Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

jordan_ye

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jordan_ye

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I see what your concern here and I do really appreciate your reply. I don't think sent off or injury would mess up the tactical system. For example, if you are losing one midfielder, you usually would substitute a wide player or forward with a midfielder or a defender. When you play a 2 man midfield, it is sensible to play with two No.6 rather than two No.8 in midfield, especially when you only have 10 players on field. So it could be sensible to see only two no.6 in any two man midfield. Just think of how Paul Pogba stated that he likes a three man midfield set up because he could play as no.8 in it, but with two 2 man set up like 4231 IRL, he only could play no.6 role with another no.6 like Matic or Kante. Speaking of role, what I am trying to say is to have some principle on role selection, and that would not contain any creativity but building a platform for tactical creativity. For example, in Rafa Benitez's Liverpool. They were playing 4-2-3-1 with two double-sixes (as what Xabi Alonso said in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OcXUJ2M7gA&t=349s. You can easily got the idea that he was playing a DLP while Mascherano was playing a BWM. They were both no.6 but when they player together they have different roles. The roles are still there, but there are proper way to utilize roles and make it distinguished. Attack can still defend, defenders could still attack, Total football could still be done, but need to pair with proper roles selection. You could not just choose unrelated roles and expect them playing total football. Like, do they have BWM or Anchorman in Total Football? When roles being put in a more reasonable position, it could help players like us understand each role better, rather than just plain and specious text description. Another quick example, logic here would be: Why Regista has to be used only in a single-pivot formation, because it need to "roam from position" and therefore it needs space to do it, it could help player better know what how the instruction in Regista works and why they have a instruction like that. So that's why some player could play Regista role but can't play DLP role in double-6 system. (Think how Jorginho underperform in 4-2-3-1 under rafa)
  2. We know we brought up some cool new tactical feature in previous versions of the game ( eg: Tactical Styles, Player Roles). However, the basic of tactics: Formations almost never changed in pious years and it was somehow unrealistic and confused. For example, we have multiple versions of 4-2-3-1 (regardless roles) in games, like 4-2-3-1 narrow, 4-2-3-1 Wide, blah blah blah and the differences between those formations are minor. What's the real difference between 4-2-3-1DM Wide and 4-2-3-1 Wide? Also, in 4-3-3, if I put the DM in CM strata and play the same role, what's the difference between them? What's the difference between 5-3-2 WB and 5-1-2-2 DM WB formation if we use same DLP roles? Those similar formation cause lots of confusion when players choose a formation because we only want to opt for the 4-2-3-1 formation we know in real-life. The main problem is: We have too many unnecessary and unrealistic formations in game. So I suggest redesign the formation system and make fewer but distinguishable formations in game. Plus, we should fix the position in formation panel when we select certain formations. Just make a quick example here, in real life football world, coaches and football person prefer explain the positions by using No.8, No.6. In a real-life 4-3-3 formation, we know the midfield is consists of one No.6 and two No.8. In FM terms, it would be one DM, and two CMs in game. If someone want to opt for a 4-3-3 formation, that should be the only choice he and AI use for. Player movement could be achieve by using player roles. We can accomplish this by introducing some real life football tactical terms like No.8, No.6, Three at the back, Four at the back to game. Rather than using the proficiency in positions, we can set up Primary/Preferred Position and Secondary Position for a player. For example, Paul Pogba's primary position is No.8, and secondary position is No.6 and No.10 ( and he doesn't like playing no.6). As we known, ( according to Jose Mourinho's press conference https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/919901/Man-Utd-boss-Jose-Mourinho-Paul-Pogba-rant-press-conference) The midfield in 4-3-3 is one No.6 and two No.8. The midfield in a 4-2-3-1 is two no.6 and one no.10 Two disciplined no.8 in a 4-4-2 set up. Redesign all formations in-game according to real life football position and there would no multiple versions of 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 anymore, only one standard and default set-up of those formations, which would cause less confusion when selecting formations in game and trying to relate the real life tactics more. Besides, the roles in each position should be limited and redesigned more distinguishable. For example, DLP should only be used in No.6 ( which means DM strata) rather than in No.8 strata because it is a role playing "between defense and midfield" according to its description, and to distinguish DLP and Regista, we can make Regista only can be used in single-no.6 formations and DLP only can be used in two no.6 formation. Just think about Andrea Pirlo, Jorginho, those register are all using in Single-Pivot formation rather than double-pivot ones. Besides DLP and Regista, there are a few more things could do, such as: Mezzala can only be used in a three-man midfield, (which means Mezzala should never be used in two-man midfield formation like a 4-4-2) BWM only can be used in a support duty when it used in midfield and only defend duty in DM strata Distinguish Wing-back and Full Back In two midfield formation like 4-4-2, Midfield could not use Attack duty.
  3. As we know, 4-2-3-1 is probably the most used formation in game and we have two versions of it in game. One is with 2 CM and the other one is with 2 DM. In my opinion, the formation with 2DM would make more sense, since when 4-2-3-1 was introduced in real life, it was designed to give more protection to the back line compared to 4-4-2. So what is the real difference between these two formation? Which one is more replicable to real life 4-2-3-1 formation?
  4. I don't know but there is a theory that some of them would use TI. Because if you go to AI manager profile, you would find there are some TI in their "tend to" section.
  5. @scratchmonkey I totally agree with you, mate. IMO, that might be the reason why SI introduced player roles like Segundo Volante or RPM to minimize the gap in 4-2-3-1 DM Wide, because if you look into most AI formation with "double-pivot", they are all using 1*DLP paired with 1"BWM when players are placed in CM slot, I think that's the way SI try to make them act more like "double-pivot", but like what I said, this "coding" act would also make AI play some No.10 player in the "double-pivot" slot in a DLP role. So, if you keep playing, you would find almost all CM in the game, they are all trained into a DLP in the game after a few years.
  6. Thanks for your suggestion. But, my point is AI would use player like Dele and Gotze in 4231 Wide because they are natural in CM position and the default formation of 4-2-3-1 in game is with two centre midfielders, which I think it quite not right if you look into 4-2-3-1 in real life.
  7. Hey guys, I have been playing FM for years and really dig into the tactical side of this game. Tactics have a lot of new features this year but I still find something is confusing through years: The formation. Take the two most widely used formation as examples: 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1. We all know 4-3-3 in real life is interpreting as 4-1-4-1 in game. It is fine because if we look into the component of 4-3-3 in real-life. We would see 4 defenders, 1*no.6, 2*no.8, and three attackers, which are translated well into the formation in-game. But if we look into the 4-2-3-1 formation in-game, we would see 2*no.8 and 1*No.10 in the formation, which completely makes no sense if you know how 4-2-3-1 work in real-life. It should be 2*no.6 in 4-2-3-1, and one of them operate like a mixture between no.6 and no.8. In older versions of the game, we could see SI designed almost all managers who used 4-2-3-1 in real life would use 4-2-3-1 DM Wide in game, which I would say is a pretty correct interpret ation. However, in recent versions, they just set up AI manager using 4-2-3-1 with two center midfielders, and it makes this formation totally being interpreted wrong. You might say it is not a big deal but think about its domino effect. For example, if a player is Natural in no.8 position, AI manager would use it as a double-pivot in a 4-2-3-1 Wide. Just think about some players like Dele Ali, Gotze being used as double-pivot, which would cause a total mess. That's why I think a lot of formation should be redesigned to reflect the real-life tactics and the role distribution as well. Maybe we could introduce some real-life football terms like No.6, No.8, No.10, those terms are used by real-life managers in practice. Want to know what do you guys think of this?
×
×
  • Create New...