Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 "You're a bum, Rock"

About gordo179

  • Rank

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sorry, maybe I didnt phrase my question correctly. What I mean is this: Rashidi often says that with a very fluid/fluid formation, u need to create space due to the compact nature of the shape. This means movement between the lines. Now when I look at your formation, I see two playmakers: one AP(a) and one DLP(s). The only person I see advancing from midfield strata to final third strata would be maybe just your AP(a). Your two IF(s) have instructions to "get further forward" and your SS can only have an attack duty, thus means will be looking to get further forward too and exploit the space in front of him. This puts incredible pressure on your AP(a) to be the movement between the line from midfield to final third. Is this analysis correct? Or have I missed something?
  2. Aww I got a bit excited coz I have been considering playing Chelsea this way and wanted to see how u were planning on doing it with 3 playmakers and justifications for doing so. I have Hazard as AP(s) in AML, and Oscar/Tielemans as AP(a) in MC alongside Hjojberg/Lewis Cook DLP(s) in MC.
  3. Yeah I noticed that too. I wanted to ask about that. 1) Very fluid =more generalist roles. Would having 3 playmakers work? 2) I always thought it's important to have a sitter and runner in midfield. U have two playmakers and 1 sitting back (busquet). Who are the runners that run onto the passes from your two playmakers? Just the two IFs?
  4. Hi there, I know this thread is from so long ago but did u manage to fix this? @wkdsoul @michaeltmurrayuk
  5. UPDATE: Finally got round to adding screen shots to make it easier for everyone to follow! Inspired by @Cleon and @Rashidi's guides and blog entries and more recently @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! series of fluid and very fluid tactical posts: 1) https://community.sigames.com/topic/352148-universality-in-football-manager-2015-very-fluid/ 2) https://community.sigames.com/topic/373859-arsene-wengers-invincibles/#comment-440604 3) https://community.sigames.com/topic/373361-arrigo-sacchis-4-4-2-very-fluid/ 4) https://community.sigames.com/topic/372887-johan-cruyffs-3-4-3-diamond-very-fluid/ and particularly this one: 5) https://community.sigames.com/topic/390163-playing-style-structure-a-modern-4-1-4-1-very-fluid/ (updated version of 1 above) I set out to convert my very structured/structured 4-1-2-3 Chelsea playing possession football based on Cleon's "Art of Possession Football" guide to a very fluid version of the same style of football. I've been trying to seriously take Cleon and Rashidi's advice in just watching the match and trying to figure out what's not working and what's working and how to create or attack space but haven't really come to any conclusions about where my tactic is working/not working. So after resisting for 2 weeks and watching half of my season's matches in full, I have come to these forums to seek enlightenment! I would like to show you how I set up initially based on Cleon's "Art of Possession". BEFORE: Shape: Structure/Very Structured Mentality: Control DLF(S)/F9 Costa/Embolo IF(A) AP (S) Hazard Willian AP(A)---BBM Tielemans---Lewis Cook DM(S/D) Matic/Mikel WB(S)--CD(D)x2--WB(A) Rahman--Terry/Zouma--Azpilicueta GK Courtois TIs: Lower tempo, Wider, Higher defensive line, Close down more, Tight Marking, Prevent Short GK distribution, Shorter passing, Play out of defence, Roam from position. NOW: Shape: Very Fluid Mentality: Standard FW: CF(S)/DLF(S)/F9 - Costa/Embolo/Luan AML: IF(S/A) - Hazard or Raum(A) - Pedro or W(S) - Malcom AMR: W(S) - Willian/Cuadrado or IF(A) - Kenedy MCL: AP(A) - Tielemans/Fabregas/Oscar MCR: BBM - Cook/Hojbjerg/Oscar DMC: DM(S/D) - Matic/Thiago Maia LB: WB(S/A) opposite duty of the AML - Rahman/Targett RB: WB(S/A) opposite duty of the AMR - Azpilicueta/Mayke DCx2: Ball playing defs x 2 TIs: Normal tempo, balanced with, slightly higher defensive line (lower to normal vs fast teams), Use Offside Trap, Max closing down, Tight Marking, Prevent Short GK distribution, Mixed passing, Play out of defence. PIs: FW: Move into channels, Close down much more. IFs: Sit Narrower, Close down much more. BBM: Get Further Forward WBs: Sit narrower, Run wide with ball based on Guido's defending vs crosses guide (https://strikerless.com/2015/12/23/dealing-with-crosses-in-the-fm16-me/) DCs: Close down less Comments and observations: - The style of football I am trying to play is total football/gegenpressing and possession football. - I was tempted to emulate @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!'s 4-1-4-1 but then I felt that Hazard suits the higher up AML positions as an Inside Fwd (and Kenedy on the AMR side) and to save me from having to retrain him into a wide left midfield position. - From watching matches, I felt that my final 3 attacking players were often isolated from the midfield duo of my AP and BBM hence why I have the 'Get Further Forward' PI on my BBM. - I've feel that when I play Cook/Hojbjerg as CMs instead of BBMs they tend to play better and get more on the ends of attacking moves and passes more. Why is this the case? But I've seen people play and post tactics on here with an AP-BBM-DLP/DM trio in the 433 midfield with success. I've read somewhere in one of Ozil's tactical guides that the BBM is just the same as CM but with roaming as a PI on. Is this a possible reason why? - Willian was my best player and played consistently better than Hazard as a right wide AP(S) in my structured control system before I made the switch. Hazard was often underperforming no matter whether I tried him as IF(A) or (S). - I got rid of Willian as an AP(S) in the new very fluid system as such fluid systems should have 0-1 specialist roles according to @wwfan (I know, I know... I have read the numerous debates on how the generalist/specialist debate is just a myth and @wwfan came up with it to help newer players understand the TC and how it works and he did disclaim that not every thing is hard and fast rule but it does make sense: more specialists in structured systems, more generalists roles in fluid systems as the efficacy of specialist roles in more fluid systems are lessened). I have switched him to a Winger on Support duty now but I feel that it makes no sense since my striker is a deep playing one (see below) and won't be in the box to receive his crosses. Am I wrong to play Willian as a Winger then? Inside Fwd doesnt suit him because he is right footed. - I'm not sure what to put my roles and duties for my midfield trio and final third attacking trio anymore as they no longer perform as consistently or in the way I would expect them to compared to my structured system. Could it be that my players dont have the right mentality to play a "Very Fluid" system and I should take it down a notch to "Fluid"? The reason I am adamant about it being able to work is because my team is the highest ranked team in the Premier League for "Decisions" and thus should be able to play intelligent and possession football. - My FW is usually a supporting striker role. F9 works beautifully with Luan but neither Costa or Embolo have performed consistently either with DLF or CF(S). I tend to play them as DLF(S) when AMR and AML are both Inside Fwds and as a CF(S) when at least one AMR or AML is playing as a winger. - As my FW is usually a supporting/creative striker role, I thought it would make sense to exploit the space he creates when dragging out the opposition's defenders with him by setting Hazard on IF with an attacking duty. However, I find that he is often not doing much to contribute to the match and hardly getting any touches in. - I am holding most of possession with many shots taken but less than half on target usually and I concede at least a goal a game on average due to being hit on the counter with my high defensive line and playing the offside trap. During half time of course, I select to work into box if I see that I have low shots on target and long shots making a fair share of my total shots. That's all I can think of right now in terms of comments and observations. Please let me know what other information you require in order to help you suggest where I could improve or tinker with and see if it makes a positive difference. Thank you! @Cleon, @Rashidi and @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! I am particularly looking forward to your responses!
  6. Haha, thanks @LPQR. I'm certainly not expecting to understand the game after reading about it for 10 minutes. I've been playing this game since FM 07 or 08 but lazily i.e. picking an already strong team and just playing safe, possession football and getting away with it all these years because I've picked strong teams with technically and attributively strong players. On top of that, I read a lot of other players tactics and just plug n play/mimic their tactics without thinking too much for myself. But alas, I've finally decided to make more effort this year coz I got bored of just winning without thinking. I've actually read quite a fair few material on tactics, mentality and shape: Bust the Net: Football Manager Tactics (by Rashidi): http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/420475-Bust-the-Net-Football-Manager-Tactics Pairs and Combinations (by LLama3): http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/375632-Pairs-amp-Combinations-FM2015-UPDATED All the "The Art of..." Series by Cleon. Various articles here and there both from Cleon's and Rashidi's personal blogs too. I initially thought I understood team shape and mentality quite well when I was using a structured possession based tactic based on Cleon's art of possession article but then found that I was only winning games marginally 1-0 or even drawing a lot of the time. I decided that maybe it was time to deploy a more creative and unpredictable tactic and I thought what better way to do that then to start adopting a fluid shape into my tactic and that's when it all fell apart. Player roles and duties I've been led to believe arent as effective in more fluid shapes since fluid shapes are more about a general team strategy as opposed to individual functions. That generalist roles are more apt for more fluid team shapes. This has had me at a lost on what roles and duty to set on my players now since they no longer mean as much as they did when I had a structured team shape and specialist roles actually meant they did what the game describes them to do.
  7. The implications from wwfan's thread: ... in which I gathered the following info: - do you prefer alter Mentality mainly by Roles? Go for Very Rigid - do you prefer alter Mentality mainly by a mix of Roles and Duties? Go for Rigid - do you prefer alter Mentality by Duties? Go for Balanced - do you prefer alter Mentality by a mix of Strategy and Duties? Go for Fluid - do you prefer alter Mentality by Strategy? Go for Very Fluid
  8. Thank you @LPQR! @Rashidi "For higher shape settings = more compact team = less space to exploit. What (mentality/roles?) can I change to create space to be exploited? " My question is: How can I create space to be exploited when roles and individual duties dont matter that much in a Very Fluid team shape since the only setting I can really play with is Team Instructions to affect the team strategy mostly as roles/duties dont matter that much anymore?
  9. - Looking at Pep and Klopp. I'm interested to understand and learn how it's done differently i.e. 433/4221 vs 4231 - FM16 1) Ok, I think I kind of understand the difference... so train of thought would go as follows: For lower shape settings = less compact team = more space to exploit. What roles can I change to exploit those spaces? For higher shape settings = more compact team = less space to exploit. What (mentality/roles?) can I change to create space to be exploited? 2) Yep, I understand the difference b/w IF(A) and (S) in that the PIs are locked but I was just confused/unsure about how much is changed from the overall team mentality imposed on them. Maybe I didnt explain myself clearly. For eg. What is the difference between: - an IF(A) on a team with Very Fluid on control or even balanced team mentality VS - an IF(S) on a team with Very Fluid on Attacking team mentality? Do they end up playing the same way because the personal mentalities and team mentalities cancel each other out?
  10. Thank you for your prompt response. You can see his tactic on the strikerless url I pasted in my original post but I will paste the links to the image URLs for his tactics for your easier reference: Attached is his tactic that I applied to the team I'm currently managing. He plays with a strikerless formation. Anyway, that's not the route I'm going. I'm going with a 4-3-3/4-1-2-2-1 fyi. I just wanted to show you the role he uses on the players. 1) How do I translate his gegen-pressing teamprint onto my Chelsea for a 4-1-2-2-1? I used to play with 4-2-3-1 in FM15 but I felt that a 4-1-2-2-1 offers more stability and better for a possession based tactic. 2) I've read somewhere before that in a more rigid/structured system, we should use more specialist roles and for a more fluid system, to use more generalist roles as specialist roles dont do much in a fluid system. What I don't understand is how a system say for eg like Very Fluid will affect the mentality of my two IFs. Just to give you an example to make it easier to answer my question: - What's the difference between an IF (s) and IF (a) in Very Fluid system on a "Team Attacking mentality"? - What's the difference between an IF (s) and IF (a) in Very Fluid system on " Team Control mentality"? I thought that the fluid nature of the system meant that the personal mentality of the player didn't matter that much because the fluid nature of the system dictates that team mentality will overwrite player mentality. I'm basically unsure of when to set Hazard as IF (s) or IF (a) and the same goes for Willian, Kenedy, etc.
  11. Huge fan and avid reader of both you and Cleon's work. Learnt a lot about the team shape and mentality from both your blogs and comments. However, from time to time I come across another tactic with different rationalities and decision-making process. One of these is the gegen-pressing/counter-pressing tactic as developed by "Strikerless" which u can find here: https://strikerless.com/2015/11/19/counter-pressing-in-fm16/ In that same vein, a viable universal football tactic has been put forward by Ozil to the Arsenal: 1) I thought a gegen-pressing team needs to be compact for eg. Barcelona are compact such that supporting and options are nearby to be passed to... Why does Strikerless have his width options the widest possible? Is this because a "Very Fluid" team shape means a compact shape already and the "Widest" width is to ensure that there is space for players to work and pass around with? Some readers asked him this question and he replied that the Width setting he sets applies for when he is attacking and not when he is defending. I'm not sure this is correct. 2) Why is tempo set at Higher when I commonly read that possession football (gegen-pressing is a form of possession football done effectively by Klopp at Dortmund and Guardiola at Barca and Bayern Munich) = patient, slow passing game? Therefore, shouldn't the tempo be lower? 3) Strikerless advocates that for gegen-pressing to work, shape should be top heavy so that u have enough bodies to press the opposition back line in the opposition's half. I can see how this applies at Dortmund as they play a 4-2-3-1 but then how did Barca and Bayern do it when Guardiola prefers to play a 4-1-2-2-1/4-3-3/4-5-1 which is more or less a balanced formation, normally with a defensive midfield triangle? I look forward to hearing from you @Rashidi and @Cleon Thank you!
  • Create New...