbles a litte and plays a pass to the middle of the field, to the right striker, a trequartista. Instead of receiving the pass, he starts to move forward, and the ball is intercepted by the opposition central defender. The player in question - Ari, has 15 anticipation, 15 decisions, but 12 off the ball. Can anyone give me some insight on this? Maybe if the trequartista was a false 9 instead, the play would be successful? Or maybe with a fluid shape? Maybe if the trequartista was on the AMC slot? PI instructions? Where should I look and why?
  8. Stupid question here. I'm using a 4-2-4 system, and sometimes my fullbacks have low scores after the match (I've seen 6.4, 6.2 and such). In one of these situations, I warned the player in question and told him that he played badly; the response was something like: "the midfield wasn't helping" -- I wasn't really expecting that. Now, I'm not looking for something thorough, just some suggestions. I'm trying to put up a system with some emphasis in attack without using any kind of TI, Standard/Flexible: G(D) FB(S) CD(D) CD(D) FB(S) CM(D) BBM(S) IF(A) CF(S) AF(A) W(A) I'm using fullbacks on support because I feel that if I change to a more attacking role, the defense suffers a lot. Which midfield partnerships work well with fullbacks on support? Should I change the midfield to the DM strata with perhaps more agressive roles? On the other hand, without a BBM, I might loose the connection with the attack. Any suggestions?
  9. I'm no tactical expert, far from it; I was thinking of something alongside this: Don't mind most of the roles, specially from midfield onwards. I guess the first step would be to try and get the defense and midfield working, so I added the PI 'get further forward' to the IWB and 'sit narrower' to the FB, in order to have the three man defense when with the ball. This might cause a narrower 4 man defense when off the ball, so it may leak goals (and it did). I tried this formation with standard mentality and fluid shape in a game of my current save with Panderborn. I expect that having a fluid shape to encourage the movement of the IWB. I don't have great players, and the tactic familiarity is not that great: But I think this might be enough to see if there is movement of the IWB to the midfield. I'm playing against a standard 4-4-2 and I've cleared all opposition and team instructions. I did a change on half time though, which was changing the DLP-D and AP-S to defensive midfielder (D) and attacking midfielder (S). During the game I've noticed that the IWB keeps staying on the wide side of the field instead of drifting inside in order to support the central midfielders in the same way that the IF does with the ball on the attack. I'll show the team's average positioning during the first and second half overlayed with the IWB heat map: (the first half) (the second half) Both central mids drifted in the second half, probably because the role change. I also did swap them at approximately the 60 minute mark. You can see the heat map for the IWB, clearly he is staying wide with the ball, instead of coming inside. I would also expect to see some horizontal change in the 4-man defense between with ball and without ball, which isn't significant. I'm not showing it in these pictures, but comparing with the FB, there are no visible differences (particularly in terms of the heat map), except for the number of passes. This might be caused by the presence of the DM at the center-left side of the field. It may be a reason for the wideness of the IWB. My guess is that using an IWB probably isn't a good idea, as it seems to me that the role isn't quite working. On the other hand, I have some players that can be adapted to that position and have the PPM 'Cuts inside from both wings'. I'll try using one there, although this PPM seems to be applied mostly to when the player has the ball; we'll see. Update I played a rematch with the adapted player at IWB that has the PPM 'cuts inside from both wings'. He is a right-footer, so being in the left would allow him to cut more efficiently. I did some changes to the formation, bringing the attacking midfielder to the midfield, placing it in the center. I also changed the role for the right FB, putting him as a limited defender. I expected that this would allow the back-3 to form more easily. Actually the diamond appears situationally, when the IWB has the ball and drifts inside, but most of the time he is quite far from the midfielders. One can see from the heat map that he occupies the half-space for almost the full length of the field. It seems like a box-to-box that tracks a lot more back to form a 4-man defense when off the ball. (The heatmap from the IWB; compare it with the previous one. The #15 is the CM-S average positioning)
  10. In my modest opinion, the formation you've presented lacks width (especially with the ball). Remember also that the formation that you choose is your off the ball formation. As far as I've understood, Cruyff said that when defending, you should have 4 at the back, one of the fullbacks only occupies the midfield when the team has the ball; I'd go for only one IWB in that case, and probably a CD on cover near the IWB. I wouldn't have an half-back on the DM strata, probably an Anchor man or a defensive midfielder. I'd try to keep the width on the same side of the IWB, by having a Winger maybe. At the front, wouldn't the IFs occupy the same space with the ball as the CF? Maybe switching one of them to support would be better.
  11. Interesting thread. I assume the final screenshot of the first post is the average positioning of the players? What about with and without ball? Can you show the difference in positioning of the wide midfielders by using the sit narrower PI?
  • Create New...