Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ryandormer

  1. Dear All, I have experienced two issues recently when I tried to give a player a brand new position (both occurred when training a new position from scratch--from 'zero' rating). I had Guendouzi who was natural in CM and DM. I tried to retrain him as a CB. Everything was fine. However, the moment he got to 'accomplished' at CB, he immediately dropped to 'competent' at DM (retained natural CM position). He did not even hit 'accomplished' at DM. I have since trained him back as a DM, so there isn't a new screenshot. Exactly the same thing happened with Foden. He was natural at CM, AM and RW. I started training him (from zero) as a ST (false nine role). Again, everything was fine, but the exact moment he hit 'accomplished' at ST, he dropped from 'natural' to 'competent' at CM. Screenshot below: Is this supposed to happen? I assumed that it took so long to become 'natural' because that then became a position the player would never lose, as opposed to 'accomplished' which I know can drop if the player is retrained. If this is supposed to happen, is there any way of telling which position which be lost? With Guendouzi, he lost his DM competence, but retained CM. I ended up with a player who could play CB and CM, but not DM, which doesn't make much sense! Thanks, in advance.
  2. Thanks, I think I might do. I always assumed that it took so long to become a 'natural' because, at that point, the player would never lose his ability to play there. I've had players take far longer to go from accomplished to natural than they did to get from nothing to accomplished. I was surprised to see Guendouzi fall from natural to competent almost overnight!
  3. Has anybody has experience of one of their players losing a position that they became a 'natural' in? I re-trained Guendouzi as a DM to the point that he became a natural. I assume that this meant that he would never lose his ability to play this role. After a while, he was getting so little game time at DM or CM, I tried to retrain him as a CB (in the hope that he could be a bail-playing CB, bringing the ball out of defence). To be fair, at the start of the game, he has no rating for CB, so in order to train him here he would have to go from a game rating of 0 to 20 (natural). He has now hit 'accomplished', and he has immediately dropped straight from 'natural' at DM' to 'competent'--missing out 'accomplished completely! Has anybody had experience of this? Is there any way to prevent a player from losing one of his 'natural' positions? Screenshot below:
  4. Thanks for the reply. That looks like a really good idea. Do you alternate each week (one week attack, one week defence?). Also, what happens to your schedule when you have matches? The presets have one match and two match versions. How does the AI choose which of your sessions to remove when you have a match or two during the week?
  5. No, I've got coaches covering all aspects of training, I'm pretty sure it's down to the schedule not focusing on the defensive unit and the goalkeeping unit. I'm wondering which of those drills in the 'possession' schedule could be swapped out, or whether it would be a better idea to have maybe one week of the month dedicated to defence/goalkeeper training.
  6. I've been thinking that for a couple of years. I think it would be great to have a 'wide forward' with very few instructions, and let the qualities of the player, and his traits, define what he does. It seems like every role in that position is 'specialist'; it would be good to have a more generic one.
  7. I tend to play a possession style of football, so for my training I set every single week (aside from pre-season) to the standard 'Possession' training schedule, and it seems to work very nicely: Tactical familiarity is very good, and my players attributes are improving as I would like them to. Being a possession schedule, the main focus is, as you might expect, the attacking unit, which has led to a few of my defenders complaining that their unit isn't getting enough attention. Additionally, goalkeepers complain that they aren't getting enough attention. Does anybody have any suggestions for what drills I could replace with a defending/goalkeeping one? As a side note, unless I am mistaken, there isn't actually a single pre-set schedule that has any goalkeeping drills! Does everyone have goalkeepers complain about this?
  8. Also, is there any logic behind what side the BPD should be on (if I have one at all)? I have De Ligt and Mere as my main two, both of whom can definitely play it, so I'm wondering whether the right (De Ligt) or left (Mere) would be a better choice. Cheers.
  9. Thanks, that looks pretty good--ive found that an attacking inside forward leaves so many gaps defensively, but hopefully the dlp will help cover space. What is the rationale behind using 'higher' rather than 'much higher' lines? Not saying I disagree! I'm just curious why you would go that way. Thanks again, appreciate the help.
  10. Thanks for the reply-- what would you suggest for a more adventurous approach, ideally with a false nine?
  11. I have had some success with the following tactic (with a few tweaks over the seasons, but it has remained more or less the same): I am hoping to change the striker into a false nine. I like the idea of the striker coming deeper to assist with the build up/possession of the ball. I haven't managed to make it work with my tactic just yet. Does anyone have any experience of effectively using a false nine? What roles and/or team instructions help the false nine to have more impact on the game? Thanks.
  12. I have never created a custom schedule, as the pre-set ones look pretty good already. However, I am now trying to create a schedule based on the 'possession' pre-set but with slightly more defence training (as the defensive unit keeps complaining). Question: Do I need to create a 0/1/2 match version of the schedule (as all the pre-sets have 0/1/2 versions), or will the game automatically alter the schedule to accommodate matches? If the latter, how does the game decide which parts of training should be eliminated? Thank you.
  13. Good point--I might have a few games with a mezalla, a few with the CM(a) and see which operates better. It does--I usually start on balanced to see how the game is going for 20 minutes. 90% of the time, I am bossing the game, even if I haven't scored, and I move the mentality up to positive. If the game seems a little closer, I leave it on balanced for a while, maybe until half time and re-assess. I'm hoping to vary the attack play with a good combination of roles in the middle. For example, an inside forward in front of a DLP will operate differently to an inside forward who is being overlapped by a mezalla. That's the theory, anyway! I think it's a possibility! In my head, it could work like this (albeit this is a little too simplistic): Two wide options who could then deliver a cross, or pass it back, and three options more centrally for a through ball into the box. What do you think?
  14. Thanks for the responses. Doesn't a mezalla act as a midfield runner, given his 'get further forward', 'roam', etc. insructions (albeit running a little wider)?
  15. Thank you--the theory is that my three most attacking players (the striker and the wide forwards) will be closer to goal (inside) more often than out wide on the wings, and support/width can be provided by the wing backs and midfielders. They are both on support because I like the unpredictability of the movement. When they are both on support, there is a nice balance between the inside forward running forward and waiting for the wing back to get forward. I always used to use a WB(a)/IF(s) and WB(s)/IF(a) on each flank respectively, and set the team shape to 'very fluid', but in this year's game putting both players on support creates that fluid movement instead. What I want to avoid is the attack becoming too one dimensional, which is why I'm thinking a varied midfield will help. Thanks again.
  16. I might try that, I always used to have at least one of the forward players on attack, but I've really enjoyed the experiment of having them all on support, they seem to interchange a lot more, which is superb when it works. But it's certainly worth a try--I might use it as a backup tactic for a little while, if I need a plan B or if I'm already winning comfortable, and see what success I have. Cheers for the help. I'm trying this in a game at the moment, and it seems to be working pretty nicely now. I've had to change the passing to 'much shorter' to ensure that the team uses the midfield options. The 'unspecialised' roles seem to have led to more all-round cohesion in the team. Admittedly, I'm against a team I should be beating anyway, but I'm liking how the team is playing. The average positions look great, and there is always a player available for a pass. (this is only half time) My top three passers are, more or less, who I'd want/expect them to be--my left back on the same side as my deeper central midfielder, and then my two deeper midfielders. I'd like some key passes coming from midfield, but Tierney is an absolute monster on this save, so I'm hardly surprised they've come from him instead.
  17. I gave that a go for a short while (or something very similar), and it looked like it would be lethal on the counter, but didn't work so well when the opponent defended ultra deep. All of the players in front of the DLP either passed or ran forward, straight into the proverbial bus, giving limited time for other players (full backs or wing backs) to properly get involved.
  18. I've tried that, and this would be my ideal way to play in theory. All of my first choice central midfielders are outstanding, with great passing and movement (Torriera, Rabiot and Gedson). I would rather play a system without a playmaker, and allow all players to be involved in the build up, but I can never get it right. Even when I drop the passing to shorter, or drop the tempo to lower, the team won't stop playing the ball forward fairly quickly, eradicating any patient build up. I find that I need a playmaker to encourage players to opt for the patient, sideways/occasional backwards pass. Have you managed to get a playmaker-less midfield working?
  19. Cheers--how do you find the RPM? I have never managed to get it working particularly well. I might just be using the wrong players, or the wrong roles next to it, but he never seems to attract the ball in the way the other playmaking roles do.
  20. I am looking to switch my tactics up a bit. I have played with different wings for the last few seasons, with a full back and winger on one flank, wing back and inside forward on the other. I am now looking to play a system where the flanks are identical (both inside forwards and wing backs), but create unpredictability via the midfield. The tactic is as follows: I was wondering if you have any advice for what combination of roles in the midfield could be particularly effective in this kind of set up. Thanks.
  21. Cheers for the responses. Why would you remove the 'be more expressive' TI, if you are also removing the roles that tend to cross more often?
  22. Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. I noticed that it included corners and indirect free kicks--it still seemed a little high. I just played one game with the 'through balls' TI ticked. That reduced the number slightly--the players started looking for more risky passes in the final third rather than playing the safer option to the full back out wide. That was only one game. I may leave it ticked for a few games and see what happens.
  23. I have a tactic that is working really well in terms of results, so I am loathe to change it to a great extent, but I now want to improve the performances and, ideally, goals scored (particularly from avenues other than crossing). My tactic is below: Last season, I won the league, FA cup and Champions League--so it is working incredibly well. Also, the defence is incredible. Last season we only conceded around 12 goals. This season: Again, defensively, this is amazing, particular as I play with a very high line, LOE and counter-press. I want to try to push on to be scoring more goals than this, and I want to try to play less crosses. I already have 'work ball into box' selected, which should in theory reduce crosses. However (this is half time against Man Utd, who are also attacking, not parking the bus): This is only the first half, so almost one cross per minute. By contrast, Man Utd played only six crosses. 33% of theirs hit the target--only 9% of mine. I have tried several things--I have tried playing the right winger as an inside forward to stop his crossing, I have tried giving the full backs 'cross less often', I have tried 'focus play through the middle', etc. Nothing seems to work. Whether the opposition attacks or parks the bus, my team tends to play the ball out wide and float in a hopeful cross. As I said, the tactic is actually working unbelievably well results wise, but now that I have got Arsenal winning again, I want to try to play more fluid passing football. 1-0 to the Arsenal gets boring after a while! Does anybody have any advice on how to try to get this tactic focusing more on passing rather than crossing? Thanks in advance.
  24. Thanks for the response--by the sound of it, roam from position would overrule move into channels, as it seems to encompass a wider range of movements. I'm not sure how they would work together.
  25. I am slightly confused about the difference between these instructions for a position such as the false nine. Move into channels seems to ask the player to move into the spaces between the CB and the FB. I can only imagine, given the role, that roam from position would do exactly the same. I was wondering if anybody could explain the difference, when you would use each of them, or both, etc. Also, which attributes suit which instruction the best? I would imagine off the ball for both, but is there anything else? Are there any attributes that would be better for one instruction than the other, etc. Thanks in advance.
  • Create New...