[4-4-1-1 A very flexible tactic and the long term development.]

@Djuicer So defensive would be the opposite, more inclined to hoof it out and turn over possession? Or would they just look for a more direct option, with the risk being the pass could be intercepted?

[4-4-1-1 A very flexible tactic and the long term development.]

@Djuicer Yeah I guess in terms of todays possession based system, he definitely didn't dominate like that and thats not want I want. I want possession with intent, was probably poor wording or lack of misunderstanding on my part, when i say dominate possession, I mean we have it, we pro-actively do something with it.

 

Yes Looking at that diagram, I think you're right. So positive/attacking means basically the defenders give it short to the mids or attacking duty players and let them build up play?

 

[4-4-1-1 A very flexible tactic and the long term development.]

@Djuicer yes I do i guess, its pretty hard work closing down all the time, as long as you have the ball your not pressing I suppose. I'm trying out the "defensive" strategy one today, the aim being to dominate possession, when we do have to defend we soak any pressure then either hit with a counter when we win it back or consolidate and regain control of the game.

 Almost akin to the way Fergie played in the early premier league years. "fine come hit us with attacking football, but when we get the ball were gonna make you pay" its inspired by an Instagram post I saw a few days back with Rooney, Ronaldo and JI-Sung Park breaking from there own 18 yard box, 4 passes later Ronaldo is putting it into the back of the net.

Just need to decide a couple roles and duties to complement each other, I may be back for some minor TI advice too, to try and achieve the desired goal.

[Swap Position/Personalised Instructions issue?]

@Boy_Wonda I believe the swap positions can only be used for wide players to swap wings? At least thats how I see it working as Messi/Suarez will be in pretty close proximity to each other anyway they will "kind of" swap roles fluidly within your system? much like to central midfielders wont just sit on their own side of the pitch. 

@ScoreMore (Mico) if you go into tactics, then onto the player tab, it brings up another screen, select one of the positions you want to swap, then the option is at the bottom of the player pane.

[4-4-1-1 A very flexible tactic and the long term development.]

This thread is excellent, it helped me fall back in love with FM20 again, so I'm not letting it drop  I tinkered with some tactics, created a couple of threads for help/advice, totally confused myself and got back to square one last night. Frustrated with not getting it right and falling back to the old I'll just use someone else's tactic. Well not on this thread!!! So slept on it and decided to strip my tactic back to bare bones and a simple, easy to set formation. I've copied and pasted my current situation from a Shadow striker Thread I created that @Experienced Defender was commenting ad assisting with (again!) you must have the patience of a saint .

 

If you like lock that one ad we can continue here as its turned more formation/system bases than shadow striker based.

 

Before you give me any tactics, lets see if my own theories are at least half right.

So you can play any style of football on any mentality, so lets, for the time being get rid of all TI's and PI's.

We're playing with a 4-1-4-1/4-4-2 (or variation i guess, but must have 2 banks of 4). With only 2 requirements, if playing a strict 2 upfront one must be a poacher, if playing an attacking mid he must be a SS. Needs must, For the sake of my system theories I had to get rid of this one

Defensive/Cautious.

Now if I play on a defensive/cautious, is it safe to say you could use more attacking duties in your system "safely" as the team will play more cautiously anyway? Your team will still play on the front foot, as the most of the players mentality will be at positive? You will just be a bit more solid?

                     TM(A)

                      SS(A)

W(A)  CM(A)    BWM(S)  W(A)

 FB(A)  CB(D)  CB(D)    FB(A)

So if we don't touch any TI's you're team should sit deep stopping attacks and staying solid, then when we get the ball back we purposefully move it forwards with intent, but without over committing and being vulnerable our selves on the counter? Most of the individual player mentalities are at Balanced, the 2 strikers are positive, the bwm(s) is cautious and the 2 CB are very defensive.

Attacking/Positive.

Conversely, if we take the same formation and apply it to a positive/attacking mentality, but swap attacking duties for support or defensive ones, the team should still play possession football, but without over committing, or going balls to the wall, at the risk of having no penetration whatsoever? (due to lack of forward runs/risk taking).

 

                     PF(D)

                    AM(S)

WM(D)  CM(D)  BWM(S)  W(D)

WB(D)  CD(D)  CD(D)  WB(D)

 

Now this version would basically just keep ball infront of my opposition with no real intent? The player mentality is still balanced (when set with an attacking mentality) over all, PF is cautious, AM(S) is postive, BWM(S) is positive, so we should still go forwards when its risk free? Interestingly the CBs  are now balanced, so how would they change they're behaviour from the very defensive ones? less negative passes back to the keeper? 

Conclusion

So both systems should play relatively straightforward football, totally different styles, but neither should be particularly vulnerable, or provide to much threat to the opposition? 

The first one, should play a more counter attacking style system with quick direct passes to the front players, whilst retaining decent shape and support, once TI's are added?

The second, should, aim to keep control of the game through possession and control of the middle third of the pitch? aims to patiently probe the defence before threading that killer pass, or one-two to unlock an opponents defence, again once TI's (and maybe a playmaker? are added).

 

I really hope I'm on the right lines with this thinking.

 

Conclusion take 2.

I purposefully didn't look at any tactical "shouts" from the tactics screen before I wrote this, to see how I fared, I've been back and looked now and......... I'm wrong. 

I understand the reason for the attacking mentality using a faster tempo to unsettle opponents and force an error or lapse in concentration, but... why would a defensive system play with shorter passing and lower tempo? I don't understand the reasoning behind it, just to keep the ball? but there inside there own half if they don't move the ball forwards they will get encamped there? Or is that the ME idea to just not concede on defensive settings?

[Shadow Striker]

@Experienced Defender If its not too much trouble could you give me some examples of how to set-up my 4-4-1-1?

OK so I have slept a little on this (I don't sleep much)  

Before you give me any tactics, lets see if my own theories are at least half right.

So you can play any style of football on any mentality, so lets, for the time being get rid of all TI's and PI's.

We're playing with a 4-1-4-1/4-4-2 (or variation i guess, but must have 2 banks of 4). With only 2 requirements, if playing a strict 2 upfront one must be a poacher, if playing an attacking mid he must be a SS. Needs must, For the sake of my system theories I had to get rid of this one

Defensive/Cautious.

Now if I play on a defensive/cautious, is it safe to say you could use more attacking duties in your system "safely" as the team will play more cautiously anyway? Your team will still play on the front foot, as the most of the players mentality will be at positive? You will just be a bit more solid?

                     TM(A)

                      SS(A)

W(A)  CM(A)    BWM(S)  W(A)

 FB(A)  CB(D)  CB(D)    FB(A)

So if we don't touch any TI's you're team should sit deep stopping attacks and staying solid, then when we get the ball back we purposefully move it forwards with intent, but without over committing and being vulnerable our selves on the counter? Most of the individual player mentalities are at Balanced, the 2 strikers are positive, the bwm(s) is cautious and the 2 CB are very defensive.

Attacking/Positive.

Conversely, if we take the same formation and apply it to a positive/attacking mentality, but swap attacking duties for support or defensive ones, the team should still play possession football, but without over committing, or going balls to the wall, at the risk of having no penetration whatsoever? (due to lack of forward runs/risk taking).

 

                     PF(D)

                    AM(S)

WM(D)  CM(D)  BWM(S)  W(D)

WB(D)  CD(D)  CD(D)  WB(D)

 

Now this version would basically just keep ball infront of my opposition with no real intent? The player mentality is still balanced (when set with an attacking mentality) over all, PF is cautious, AM(S) is postive, BWM(S) is positive, so we should still go forwards when its risk free? Interestingly the CBs  are now balanced, so how would they change they're behaviour from the very defensive ones? less negative passes back to the keeper? 

Conclusion

So both systems should play relatively straightforward football, totally different styles, but neither should be particularly vulnerable, or provide to much threat to the opposition? 

The first one, should play a more counter attacking style system with quick direct passes to the front players, whilst retaining decent shape and support, once TI's are added?

The second, should, aim to keep control of the game through possession and control of the middle third of the pitch? aims to patiently probe the defence before threading that killer pass, or one-two to unlock an opponents defence, again once TI's (and maybe a playmaker? are added).

 

I really hope I'm on the right lines with this thinking.

 

[Shadow Striker]

@Experienced Defender that was for 2 reasons, one was i looked at the counter pre-set and it was cautious, second I just thought with it making my team more defensively minded/less attacking. I'd be more solid.

To be honest, I'm a little lost again, i think i've tried to do too much too fast and i'm confusing myself. I actually  forgot there was a wing play pre-set too, which i have since checked and saw it on balanced

I like the football the 4-4-1-1 with a target man was playing, so if i can set-up and reasonably balanced one of those i'd be happy. The 4-1-4-1 was made to be more solid defensively thats all. 

My 4-4-1-1 is almost the wing play anyway, i changed the wm to another winger on support after a match as he wasn't really giving me anything going forward, or defensively.

thanks, already.

[Shadow Striker]

@Experienced Defender yet again, you're right. I get caught up with reading and seeing things and end up with a mish mash of a tactic, that does neither one thing or another. But......... I know how I want to play now and I'm not to far off it I don't think. I want to play football the way Man Utd did in the early premier league era. I'm still very early so still time to train etc before the season starts. If you dont mind can you cast your eye over the 2 tactics in the screenshots and let me know what you think to them? Ive played one game already and had alot of speculative shots, 29 in total. i presume wbib isn't appropriate for what I'm aiming for so how do I make my shots more meaningful?

 

The idea behind the second tactic is multiple players running at the opposition defence?

 

Thanks for all your help over the last couple of weeks, I have learnt some stuff, honestly  

[Shadow Striker]

@Experienced Defender no please feel free, to comment. As i said I'm trying to learn the art of tactic creation and not just stumble across ones that work. I must confess my original tactic didnt have any playmakers in it, I was trying to make a bastardised version of total football, do they were both carrilero's to sit wider as the outside pair of a diamond, the libero would be the base, though i imagined they would be like the seas parting. The SS tends to drop fairly deep so would be the top of said diamond.

But as I said, all constructive criticism is more than welcomed (be kind though)  

I should also say, I'm not dead set on this formation, My only true requisites are for a SS and/or poacher (starting to think you cant have both) to be in the side. Libero was added when I decided to try 5 at the back, and create a kind of 3-4-3 diamond-ish.

[Shadow Striker]

@TheGoodRebel No not yet, I started a new save for it, to be honest I am now leaning towards the second one. As you say in an ideal world my treq would be playingthrough balls for the ss and poacher, but he roams so isn't always going to be there. 

I guess I'd have to change some of the instructions for the TM tactic though, I just did a basic formation first.

[Shadow Striker]

Hi all,

 

I've been back on FM20 alot recently due to not being at work (and abroad), it's got me tinkering and playing around with tactics, to varying degrees of success.

I've decided a couple of things, I don't like the F9 role, don't have a specific reason other than I don't really see it contributing much (maybe I set the roles around it wrong, maybe the players, who knows).

Anyway I'm digressing, I DO really like the shadow striker role, it seems to drive and dribble at defences and makes inroads and every opportunity. So I'm trying to make a tactic t try and utilise one more, but here are some caveats......

1) If its possible I want to make it a 5-3-2/3-5-2 so I can use a libero to.

2) I want to try and include a poacher in there too, again just because I've not really used one in FM20, is this even doable with a SS.

 

My idea is to have a pretty standard back 3 or 5. with varaitions on my CWBs and Libero/mid roles depending on the opposition  and what my aim is in that match.

My idea is to have a front 3 of SS/Poacher/X. A couple of roles have crossed my mind, a treq (in either mid or fwd) to feed the poacher or SS with chances, A TM (s) again to provide balls for the 2 main scorers (though I would have to go into the market for one). Now obviously there going to be totally different ways of playing but are both relatively viable as in do you think they will play the way i'm envisioning it?

Finally and more recently I considered an Engache, both strikers know where he will be, my mid and libero can feed him, he in turn feeds my strikers?

Sysytems would be something like this:

 

Would these both work? Which would you all use? Or how would you change it?

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

@Djuicer yea exactly, thats where I get issues, is getting that fine balance between hitting teams on the break or sitting back (in a counter tactic) an attacking without over committing (in an attacking tactic). 

I kind of just stumble on set-ups that work, rather than be able to logically figure it out  

[The Player Roles & Duties Map]

@Zanman777 Firstly, thank you for doing this, it is excellent.

One question though, would the values not change depending on your teams mentality?

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

@Djuicer ok, makes sense, but then you're def duty wont really support any counters? This is one of my issues, getting the right support and balance in a tactic.

 

Ive been looking at this: 

Its been pretty helpful, for me at least. Not sure if the numbers would change for changing mentality , but still helps me get my initial set-up fairly well balanced.

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

excellent, thanks. So more defensive mean longer more direct passes from ANY duty with defend? regardless of where on the pitch it is? And vice versa, so a wingback (A) fir example would still default to shorter passing on more defensive mentalities?

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

10 minutes ago, Djuicer said:

I for starters never start with anything more  defensive than CAUTIOUS, and often I stay with balanced from the beggining.

I would do something like 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1. Four at the back probably atleast. Maybe something with 3 cbs and 2 wbs.

Balanced

Higher tempo. 

Maybe pass into space if we have pace (Leicester style).

Play for set pieces if we are tall and strong (Burnley).

Counter

lower  LOE (1 notch) and DLINE.  More urgent pressing.

 

I would probably have one regular winger and one striker with holds up the ball (PFs, DLFs/a, CFs/a).

There is where I would have started, and looked how it seems in the ME. What would you have started out with?

Well before reading here and another thread 

 

I would have probably gone for a cautious mentality (as you said defensive is too much, I recognised that at least)  

Then would have had play into space, slightly more or more direct passing, higher tempo then I would admittedly probably have set my def line and LOE too low.

But then I would have probably chosen the wrong roles, its a viscous circle (said in scottish accent, aka austin powers). I can create nice to watch football that ultimately, leaves me open to counters, i either demolish teams or i have no finger nails left, or i defend for my life for 90 mins  

 

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

@Djuicer just how changing the mentality changes the style of play so much, or how each mentality can represent a teams style of football differently but achieve the same game play style (if that makes sense) For example, how would you personally set-up a system that stayed solid at the back, not to worried about possession, but as soon as the opposition strayed into a dangerous area with the ball (I'll let you decide where that is) you hound them, win the ball back and hit them where they've left spaces, but not long ball?

For me I'd intuitively pick a more defensively minded system and this is where I think most peoples problems lie, after all im not looking to dominate possession, im looking to negate the opposition until hey make an error or start to get within dangerous shooting/through ball range, then hit them where they've left space, thats defensive for me?

But now, I'm slowly starting to realise that if your too defensive your players just wont want to commit, so now what do you do?

 

That in essence is my issue  

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

7 minutes ago, DiStru_ said:

First of all, thanks for a fantastic thread!

Very interesting to read your reasoning for your tactical and player choices.

This is also something I'd like to know more about. I found these tips especially interesting:

This is my personal understanding of individual mentalities, please feel free to expand on it or correct me if I'm wrong:

Possession systems:

- Individual mentalities close together (e.g. plenty of Support duties), which means players will be positioned close to each other and play with similar amount of risk taking. This enables good short passing options.

- Compact Line of Engagement and Defensive Line (e.g. Higher LoE+Much Higher D-Line), which not only makes press more effective, but also ensures your players start their attacking transitions positioned close to each other.

Direct systems:

- Individual mentalities more clearly defined (e.g. Very Attacking strikers, Positive/Balanced midfield, Defensive/Very Defensive defence), which means players will be positioned further apart. This enables faster attacking transitions.

- Looser Line of Engagement and Defensive Line (e.g. Higher LoE+Standard D-Line), which ensures your advanced players stay positioned higher up the pitch, ready to accept a direct pass once the possession is won.

Does this make sense?

This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out as well, I would say what you're saying makes complete sense, but when you add the team mentality to this is where I get confused.  

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

1 hour ago, Djuicer said:

Its not a carbon copy of any team. I would say Xavi was a DLP IRL but also Im not sure he was that static as the role can be in the game. Honestly for me, Xavi's role does not exist in FM.

If a player is not physical enough I change the role to AP, or versus really good team sometimes DLP (not often). But most of the time RPM is sufficient. As I explained in the second post (the one where you find the picture) I like that the RPM is very involved in all phases of play. I also like that he takes up positions in and around the half-space. I would say that RPM is one of the harder playmakers to mark out of a game due to the roam from position.

If you want to still be attacking on lower team mentalites you will have to balance that out with more support and attacking duties  

 

Rough roles and thoughts about this..

VA for team does not need any attacking duty

AT for team might need 1-2 at duties

POS for team might need 1-4 at duties

BAL 2-4

CAU 2-5

and so on..

Yeah this is what I thought, the more defensive your team mentality is, the more attack duties you need to actually move play forwards, I guess its kind of the same the more attacking mentality you go you dont need as many attacking mentalities as your team is already thinking "forwards first". hmmmm got me thinking hehe

[Tactics confusion loe and def line]

5 minutes ago, Thunderthump said:

It makes sense in a way to me.

In my most recent save and the one that my question comes from is that I play with a 41221 wide. I started the season with the idea I'd pick my team instructions that directly related to my players. I ended up with a deep defensive line (slow defenders, good headers) and a high line of engagement ( fast strikers and a natural pressing forward) and it's worked really well. Beat man city and bayern Munich in champions league group stages. 

It works neither as an attacking tactic nor defensive. So it can work and does work but I think you need the players for it.

For me the three tactic slots should all be the same mentality. But with different loe and def line as this will alter your rhe least 

Yeah hat makes sense also @Thunderthump, my idea was the opposite, same tactic, roughly same LOE/Def line as in it would naturally change as the mentality changed, but different emphasis on pressing and passing etc. Maybe yours makes a little more sense now I think about it. Could just change some roles or duties to be more attacking/more possession based etc.

 

[Tactics confusion loe and def line]

7 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

The opposition may have some difficulty in playing their way out.  However yo may be affording the oppo defenders and even deep lying playmakers time on the ball before closed down.  Occasionally someone will find enough time to pick a hopeful ball behind that high line for someone to chase.   The plan isn't necessarily wrong but equally is not flawless either.

Yeah exactly, its a little confusing, i've been trying (with limited success) to get a front 3 of F9, SS and poacher to work. so i wanted enough space behind there defence for the ss and poacher to exploit, there both really quick. I'm also using split block with my front 3 and my most attacking midfielder, however my team pressing urgency is only only set to the default for balanced/positive mentality and I've told my players to regroup (not sure about this shout) so maybe I need to increase team pressing and add counter to ensure when they hit the LOE they are aggressively pressed?

6 hours ago, Snorks said:

If you are trying to win the ball back higher up the pitch, that;s where your LoE should be set.  With an Attacking mentality, this puts your forward players on the front foot, pressing and harrying the oppo's defense into making mistakes.

A lower LoE and your front players will drop back a little deeper and allow the oppo to play out with less pressure. 

Your DL is the 'line' at which you don;t want to allow the opposition past. Do you want to defend the 18yd box, or defend your own half of the pitch?

 

So, if you want to draw the opposition out to open up space for you to attack into, set a lower LoE, if you want to pin them into their own half, a higher LoE and higher DL and press hard.

Remember as well, the space between your DL and LoE can impact the way you attack - the further apart they are set, the further apart your players can end up when you do win the ball. Which will tend to longer balls forward. For a shorter passing game, keeping the two lines closer together will keep the players a bit tighter vertically as well.

 

This is the idea, give my poacher and SS space to exploit. If I adopy a higher line and LOE would higher team pressing and counter-press be good shouts? Does counter-press activate as soon as the ball is lost? If so would regroup be better? The way I see regroup is my players work hard to get back behind the LOE before the pressing the opponent?

  My players have also become somewhat lazy, last few games they've been caught on the ball and we've been countered, now the teams didn't score but this annoys me.

[Tactics confusion loe and def line]

My confusion comes with setting up defline/loe and mentality. 

I know how I want to play, i have 3 tactics using the same formation with different roles. 1 attacking, 1 balanced and 1 cautious mentality. 

Now my attacking mentality is for playing at home or against vastly inferior teams, but heres where I struggle, I want to win the ball back relatively high up the pitch so my def line is higher (not much higher) whilst my, LOE is set to lower as I have 2 strikers that I want to run into the space left, does this make sense and will it work? my team pressing intensity is left at the default setting and my team is told to regroup rather than counter press as I want my strikers ready to hit the space left, is this right? Although my 4 most attacking players are told to close down more so when the opposition hit the LOE they get closed down asap.

 

I hope this makes sense and Im on the right lines.

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

12 minutes ago, Djuicer said:

My two cents is that its dependable on what you want to achive, but Im far from an expert on mentality. 

In my experience, more extreme mentalites tend to make your team be more "structured" as there is more clear roles. If you instead keep most mentalites around balanced with some outliers there will be much more fluid play with more players switching positions and share burdens. Its all really depending on what you want to achive.

 

As a general more than 4 attacking duties will make you more open to counters but thats no supprise I suppose.

 

Both can work to create possession or more direct football.

Totally agree @Djuicer I'm not an expert at all, I've been messing around with team mentality, cautious through to attacking. I found as you said, at either end your structure becomes structured. However, when on balanced I struggled to achieve much attacking intent, right enough the other team didn't create much either, currently i'm experimenting with an attacking mentality. I have a cautious one to try, i'm using the same formation for all 3 attacking, cautious and balanced just experimenting to see how they play. I'm trying to get an even-ish spread thoughout the player mentalities.

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

I'm really liking how people are using individual player mentalities in his thread, its something I noticed a little while ago and whilst I didn't pay too much attention I made sure my entire team wasn't to reserved or gung-ho.

Now onto my question........ Do you, the experts tend to have a set number of each mentality? As in how d you guys balance it?

I've been playing around with different roles, instructions etc and team mentalities, to work in different player mentalities. Im thinking without one or two at least attacking mentalities you wont have enough attacking intent? But what about cautious/def and very def?

Im thinking if you have many def/ very def duties your going to see alot of backwards passes and hesitant football, but do you actually need any at all? I mean I don't want my team full of very attacking mentalities but if your players are making good progress up the pitch then your v.def mentality player decides to play it back to our keeper your back at square 1???

My thought would be 1 or 2 very attacking duties to give you penetration then possibly upto 4 pos depending on how aggressive you want to be , the rest balanced to give a good mix of risk without leaving yourself open to a counter?

[Will my team be able to pass their way to world domination?]

7 hours ago, yonko said:

Well, changing from DM-D to HB-D is easy to decide. It's when the opponents play with 2 STs. Or if the play with high press and very attacking AMC. This change to HB can have a snowball effect as it may force me to change the AP to DLP if I see there is some disconnect. 

On the other hand, if I'm facing a formation with 3 CBs and WBs, then I want more attacking options, so I go for CM-A. 

If I'm facing equally strong/high profile team like Real M, City or Liverpool, then I want more possession control. Then I will use DLP-S and AP-S with either DM-D or HB-D combination. 

Thanks for that @yonko may i ask why its easy to decide the HB switch, is it because the HB drops deeper? Also do you change much if the team is sitting deeper against you? i just played Spurs away and though i won 3-1 my keeper played well and stopped a couple that could have gone in. The issue was I seemed to struggle to break down/through there defence (4-1-4-1 on cautious mentality) then one of my players would get robbed on the ball and we'd be countered. We had twice as many shots as them but they had equal number on target. So there shooting, to me was more meaningful.