glengarry224

The problem with, for example, training 'Match Preparation' sessions like 'attacking movement' with youth players is that those sessions spend a lot of time (1) giving players a temporary boost for the upcoming match (some say for 1 week); and (2) improving players familiarity with the trained tactic(s). That's great for players who are playing games which count, but wasted on youth players who only need to improve their attributes and personalities. The majority of 'General' training sessions also spend time on tactical familiarity, and therefore also waste some training time with youth players. And I recommended those so yes, I'm being a bit inconsistent, and clearly don't know everything. I use a lot of 'Set Piece' training for my senior squad but those sessions mostly give a temporary boost for upcoming matches. To the extent those sessions improve set piece attributes, like 'corners', that only benefits the few of your players who start with a fairly good set piece attribute, so 'set piece delivery' might be beneficial if you have a budding James Ward-Prowse.

Like @Argonaut wrote, post your tactic, but also your results and league table. First, you need to figure out where and why your tactic is underperforming. Not scoring enough? Conceding too many? High Xg but not enough goals? Maybe your finishing is poor, or maybe its short-term bad luck. Are you losing the ball too often in transition? Maybe you need more support duties, or maybe shorter passing. Hard to say without seeing more.

Also depends upon your goals. If you want to build a reputation and move on to a better job, I'd say maximize and get the best team you can for this year: if you end up in the red, it was the Board's fault? Someplace, I read or heard that the Board will often rescue you if you get into the red but stayed within their budgets. Is that true? I don't know. Similarly, I'd worry less about developing young players. But if you want to build a club long-term, I'd be more careful. If you end up with bad finances, it might be mostly the Board's fault but in addition to the problems you identified, you won't be able to improve facilities, hire more staff, improve youth recruitment, etc. Of course, if you lose, you won't be there long-term Also, be aware that if you get promoted, some of your players won't be good enough to play in the higher division, so don't sign too many to long-term, expensive contracts unless they have potential to play higher. Remember: especially with an inferior team, poor team or lower-league team, loans are your friends! You can often loan promising players from bigger clubs, even for free. Also, veterans but often you have to pay part of their salary.

I should be more careful adopting these ideas and repeating them. I've read that, and have believed it, but have not tested it or heard anyone from SI say that. Not saying it's wrong, instead that I just don't know. Like you, I'd think that strength can be improved at a later age. Indeed, IRL, many athletes gain strength throughout their 20s and even some in their 30s (but that might be enhanced...). I'd guess that jumping rarely increases after a player's early 20s but arm and ground strength can...but we'd need a real expert to tell us more.

this is interesting. Intuitively, I understood this but never saw the numbers. How does this work when someone plays multiple positions? I'm surprised that 'finishing' has such low stress for AMRL: I get it for a traditional W(s), or even an AP or TF, but for an IF, I'd have guessed that 'finishing' was one of the most important.

A few things I noticed, of course only imnho: match training (attacking movement, match tactics, set pieces, etc) are wasted sessions on U18; I prefer fewer technical training sessions for U18, maybe 3-4 per week total = more physical and general training, some 'attacking patient', 'ground defense', etc. [edit: I'm unsure about this b/c after my senior team gains tactical familiarity, I prefer mostly technical training sessions, so take this with a grain of salt]; as @rsihn said, it's harder to improve physicals later, and they can improve a lot at 16-18 so focus on those now - minimum, I like 1 General Physical and 1 specific Physical, usually Quickness (or in your case, maybe Resistance too); if you have any GK prospects, add 1-2 'shot stopping' or '1-1' otherwise skip those; Sesay is kinda slow, could be a great DLP(d); Dyson could be a good FB/WB (but needs to improve crossing and for any position, needs more pace/agility/mentals); I wouldn't add too many traits at young ages especially on your Training/Rest tab, players should be set for 'double intensity' at the top fitness levels

I've done this too but I've run into this big problem when the youth matches are not the same days as the senior matches: the youth player, who trains with the seniors, is not training enough because: no senior training the day of the senior match; limited senior training the days before and after the senior match (travel, match preview, recovery, match review, possibly other match training); the youth player does not train the day of the youth match; the youth player might have limited training the day before a youth match (travel, match preview); the youth player has limited training the day after the youth match (travel, recovery) If my youth team is mostly playing friendlies, I can take control of the youth scheduling and set those friendlies for the same day as the senior matches. [side note: with my 1st reserve team, when possible, I prefer to set that team's friendlies to not be the same day or the day before a senior match, so that I can play my backups in those reserve friendlies and keep up their match sharpness. But note that those backups will lose training sessions. With a team that needs money, you can play senior friendlies and play backups but you lose a lot of training sessions for the entire senior squad.] My guess is that if your youth player has a really bad personality, you need to fix that first and worry about training later.

It is tough. As you know, a few matches can be misleading because, as in real life, there is too much variance in soccer over the short run. I use a combination of data and, for a time, watching the matches. If you want to use more easily accessible data, you can focus on Xg (generated and allowed), player ratings, key passes/90, passes attempted/90, touches, etc. More advanced, you can look at heat maps, where passes are received and lost, average positions, etc. The more accurate, but much slower way, is to watch stretches of matches in 'full match' mode. Otherwise, even in 'comprehensive highlights', you will not see basic, boring, but important action where you simply lose the ball in transition. Faster speed helps. For example, if you're concerned about whether a switch to Mez(a) works, pause the action after you take possession and at various points in transition and as you move in the final third. If your RB or DLP don't have enough passing options in transition because the Mez(a) has charged into the final third, you know why. Also, pause after you lose possession and in defensive transition. If your right flank is completely unprotected - even if your opponent fails to take advantage -- look where the Mez(a) and WB are, because they both get forward and the Mez roams. If your DLP is too far upfield to cover for the WB, or just leaves the center unprotected, you might put him on DLP(d). Or maybe your back-3 are well enough positioned to cover.

You certainly can play 'narrow' and also 'focus middle' but sometimes that allows your opponent to just jam up the middle with defenders and midfielders. Just an idea. Idea is that if you play wider width, which can stretch the defense, it will open up more room in the middle for your central players. Of course, that can mean that it's harder to maintain possession because your players are further apart, so it might or might not work depending upon the abilities of your players and opponents. It's an idea for your team because you have some very fast wingbacks who can stretch the defense.

Is Gilligan: Ciaran Gilligan? and is this 2021-22? If so, he might not be ready to be the creative focal-point so perhaps CM. Jones is old and slow but could be a good DLP(d). If you want to trade-off some tight defense for potential offense, you could: raise your DL and LOE which would give you more possession closer to opponents' goals before they can get organized but obviously be on alert for balls over the top and play lower against faster forwards; untick WBIB and POOD, especially because I think (but haven't closely reviewed your team) that you have players with better physical abilities and not as great decisions/vision/anticipation; your wingbacks look good and fast, so I'd use their speed to stretch the defense and I'd keep them on attack: add 'pass into space', and either play wider while focus through the middle or play narrower and focus down the flanks; direct crosses towards the TF; float crosses; if your wingbacks are getting closed down too often before crossing, tick 'cross early'; counter; I agree that it's better if O'Connor and Mullin are not on the same side but I'd switch Palmer and Mullin. Palmer is 'right only' footed and if he's on the left, it'll be easier for him to feed Mullin on the right. I think the role pairing is fine. Not sure if O'Connor is good enough OTB/Ant to play Mez but he might be.

I'd be on alert whether your left side is solid enough defensively. CM(s) with roam will get lost, WB will get forwards (and he has so-so ant/pos/dec/acc and IF(a) is an attacker; I think Ward-Prowse is a born BBM because it makes use of his incredible WR/Stam, maybe BWM(s). With Ward-Prowse, I'd tick 'play for set pieces'. I'd keep an eye on POOD because other than Walker-Peters, your defenders are not great on the ball and if I were playing you, I'd consider marking W-P and pressing the others when they get the ball.

DLP(s) does not have dribble less and you can give him the TI = dribble more. AP is "Advanced" so likely won't work.

As herne79 wrote, you can play it whatever way is more fun for you. I like to create alternate tactics because that's fun for me but if it's boring for you, I'd say to figure out which changes you are likely to make for various game situations -- for example, what changes you'd make if up 1 goal at 82 minutes -- and create 1-2 training tactics to familiarize your team with those potential changes. Seems like you tend to disbelieve it because it sounds clever. Have you run experiments to test whether those changes make any difference? My speculation is that a few make a good bit of difference, more make a slight difference, and others are poorly chosen, but I'm also just guessing. For those interested, I think that the data which is most helpful is longer run data which shows where and how you concede and score goals and then you can make informed decisions to amend your tactic. So if you are 15 games into the season, and your stats show that you are conceding a lot of Xg and goals, you could, if you want to, look at the data of where and how you concede and make some changes. More game specific, if you tend to concede crossing goals, and your next opponent has really good, crossing wingbacks, who have a lot of assists, and a tall, great heading striker, you might want to consider making a change or two...or not. But regardless, at the end of the day, it comes down to how the game is fun for each player. I'll go through runs where I just want to get through the season and make very few changes, and other runs where I make changes, especially for big matches.

definitely can work. I'd consider 'pass into space' and higher tempo. It looks like you want your LW to be the primary scorer. Playing extremely narrow might make opponents pack the middle which will block your IF's ability to cut inside and find space. This will be very cross-heavy which often works very well (too well) in FM22.

Very hard to play that lone striker without anyone in the Attacking midfield strata. Because you're looking for quick counter attacks, you'd want a player who can play off the shoulder and get onto long balls and crosses: AF, poacher, maybe PF(a).

seems more suited to its own thread where you can post the tactic. Generally, in addition to the good advice here, I'd say to move the LOE at least up to standard because if you have smart fast defenders, you want to force the opposition into pressured passes which your defenders can steal and turn into attack. Are your defenders good in the air? If so, and if you're playing the right formation, you can play higher and prevent short GK distribution. You don't need great pressing forwards to prevent that and make the opposition launch the ball upfield but if your forwards lack stamina, you might not want to tire them out

AMC: he has great Ant/OTB/FT/WR, so I'd consider giving him a role which roams and/or moves into channels; LM: he really looks like an IF and from the players you showed, should be your primary scorer; maybe consider a future formation with a LW or try him as an AMC/Striker; LB: good defender but doesn't have offensive skills; but he has the speed/stamina/work-rate to create width, and good decisions so he will pick good moments to get forwards and be able to recover, so I'd prefer him at FB(a) with dribble less b/c he doesn't have the dribbling to play WB; BBM: certainly can play BBM and keep using it if it works. Alternative: with his great Vision/Passing, he can really create chances and with great FT/Bal/Str, he can hold his own in the midfield. He could play AP/DLP for sure, or if you want to play your LB more defensively, Carrilero with gets forward; both the BBM and AMC have really good jump/FT and VG-Good Ant/Str -- you could have your GK distribute directly to both or either of them -- and also ditch POOD and shorter passing and maybe focus center -- because against most players, those two could quickly control most long balls and immediately turn it into attack; you have a number of players with good decisions and stamina so you could increase tempo even more, at least for portions of the game; where are you conceding goals from?

I heard an interview with @Miles Jacobson- (pinging him because I fear misquoting) - where he said that prior to FM introducing roles, he'd heard many real-life football managers/coaches talking about roles. The defined "role" not only tells a player what generally is expected from him, but also alerts his teammates what to expect. Whether irl, or on FM, it is a shorthand and of course, players will have to react to what they see in real time and will adjust based upon their individual abilities/form/fitness/teammates, etc. A defined "role" is a very useful shorthand, particularly in-game. Today, at what age are kids taught roles?

I don't, sorry. It was in the Romanian Liga 1, so maybe just a small oversight in the program?

Not 'top tips' but I'll try to add something new. 2: don't be afraid to rotate players to keep them fresh leadership is more important than I used to think. good leaders will not blow as many leads and will make more comebacks

I sympathize. Though it's always good to post your tactic. I'd always understood that without the ball, an IF, especially on attack duty, should attack the box more often than an IW, because he is a "forward" and the IW should start wider more often than an IF (but float inside more often than a W), but after getting the ball, move inside more often than a standard W, but still cross sometimes, because he is a "winger." The game stresses attributes to support this conception. The IW(s) stresses wide player attributes like crossing, decisions, work rate and stamina as secondary (blue) importance: And from the tactics menu, the game describes IW as: [sorry I don't know how to copy the moving gif,] but the moving gif, in the game, shows the IW receiving the ball on the wing then cutting inside vs the IF(s) does not stress crossing, stamina, work rate or decisions but does stress finishing, composure, flair and balance, which I think are more important for goal scorers and players playing in and around the box: and unlike the IW, the moving gif [if i could copy it] shows the IF cutting inside, then receiving the pass: Any player will perform certain situations the same, regardless of IF or IW, but should show different tendencies. But anecdotally, it doesn't seem to work that way often enough in FM22. The first few months of FM22, there were threads on how IFs and IWs were playing too similarly. Don't know if updates fixed that or not.

When you're hitting a tough run, especially if players have high injury susceptibility, I've found one day off, for specific players, works fine. You could also set automatic training intensity to something like: Match training, like 'Attacking Movement' are light, set pieces a little more but still not too intense. If you do give players days off, try to not put important upcoming match training on those days; of course, not always possible. I tend to take a lot of chances playing backups against inferior opposition. I like to plan look at the upcoming run of games, and pre-plan which games to rest starters, especially those with lower natural fitness. Yes, there is some penalty for not honoring playing time but there is also a pretty quick trigger for players to get jaded.

Crazy I guess he improved while coaching his kids' teams!

I haven't noticed it but did not specifically test it.