lied90

I don't remember asking but ok.

It might not be what you are looking for, but I like using Salah type players in formations with three strikers as one or both of the two "wide" strikers in a support role. I really like their movement with roles like CF, as they can drop deep, run into space, roam wider, and move into channels as it suits them. Their ratings are usually much higher on average than when I use them out wide.

It's a very good and well written post. It's also a far cry from the 442 tactic Leicester used in their winning season.

I don't think FM is easier than before. I do think information about how to win is much more easily available now than before.

Hello again I did another one season test with the same premise as the opening post, I also changed the title to be less clickbaity by removing the part about mental/technical not being important. Removed all the players from Nottingham Forest. Replaced them with fast players with around 110-115 CA (lowest being 95, highest 116). There are ofc faster players, but I want to do it with low CA players because most teams can buy them easily and cheap. Slotted them in a gegenpress tactic and went on holiday. I returned a few times to remove unhappiness spreading because of players never being rotated. I also returned mid season to swap Jones from AML to ST, and Thomas-Asante the other way, just to see how Jones would do there. He did much worse than Asante. We had the lowest average in almost all attributes except pace. Highest performer was this guy playing AM, with 7.26 average rating. 15 goals and 10 assists across 42 matches. Some notable matches:

I'm guessing it didn't work out?

Makes sense that it works better at a low level. What was the expected points table like?

Roles have been more or less the same the whole way, but I changed duties sometimes. In S2 I had Terem Moffi, so changed PF(s) to PF(a). I never used the same tactic for a whole season, so not sure how much good it would do to post it. The team I had in S2 was generally really good. Route one requires physical players, and the ME really likes physical players. So I think the results are more because of the players you need for route one more than the tactic. The same players can easily play a meta gegenpress and do much better. According the the xG table we should be sixth, but finished third.

Throw-ins are 100% the biggest problem. It's so obvious when playing against real people that have a throw-in routine. Throw-ins in real football are usually very static, and thus against an established defense, and the closest players to the throw-in taker is usually marked, making it hard to twist and turn. When I get a highlight starting with a throw-in in FM, I know it's gonna be a good chance or goal. In online you can almost predict the winner based on whoever gets the most throw-ins high up the pitch. Thankfully the AI doesn't abuse this as much.

442 with double DM. I think I posted an early version of the tactic here: I always use loads of player instructions.

You can get European football with very direct passing. S1 S2 TIs We vastly over-performed our xG, but it still shows that it's possible in a season that you get a bit lucky, and you need some luck when a large part of your game plan is to be very direct.

If by "out of the box" you mean Preset tactics, then yes they are horrible and serve little to no purpose. This says more about the preset tactics than it does about Route One as a style in FM imo. You can play Route One with moderate success, it just doesn't compare to what you can achieve with gegenpress. Route one football is first and foremost a in possession tactic, meaning that it dictates what you do when you have the ball. Playing with high lines and high press wouldn't be as "pure", but it's still route one as long as you hoof it.

What a great foundation for route one

A player with 18 jumping reach and a simple front post corner still gets a lot of goals from direct headers, just not 30+ like in FM23. About penalties, are you sure there are too many, or do you just FEEL that there are too many? Because giving away even one penalty feels as too many

If you want to test it properly you have to give the tactic to all Team A-E. Then you test it vs all the AI formations. With 100 games there is a ton of RNG, I only tested once.

This tactic looks absolutely bonkers, almost like it's something from a randomly created tactics generator. Out of curiosity I tried it out with one of the teams in a tactic testing league, all squads with the same players etc. It did much better than expected.

Lower their training intensity.

This. I concede almost no goals from AI set pieces (human set pieces are a different story). Main problem is how weird throw ins and corners play out. Throw ins high up for me turn into highlights all the time and it always looks the same: - Set fancy dribble man to take throw in - Fancy dribble man gets a pass back after the throw - Proceeds to cut inside or give a high quality cross, resulting in a goal or high xG chance. Corners: - Aim for front post - Have 3-4 players outside the box - You either score from a direct header, or the AIs defense can't deal with the ensuing chaos and I score from a long shot just outside the box. I'd like to add that I only have 1 player back on defense, and I've NEVER conceded a goal from this. Playing vs Human corners (short corners) - Fancy dribble man A takes corner and passes to Fancy dribble man B - Fancy dribble man B takes passes it on the someone outside the box (who I have no option to man mark, and "edge of area" trackers won't mark him), resulting in a high quality chance. - Or, Fancy dribble man A gets the ball back and creates a chance from that. I think all this happens for two reasons: - Defense have a hard time readjusting after the initial set piece - Fancy dribble men getting the ball when high up and wide after set pieces creates dangerous 1vs1 situations easily

That's a shame.

I'm using the post match analytical data to evaluate how my team pass the ball, largely to see how using a TF and much more direct passing works in the engine. I've seen some passes from GK direct to my TF not being counted as a pass. Maybe it counts as a clearance, even if the "clearance" seem very intentional towards my TF? Example: Hedl receives a backwards pass from FB and launches it when Haaland approaches The ball almost lands on the head of Lucca Lucca flicks it to Moffi who scores. Another example in the same match: Backwards pass from CB to Hedl Ball goes straight to Lucca who wins the header This is from the analytics data post match with long successful passes by Heidl and headers won by Lucca. Two of the three headers in the black circle were the examples given. I also ticked unsuccessful long passes by Heidl just to check, but they didn't link with Luccas headers either. When using analytics data, it's like the ball just dropped from the clear blue sky onto Luccas head. In addition, the header from Lucca to Moffi didn't count as an assist, or key header, but it did count as a key pass (wtf?) I watch some matches on full highlights to evaluate, but it's too time consuming when trying to understand how something works over over a larger sample of matches. This all seems very inaccurate to me, has anyone else noticed things like this when using analytics data post match?

This is why I retrain box2box midfielders to CBs. Onana at CB takes the ball from defense, runs the entire length of the pitch and puts in crosses and trough balls

I think in terms of results, route one works just fine. At a top level, the style has been mostly used by teams who just want to survive or get mid table. In a very good season they might just qualify for europa, like Burnley under Dyche by finishing 7th(?) and Stoke under Pulis who got to europe by being runner up in the FA cup. This also works in FM, Bournemouth S1: The big problem for me is how the style plays out during build up. I can't get anyone except the GK to consistently launch long balls for the TF to flick on or chest down. This is such an integral part of route one tactics, as we are supposed to just bypass the midfield and get it forward asap. It makes me feel like I'm not actually playing route one.

Also, here is from the following match, 2-0 win vs Spurs. These are all the long passes my TF received (successfully). All except one from the GK, the one outlier is a pass into space from the fullback.

In my experience, the only player who launches passes from my defense to our TF and use him as an outlet, is the GK when instructed to. These are the forward passes my CBs. High tempo, very direct, both BPD, both with tries long range passes trait. This is my GK in comparison. I replayed the match and changed roles to NCB. The passing was dramatically more direct but I watched every single long pass and every single pass from CB to striker was into space between the opposing CB and FB. Either that or to a winger that wandered more centrally. Again, GK for comparison. This works much much better, even if he gets confused which striker to pass to sometimes.

Can you see from the analytics page that they send diagonal long passes from below the midfield line?