Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About charisma_charisma

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. When I go with a lower risk mentality, I often find deeper players eventually ending really high up the pitch. The slower tempo that comes with lower end mentality gives them time to advance up the pitch, if the roles / duties are set up so they allow for the build up play to last long enough (i.e. there are no aggressive roles and too much attacking duties). I'm currently playing with a Sacchi inspired 442 (there's a great thread by Herne and Jumbo from 2015, you should read it if you're interested in Ancelotti-Rijkaard partnership). he DLP(d) for the Ancelotti role and BBM(s) for Rijkaard work best with my players. If I'm against a better team, I use a CM(d) for Ancelotti role - this makes him more aggressive in defence without limiting his passing range too much when in possession (as the BWM(d) role would). The RPM(s) never worked for me; him attracting the ball makes my play focused too much around him.
  2. First of all, I have to say I really appreciate your efforts on this forum, @Experienced Defender. Plying the older version of the game (FM16), I'm interested on your thoughts on team shape for Simeone's ATM? Do you see them using more structured or more fluid shape? Many people see them playing very structured, however, to get the defensive compactness, you should use many support duties. The issue is that support duties + lower end mentalities make the team play possession game... Do you see using more fluid shapes + some attack duties + be more disciplined should make the team play more like ATM? Is the difference between fluid and flexible significant enough when it comes to making players push up immediately when starting the defence --> attack transition? I've read here that the main "tool" for making your players to run forward and attack is the mentality. I really don't see ATM using anything more than standard, if not counter. Do you see any way to play the system you mentioned above on counter mentality? Maybe Counter/ slightly more direct passing, much higher tempo, exploit flanks? The reason for using exploit flanks is to make fullbacks more willing to get up the field to provide some width since MR & ML are both going to cut inside and the mentality sets the width to narrow by default. It would also give the IW(a) even more attacking mentality so he'd get further forward despite using counter mentality. I'd have all 4 midfield players with PI to get stuck in - this would make them more aggressive without losing shape (so no need to use the closing down instruction). Could you explain tighter marking TI - this would make every player stick to opposition player as soon as he gets in their zone? Would a player then stick tight to the opposition player no matter he goes? Would this lead to losing shape in defence? Could you explain overlapping on the left - this would lower IW(a)'s mentality? What are your thoughts on the following midfield configuration: WM(su) DLPde CM(su) IW(a) WM(su) would cut inside (PI). I think CM(su) is a safer player in defence since he'll not be roaming around as the BBM. The BBM drops deep in defence which might not be necessary here since the DLP(de) will drop deep to build attacks from defence and the overall mentality (counter) is low enough to make the CM available in build up. Also, a BBM in this configuration would take away some space from the IW. My main concern with this counter mentality tactic is I sometimes just can't get goals - very true to ATL IRL That being the case, I made a 424 tactic for "chasing the goal" scenario: Df(de) DLF(a) AP(su) IF(su) DLP(de) CM(su) Wb(su) CD(de) CD(de) WB(su) SK(su) -mentality: Attacking -shape: flexible -PIs/TIs: none This usually gets me a goal, but I have a hard time against teams on defensive mentality even with this tactic. Could you critique and offer advice on both tactics - how to make them get more goals? Thank you very much.
  3. Have you tried using a Tq instead of AF? The Tq should drop deep, while he also moves a lot as does an AF so you won't lose that. Also, the Tq plays more through balls. With the DLF doin the same, you can have a dynamic duo of forwards trying to play each other (and the AM) into space.
  4. I've been playing possession based systems for quite some time and now I want to change that. I'd like to try playing direct, counterattacking style, countering with pace at every opportunity. I've set my team (Leeds, FM 2016) like this: CF(su) T(a) WM(a) DLP(de) BBM(su) Wm(su) WB(de) BPD(de) CD(de) FB(de) GK(de) I've tried two versions of this tactic, with the Team Shape and PIs always being the same: Team Shape: Flexible PIs: WM(a) – Sit Narrower + Cut Inside With The Ball WB(de) - Sit Narrower + Cut Inside With The Ball A) Version 1: Mentality: Control/Positive TIs: Play Out Of Defence, Play Narrower, Whip Crosses, Hit Early Crosses Mentality: Control/Positive - I don't want to be passive and wait for AI triggered counterattacks, I want to be proactive and attack at every opportunity. Also, a higher mentality will see more players commiting forward when we win the ball. Team Shape: Flexible – Going Fluid would also see more players commiting forward, but it would make the team more compact and players closer to each other. I've been watching games and I've seen going Fluid makes us play slower, shorter passes. Structured, on the other hand would see less players commiting forward which is bad since I only have two players in the opponent's half with one of them being the (quite often deep dropping) Tq. TIs: Play Out Of Defence – This way I try to keep some possesion at the back, especially since I don't play with a DM. I assume this increases chances for the ball to end up with my BPD(de) so he can release it into space for the WM(a). TIs: Play Narrower – Control makes us a fairly wide, this gets us a bit narrower. This way I want to make the WM(a) sit even narrower so he fills the gap in front of the DLP (MCL) and is closer to the goal. TIs: Hit Early Crosses – This is to make my right sided players to cross into space as soon as they can. B) Version 2: Mentality: Standard - I use this against better opposition. Team Shape: Flexible – Same reasons as with A). TIs: Play Out Of Defence – Same reasons as with A). TIs: Play Narrower – Same reasons as with A). TIs: Hit Early Crosses – Same reasons as with A). TIs: Higher Tempo – This gives us the tempo as it if on Control/Positive. TIs: More Direct Passes – Since Standard is neutral mentality, I assume I can add to make us a bit more direct. Formation change – I might change Tq(a) to SS(a) and the BBM(su) to CM(su) to have a more forward thinking withdrawn striker to get onto direct passes. The problem is the tactic(s) sometimes perform great, sometimes not. Sometimes I get great passing and movement combinations from the BBM(su) + WM(su) + Tq(a) and fantastic runs from the WM(a). However, sometimes it just doesn't work, the team can't complete passes, dribbles are unsuccessfull, etc. Do you see an obvious tactical issues here? What tactical changes would you make to achieve the goal of direct, counterattacking style? Am I excluded from playing this style against certain opposition (e.g. opposition playing deep in their half)? Thanks!
  5. As Herne stated in the original thread - it's about inspiration, not about sticking to every single role as it is in real world. That way, it would be very hard or even impossible to create a well-performing system that way. I think a DLF(s) is a good approximation of the CF(s) - you add a "move into channels" PI and it's there. Uncle Sam, I've read your threads from 2010 or so, great work and in-depth knowledge. I'll follow this one as well.
  6. I'm interested whether you considered a 532 formation? A 532 formation would make sense for using the regista. Maybe a midfield of Mezzala (a) + Carillero (su) with a regista behind them? Both of these roles would go wide when in possession (correct me if I'm wrong as I actually still play FM16), Carillero would cover thje space behind an attacking WB on his side (makes sense to use Carillero in a single wide pivot system) while on the flank where the forward-minded Mezzala operates, there'd be a support duty wingback. The 3 ATB would surely be able to hold the ball and deliver it to the Regista. I'd look to lower the D-line + play out of defense + use lower end mentality + structured shape (or just some of these) to make sure you play a slower build up play, making sure there's space between the defence and the regista for him to collect the ball from the defence. He'd than have a few runners in front ofd him - an attacking WB on one side + an attacking Mezzala on the other side + 2 strikers further up the field (the benefit of structured shape).
  7. Yes, it will encourage them to do so, I believe that might be a bad thing. What I wanted to say is maybe a more structured shape would be better suited for this formation as it would help to create space between players positioned in different strata... The combination of multistrata formation with the advanced midfielder dropping deep and the defensive midfielder stepping up with fluid team shape might get your players on top of each other, with no vertical space between them. I know it did for me, so I was interested to see your reasons here.
  8. Could you explain why you opted for fluid team shape? You have an AMC dropping deep and a DM also with support duty (granted, he'll be 'holding position') in a formation with at least one player in each stratum.
  9. Yes, I'm pretty certain that (former) creativity = (today's) vision. In SFRASER's thread creativity was referred to as the ability to see available options, so yeah. The question is whether flair is an attribute that affects risk taking today as significantly as it - according to the thread - did in 2010? This is the "official" definition of flair (https://community.sigames.com/manual/football-manager-2018/players-r167/): A natural talent for the creative and occasional unpredictability. A player with a lot of Flair will be one of the key attacking components in any team but at the same time may need tactical restraint to get the best out of him. Flair and Vision work well together. So it talks about unpredictability and a possible need for tactical restraint - what I can read from that is that a player with high flair will deviate from tactical instruction more (even if you don't play n fluid + "be more expressive" TI + use him in a playmaker role). One could argue unpredictability = risk, but it's not always the case...
  10. I've read this thread, is it still: flair = risk taking? Or is it now: flair = creativity, and (former) creativity = (today's) vision? If flair still affects risk taking, that would be great, you could moderate risk on a player basis, not only on team basis (mentality + team shape).
  11. http://www.squawka.com/news/football-manager-2016-player-roles-explained-the-roaming-playmaker/566433#E52eaTu1v1jRleC5.97 There's an article on RPM, it's Cleon's stuff so it's 100% factual. There's an AVFC 4141 thread from another experienced FM player. There's a lot of interesting issues discussed here, with a special focus on getting the CM(a) further up the field. That may interest you since it explains the importance of (fluid) team shape (however, it's second to mentality in this regard). Personally, when using a lone striker formations such as this, when you only have 1 player in opposition area, I'd go for a RPM instead of AP bcs AP will try "more risky passes" too often. The RPM does not have this PI hard coded and he's more of a runner. This means he'll take his time to run with the ball up the field. Him doing this will provide time for the rest of your team to go up the field too to support your striker and catch up with the play. The AP will most likely just make a through pass to the striker too early while the rest of the team will be unable to catch up with the play.
  12. This is the tactic: Yes, the formation allows for a good build up, we manage to get the ball to strikers almost always. The reason is opposition mainly uses 442 so we have a spare man in one of the CBs, than there is the DM(su) who is completely unmarked, the RPM that drops deeper, roaming in space and attracting the ball and finally the F9 - a role that drops deeper than any other striker roles... I might test your WM(a) configuration when chasing a goal. I avoid attacking duties since I want to play possession style football while at the same time I'm using a high risk mentality. Also, it might be too risky to use that in my setup regularly since as I said, I play a single pivot system regarding the flanks. I assume having an IWB behind WM(a) helps defensively.
  13. I'm also trying to emulate RL Guardiola, his possession style, however, I've had more success with the 3-1-4-2 formation MCFC had used at the beginning of the season than with the 41221. I use a WM(s) on the left flank and a DW(su) on the right flank. The WM(su) role is great for ensuring position, however, since my player has "gets into opposition area" PPM, he'll attack the goal quite often, too. The DW(su) is there to put in some early low crosses (like Sane) and to be more aggressive defensively since I play a single pivot system regarding the flanks. Having all players on support (except one of the central midfielders - KDB) allows me to use control mentality and to play a possession based system. A relatively high risk mentality paired with 2 forwards, an onrushing midfielder and a winger attacking the goal ensures you're a genuine goal threat
  14. Are you suggesting swapping CM(a) and CM(s), so when the AP(s) drifts inside, CM(s) will still be behind so AP(s) will have space to run into and find the ongoing CM(a) who could then go forward or more likely pass it to IF(a) who should be further up the field than the CM(a) since he's positioned in AM slot?
  • Create New...