ryandormer
-
Posts
344 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by ryandormer
-
-
1 hour ago, Zemahh said:
Hard to say why you're struggling without seeing your tactic, but a few general pointers:
- Lower your tempo: no point in rushing the play when opposition isn't coming out of their half anyway (probe for chances patiently)
- Increase your attacking width: defensive teams will usually pack the middle, which denies you easy chances (stretch their defence to create pockets of space your team can expose)
- Create overloads: sometimes you have no other option but to commit more men forward and take extra risk in order to create numerical advantage in their half (increased amount of Support/Attack duties)
- Allow opposition to come out of their own half: maxing out your press will often pin weaker sides back, which denies you any counter-attacking opportunities that may otherwise occur (use middle block)
- Dribble more: Instructions like Run At Defence/Dribble More can force yellow/red cards (force opposition defenders to commit into tackles)
- Stay on top of your set pieces: chances will be few and far between, so if all else fails, you can always hope for a set piece to break the deadlock (be vary of opposition counter-attacks though)
Hope that gives you some ideas.
Makes a lot of sense. I set up the roles like this:
Ignore the instructions, because I've changed those since.
I was using something very close to the 'Control Possession' pre-set. So I already had a low tempo, and I have quite a few support and attack duties. I tried expanding the width, but it didn't do a great deal. I don't think I tried running at the defence, so maybe I'll give that a go next time. And control possession sets a high line and line of engagement, so maybe dropping those could have helped. Thanks for the advice.
Do you have any decent set-piece routines you could share?
0 -
I'm really struggling to break down, or even to create any sort of chances, against teams who appear to be parking the bus, specifically teams playing three centre backs, defensive wing backs, and generally a defensive-minded midfield in front of them. Teams that essentially have five defenders parked in the box, with a row of four in front of them. I know they are supposed to be hard to break down, but I'm finding those teams incredibly tough in this version. Any tips?
0 -
43 minutes ago, llama3 said:
So, in answer to your questions below...
It's not just the MRC & AMR you've got to consider, but also the DR too - he's a support role behind, whereas I have an attacking role on the left hand side, so don't want the MLC to be attacking too far ahead when I have a DL trying to get forward and an AML already in an advanced position. You can set them up either way round, but that was my reasoning for the balance I selected.
An AP(a) & MEZ(s) is a great combination as long as you have an appropriately defensive midfielder sat behind for balance. They dovetail nicely in fairness, the MEZ will move a bit wider (so try not to place next to a winger ideally), but the AP(a) will drive forward with the ball and play through balls. As long as you know you have the right elements in your midfield, it doesn't matter who has what duty.
Thanks for the response, really appreciate it.
Followed your advice, and the results and quality of play have massively improved.
1 -
@llama3Only just gotten around to downloading this, and it is a fantastic piece of work! Thank you.
Just a couple of questions concerning 433 (DM), which is my favourite formation, but one I often struggle to get working:
This is how you ended up settling on your team. The CM(a) and W(a) are both on the same flank--is that how you would recommend having them set up? I have seen some people suggest that the runner from midfield should be on the opposite side to the attacking wide player.
And also, what would you do with, for example, an AP(a) and Mez(s) combo? Because the (a) player doesn't have forward runs, while the (s) player does.
Thanks again, really appreciate the work that went into this.
0 -
I use something very similar on that flank, but the left back is a FB(s):
The theory behind the FB rather than WB is that he is slightly more conservative, which 1) gives slightly more defensive protection, given that the mezzala is about the most attacking CM role you can pick, and 2) it means that the mezzala will have more opportunities to overlap the IFs out wide. I found that both the IF and the WB would get high up the pitch (the WB wide, and IF narrower), and so there was less room for the mezzala to be effective.
So, the only change I would make would be to play Pellegrini as a FB(s) rather than a WB(s).
0 -
Hi everyone,
I have a bit of an issue with all of my new (especially young) players losing determination rapidly. I think I know the reason, but cannot find any way to prevent it.
The youth team is where I have the biggest problem, because I am trying to run a system where I buy younger players, and they progress through the U18 and U23 teams into the first team. I now rarely sign a first team ready player.
However, all of my 'highly influential' players in the youth team had lower determination (not awful, but around 13-14). A such, when I signed a young player with 18-20 determination, the stat dropped rapidly down towards 13-14. A year on, that new player became a 'highly influential' youth player, and so all new youth players signed would have the determination stat drop down to 14, and the cycle continues.
The end result is that I will, seemingly, never be able to get a 'highly influential' player with a high determination stat.
Is there any way to stop this cycle?
Thanks
0 -
2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:
Rashidi does not always use wider defensive width. I don't know where you found that.
Perhaps I'm just remembering the videos incorrectly, but I remember thinking that he used it a fair bit, and wondered why.
2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:If he (Rashidi) wants to attack through the flanks, he uses narrow defensive width in order to encourage the opposition to attack him via flanks and thus commit their fullbacks/wing-back forward so that then he can then exploit the space they leave in wide areas. And vice versa for wider def width. Quite simple
The first part makes sense, as full/wing backs are likely to get forward if there is space. Makes a lot of sense now you mention it! I wonder how the latter works, though. As, even if you block the flanks and encourage attacks through the middle, centre backs, DMs and more defensive CMs still won't commit themselves as much.
0 -
18 minutes ago, dekzeh said:
A wider defensive width is useful when you have more bodies in the middle of the pitch than the opposition, as you funnel them into the space you have the advantage. It works well with formations with 2 DMs or with 3ATB systems (and narrow systems in general, but specially 3ATB)
Makes sense, I never use three centre backs, and I only use one defensive midfielder, but he's on support. Sounds like 'Standard' might generally be the better option.
0 -
38 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:
Also remember that def width is just one element of defending (and tactic as a whole), so - just like anything else - it should not be viewed in isolation. @Rashidi, for example, likes to use def width as an attacking weapon
Thanks for the reply, really appreciate it.
If I remember watching his videos, he always seemed to use the wider defence, but I was never sure why. He may have explained it at some point, but I don't recall. Do you know why/how it was used as an attacking weapon?
0 -
That makes sense, thank you.
It sounds like a narrower width would be better for defensive/counter-based teams, who expect to win the ball deeper, whereas a wider defensive width would be for teams who want to get the bail back quickly and higher up the pitch. Would you agree?
0 -
Does anybody have any thoughts on the defensive width?
I always leave mine on standard, because I struggle to see the benefit/detriment of each.
Does anybody have any suggestions for when defending narrower and defending wider would be advisable?
Thank you.
0 -
11 minutes ago, crusadertsar said:
This was my own attempt at recreating free eights using ideas from Guardiola and Pozzo. I move on to another system since but you get ideas maybe make what you want from it. Creating Guardiola-style tactics is not easy in this FM version.
If the link doesn't take you straight there, it's at the end of page 13.
Thanks for sending that link, I'll have a read, looks really helpful!
1 -
HI everyone, I was wondering if/how people are using a 'free eight' in their tactics. The closest role/duty combination I can think of in FM20 terms is the mezzala on support, as he will still stay in the midfield area generally (rather than on attack bombing forward at every possible opportunity) but also roaming and moving wide to a slightly greater extent than other roles.
What does everyone think?
0 -
43 minutes ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:
Yes, sit narrower and get forward.
Honestly, no I cannot see a difference between a "complete" wingback at all. It fits with the "Total Football" narrative I have been interested in and it's not doing any harm but my inclination is no stronger than that
Thanks for the response! I might try using both and see if I can spot any difference. My confusion with the CWB role was the hardcoded 'stay wider' and 'roam from position'. I don't really see where the CWB will roam to if he is also supposed to stay on the flank!
0 -
@Ö-zil to the Arsenal! I always find myself coming back to this thread when I start struggling in a save!
On the 4-3-3 formation, do you ask your IFs to sit narrow, as one of the videos above shows them playing really narrow, even on attacking mentality?
Also, do you find there to be a significant difference between a WBs and a CWBs?
1 -
A few questions here:
1. Does this automatic set up seem reasonable to most people:
2. Would anybody recommend following the 'physio recommendation' more regularly? I seem to get a lot of players at high risk of injury relatively quickly; and
3. If so, is there a way to set the automatic intensity to the physio recommendation, rather than the 'auto' set up above?
Thank you.
0 -
9 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:
Most importantly is that we were comfortably winning matches anyway, so I simply did not need it.
Makes sense! Thanks for the reply
0 -
@sporadicsmiles I'm a bit late to the thread, but given your team was packed full of creative players, what was the thinking behind not using 'be more expressive'?
0 -
The advice makes perfect sense, and I'll try to implement it! My problem is along the lines of Baptista_8's, but I have several players that I don't feel that I can afford to leave out, but I'll give it a go
0 -
Cheers for all the advice, guys. I've added BME and the football has definitely improved, the attacks are much more varied, and WBIB seems to have limited the unnecessary long range shots
0 -
28 minutes ago, interferemadly said:
If they play 2 games in one week, they will probably enter the "high risk" category. In this particular case, I would go to the medical center to gather some data about these player and then rest a few. I would first rotate player with high susceptibility to injuries. And… sometimes you have to gamble, if a important match is ahead
How long do you find that they stay 'high risk'? It isn't unusual for a player, particularly early in the season, to play two games a week and be fine.
0 -
For example:
This is my list of players at high risk of injury. Ten players! Almost all of them in the first XI, or bench players.
0 -
42 minutes ago, Hilly1979 said:
I tend to rest players who are in the high risk of injury category, always seems to work for me, may go slightly against this in bigger games depending on what my options are.
Makes sense! How quickly do you find players entering the 'high risk' category?
0 -
Does anybody successfully employ a rotation system, and how?
I tend to use my best XI whenever I can. My only rule (which I only break on extremely rare occasions) is that I won't put anybody below 90% condition in the starting line up. I try not to start somebody who isn't match fit, either. Naturally, this results in a lot of fringe players losing match fitness quickly, but I haven't been able to find any justification for starting a back up player over a first team player if they both have 90% or higher condition.
0
How to combat 'park the bus'
in Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion
Posted
Thanks, I'll give these a shot. The logic behind the right flank was to sacrifice a bit of defensive stability in favour of creating an overload on that side, ideally to release the IF(a) on the other. It works every now and then, but not as often as I'd like.
I have my CBs attacking the posts, but I only ever keep one person outside the box, and two players staying back. I might change that for your approach and see if that helps.
Good points, I think I'll do that. I chose BBM because I used to love that role, and Arsenal haven't had somebody who can play that role probably since Diaby (when he wasn't injured), until Partey came along. But logically you are right, it'd probably be better as a CM(s) to hold some midfield shape.
I was tempted to use Pepe as a W(s), due to his trait to run down the right flank, but it just didn't seem right for a left-footer to play as a right winger. I tried it in pre-season and it didn't work. I might give it another go, though.
Thanks for the advice, really appreciate it.