Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"


About Barbosa04

  • Rank

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing

Recent Profile Visitors

1,356 profile views
  1. Yeah, I had no choice but to adapt. Generally, 3man defenses are harder to break down, so increasing my body count inside the box and picking more stationery/less roaming striker would invite my wide players to play a more prominent role in attacking, thus increasing my chances. Likewise at the back libero/sweeper becomes a suspect when facing 2 out and out strikers, so that was also an easy decision. Goals wise my CF averages more than a goal a game(44 that season). SS 1 in 2 and the rest are shared among the other players. And it should be noted SS is my best assists provider. If you are impressed with goal numbers you should definitely check out my other tactic Suicide Squad - Breaking scoring records
  2. Me like it too Yeah, I forgot to include them. They are not that important in this case, as they won't affect the playstyle much. The most important PIs which are already mentioned are for WB and DW to man-mark AML(R) positions. And on opposition instructions page to tick "tight marking" to always. During important matches like in knock-out games, I may instruct to personally man-mark the wingers instead of marking the position as in this case I find them carry the instruction more diligently. Like... really... they will be glued to them. I also include the PI "shoot less often" to all players. It doesn't affect negatively the shooting stats, cause when a probable shooter is in a nice position to shoot, there is nothing stopping him from attempting to score. So in theory that PI may lessen the low-chance long shots. There is no way of definitely proving the difference that this PI brings, so it's just my preference. I also give all central mids "more risky passes" PI as I expect them making the most accurate passes as they are the most technical players in my side with the best combination of decision/vision/passing/technique. And I make them learn that as a personal trait. I find it doesn't affect their passing stats negatively. After the season is concluded my Volante and BBM still got one of the highest passing accuracy in a league with 90/88% passing accuracy. WB and DW to "aim far post". DW personally "go further forward" "cross more often", "cross from beeline". Both to learn "mark tightly" trait and also "play one-twos". And for GK "roll it out" "pass shorter", pass to a specific player - right-sided defender. That's about it.
  3. What's your reasoning for changing the shape from match to match? More precisely what difference are you expecting to see? I see you your formation as pretty balanced, you just need to play to your strength which is 3man attack. Shorter passing in this case only diminishes the high-risk passes to forwards when they are enjoying a numerical advantage. And there is no point in playing deeper unless you have terrible defenders. You can also instruct your strikers to man-mark opposition's FBs if you want them to help out with defending.
  4. There were some bold decisions from Roberto Martinez. Lukaku as a winger, De Bruyne as a central attacker? Experimenting against Brazil in a knockout game? That's some gamble that could go either way spectacularly. That display now should be as a reference that 3 striker systems are not unrealistic as a lot of fm players moan about. Did you see how many times Belgium's attacking trio was just walking without any pressing and letting the rest of the team do the defending?
  5. Do you reason "work ball into the box" as only long shot modifier? Personally, I find that instruction as restrictive and sometimes it can achieve the oppositive of what you trying for. If there are no runners into the box, your AP will end up shooting anyway from outside the box, because... he ran out of options. That instruction also lessens the number of crosses and you giving PI to wb to cross even less, thus increasing the burden of creating chances on central playmakers. It can work, but it also may struggle against deep defensive sides.
  6. Other tactics: Guardians - Creating defensive fortitude Suicide Squad - Breaking scoring records Magnificent four - Strikerless crying havoc After last year's tactical experiments, I thought I will continue to come up with some more weird but functional systems. The goal is simple - construct distinctive playstyles that work in fm framework. They may not resemble any real-life tactics or even be realistic but why restrict ourselves when stepping over the boundaries is more exciting? As the title suggests, the main attribute of the new system is being asymmetric. Some benefits of such systems could be the possibility to overload specific areas of the pitch to gain a numerical advantage at that point. The drawback could be the requirement to have too many specialist roles to fit into the system, so that team rotation could be a little bit trickier. Ok, now straight to the league results Chances created Having most chances created with most average possession stats - it clearly manages to shine in a league format, while champions league will be the next test. The system: I generally prefer 3 man defense format as it allows me to be more extreme in other areas without being too much exposed at the back. So instead of fullbacks - wingbacks and defensive wingers come into play while the system can still be balanced overall and be able to withstand opposition's counter-attacks. It also simplifies or even releaves me of readjustment to be done depending on opposition's attack layout and when chasing an equalizer they start to overload the central area. So I won't be dealing with numerical disadvantage during fast counter-attacks. But you could argue that when facing only one striker - 3man defense would too much and one defender is wasted. Well, maybe. And there is a solution for that. The defense: When facing 2 striker systems - 3man defense is the choice. Nothing fancy. Stopper could help out on the wing if midfielders are late to the party during counter-attacks and still there will be 2 defenders left in the middle. When facing 1 striker - libero or sweeper is the choice depending on player's capabilities, while stoppers will push higher to occupy DM's spot and giving me the opportunity to play high defensive line while being well assured at back with sweeper at guard. Libero(s) and Sweeper won't differ much in terms of positional play, it just that libero will be more inclined to make higher-risk passes. The midfield: No point in playing FB with 3man defense. WB(s) carries higher attacking threat while not being exposed against a winger with the right marking instructions. Defensive winger carries even more attacking threat than a regular WB, while an excellent teamwork will compensate for DW's occasional defensive blunders. Let' compare WBs and DWs stats for the season: Those are left wing-backs stats: When both were unavailable, a regular CD covered for them for several games. All in all the offensive contribution from them: 1 goal, 16 assists, 35 chances created. Now the DWs contributions: 12 goals, 18 assists, 56 chances created. Defensive wise - I didn't notice that right side was more prone or even more suspect during counter attacks. here the assist locations I faced: While it cannot be conclusive because the assists could come from inside the box but as a result of poor defending on one side, but it is still some numerical measure that states that DWs are not more defensive liability than WBs. As a DW is a specialist role and hardest to find, I generally look for a true winger who will be retrained into the role. Wingers generally have better attributes for acceleration/pace. Coupled with better mental attributes such as anticipation and decisions it can greatly compensate for low positioning/marking attributes. Making him to specifically mark opposition's winger position coupled with team instruction "mark tighter" it lessens its defensive vulnerability. With tight marking, DW will try cut out straight passes to a winger thus sometimes rendering the opposition's winger to useless. But being glued to a player it can invite through balls onto wingers path. And here DW quickness comes into play. It should be noted that having greater match cohesion increases/boosts player's positioning as seen in "dynamics page" which greatly helps DW to handle his defensive duty. I suspect this feature was always there in previous fm iterations, but now clearly demonstrated with dynamics page. This must the explanation for why teams with only players that came through the club youth system - while being inferior could still punch above its weight. So is the partial explanation as to why my previous extreme systems could function properly when on first sight it looked unbalanced. So longer players stay together - attributes are boosted and some weakness in a system could be somewhat compensated with greater teamwork. Now the central mids. New addition - Segundo volante will generally act just as BBM, the difference being its starting position is deeper. That's an excellent role as additional body going forward, while in defensive phase who reverts back into dm position. asymmetrical nature of positioning goes in line with our main goal. They carry an attacking threat, they defend together. Having a high pressing system won't make them chase the same player as it happens with regular two CM layouts. They also don't get into each other's way. And it makes ball progression from the back easier even when facing high pressing teams as there are always players around and close to a player with the ball. In this case, DW is not only an attacking threat as a crosser but as a central player who helps out with ball retention. The attack: When playing against a team with 2 central defenders, I find positioning main attackers in half-space increases their attacking threat which will happen with the first layout. At first, I went with F9 in the middle instead of AP, expecting it could pull out one of the CDs during fast transitions thus letting one of my attackers to attack the free space left behind. But F9 doesn't do that trick as advertised, so I went with more stationery AP in the middle. CF will position himself between the FB and CD and my SS will do the same trick on the other side, albeit starting a little deeper. So my playmaker will have 2 receivers who are on a different phase of attack each time. Having my attackers on the sides gives them better chance not to get into offsides too much as FB and CD don't coordinate their defensive line as good as CDs do between themselves, so my attackers will have it easier exploiting the space behind the FBs. When facing 3man defense - there is less advantage of the first layout so increasing attacking presence in the box is more desirable. DLF won't roam as much as SS so my DW will take more prominent role as crosser on the wing, while I will have 1 more attacker in the box to receive a perfect cross. When facing an opposition with two DMs and sometimes even 1 DM I will change the role of AP to a simple attacking midfielder or an enganche, because AP attracts the ball as playmaker and DMs will lessen the benefit of the playmaker in the hole in a crowded area. AP receives and passes on average 2 times more the ball compared to other roles in his positions, so when playing against 2 DM it's better to prioritize the wings. The whole system: Depending on oppositions some of its variant can morph into Team instructions: Nothing out of normal with team instructions except for the high pressing style. Having a libero/sweeper gives me increased confidence with executing such pressing and high line. Having players spread out relatively evenly helps with ball progression and retention so control mentality is executable and favorable. Tighter marking helps DW to carry his defensive duty. A little adjustment may be needed for Champions league games but that's in the next post. If you have questions, feel free to ask.
  7. @Cleon Thanks for such detailed response. I certainly see that my interpretation of CA style is too specific. And yet I take comfort from seeing that my team is using CA effectively both against attacking and defensive sides, and most goals are scored from distinctive CA move. I'll post a report on it maybe next month when I get the game. And I would be very pleased to know your opinion on it.
  8. Which one is true? Your first sentence implies AI driven CAs don't happen on control/attacking mentalities. Your second one implies it happens for every mentality but the threshold is lower for specific mentalities. I'm not being an ass. Just want to clarify the point as it's an important one and can be a game-changer when devising a CA tactic. Yeah, I agree totally. They can be distinctively different game styles. But would you agree that there are also similarities between the two? If CA football translates for you into having "numbers advantage" - that would require opposition over commit players forward and once you recycle the ball to take an advantage before they get back into their defensive shape, your only option is QUICK transitions (high tempo), urgency in delivering ball forward (DIRECT passing). I have read your "art of CA football" thread and honestly your formation with chosen roles doesn't look counter-attacking at all. I'm also not having a go at you. I learned a lot from your posts through the years, and I see you as experienced player with nuanced knowledge of the game. That's just my own attempt on understanding and devising CA tactic in fm. Ok, to the point - your formation comes with counter (cautious) mentality with only one player in oppositions half. Considering you didn't alter any TIs, there is no added urgency in play/ too few runners from deep, and no way of consistently creating "numbers advantage" with solitary man upfront. In this case only opposition who are willing to attack you may leave some openings for you, but more cautious/defensive side won't give you even a sniff at starting CA, thus CAs are incidental and overall tactic can't be portrayed as counter-attacking. I see that for you roles and PI comes first before mentality and TIs, or at least in this case of creating CA. So it can be a personal choice, but I still have my reservations on such approach. Yes you can have specialist roles who try to make CA happen. While PIs may alter creative freadom/forward runs it doesn't touch urgency of said actions. Your non-specialist players such as defenders are also would be more lethargic in tempo and passing because of lower overall mentality which doesn't bodes well with CA style as it relies on quick transitions. Yes you may somewhat refine each indivuduals PIs and alter TI, but then why pick lower mentality in the first place with lot's of alterations when same can be achieved with higher mentality with small refining. And there is some limit on how much attacking you can modify a player to be in lower mentalities. If this chart is still relevant, let's make a comparison for segundo volante which attack mindedness and penchant for making a run from deep areas makes him an excelent choice for CA tactic. While this is an old chart, there is no DM position on attack duty, so looking on support duty for DM player on counter mentality we get from 7 to 8 "individual mentality" depending on chosen shape. Not much considering the scale is from 1 to 20. While on attacking mentality the swing bumps up to 9-14. And I reiterate that for me the primary characteristic of CA style is quick transitions with urgency in play, and players with higher "individual mentalities" will more likely make the gameflow in such way that is more visually representative of Counter-Attacking football.
  9. I'm quite sure it's the opposite. The lower mentality - the less passing range/directness, reduced tempo and generally more cautious passing which are everything C-A isn't about. While lower mentalities brings somewhat deeper D-line which in theory would help to "lure" opposition to your own half, it's efficiency can be negligible depending on your starting formation and highly negated by aforementioned negatives of lower mentalities. I understand that you may somewhat refine the flow/starting point of C-A by giving specific individuals the weight of playmaking, but I think the starting mentality will have far greater influence on gameflow and rate of C-As. Specifically AI driven counter-attacks happens mostly depending how much opposition is invested in corners/free-kicks and late in game when chasing an equalizer, thus giving you an easy ride in creating counter-attacks.
  10. While there can be different approaches to counter-attacking style, I find any notion of "keep the ball" mentality even if in short passages during the play goes into direct contradiction of C-A style. When you are a dominant team in your league, lesser teams lines up deep with little pressing, which results in not leaving any openings for you to exploit in "counter-attacking" manner. Thus counter-attacks are incidental and so cannot be presented as a part of overall C-A style of play. In my idealistic view of C-A style is proactively giving an opposition most of the ball, inviting to come up to your own half, thus even when you face defensive sides, they will still leave space behind their CDs when they are parked in your half of the pitch with false sense of superiority. Of course there bound to be situations for example after a throw-in when there is no way to launch a lightning fast counter-attack for you but overall the style of play to be regarded as primarily C-A - the nature of most of the scored goals should come from counter-attacking move. At the moment my every second goal comes from pure C-A move which is the primary tool of distinctive pure C-A football.
  11. Both. Barring ultra-defensive tactics, every team will try to counter attack when given an opportunity. You can also "create" a tactic which would increase the rate of counter attacks. The tactic is quite straightforward, put men behind the ball, defend in numbers and try to lure opposition to commit players into your side of pitch, thus "creating" an opportunity to break forward before opposition gets back into it's defensive structure. The default "counter" mentality in the game is not representative of counter attacking football because the URGENCY of delivering the ball forward and making more opportunistic passes are reduced in that mentality. There are dominant teams such as Real Madrid that are good at playing counter attacking football. And there are lesser teams which play standofish football, letting the the opposition to have the most of the ball but hitting back at every opportunity. The latter is somewhat harder to achieve in fm, as in my experience the possession stats strongly correlates with win ratio (barring extreme "keep the ball at all costs" mentality), as teams who regularly cedes the ball possession is less likely to consistently win games. I played the demo of fm18 and as an experiment "created" a tactic with pure counter-attacking style of play. Half way through the season, my teams has by far the least "average possesion" stats in the league between 20 teams at 38%. Every team dominates me, and even at home minnow teams dictates play against me. Nonetheless we are magnificent at counter attacks. So my team sits comfortably at first place in the league. This must be my best fm experience, as such possession stats would always translate into defeats in my previous experiences. I will buy fm on sale, hopefully in june, play the whole season and post the detailed report on my experience.
  12. Will fm go on sale in near future? It went with 75% discount at the start of june last year. Something similar would be sweet to look forward to.
  13. @duca015 Fair enough, you have certainly raised my interest looking into ENG role. These roles with built-in “close down less” PI makes them defensive liability, but guess as a counter balancing measure they might excel exceptionally attacking wise like raum.s, which is worth finding out. Thank you.
  14. This logic doesn’t apply to fm17. Opposition doesn’t see your tactic and doesn’t adapt to it. Pre-match it counts teams reputation difference and current form and based on that fields its own version of defensive/attacking tactic. Changes during the game is also dictated not by accessing your tactic but by necessity to score or preserve the lead. You can see that as an experiment by starting the same game with vastly different formations. Opponent initial tactic with player roles will remain the same. Yes, with the rising number of asymmetrical enthusiasts, we the plain symmetrical tacticians start to look like weirdos.
  • Create New...