Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About VinceLombardi

  • Rank

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Green Bay Packers

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It's really hard to transpose the positions between the two sports. The specialized nature of players in NFL doesn't translate well. But as to the question: Off Guard and Off Tackle are plays, not positions. It describes where the running back is running and who the lead blocker is. Just call them Guards and Tackles. Beside that, I would say that the names are appropriate. I can see where you were going with each one and can't say that any is inaccurate.
  2. I still play off and on. I've got a new 9 month old and that's really cutting into my game time. I was on paternity leave when I developed this and had time to really devote to it. That has since dried up. I've had good success and done some stuff beyond what is in the playbook. But honestly, generally speaking, I'm finding that it works best when I don't over complicate things. I stick mainly to my base plays and opt into a few other plays situationally if I need to break a game open. My formations are typically decided by some combination of whatever my best 11 are for the game and what my opponent's formation is. From there it's just about dialing in my mentality. I find that's enough for 90% of my games. When I do turn to them, of my most successful plays are simple, and just create an overload in a specific area or target a specific opposing player. For example the way the Nickle Crash Down challenges the front of the box while the STC drive the DC back.
  3. Happy to keep working with you to resolve some new issues. You put time and effort into describing the problems you are having and I'm happy to continue to assist.
  4. Sure you can. It might have a small ding for tactical familiarity, but if you keep most of the stuff the same, its not a big deal. If you want specific advice, you will need to share more information as @Experienced Defender says, but if you just want some basic ideas and proof of concept, you can check out some of what I do here: Here I break down a team with tempo. And you can do it with a role or duty change to players as I explain here:
  5. I would put money on the fact that this is caused by the Mez(s) pulling the rest of the midfield in his direction. In my experience, the Mez has hardcoded movement and seems to also be a bit of a magnet in pulling the other midfielders toward his side of the field. This is great at creating overloads, but in this case not so much. I suspect this is further compounded by the "narrow" team instruction and the fact that his CM pair is a BBM. The BBM is one of the most support focused roles and is very fluid in his movement, making him easily influenced by the other players around him, think of it as hardcoded movement, but its dependent on the players around him. As for the DLP(D), I use this role all the time and rarely see him step up this much. He does get pulled by the Mez, and I would expect him to play shaded to the Mez side, but not that far forward. Does the DM player have a get further forward PPM? My suggestions for resolving this: 1) Switch narrower TI for Wide TI. This change isn't going to influence your other players nearly as much as the midfielders and it is causing a lot of the bunching you are seeing. If you feel like this makes your WBs play too wide, then give them PI to sit narrower to counteract this effect. This should get them into more or less their original spot but the midfielders will better use the field. 2) Switch either the BBM or Mez out for a AP(A) with Roam from Position and Stay Wider. This will do 2 things, a) it will make it so that the mentality of both the CMs is different and get them to move forward at different rates b) eliminate some of the hardcoded movement (either the pulling of the Mez or the ability to be easily pulled of the BBM). AP(A) might not seem like a natural fit, but the ball magnet aspects of play-makers is downplayed a lot from a few years ago, so its not a reason to avoid it anymore. Further the AP(A) is a special hardcoded role that, while attack duty, plays a much more support role and doesn't run forward into space like a CM(a) or similar, especially if you dont tick the Get Further Forward PI. 3) Use the Stays Wider PI on the BBM. I suspect you have already tried this, and given the BBM role I suspect that its not going to be super effective since he is still going to roam back towards the Mez with regularity. But if you haven't tried, it is worth the look. 4) Switch the BBM to another Mez(s). This will have them both playing hardcoded movements wide. However, this is likely to leave a gap between them, and while the roaming might mitigate this some, its not going to completely resolve it. If you go this route, I would consider staying with the narrow TI or not going all the way to Wide TI and sticking with a Standard width. Only question mark for me is the movement from the DLP forward. The rest should be 100% resolvable. I think 1&2 together should do the trick. Let me know if your DLP sorts itself out or it still gets too far forward. Your CM closes down the ballcarrier, but the others are not marking out the potential receivers of the pass. This comes down to Marking not Pressing. With the STC, that is going to be hard to resolve without a role change. He is marking a player, but he selects the CD, not the DM because of his attack duty. The other STC have also selected out the wide players to mark off. That DM is just an extra guy in the attack at this point because your own DM is properly falling back to screen the defense. The only guy that isn't doing his job is that CM on the left. Make sure he has a Mark Tighter PI in addition to Mark Tighter TI. His mistake can also be chalked up to poor workrate, decisions, or any number of things. Literally every other player is doing what you have told them to do. But unfortunately, when it comes to defense, you are only as good as your worst player. In this case the CM's mistake is negating the efforts of everybody else and is one of the weaknesses of a high press style. I'm not sure what you want those two strikers to do with their runs as they are already in an offsides position. But in terms of strikers dropping back, thats a ME issue. None of the STC roles have good movement back, some have more than others, but none are what I would call good. It all cases they are a little single minded in their attack the goal duties. If you want that kind of action you will need to drop them back into the AMC position. Either that or lean into the ME by using your STC as attackers similar to poachers and less like a DLF or F9. I find that for a STC trio, P(a), PF(s), P(a) works well, though clearly not as you envision. The STC aren't going to fall back well as discussed above, this is a ME issue. Comes deep to get ball PPM will help some, but its not going to be 100% what you want. Again, a move to the AMC position will help a lot. As for the midfielders not coming back, what you describe would have them level with the DMC. If thats what you want, then play 3 DMC and put the outside ones as Vlt(A) so that they start deeper and then attack forward. I think your bigger issue is the fact that your CD has 4 outlets for the ball and isn't passing to any of them. Both WBs and the BBM are all open for a pass to their feet. Also the space behind their DLine is ripe to be taken as the wide defender has fallen back too far and played all your STC into onside positions. All of this is likely down to the shorter passing length on your CD. He isn't looking at all his options and you are artificially limiting him. You need to get his passing length up again by giving him a PI to offset the shorter passing that play out of defense has. Further even if you got the STC to fall back like you want, that still isn't going to be close enough for that pass. The WBs are already open at that depth and the CD is ignoring them because he is instructed to play it short. This is another ME issue, but it can be mitigated significantly through a liberal application of "shoot less" applied to anybody you don't want taking those long shots. They will still take a shot if they get the ball in the box, but this will help eliminate a lot of those issues. As for the success rate, if you try a lot a few are bound to get lucky. Plus long shot attribute are far from the only attribute that that matters. Decisions, Composure, Technique all have large impacts. Maybe they are noticing opposing GKs playing out of position and are just taking advantage. Thats what the WB(a) role is all about. You can try a FB(a), WB(s), or FB(s) and they will all offer different options. For both the support duty roles, I would suggest you use the Gets Further Forward PI to keep them in an advanced position since you need them for width. I really like the WB(s) with gets further forward myself as I also find the WB(a) a bit one-dimensional. This is very similar to your issue in #2. Largely your players are doing what you are asking. But there is an extra attacker your not accounting for because your CF(a) striker is going to mark a CD and not the DM. If you look, everybody has a guy and are doing a fair job marking them, there just is one more than you have defenders. If you want your CF(a) to come back and play that DMC, you need to make him a PF(s) or similar, any attack duty STC is simply not going to fall back and defend like you are expecting. Likely. You are causing them to not play in their natural defensive duties via specific man marking instructions, which is likely in conflict with the various set piece instructions. And with the limitations on the set piece instructions, its likely not resolvable. Simply put, you can't expect the system to be able to accommodate every play-style. For example, I can picture a tactical system where the right FB loops around to play the halfspace on the left side to overwhelm the defense with numbers (like a super Inverted Wingback), but SI doesn't have a role that would let me translate that kind of movement into the game. I'm not seeing that instruction in your TI that you posted. I would double check that you have the distribution set up the way you want. Also, I see that you have distribute quickly and throw it long as the instructions in the post. Its likely the WBs are already outside of his throwing range that far up the field. I would get rid of that, so that he can kick it out if he needs. Also your quick distribution can be rushing him. Finally, I would check his Eccentricity and Decisions. Its possible he is just ignoring your instructions. Again, as with #4, there are a number of players that are open to either passes to their feet or space where they can drop a ball in. Again I think that the play out of defense is hurting you by limiting his options because it lowers passing length. I would see if increasing that back up to standard will resolve it. Also, it apprears in both those screenshots that the CD is getting pressed some by the opposing team. CDs rarely have great passing or decisions/composure attributes and the CD role (as opposed to the BPD role) instructs them to not play risky. Its very possible that he is erroneously evaluating his best, least risky option as a simple clear. Hard to know without seeing more. The player could have poor tackling skills, he might feel he is getting beat, he might have a issue with his hidden sporting attribute. No way to know. I will say a pressing system with tight man marking is far more likely to create fouls simply because the players are in constant proximity to one another. I play a similarish system (less specific man-marking, but much tighter marking across the board) and do not see what I would consider to be unnecessary fouls. There are a lot of them, sure, but that's because in such a system you are being physical with the other players. That inevitably will lead to more fouls unless you have exceptionally strong defenders that aren't ever out of position or in a risk of getting beat. I wouldn't put it up a ME or game design issue and instead look to see if that player is just a bad fit for the system. Especially considering its just the one player or players in that one position.
  6. It's going to be hard to get over that. Goal kick positioning seems to be hard coded. And the game treats FBs and WBs as the same position for them as they don't expect both to ever be present at the same time.
  7. Its come to the Triarii. Very cool idea. I really like it. Thats play out of the Defense hurting you there. In defense or attack? Or both?
  8. That's a nice goal. And the pass to Yarmolenko that made it possible isn't something you would see in most possession systems I see posted. Thanks for sharing.
  9. Yeah it's a lot to take in. Hopefully it mainly made sense. My limited soccer knowledge forces me to overexplain what I'm doing. I appreciate you taking the time to check it out and glad you found it interesting.
  10. Glad it made the cut. You want stupid fun, try the Singleback. 1-4-4-1. It's surprisingly decent in defense, despite only having 1 CB, provided the opposing team only has 1 striker. I'll be interested in your new tactic with the IWBs. You should drop me a mention again when you break it out. Always looking for ideas.
  11. You, me, and many others. I'm expecting there will be lots of neat little bits to glean and consider before it's all done.
  12. Nothing is a must. Playmakers, short passing, low tempo, any of it. They are just tools that can help (or hurt) your goal to control the ball based on how you use them. For a possession based tactic you are very likely to use most or maybe all of them. But you don't have to. It's not good to think in absolutes in this regard. And even if they were "a must" in the old versions, the new ME has shown itself to be a different beast. Gotta be willing to expand those expectations to accommodate it. I think that's a big part of what @herne79 is trying to do with the post and how he is presenting the system. He obviously has a working system. It could have all been in the first post. Instead he is trying to piecemeal it a little at a time to get people thinking about what he is doing, rather than just copying it and inadvertently creating the next age of "must have" rules to possession football that everybody follows. That's why I was so excited for this post for the community. Gotta get people to think outside of the box, so that they stop blindly clicking "Work ball into the box."
  13. I hope so bad that it's not the case for @herne79 's system. This is another of the ME myths that is just ripe for busting. An absolutely untrue statement that everybody takes as gospel. Same with needing to use an extremely low tempo. In both cases the lowest settings are so extreme that, based on other factors (like width, player mentality, etc.), they can significantly hurt your possession numbers by causing very unnecessary and preventable turnovers, especially when they are used in conjunction with one another. Not a ME issue I'm afraid. It's the same tactical issue that @herne79is dealing with and resolving with his discussions about how he uses Jack Wilshire.
  14. Perhaps even more pertinent, not identifying what it is that they actually need and want a specific player to do. And understanding how their system is suppose to work so that they can differentiate between the two. I'm my system, I WANT my wide midfielders to be great shooters or crossers. But what I NEED is guys that are good with the ball at their feet and use space well. If they don't have the skills to do what I need them to do, they will never get the chance to do what I want them to do.
  15. This. This. This. You can do a similar thing with the Get Further Forward PI. I use this constantly to bridge the gap between support and attack duty, and get a player that gets forward, but doesn't have the risk taking or single minded aggressive intent that you can get when you stack attacking duty players with higher team mentalities. It's a very underutilized tool and can help resolve a lot of the repetitive issues you see people try to attribute to the ME being broken.
  • Create New...