Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

irish kopite

Members
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About irish kopite

  • Rank
    Amateur

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Liverpool

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. In my current Liverpool save, I use Mane on the right in an IW (A) role in a 4-4-2. He chips in with goals and assists. To make an inverted winger work I think you need to: 1.empty the space in front of an attacking inverted winger for those diagonal outside to in runs like Freddie Ljungberg. I have Firmino in a DLF (s) ahead of Mane. 2. Importantly, I have Arnold in a WB (s) behind him making forward runs often to push Mane inside. I think any other Full Back role without those frequent forward runs sees an inverted winger stay too wide. 3.Mane also has the necessary traits like cut inside from the right. 4.I balance out a very attacking right flank by having Henderson in a CM (d) role on that side of the pitch. Finally, I think you get more out of an IW A having a right footed player on the right and vice versa. If he gets stuck he can put in a short low cross and somebody might get on the end of it. I know this is not what the inverted winger role in real life is intended for but it's my own observation. I found that using Salah for example on the right ran into traffic far too easily and lost possession.
  2. That is what I do. I remould natural centre midfielders into wide midfielders and Bootroom era Liverpool did this. e.g. Ronnie Whelan & Sammy Lee from the 82-86 team that you had in mind. An important ppm to train is play one twos as are the PIs dribble less and fewer risky passes. Whelan and Lee were hardworking give and go players who stretched the pitch when Liverpool had the ball and tucked into a midfield bank of 4 when possession was lost. Those type of wide players aren't readily available in the modern era due to prevalence of 4231s and 443s. The current squad does have a traditional Liverpool No. 8 RM- James Milner. I'm giving Arnold a go here in this position long term and Arthur in Whelan's left midfield slot. FM 18 is easier in respect of RMs than previous editions. Dalglish's deep lying forward role can be hard to fill but Firmino is doing well with the ppm drops deeper trained.
  3. Yes. I always like to see somebody else's interpretation of Bob Paisley's Liverpool sides. I try to re-create it in every FM with Liverpool but it's hard to find suitable players in the modern era from the get go. e.g. hardworking pass and move wide midfielders have fallen out of fashion
  4. I try to base my Liverpool tactics on Bob Paisleys in each addition of FM. This is the Liverpool style for me and I tend to lose interest in a save after a season or two if I am not attempting to implement the principles of "The Liverpool Way" with Liverpool. My take on the tactical side of TLW is that at a macro level it was very systematic. It can be summed up by Ronnie Moran's Melwood catchphrase of "Get it, give it, go!". Standing still in one of the famed 5/6/7/8 a sides was a guarantee of getting a bollocking off Moran. Joe Fagan was fond of explaining to new signings that static targets get hit but it's much harder to hit a moving target. Simple common sense really but very useful insights into the Bootroom's approach. I haven't settled into FM18 yet. In recent versions I've gone with standard/ flexible. I don't agree that the shape is fluid or very fluid as I have read in some other threads. Improvisation outside of the continuous passing and moving was encouraged but nothing too crazy. It was all about balance. I think you also need a bit of depth in the side to offer good passing options. I do go a bit OTT for some with the TIs. Close down more, higher defensive line, tight marking, prevent gk short distribution and crucially I go for shorter passing, dribble less, roam from position. I think these last 3 instructions are essential. In general a 4-4-2/ 4-4-1-1 was the system. 4-4-1-1 was more useful in Europe when the attacking mid dropped back to make a 5 man midfield without the ball. I don't really go for PIs in keeping with the bootrooms distain for micromanagement. They didn't really need to do so because they made sure that the players that were recruited could play their natural games WITHIN the system. In addition to passing, first touch and off the ball, anticipation and decisions are important. I disagree with one part of the OP. Not all Liverpool players were complete players by any means- Alan Kennedy, Joey Jones, Jimmy Case, Sammy Lee. Indeed, David Hodgson made this observation in Red Machine. But they were good mentally resilient players who would fight to the final whistle to get a result. I keep a close eye on personality, determination, concentration, stamina and bravery when I sign players and let them go. "You see, you have to have balls to win things... we didn't want fellas who couldn't give a bo!locks" Ronnie Moran
  5. irish kopite

    The 4231 Explained

    A real eye opener. Thank you. 👍
  6. irish kopite

    Football Manager TV: Tactics

    Yes I can see that. Would maybe need to add roam from position if that's possible to make a world class winger the creative fulcrum of the team in a structured shape. He needs to be given total freedom. I would like to combine a player like that with a Raumdeuter on the other side. I hope to be able to turn this new wide Treq into a combination of a Treq/ Advanced Playmaker (wide).
  7. irish kopite

    Football Manager TV: Tactics

    Hard to think of a Trequartista out wide currently playing. Two that I can think of from the past are John Barnes and John Robertson. Both had the freedom to either go down the line or cut inside so not exact examples. Robertson was definitely the playmaker in Forest's European Cup winning teams.
  8. irish kopite

    Bob Paisley - Liverpool

    I wouldn't get overly hung up on centre left/ right. Your tactic will be more balanced with a central attacking midfielder on the opposite side of a deep lying forward. Former will have more space to attack, latter more space to drop off into.
  9. irish kopite

    Bob Paisley - Liverpool

    Yes, I forgot that Ronnie Whelan said in his book that the Liverpool team he broke into in 1981-2 stretched the pitch as much as they possibly could. Would using roles such as BPD (Hansen), DLP (Souness) and as has also been suggested WP(s) (Ray Kennedy) not conflict with a fluid approach? Specialized player roles become diluted in fluid systems? I don't disagree but would taking that approach not conflict with the 'secret' of Liverpool's playing style of the Paisley/ Fagan era, which was trusting top class players to figure out what needed to be done on the pitch for themselves and a loathing of over complication and micro- management? Or maybe the Liverpool playing style of the mid 1970s- mid 1980s has been misinterpreted. The pass and move approach was not adopted for aesthetic reasons. In a nutshell, you have a better chance of scoring if you have the ball and the opposition cannot score against you if they have the ball. Football is less mentally exhausting if you have more of the ball but is physically exhausting if your chasing the shadows of some of the best players in the game. The Bootroom was clinically pragmatic, and Paisley more so than perhaps any of the truly great managers of the game. Therefore, Liverpool's approach was highly mechanical. The great sides grinded teams into submission with the accuracy of their passing and ceaseless work rate when not in possession. Alternatively, rigid, counter, press more, higher defensive lines as a starting point with more specialist roles?
  10. irish kopite

    Bob Paisley - Liverpool

    I would say so myself even though I did not experience the 78-79 team first hand. That team had a world class goalkeeper in Ray Clemence, was watertight at the back, passed teams to death and were clinical up front. I had a thread on this six years ago but emigrated for a period shortly afterwards and couldn't really play FM. Paisley and Fagan's sides (1974-85) were different to those of Dalglish's (1985-91) and I think most match going Reds at the time would probably recognise this fact. (I myself was only born in the early 1980s and can just about remember from 87-88 on, although the brilliance of the 'Brazilian' vintage of that season obviously went over my head being so young. I thought such brilliance and the results were normal! The knowledge I do have about the preceding period comes from DVDs, older Reds etc.) Paisley and Fagan's sides incorporated the traditional pass and move philosophy. Paisley in particular, the supreme tactical thinker in the Bootroom, although he would never talk in terms of 'tactics' and like the rest of the Bootroom despised coaching jargon, absorbed this approach from European competition. A definitive change took place in Liverpool's style of play in Shankly's final season in 1973-4 when the side were knocked out of the old European Cup by Red Star Belgrade. The gung-ho British traditional style made Liverpool look naive against the clinical Red Star counter-attacks and the Yugoslavs' abilities to absorb pressure and keep possession. Liverpool adopted this approach from then on, combining it with the traditional hard working, hard tackling strong team ethic characteristics of British teams, Liverpool included up to this point, that Shankly so admired. Out went the traditional hardman British centre-half of Tommy Smith, pushed out to right-back, and Larry Lloyd, in came Phil Thompson and Emlyn Hughes, both pushed back from midfield to bring a more thoughtful ball-playing approach to the positions. The Case- McDermott- Souness- Ray Kennedy midfield of 77- 81 was exceptionally creative and chipped in with a large share of goals, but it could also be ferociously ruthless and extremely hardworking. Souness combined both sides of this new approach to perfection. Another thing that was relatively unique about the Liverpool of the late 70s/ early 80s, was the absence of traditional British hit- the -byline wingers. Case and Ray Kennedy were creative, goal scoring although hard tackling and working midfielders who tended to cut in a fair bit. They were backed up with relatively adventurous full-backs in Neal and Alan Kennedy. In terms of forwards, Dalglish's arrival in the summer of 1977 to replace the departing Keegan and the emergence of Doc Johnson also led to a greater emphasis on passing, and less long balls towards Keegan and Toshack in particular. This is not to say that Shankly's and the early Paisley sides were some form of Wimbledon, they certainly weren't. But the later sides definitely took the pass and move philosophy to new levels. Fagan obviously persevered with this approach during his reign in 1983-5, given the success the club were experiencing domestically and in European competition. My take on this would be: GK-Clemence, Sweeper Keeper. CD- Hansen, Centre Back (Defend) CD- Thompson, Centre Back (Defend) LB- Alan Kennedy, Wing Back (Support) RB- Phil Neal, Wing Back (Support) CM- Souness, Centre Midfielder (Defend)- More Direct Passes, Hard Tackling CM- McDermott, Centre Midfielder (Attack) LM- Ray Kennedy, Wide Midfielder (Support)- Get further forward RM- Case, Wide Midfielder (Support)- Hard tackling ST- Dalglish, Deep- lying Forward (Support) ST- Johnson, Advanced Forward (Attack) Very fluid, Counter, Shorter Passing, Press More, Higher Defensive Line.
  11. Thank you very much Crouchaldinho for your insight. I must also add that your thread on the AMC/ ST strike partnership will undoubtedly help me to create the type of Liverpool forward line of the era, in particular the Dalglish/ Rush axis. I also have another thought that I picked up from Loversleeper's thread. Would you agree that for this type of possession orientated approach, mixed forward runs on full-backs and the whole of the midfield would be particularly advantageous? I do feel that this would closely reflect the Bootroom's emphasis on flexibility and adaptability and not pigeon-holing players into particular roles. i.e the Makelele/ Mascherano type of destroyer there to do just that particular job.
  12. Thanks very much to both of ye for the comments. Interesting point about the CA instruction Crouchaldinho and I actually believe that your view on it is closer to how Liverpool played now that I think about it. We must be realistic and accept that FM is after all a computer simulation. Therefore, we cannot honestly expect to replicate reality to perfection. I suspect that the game does have a problem marrying a defensive slow tempo game with CA ticked and, logically, this would seem to be a contradiction in terms. In an answer to your question, I now think that I am too ambitious with regard to the sliders and tend to micromanage too much, believing that such an approach is necessary for success. I then get disheartened because I cannot enjoy the game as much as I would like. I don't have the energy to play like this due to work, playing in the real world etc! I am glad that you replied Crouchaldinho because I would like to emulate your simplistic, dare I say friendlier, approach to the game in respect of the casual gamer. It is more similar to the Bootroom approach than some of the more detailed FM tactical philosophies. Above all else, I want to have a general philosophy/ approach and a broad framework for my Liverpool side. Tactically speaking, this would entail an emphasis on possession and ruthlessness in front of goal, combined with honesty of effort and built upon a strong defence. The team would be the star, rather than any individual player. Such an approach would have to be flexible though. I would like to be able to adapt to certain situations, but not be overly worried about the opposition and exclusively selecting tactics to counter them. As a matter of interest, how do adapt game by game and what do you look for to do so? Following on from my original post, I also think that the following settings would enable me to get closer to emulating the all- conquering Liverpool sides, chiefly mixed forward runs on all players except the centre- backs, but giving the same players the ability to think on their feet, or as Ronnie Moran would say 'their heads' i.e. creative freedom from 10-12, just enough to accomplish this without compromising the overall unit. I believe that this was one of the much sought after 'secrets' of the Bootroom at the time. This brings me on to the next point, and perhaps its not definitively tactical. Without doubt Liverpool recruited a certain type of player in the 22- 26 age bracket i.e. technically proficient with excellent game intelligence, and character i.e hardworking, ambitious and determined individuals who could be relied upon to produce the goods on the big occasion, men who would not shirk responsibility on the pitch but instead actively seek it. Therefore, I would look for these characteristics as part of my own recruitment process as best I possibly could. As part of this general approach, training would be fairly intensive, as Liverpool's was at the time. In terms of man management I would be quite demanding in team talks. Moran in particular could be ferociously hard on what he called 'the big heads', Souness, Dalglish, Ray Kennedy. Finally, in terms of media management I would adopt the Paisley line by giving opposing teams, managers and players 'a bit of toffee' i.e praise them to the nines, which put pressure on them, thereby taking it off his own players. All of the Bootroom staff were an exceptionally canny bunch of people and never did opposing managers jobs by motivating their players for them. Finally and above all else, Liverpool conducted themselves extremely professionally off the pitch. For example there would be no talking about signing players before agreeing a transfer fee with his club. I hope this outlines a general approach for people who want to emulate the Liverpool F.C of Shankly, Paisley and Fagan. Any comments would be extremely welcome.
  13. I am attempting to recreate the Liverpool style of play from 1976-84 if at all possible. I have experienced some problems with converting real life to the sliders and would love to get some help to this end. These are my own observations on this period. Paisley and Fagan's sides (1974-85) were different to those of Dalglish's (1985-91) and I think most match going Reds at the time would probably recognise this fact. (I myself was only born in the early 1980s and can just about remember from 87-88 on, although the brilliance of the 'Brazilian' vintage of that season obviously went over my head being so young. I thought such brilliance and the results were normal! The knowledge I do have about the preceding period comes from DVDs, older Reds etc.) Paisley and Fagan's sides incorporated the traditional pass and move philosophy. Paisley in particular, the supreme tactical thinker in the Bootroom, although he would never talk in terms of 'tactics' and like the rest of the Bootroom despised coaching jargon, absorbed this approach from European competition. A definitive change took place in Liverpool's style of play in Shankly's final season in 1973-4 when the side were knocked out of the old European Cup by Red Star Belgrade. The gung-ho British traditional style made Liverpool look naive against the clinical Red Star counter-attacks and the Yugoslavs' abilities to absorb pressure and keep possession. Liverpool adopted this approach from then on, combining it with the traditional hard working, hard tackling strong team ethic characteristics of British teams, Liverpool included up to this point, that Shankly so admired. Out went the traditional hardman British centre-half of Tommy Smith, pushed out to right-back, and Larry Lloyd, in came Phil Thompson and Emlyn Hughes, both pushed back from midfield to bring a more thoughtful ball-playing approach to the positions. The Case- McDermott- Souness- Ray Kennedy midfield of 77- 81 was exceptionally creative and chipped in with a large share of goals, but it could also be ferociously ruthless and extremely hardworking. Souness combined both sides of this new approach to perfection. Another thing that was relatively unique about the Liverpool of the late 70s/ early 80s, was the absence of traditional British hit- the -byline wingers. Case and Ray Kennedy were creative, goal scoring although hard tackling and working midfielders who tended to cut in a fair bit. They were backed up with relatively adventurous full-backs in Neal and Alan Kennedy. In terms of forwards, Dalglish's arrival in the summer of 1977 to replace the departing Keegan and the emergence of Doc Johnson also led to a greater emphasis on passing, and less long balls towards Keegan and Toshack in particular. This is not to say that Shankly's and the early Paisley sides were some form of Wimbledon, they certainly weren't. But the later sides definitely took the pass and move philosophy to new levels. Fagan obviously persevered with this approach during his reign in 1983-5, given the success the club were experiencing domestically and in European competition. I wouldn't be exactly expert on how you could translate this info to the sliders but I'll give it a go for what it's worth. I'd opt for a fairly normal mentality, Deep- mixed defensive line, short- mixed and slow- normal tempo, but I'd say fairly widish passing to open up the pitch for a pass and move style, perhaps with counter- attack ticked? I'd opt for a 4-4-1-1 formation, the man in the hole obviously being Dalglish or a 4-1-3-2 formation with a narrow three in midfield. I would go for a global mentality or the Lippi mentality framework such was the Bootroom's emphasis on the 'unit'. The relatively mixed settings reflect the flexible approach of the Bootroom, who despite placing a heavy emphasis on simplicity, were tactically adaptable on a game-by-game basis and were deeply pragmatic people. However, they did operate within the general framework described above, I think! Would anybody have any thoughts/ different opinions on this? Many thanks in advance for any assistance provided.
×