lied90

Feel free to use your preferred method and post the results.

None of the crosses I get directly from the half space counts as crosses in post match analytics, so maybe it doesn't matter, but who knows.

My point being that your suggestions don't even adress the problem, it's like you didn't even read what I wrote. The mez already has lots of space and gets the ball when in the half space on a consistent basis. This is not the problem. I will when I feel like I've tried every reasonable option.

I highly doubt changing to a poacher instead of AF or TF will suddenly make KdB start to cross from the half space. I can tell a IW to cross less, I can't tell a winger to cross less, so I don't think that will make him use KdB more for the underlap, which was never a problem to begin with. No idea what you mean about two roles moving into same goal scoring opportunities + the poacher, thats exactly what I do want! I want players into that space because it gives KdB options in the box. Having less players in that area would be detrimental.

I assumed the threadstarter meant crosses/diagonal passes spesifically from this area (at least that is what I checked for):

I don't think we are doing much wrong. I also tracked how often my IW (Silva) passed backwards (underlap) to KdB, and it's very frequent with both low, standard, and high tempo. So KdB gets the ball in the right positions, he just makes a different choice than crossing it. It's a bit deja vu from when I couldn't seem to get Tony Pulis type deep crosses to happen. Everything is set up for it to happen, but the players don't make the choice we want them to make.

I'd say higher than that. Crosses from half space on average are watered out by teams like Burnley (it's from 2017-18) who do lots of deep crosses. Teams who have more possession in the opponents half should have a higher % of crosses from half spaces, especially if that is a specific part of the game plan.

this was all I found by simply googling it

Added these instructions. Played 10 competitive matches and crosses/diagonal passes from KdB in half spaces amounted to 3, one of them might have been too wide to count as from the half space but beggars can't be choosers. All crosses towards the IF and not Haaland, even with TF role. I don't think players actually know that they have a TF. Haaland would have to be moved to the left off center if KdB would ever find him.

I've tried to reproduce it with Man City and using KdB as the mezz in 12 competitive matches. After having looked at all passes and crosses made by KdB, watched all passes made by him in the half space, and excluded free kicks, I have observed two crosses from the half space in a total of 12 matches.

It doesn't take more than 10 min tbh. You just go to post match analytics, press on passes/crosses done by said players and post it together with the tactic screen. No need for a detailed breakdown or video, just info needed to reproduce it and examples of it happening. For the record I've tried every advice he's got in this thread and can't reproduce any crosses from half space from the CM (mezz) position.

The clip you showed is pretty much the only type of situation I see this happen. Winger runs wide and underlaps to a narrow FB who crosses it. Would be nice if those who say that mezz is perfect for this would post their method and examples of it happening.

Out of curiosity I went back to FM12. Managed Stoke and viewed a fuil match. FB instructions: The choices made by the FBs was almost identical to FM24. It's just pass after pass after pass to the winger or side ways passes to the CB. They never cross/play diagonals unless they cross the halfway line. Leads me to believe that FBs simply don't have the option to play long diagonals from their own half, and they never have in FM?

Using something other than gegenpress tactics for this wouldn't make any sense. Gegenpress requires the team to press (fast), and in general move fast, so it's suited for fast players. No point in having fast players who stand off and mark their zones instead of pressing, or dwell on the ball and play tiki taka instead of running with it. The initial post also wasn't meant to be absolute proof of anything other than how easy the game can be. My experience is that it's very easy to win the league in nations like Poland, Sweden, Norway etc, even with a team predicted to finish low. The reason is that the skill difference between teams is rarely that big, unlike the PL that has teams like Luton facing Man City. This is also why I tested in the PL, because the contrast between the overall skill level of my players and the other teams is so big. Remember that the players I used have 105-115 CA. Feel free to try using a gegenpress tactic in the PL with slow players that have 105-115 CA, that would be more comparable and interesting than what you did imo.

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.