Jump to content

Haribo1681

Members+
  • Posts

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Haribo1681

  1. 23 minutes ago, Sneaky Pete said:

    You are correct. The problem isn't WBs' hard-coded instructions, it's that you can't recreate the off-the-ball movement (which you do want) of e.g. a CWBa or WBa without also getting the mindless crossing.

    I'd love to be able to recreate a Jordi Alba/Dani Alves-type fullback that absolutely legs it up the pitch like a mob is chasing them and is constantly looking to get to the byline, but currently FM simply will not let me do that without also tying me to the utterly cancerous "cross more" hardcoded instruction.

    Yes, this has been a gripe of mine for several FM editions. The WM roles are fantastic, but they sit too low in the defensive phase for some pressing systems. Adding more or less exactly the WM role in the AM strata would be huge for the game - if for no other reason than finally giving us an AML/AMR role without "dribble more" that isn't also a weird specialty role like AP or WTM.

    Agree 100% - I would love to have a full-back that stretches the play by getting high and wide, but doesn't always cross the ball every time they get it. I think CWB is the current nearest to this (theoretically) but the 'roam more' instruction leads to them appearing all over the place IMHO.

  2. I'm interested to see what else gets announced in the coming weeks and I'm sure there'll be some interesting additions as well as some that aren't so. Overall, I'm sure it'll be a decent investment given how many hours we all sink into it and I'm fairly certain I'll be happy to buy FM22 (although I might wait a couple of months after launch this year).

    That said, the addition of a Data Hub does absolutely nothing for me personally.

  3. On 22/09/2021 at 01:32, Sneaky Pete said:

    You're kind of burying the lede here, though. @guttea makes a very reasonable point that IMO points to a huge flaw in the available FB/WB roles in FM21 - there is no fullback role that comes high and wide, dribbles aggressively, but isn't mindlessly looking to cross at the first opportunity. Your best bet at recreating Dani Alves/Jordi Alba is probably a WBs with "Cross Less", but that still won't necessarily get as high and wide as quickly as it should.

    IMO "cross more" as a hardcoded instruction needs to be removed from the game entirely. It should remain as a toggleable option, absolutely - sometimes you do just want your winger to ping in 400 crosses for your target man - but it has no business whatsoever being a hardcoded instruction for any role in the game. That just doesn't reflect modern football.

    This is particularly problematic because of the recurring issues with wide forwards sitting very narrow in the attacking phase - it's genuinely very difficult to create width like Man City/Liverpool/etc do in real life without it resulting in a crossing fiesta.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't WBsu only hard coded to 'get further forward' and 'run wide with the ball'? I think the mindless crossing instructions only come into play with attack duties...

    Definitely agree that less roles should have 'cross more' hard coded - perhaps only Wat, but even that's stretching it IMO.

  4. 3 hours ago, zabyl said:

    I looked at Zaniolo's profile again and I now think he can suit to CM strata better. He can be an excellent late runner. Excellent dribbling, finishing, technique, anticipation, off the ball, good composure, concentration, decisions, vision, flair, first touch, passing, long shots, good physical attributes. Great traits; runs with ball through centre, moves into channels, tries killer balls often, shoots from distance. This player can be a complete attacking midfielder on CM with these abilities. Maybe; playing him on the flank is something like restricting him to a small space where he can't use most of his abilities. Maybe he needs more open space (central areas) to use his qualities.

    That’s really good to know - I think he’s rated as ‘accomplished’ at CM so definitely worth a go.

    I originally bought him to be a combined creative and goal scoring threat from AM but he never really took off in the role and I picked up other CMs in the interim so gravitated towards playing 4-3-3.

    Do you think he might be potentially effective as my right-side CM, playing as a CMa alongside an APs?

  5. 3 hours ago, Sneaky Pete said:

    Do they, though?

    IMO he lacks one completely critical attribute - acceleration, which is frankly outright bad for a title-challenging team at a mere 13 - to play a goal-seeking role on the wing.

    For me Zaniolo has to be a central player or a primarily creative player. In my experience FM's ME really punishes wide players - particularly ones with attacking roles - for lacking pace. They need that burst to slip past the CB/FB, and at 13 acceleration and 15 pace Zaniolo is actually slower than many defenders in the league.

    That’s interesting - I wasn’t aware of acceleration being that important (I’m not all that experienced at modern FM), so looking at his attributes across the board, he appears better than anyone else I could potentially buy to replace him.

  6. 5 hours ago, Contexx said:

    Zaniolo also has that "shoots from distance" trait. As an attack duty inside forward he may end up taking too many  shots. 

    He may be better as an inverted winger or at least on support duty. a game where he has, say, four shots and no goals or assists will be punished by the ratings. He's so good that he should more than make up for it throughout a season 

    Yeah, it's frustrating because his attributes mark him out as being an excellent IFs or IFa, but he's been totally ineffective - I was hoping to encourage that particular trait and see him trying shots from around the edge or using his 'makes late runs into the box' trait to get on the end of crosses, but he's never really done either much or consistently. It's a strange one (and probably down to my tactics), but he just hasn't ever really turned up as I'd hoped.

  7. 10 minutes ago, zabyl said:

    Ok, Zaniolo can’t play good on IFa. Look at the match ratings. Only his rating is 6.8. You can change his role to IWa to see if he improves.

    It's strange though, because he has all the attributes for the role and his traits look like they should compliment it too. Can some players just be not good sometimes???

    The next game I benched Zaniolo and replaced him with Bowen (who has always accumulated higher average ratings, but mainly through taking set pieces and getting huge numbers of key passes).

    Only a 1-0 win this time, but a goal from Bowen and at least three good chances in the first half. Some really great movement by the two wide players to get into the space left behind by the DLF (even though he himself played average at best).

    Early days, but encouraging signs.

    Screenshot 2021-09-19 at 18.30.53.png

  8. So, my next game was a Champions League fixture at Besiktas. Having won the first three games it was an opportunity to rest a few players and try some new stuff, including an RPM-CAR combo in midfield, both wide attackers on attack duties and a F9 (Amine Gouiri is less physical than Portela, so this was a fairly logical choice.

    It worked well - but see if you can spot the odd one out in terms if performance...

    (NB: Gouiri scored four and made one assist, so he's now our top scorer).

    Screenshot 2021-09-19 at 17.53.08.png

    Screenshot 2021-09-19 at 17.53.22.png

    Screenshot 2021-09-19 at 17.53.39.png

  9. 5 minutes ago, zabyl said:

    APs and DLPd do different things because they are not on the same duty. DLPd/s is more like build-up player and passer. APs/a is a creative dribbler & passer. I'm not a big fan of HBd's movement. I like players who think forward more than backward. You can use it of course but it can't be your team's heart which links defence & attack. If you use a HBd, you will need another CM to be the link up player like Barça's Xavi when they used Busquets as a HBd.

     

    If you need a change for increasing penetration; you can change duty's of wide forwards and change CMs to CMa. If opposition defends deep, you can even change DLPd to DLPs for increasing risks a little too.

    That's cool - I'm definitely more comfortable with a DLPd at DM than HB as I don't like gap the HB leaves when it drops in - or the way it forces the defence wider.

    I think I'd love to play both wide forwards on attack duty with the DLF on support - is this a bit one-dimensional, or should I have an attacking full back on side going beyond a support duty AM?

  10. 3 minutes ago, 04texag said:

    I would still change that left flank up. Also, I don't like the APs in the cm strata in front of the dlp. When I use AP, I want no other playmakers and I make sure the ball funnels through them. 

     

    I'd swap that AP for a RPMs.

     

    Then for Yari at AML, I would probably play him as a winger on attack even though he is right footed. He has runs with ball down the left. I'd then put that LB as probably a FBs

    That’s interesting; I don’t think I’ve ever used an RPM before, so it’s worth a try at least.

    So it looks like it’ll be FBs on both sides at full back - is that aggressive enough? Or is this something that could be adjusted if needed in game?

  11. Thanks all, really good stuff, loads to think about.

    So, I’m currently thinking something like this:-

                 DLFs

    IWs                       IFa

            APs    CMs

                  DLPd

    WBa  CDd  CDd   FBs

    I’ve gone for a WBa on the left to try and get to the byline and get crosses in for Portslade and Zaniolo who should both be a threat. We should also have three players lurking for cat backs, in theory.

    A couple of questions:

    - can you use two playmakers in such close proximity or would it be better to use an HB at DM?

    - is there enough of a goal threat or should I use an extra attack duty somewhere? Note that Ibañez at AP has the ‘drops deep’ trait so might struggle as APa.

    thanks again!

  12. 3 minutes ago, zabyl said:

     

     

     

     

    At the outset, I would not use an attack duty LB behind MEZ. Plus, you don't have to use an attack duty FB when it has "gets forward whenever possible". It will get forward whenever necessary without an attack duty. Isn't it safer like that?

    If you want possession based play, then you need to give your DM a more important role which can be the heart of build-up play instead of just defending. DM is the most important position on possession based 4-3-3. It links defence & attack, increases personal mentalities of players around him when he has the ball, slows the game, keeps possession, spreads the ball around. It is like a relaxation point for possession based 4-3-3.

    Your 2 "CM"s and "WF"s has increased attacking movement. But can they find enough space to operate with an attack duty striker? Also your striker has incredible creativity. He is definitely a 10 for me on lone striker. You can change lone striker's role to a support one which can create more space to 4 runners. I would use a F9 for him.

    You can use take short kicks instead of distribution to CB-FB. GK can have more options to bring the ball to someone. This can increase unpredictability on your build-up.

     

    F9 is an underrated role and I don't understand why it is not popular between FM players. I suppose they don't know F9's exact movements. He can drop deep to overload midfield, give a pass option, do late runs inside the box. These excellent movements increase the chance of finding free space.

    Thanks for that, there's some really interesting stuff there. I can totally see your point re: using attacking full back roles when the player has the gets forward trait - my aim here was that a) the full back would be more aggressive in getting forward to accentuate the overload and b) he'd be more willing to cross in search of our physical centre forward.

    Speaking of which, I've avoided using F9 for him because a) his attributes are better suited to DLF (a or s) and b) I want him in the box more to make use of his physical attributes as target from crosses. I've also found that we've been a lot more successful when we play with a forward on attack duty, so I've gravitated that way. Would he be as creative theoretically as a DLFs? If so, what roles around him might create enough forward runners into the box to capitalise - would something like this be potentially effective: -

                   DLFs
    IFs                             IFa
              CMs   BBM
                   DLPd
    WBs  CDd  BPDd  WBs

    I'd like to avoid possession for the sake of it, so I'd happily encourage my players to play the ball forward earlier if it's on.

  13. 2 minutes ago, Justified said:

    The first (two) tweaks I'd try is switch the MC's around and take off WBIB and see how it looks from there. POOD + Shorter Passing + WBIB would be a big no no from me as would a MEZsu and IFsu on the same side.

    That's interesting, thank you - part of the reason for using a Mez and IF together was this thread below, which gave me the inspiration for trying to create an overload on one side to make space on the other. I also would like to move away from using POOD and shorter passing to try and be more vertical and reduce aimless passing at the back, but we play much worse that way (in terms of results).

    I'll give it a go and see what happens.

     

  14. Morning all, I'm having a really frustrating time with my West Ham team, which I've taken to 3rd place finishes in three of the last four seasons.

    After a period of playing 4-2-3-1 with decent success, I wanted to switch to 4-3-3 for a couple of reasons: a) both of my first choice full backs have the 'gets forward whenever possible' trait, so using a DM should give them more cover and licence to attack. b) I have a number of excellent-looking CMs including a wonderkid playmaker called Inbañez that I'd like to involve and c) we were very reliant on goals from Moussa Dembele as an AFa, so I wanted to switch things up to make my AMR (Nicolo Zaniolo) more of a threat - his attributes are, on paper, excellent for IFs or IFa so I wanted to emphasise this.

    I planned to achieve this by creating an overload on the left using an IFs or IWs (Yari Verschaeren, normally, who I bought in for a hefty price), combining with Curtis Jones (on loan from Chelsea, who bought him from Liverpool for an eye-watering amount), as a Mezzala. Originally, I tried focusing play down the left to try and drag everyone across, then hopefully leaving space on the far side for Zaniolo. Up top, the plan was to use a newgen named Lisandro Portela as a DLFa - he's a physical monster and has the 'plays with back to goal trait', so I hoped he would link up with my IFs and Mez (and occasionally BBM/CM), but also be a threat from crosses.

    The idea was for Verschaeren and Jones to get on the ball on the left, drag opponents' defences across and create space on the opposite wing for our CF and AMR to have chances - they both have really good attributes for playmakers, so I wanted to see them being creative and inventive. I wanted Portela and Zaniolo to be the main goal threats - Zaniolo has a number of traits that should see him getting on the ball, trying shots from distance or making late runs into the box to get on the end of crosses.

    The results? Nothing like what I planned - it's mid-October and we're 8th in the league, having lost four of the first eight games, including a 4-0 smashing at Liverpool, a non-performance 0-2 at Tottenham and an embarrassing 0-2 at home to newly-promoted Bristol City.

    I'd hoped that three players in particular would dominate games: Zaniolo, Portela and Declan Rice, but they have been comfortably my three worst players. In particular, Zaniolo has been terrible, averaging 6.58 from nine games - his only involvement has been two assists in a crazy 3-0 win at Real Madrid in the CL (we've also beaten Man City 4-2 and Inter 2-0 at home, so our results are madly inconsistent). In most games, we're really laboured in our build up play - I'm not wedded to short passing, but we seem to produce worse results playing standard. I'd like to play with verticality to get the ball into the feet of our creative players relatively early, but instead we're really stodgy on the ball - I often see my defensive players walking the ball forward, taking four or five touches, then lofting it into space when they are clearly two or three options available.

    So here's the request for help before I retire FM21 in frustration: -

    - Can anyone see any huge holes in this plan? I thought I'd come up with a fairly decent way of playing but it's not worked at all.

    - I don't understand how to assess how/why tactics don't work in games - I watch matches on extended highlights (i find it impossible to watch periods of games on full because I just see my players doing completely different things to what they are instructed and it gets frustrating as I don't know what to look for or how to fix things), and try to work out what's wrong by looking at player ratings and stats, but seemingly at random my forward players will drop to below 6.5 and then they're useless.

    - I can't identify any clear patterns as to why we're failing in attack and conceding as we do. We'll concede a set piece with no lead-in to the highlight, then the next goal will be a super strike from 25 yards after a patient build up, then the next will be two or three pinpoint passes and a killer through ball.

    I'm not particularly into tactics per se, but they seem to be really important in FM so I end up spending ages trying to figure them out  or reading threads and guides to try and understand what might work and what definitely won't, but with limited success - I know I've had some good league results in this save, but that kind of adds to the frustration as we seem to win despite my involvement instead of because of it. I find it impossible to achieve what I want (attacking, possession-based play), so I have zero confidence of creating anything different (I'd like to be able to have a solid, counter-attacking system as a back up plan, but that's way beyond me), and to get decent performances from my most exciting/attacking players - is this just the way it is?

    Would really appreciate some help and guidance, not just with this particular situation but more generally with trying to understand why tactics don't work and how to address issues. Many thanks!

    Screenshot 2021-09-19 at 10.30.17.png

    Screenshot 2021-09-19 at 11.01.00.png

    Screenshot 2021-09-19 at 11.00.32.png

    Screenshot 2021-09-19 at 11.00.21.png

    Screenshot 2021-09-19 at 11.02.35.png

  15. Personally, I take a look at the report but pretty much completely ignore it as I don't find any of the information useful (eg: under strengths, I don't find it helpful to know 'this is a fairly eccentric group of goalkeepers'). Even the insight around their likely formation and tactical style is way too ambiguous to offer anything useful. I'm interested to know how/if more experienced players use these reports.

    IMO, this area of the game could be hugely improved - I'd like the opposition report to tell me pretty much what team instructions were used in the game(s) scouted so I have at least a clue as to how high and urgently they press, whether they pass short or direct and how deep they defend, whether or not they counter etc etc. In an ideal world, I'd like scouts to give a brief explanation of each player that featured in game(s) scouted that would provide insight into their individual instructions how their traits affected the tactics. At the moment, all this info is kind of in the game, but it's disparate and vague - scout reports should bring it all together in a single package.

  16. 1 hour ago, Johnny Ace said:

    DMs & DLPs seem to be a running theme around here lately!

    3 man midfield 1)destroyer 2) runner 3) creator 

    Change the DLP to an AP or something, he doesn't need to hold position in the middle of the park when there's an Anchor Man sat one strata behind him. You need someone from midfield attacking the box from deep

    Fullback's on Support are tame when there's a DM & both wide players are cutting in, get them up field to provide some width  

    AP(S) & CF(A) both roam, I'd want one of them dedicated to scoring. Kane's only interested in creating, Parrot's interested in creating & scoring, Pedri's main focus in running & creating   

    Just echoing this re: central midfielders, this page of Guide to FM has made a huge difference to my general play and enjoyment of the game, it's well worth a read: https://www.guidetofm.com/tactics/central-midfielders/

  17. 3 minutes ago, CaptCanuck said:

    Fair enough and thanks for the reply :-)

    When I see a counter-attacking system such as yours or one that I used back in FM20, with Nuno's Wolves at the time as inspiration, while 'defensive' in the sense of sitting back and looking to counter with a quality QB style passer and quick transitions (effectively not being on the front foot so to speak), I guess I still don't necessarily equate them to the same type of 'defensiveness' the OP was initially talking about. That killing off of the game and knowing that 1-nil, 2-nil lead is ironclad and you will see out the last 20 mins of the match. I may need to go reread the earlier posts, but I was thinking of it in that sense.

    That's it - my original feeling and inspiration for this thread was/is a feeling that it's more difficult to make a game tight and cagey, reducing the opposition's ability to create a host of chances, in FM than it is in real life. Playing counter-attacking football and exploiting fast transitions is a different conversation entirely.

  18. 1 hour ago, herne79 said:
    1 hour ago, Haribo1681 said:

    That's not quite true, because the desired intention of using an Advanced Forward was for him to play on the shoulder of the defender, ready to receive through balls from the midfield after patiently controlling possession, hence using PooD and shorter passing. There was never an intention to play on the break or utilise fast transitions, otherwise I would have switched counter attacks on and maybe more direct passing and higher tempo.

    The suggestion was that using Advanced Forward 'clearly showed' that I was looking to play on the break which was never the case.

    The words "Advanced Forward" were merely used to describe your striker.  If you had been using a Complete Forward or Poacher or Pressing Forward then those words would have used instead.  Perhaps it would have been better to just use the word "striker".  So no, the suggestion was never that you using an AF clearly showed you wanted to play on the break.  It was always about your use of TIs vs you (apparently) wanting to play on the break.  However as you say that assumed style of play was incorrect anyway :thup:.

    I guess this just shows why those of us who aren't so experienced get confused when we receive guidance like this and then perpetuate myths around tactics. In any case, it's no big deal.

  19. 59 minutes ago, herne79 said:

     

    I agree that some more information in game could be useful, however I'm also going to play devil's advocate here and suggest us users don't always read things properly either, which can then snowball a myth into reality.

    Example - nobody in this thread has said that playing an AF contradicts PooD, yet hairbo says someone did which fred then accepts as reality.  This is what was actually said about the AF and Play out of Defence:

    What's being said there has got nothing to do with the use of an Advanced Forward.  The person who made the comment (correctly) pointed out that you are using shorter passing / PooD which perhaps conflicts with the desired intention of getting the ball up to your striker quickly in order to make a break (aka fast transition front to back).  So PooD / shorter passing is the possible conflict with quick transitions - nothing to do with the striker's role.

    I had a long-ish post responding to this and trying to explain my point of view, but there's no need really, so I've just edited it away to avoid confrontation.

     

  20. 16 minutes ago, FulchesterFred said:

    I get not man marking players with high dribbling but not closing them down? So you leave them alone?

    Don’t you think it’s more sensible to give their leaden footed CB the ball by never pressing them so they get the ball most of the time. 
     

    I just don’t think there’s any transparency here. 

    I think things like this are ambiguous - personally, it makes more sense to me to close down an attacking player with good distribution to stop them crossing or playing a defence-splitting pass, whereas a strong dribbler I'd prefer to show into a cul-de-sac or any area where we have greater defensive strength so they can't do any damage. Closing them down with intensity - in my opinion - would allow them to beat the defender and use the space created, potentially.

    In the example of a clumsy defender, I'd want to close off passing channels so that they become the only available option, at which point we then instigate the intense press and force an error, rather than press hard across the board and create gaps elsewhere for more technical players to exploit - something I'm not sure how to do in FM (but I'm sure is possible with the right instructions). I'm also not sure scout reports in FM currently give you this kind of information as all I ever see is that the opposition has a group of goalkeepers who have a tendency to punch the ball a lot (for example).

×
×
  • Create New...