[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

1 saat önce, Johnny Ace said:

I've just brought a left footed AF, I've never thought about it before in a two man partnership, am I better off playing him on the left or right? I suppose both have pros & cons 

I use Antonio Conte's approach for this. Inside cutting striker roles are my second favourite thing in FM for a long time. They have better angles to shot on goal with their stronger foot. Thomas Tuchel also uses Lukaku like that if you paid attention Lukaku's positioning with Chelsea.

 

My favourite thing is by far inside cutting wingers not inverted wingers or inside forwards. I think this is an underrated role usage of Ws/a. I suppose many FM players don't know its potential. The movement inside cutting winger creates Messi & Ronaldo movements when they played on the wings. All you need to use your best wide attacker with fine technicals as Wa (+roaming) on his weaker foot's side. Opposition FB can't stop a highly technical and fast player on his own. Inside cutting winger takes down opposition FB one on one, and has two options... using the channel between FB-CB... or using the space outside of FB... Both options are good.

[Team controls the matches but does not score]

2 saat önce, Tsuru said:

The team is becoming too tired during the second half and cannot handle opponents´ pressure. With just 5 on the bench I don´t have many options,

Do you use this screen @Tsuru?

Maybe it can help that condition issue. I use these settings for lower league saves. You can set second lowest condition to no pitch or gym work too.

I always use versatile players for subs on lower league saves.

 

2 saat önce, Tsuru said:

The defence-midfield transitions are not working well. The fullbacks and centre-backs are simple hoofing the ball away, sometimes it works, sometimes not. I suspect this is due to the lack of the holding midfielder, as the Deep Lying Playmaker positions himself higher on the pitch. I will try to use a WB-D to become this "third defence man" and help on the start of the buildup. The idea was to use a WB-D on the right behind the W-At, but I will see in which side it works better. If I don´t like it I will evaluate if I need a truly holding midfielder or maybe use one of my youngsters as a IWB-Su, as he is a natural one;

Do you use bring ball out of defence TI? It forces your "CM"s to come deep. By the way I don't suggest distributing the ball to "CB"s at that low level.

 

2 saat önce, Tsuru said:

I don´t like CM-Su, I think it does nothing very well: he does not help protecting the defence, does not attack enough and doesn´t offer many movement. I will probably test a BWM-Su as he can help the DLP but also offer some movement ahead, and because Callum Jones is a very good BWM.  Otherwise I can evaluate the CM-Su with PIs or even another role.

On playing such low levels, using more specialist role for runner CM can be a better way. Because CMs concentrates more subjects than any other CM role. So BWMs/BBMs can do the job better for you. 

[Repairing a 3-4-3]

2 saat önce, bosque said:

What is a good base number in the attributes for top tier leagues? 14?

For top level leagues as you said, a top level number for that attribute at least 16 for workrate.

 

1 saat önce, dcayton9 said:

Side question: What does work rate do that isn't covered by determination, stamina, or the consistency hidden attribute? They all seem to affect how a player plays at top level but I'm not sure what it specifically does.

What it specifically does: 

 

 

1 saat önce, dcayton9 said:

My original idea was keeping a solid shape in defense while the counter press instruction would do the heavy lifting in counter-press situations after losing the ball.

If you don't believe your team to win the ball with counter-pressing than don't use it. It is a risky TI.

 

 

1 saat önce, dcayton9 said:

Would keeping standard width allow effective counter-pressing and half-space movement from wide players?

Of course. There is no definite rule to use counter-press with narrow attacking width. Sometimes using narrow attacking width with some formations which have good field spread can be a bad idea. This formation is one of them. Because your attacking shape is 3-2-5. Narrow attacking width can congest your "CM"s into a small space and this can give the opposition a huge space to exploit between "CM"s and touchline when the ball is lost.

 

1 saat önce, dcayton9 said:

Alternatively I can switch to two AMCs on normal width, if that is a better set-up

There is no need to change your formation. You can create similar movements with different formations.

[Team controls the matches but does not score]

1 saat önce, toshimitzou1 said:

Amen to that. The least enjoyable FM experience I recently had was playing a season where I was making tactical tweaks every game in order to counter the opponent's threats. Upon review, it was more an indication that my roles, duties and formation were not suitable and so, the following season I took a step back and focused more on my own team's strengths and weaknesses. This eventually resulted in better performances and far less interventions and for me, a more enjoyable experience.

Playing this game with combining my team's strengths with opponent's weaknesses; is my way of achieving success for decades on FM series...

[A deep dive into an (Edited) Inter 4-4-2]

This was a nice read for me. Well done.

There's only one thing stuck in my head. Why you didn't use a more forward thinking FB role on RFB. This is somewhat conservative. A WBs role could be an excellent addition to this with RCM's defensive help as you use focus play down the left. Maybe you thought like "I steal the ball on the right side and send to left and isolate WMa & Ta.". If so; there is no need to change anything. Good striker partnership, secure CM combination. A fine idea to punish sides on the break. 

 

33 dakika önce, LukeGrimesFM said:

I’d like to start with the interaction between PI and Player Trait, and maybe with some clarification for some of them, taking into as an example the Trequartista Griezmann: amongst the others, he has the Move Into Channel PT (which it’s also a PI for his role): does his Player Trait affect the ability to drop deep (which I think is a specific feature of the role) since the channels are only exploitable going forwards?

Treq drops deep when needed if the player doesn't have conflicting PPMs. Move into channels is not a conflicting PPM for Ta movement. If it was, that PI would not be hardcoded too.

 

44 dakika önce, LukeGrimesFM said:

I take as an example Griezmann’s Player Traits in order to make another question: is it good for a player (especially for a playmaker) to have both the Tries Killer Balls Often and Shoot From Distance Player Traits? It come just down to how good is the decision making of the player in order to be able to make the right choice between passing or shooting, or having both can mess up the decision making itself?

If he has good long shot and decision attributes, this would be a problem solver than creating problems for me.

 

47 dakika önce, LukeGrimesFM said:

Let’s now focus to the player traits of Ivan Perisic: is it actually good to have them in order to obtain the movement I envision for the position? Does the Move Into Channel PT without the Sit Narrower PI affect the channel the player exploit? Will Perisic exploit only the channel between the CD and the FB, or he’ll try also to exploit the one between the FB and the Touchline? How is it possible to avoid this (or maybe achieve this for another tactical setup)?

Space between FB and touchline is not a channel. It is only space. Wide roles doesn't use that space if you use inside cutting roles on strong inside cutting foot side...

 

 

1 saat önce, LukeGrimesFM said:

I mentioned before I would have talked more about the choice for the role of Belotti: I’m very hesitant between the PF(A) and the Poacher Role. I like what the PF(A) could bring defensively, but also what it does without the ball when we are in possession: he attacks the space behind the defence, but he also helps the team in possession (or at least I’ve seen this kind of behaviour). But I was wandering if in this particular tactic it would be better a Poacher, who “sits on the shoulder of the last defender”, maybe being able to provide more space for the WM(S) and the Treq to move into. In addition to this, "il Gallo" Belotti has scored three goals in the first two Serie A matches, so I'm a little hesitant to change his role

PFa is a better role to combine with Ta. They balance pressing and risks. These two can help each other to create space. 

 

1 saat önce, LukeGrimesFM said:

One thing about The Be more disciplined TI: is it correct the reasoning for choosing it, or am I missing/misunderstanding something about this TI?

Be more disciplined forces players to play in the limits of team mentality, player mentality, TIs, PIs, PPMs. Don't expect so much magic from players except Ta and BPD. WMs and WMa can create things with their PPMs. Works well with counter attacking.

[Repairing a 3-4-3]

7 saat önce, dcayton9 said:

The two CMs are generic, as I didn't know what role to use, but the right CM is a more conservative player, whereas the left CM has 'Gets Further Forward' (something the AI seems to train onto any semi-athletic player once you get into the regen era). To pair with this, the left wingback is a slightly less attacking player to make up for the more attacking LCM, and vice versa on the right. Below are the CMs, in case better roles can be applied.

For the beginning; I'll start to explain things from CM pair. 3-4-3 formation has 2 "CM"s who should be responsible for helping both attack & defence. This is the key aspect of success for this shape. Those two players need quality to be hardworkers of this shape. One helps defence more and one helps attack more but they are both responsible for both sides of the game.

 

7 saat önce, dcayton9 said:

This player lacks workrate, aggression and bravery to do the job 3-4-3 needs from "CM"s.

 

7 saat önce, dcayton9 said:

 

This player also lacks workrate and bravery to do the job 3-4-3 needs from "CM"s.

These two are main issues. 

 

Now it is time to look your tactics...

 

7 saat önce, dcayton9 said:

Thomas Tuchel uses 3-4-2-1 or 3-4-1-2 against different sides. But you can adapt it with this way. Your pressing is somewhat passive for Tuchel's style. I didn't understand why you didn't increase pressing one level higher. This is a passive pressing type for the style you would like to adapt.

Do you think Tuchel uses a narrow attacking width when they overload flanks? I don't suggest using a narrow attacking width for the style you want to play. Both your wide attackers cut inside also.  Then why you congest the play to little central space and restrict players' abilities more with narrow attacking width? I don't propose using narrow attacking width to replicate Tuchel. Don't use an attacking width TI when you are not sure what it affects.

 

Roles and duties are fine. You can add roam from position to both your wide attackers to create space more and replicate Havertz/Pulisic - Mount/Ziyech movement. Also Havertz's movement is more like RMD than IF if you use him on LW. If on LCAM, in that case it is SS.

 

[442 to 343 diamond]

1 saat önce, soft tofu said:

a 4-3-3 would be more suitable for a higher pressing style.

This depends on the opposition's build up shape. So this is not a strong argument.

 

1 saat önce, soft tofu said:

 

This movement can be done with:

• IWBd (or FBd with sit narrower if you think IWB stays too high) on LFB
• WBa on RFB
• CBc/BPDc on LCB
• CBd/BPDd on RCB
• WPs on RCM
• A support duty CM except MEZ/CAR on LCM
• A defend duty sitter on RCM
• Ws/a on LM
• F9 (or maybe a TREQ) on RCF. I'm not sure about 10's exact movement. That role sometimes stays higher and moves wide areas than dropping deep.
• An attack duty role for LCF.

[4231 vs Deep 4231]

2 saat önce, neptune'sblue said:

I hope I'm not changing the subject. I was playing with deep 4-2-3-1 before I read the thread. I have a tactic almost like in Cleon's article. but I'm not sure about the team instructions. I have to make a short pass from the defence, but whenever I do that, the opposing team immediately gegenpress and mistake. Sorry for my English. I have a pretty bad english. I just can't decide how to give a team instruction in this system. Thank you for your help.

 

I marked potential problematic things. But perhaps changing them may disable the game you want instead of offering a solution. So the best way to take advice without being misled is; starting your own thread with proper info about what you want from your team and what subject you struggle more.

 

[Funny Screenshots Thread]

Nice throw-in routine.

 

Original post:

 

[What's wrong with this tactic?]

4 saat önce, glengarry224 said:

That might be correct but he asked about potential improvements.  I intentionally wrote that these were possibilities - or things that he could look out for.  If he stops scoring because teams learn what he is doing and just pack the center, he'll need to address the width issue at some point.

I understand your approach, but you are exaggerating too much about width. 4-4-2 has natural width from its shape unless you drop attacking width or use both flank pairs as inside cutting roles like IWB-IW or IWB-WP partnerships. “FB” can provide enough width on a FBs-IWs flank. It is an excellent partnership for natural overlaps. When IWs gets the ball and starts to cut inside with a strange “L” shape, at the same time FBs pushes forward to provide width. This is a fine movement combination. 

 

Additionally; narrow deep defending weaker teams defend like that because of human manager’s high DL-LOE combo. That narrow deep style is weaker teams’ AI’s reaction to aggressive DL-LOE. So it is a trap… If you use higher levels for both against weaker teams, prepare yourself for some Arsenal football against nasty park the bus.

[Trying a simpler approach]

4 saat önce, bosque said:

The Poacher role needs someone closer supporting him. For example a DLF or TM is a good match for him right?

Definitely.

 

4 saat önce, bosque said:

Would you increase pressing intensity with a BWMs? I feel he will rush too early gifting a lot of space behind him. I should experiment and see what happens because it's true that we may be a bit passive when defending. 

As you wrote; your team needs to be reactive to play midblock press style.

 

Focusing on big benefits is a better way than clinging to small problems.

[Funny Screenshots Thread]

21 dakika önce, dozzie said:

Middle name: “The”

 

 

How are his attributes 

[4231 vs Deep 4231]

44 dakika önce, DarJ said:

it's not easy to bring the ball out and you almost always have to be more direct (I don't mean that you need direct passing) because you are starting so deep if you take your time to pass the ball around the defending team will already be in their defensive position.

4231 deep needs pacey wingbacks. I don't know what kind of fullbacks you used but If you don't use players like those, this issue can happen. Because they are hardworkers of 4231 deep.

 

48 dakika önce, DarJ said:

Another issue is striker isolation.

This can be a role/duty issue. Because both formations have same numbers up front.

[4231 vs Deep 4231]

4231 deep

Main advantage: 2 "DM"s give more attacking freedom to "FB"s to play as WB/CWB. Secure defence.

Main disadvantage: Space between AMC line and DMC line. Harder to win the ball forward.

 

4231

Main advantage: 2 "CM"s can support high pressing. Stronger attacking football.

Main disadvantage: Space between "CM"s and defensive line. Counter-attacks.

[Trying a simpler approach]

I forgot to write @bosque you should increase pressing intensity one level up for midblock press. Otherwise it can be passive and not enough reactive.

[Trying a simpler approach]

11 dakika önce, bosque said:

PS: I don't understand one concept. How the poacher gains space with an AMa? Don't they end up using the same spaces?

If you use an attack duty AMC (except SS) behind Pa, AMC can play closer to Pa and draw one or more defenders from his marker with his incisive movement by drawing attention from Pa.

[Trying a simpler approach]

Your tactic looks fine. The only deficiency is the lack of movement on central midfield and central attack. Your Wa and central attacker isolate because of this.

You use DLPs-CMd partnership. Both roles are sitter. For solving this issue you can use DLPd on RCM and BWMs/CMs/BBMs on LCM which suits best to your player.

 

Poacher always wants to stay in the box and needs space to score goals. He is not capable of creating space on his own. But an AFa is. If you use a Pa on lone striker you can use APa/AMa/Ta on AMC to create space for Pa more. Or you can only change Pa to AFa without changing AMC role.

 

So the problem is not attacking width. It is about roles/duties.

[What's wrong with this tactic?]

19 dakika önce, bosque said:

What is the difference between a direct counter attack and a fluid one?

With a direct counter; the most advanced players attack the space with direct long balls. Has high risks of losing the ball and suited more to lower league teams because of the importance of physical attributes like acceleration-pace.

With a fluid / collective counter, team attack the space together as a more organised manner with balancing the risks without losing the ball easily. Has balanced risks and suited more to higher level football leagues where both physical and technical attributes are higher already.

I suppose Football Manager AI uses this style more because I saw these movements and organised counters more on match engine when playing against defensive teams. I think this style of counter is more suited to top leagues' average or below average teams. Because they have fine technical and physical attributes to play this modern defensive style compared to older direct one. 

[Creating movement in box]

12 dakika önce, Lambielsa said:

I know it’s not perfect by any means but it seems like a reasonable starting point for a newbie. I do read the guides here but it’s pretty daunting starting off

I understand this. But I suggest experimenting the game by yourself. This is the best way to learn game mechanics. Sometimes people may mislead you here or on internet. Because they don't use the same players as you and their approach can not be adapted to your team all the time.

Keeping it simple with using less is key. Because you can see the impacts of your changes easily with lesser TIs, basic roles/duties and formations you know better.

[Creating movement in box]

18 dakika önce, Lambielsa said:

To be honest I’ve been using ratemytactic tool and it says wing back dribble contrasts with short passing playing style

I'm sorry to say you this but that site is not perfect for creating a tactic. The tool is not created by SI engineers. I don't understand why people cares the interpretations of random people who didn't create the game.

[What's wrong with this tactic?]

On 09.09.2021 at 18:36, Fatkidscantjump said:

Only one attack duty with a balanced mentality means possible lack of penetration. I'd change the right Iw(s) to an attack duty so he can use the space created by the Dlf. Just this one change for now and monitor how it goes.

It is not necessary to use an attack duty on the right. This tactic balances the risks with support duties. That change can increase the risks and can weaken this team's midblock press & counter-press.

 

21 saat önce, glengarry224 said:

you don't have attacking width on either flank in the final third;

This tactic creates enough width to play counter attacking. He doesn't use a possession based tactic. Also he manages a bottom half side so a weaker side.

 

21 saat önce, glengarry224 said:

you don't have enough players on attack duty to counter attack (2-3 is good for underdog teams)

He has enough players to play counter. This team plays collective counter not a direct one.

 

21 saat önce, glengarry224 said:

Also, the 4-4-2 has an inherent issue with the gaps between the DL and midfield and the midfield and strikers.

True. But it has higher advantages on counter style than any other formation. So why not using a 4-4-2.

 

21 saat önce, glengarry224 said:

Plus you are playing on standard both DL and LOE, which leaves more space in defensive transition.  Therefore, to create a more compact block, consider either raising the DL one notch

Not necessary on balanced mentality if you use a counter based midblock style . If you want to cut opposition's AMC, then you can do it with one of your CM's personal marking PI. There are a lot of ways to shut the opposition than changing your playing style.

 

21 saat önce, YAMS said:

You'll never have a consistent counter attack with Balanced mentality & only one attack role in your line up. Never going to work. 

I think this is a prejudice my friend . 

 

 

20 saat önce, De Nile said:

Having a structured shape works best with counter attacking having a very fluid shape means the team would attacking as one and in counter attacking you only need a few player on support.

You explained the direct counter style but this tactic is a collective counter. This team attacks and defends as a unit.

 

20 saat önce, De Nile said:

Play out of defense is not great for counter attacking.

Play out of defence is not great for direct counter attacks. But it is useful for fluid counters as this example.

[Creating movement in box]

9 saat önce, Lambielsa said:

Why do you use FBa instead of WBs with a HBd? FB role is too narrow for this role setup. I'm not sure if Kante is suited for HB. If you use a HB, you can change your fullbacks to WBs at least.

IWs-Ta can steal each other's space for their movements. It can create a congestion issue. I would use a Ws for LM. With a WBs-Ws-Ta you can create nice overloads on the left flank.

I don't know if your lone forward suits F9 or not but I suggest using an attack duty player around support duty forward to make that player a goalscorer. So IFa on RW could possibly the best bet for this situation if you prefer a Ta behind lone forward. If your lone forward suits more to TMs/CFs I suggest using one of these roles to use his strengths. If you change the lone forward to an attack duty role then there is no change needed for RW.

 

[What's wrong with this tactic?]

On 09.09.2021 at 17:01, Ahewrestlingfan said:

What would you say needs to be changed with this tactic to make it better suited to playing as a weaker team in the lower league, this has been working quite well I can usually finish in the top half of the table despite being predicted to be in the bottom half but I'd like to see what I can change.

Nothing. It is a well balanced midblock counter style 4-4-2.

Very fluid team shape with lots of support duties can strengthen counter & counter-press. This team can attack & defend collectively. So I'm not surprised with your successful league position.

The only change I may suggest Ws instead of IWs for RM if there is a suited player. The reason is; CMs-DLFs-IWs can use potentially similar areas. Also this change can provide width to your attacks and increase scoring chances of AFa indirectly.

[Accuracy of rate my tactic website]

Lacks lots of things like narrow formation flank forward movement partnerships. It only considers Carrilero & Mez roles with "FB/WB"s for forward movement partnerships because of those roles' stay wider hardcoded PI.

It doesn't consider defensive wingers or Ws as width providing roles on lone wide man formations.

 

It is an interpretation of that tool's creater who thinks all high pressing or short passing tactics are the same core style and some TI's can not be used with those core styles and team mentalities to create a 5 star formation as an example... Yeah, whatever. Play FM with those perfect 5 star tactics to see if something like a 5 star tactic really exists.

 

I mean it can be used as a starting guide for creating a tactic but it lacks many things. If you use a 5 star tactic you set; you realize that actually it is not a good tactic in the game. It is just someone's own interpretation of football manager who created that tool. Not yours.

[Attacking width]

18 saat önce, Morgan Kane said:

Which attacking width would you use in general, both for wide and narrow formations? For instance; in a 532 or a 41212 narrow formation, do you advice going wide or narrow?

I don't change attacking width with that TI. I use roles or sit narrower/stay wider PI to manage it playerwise. Because changing attacking width affects all players and team's playing style collectively. This is my reason for playing FM like this.