acmilano112000

Members
  • Content count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About acmilano112000

  • Rank
    Amateur
  1. For what it's worth, in case the amount of frustrated users is important and is not being made clear, I agree with @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! Add me to the (large, I suspect) list of users with frustrations about this specific Halfback topic.
  2. Fair. So, back on topic, question then for you @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!: What's with the full-backs? Can you talk about your choice to make them FBs instead of WBs? I'd wager its more common to see WBs in the 4-1-4-1 shape. Is it purely your concern for counter-attacks? You've explained your central roles so beautifully (RPM, Regista, etc). What's your take on the wide backs? Sorting out the wide backs is my other new challenge. Previously I had a DM halfback and two raiding WBs on attack and support but I had them geting into fantastic positions on the edges of the opposing box and refuse to cross only to wait for a defender to close them down and try to dribble the defender to the byline. 9 times out of 10 what should have been my wide-open-square-ball-tap-in-goal turns into a corner kick instead. (From what I hear this happens still on FM17.) So I'm accepting it as an issue of the ME and moving on to looking into alternative goals for my wide backs. The goal used to be exactly as above, minus the end result, but now I'm looking more towards how Bayern use theirs IRL (especially under Pep) and seeing what else I can do with the backs.
  3. That is very funny @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! On your post about Riedewald I just assumed it was a screenshot of Bazoer. Forgot about Jairo. I stand corrected, you have TWO perrrrrfect players for a true ball playing CB. Personally, I don't find that the tactics creator "BPD" is ball playing enough. It needs further player adjustment with training and PI's to coax the right moves. (Not to mention that the BPD even on stopper doesn't move out with the ball enough). For the life of me I cannot get a CB to step over the midfield line when we are in calm controlled advanced possession. Which is why I've given up trying to build a Conte 3-4-3 and basically all 3CB systems. In possession it just winds up with 3 wasted underutilized players sitting on the halfway line. Maybe works for a pure counterattacking tactic. And I've tried experimenting with sweepers and liberos but I don't want the central one to push up, I usually want the outside two to push up the way Azpilicueta and Cahill have been doing recently for Chelsea. Anyhow, sorry, mini-rant. To get back on topic, the point of that is why the 3CB frustration has led me back to 4-1-4-1 based tactics like this thread is about...
  4. Nice, this is exactly what I've experimented with too. I don't think that killer balls is a step too far at all for a CB with the right skill set. You have the perrrrfect CB in Bazoer in my mind for what we are discussing... but in your examples above you've been playing him in midfield? So are you suggesting that you may switch him back to CB or already do so now and then? I'm playing FM16 with Torino and had Bazoer himself playing CB for me for a season trying to implement these passes into the system but Tottenham swooped for him and I was forced to sell. Rugani and my future captain 19 y/o regen don't quite have the passing vision yet. I have an excellently developed Kimmich who I normally play in midfield but with surplus players there I've been experimenting with him as an elite ball playing CB. Only problem is that he's wasted there if the whole point is to open up a range of (not over the top, but line-skipping) passes from CB but he doesn't play them frequently enough. Still tweaking, but this is a goal for sure.
  5. Fantastic thread. Carefully thought through and simple explanations of complex issues. One of the next things to deal with in evolving this style of play for me is getting (at least one of) my CBs comfortable playing a direct ground pass into central midfield or even attacking midfield stratas and skipping the shorter pass to the DM or outside backs. As described here... http://spielverlagerung.com/2016/05/12/tactical-theory-vertical-build-up-passing/ Especially when playing any of these systems against a Dortmund style 4-2-3-1. As you point out -- they have a ST, AMC, and potentially even a narrowing wide player coming to close down our two CBs and DM, so this is 3v2 for us or 3v3 if we take long enough that their wide player can come pressure us too. A confident ground pass from our CB straight through to our CMs will skip this pressure well and is something that coincidentally Hummels was so great at at Dortmund. Training my CB to do this is one of the sort of next step tactical pieces that I find really brings an added dimension to tactics like yours.
  6. I could be missing something but this doesn't make sense to me. All it does to have them swap positions is that they each take a turn in each others' spots for a bit and then go back. It is to throw off man marking, etc. This doesn't get them playing closer together at all. It just appears that way in your average positions map because that shows each player as the average of spending approx half the game in one position and half in the other. As far as where your players are on the pitch at any given moment you are playing exactly as if you didn't have "swap positions" ticked at all.
  7. @Ceching You Out this is actually on FM16. I'm Control/Fluid. I agree, potentially the urgency of the WB playing the ball could be modified with this, but for now I'm focusing on the overall shape and those 3 tricky roles up top so I'll comeback to the WB once I get those to my liking.
  8. An update and a question. Update first. Played a few games with this lineup. Control/Fluid. Play out of D, Normal Tempo, Fairly Wide, Retain Poss, Look for Overlap. Bernardeschi in the "Pedro" role as a AM(s) but added very aggressive PI's "Dribble More", "Get Further Forward", and "Move into Channels". Pjaca in the "Hazard" role has default PI's for AP(a) plus "Roams from Position". It led to average positioning like this, compared to what we saw in the real Everton game (right). Simple things can be tweaked if I want to make it match up more, like my CMR Cubas could be BWM(s) rather than (d) if I want my CMs flatter like Chelsea has. The central CB is very difficult to get to drop, so we'll leave that alone for now. I tried sweeper later and it barely made a difference. As I said before, the purpose of this was to solve the Hazard / Pedro roles. For me, Pjaca #10 and Bernardeschi #11 in my friendly. Some moves from the game below illustrate why I was very pleased with this replication of the Hazard role in particular. You can see two moves here that show Pjaca's roaming during our buildup and how he comes close to the WBL to offer a pass, but also will float over to the right of the striker (Aouar) and get involved on the other side when he sees fit. Thats Pjaca (#10) at bottom partially hidden by the defender. Aouar (Costa role) is highlighted just for context. And below, he came over to the right hand channel to get on the ball himself. What I like so far: Positioning of Hazard and Pedro roles. Defensive 3 very very sturdy in their positioning. Wing Backs just where they should be -- although taking forever to cross the ball. What I don't like: Positioning of Costa role is fine but due to the strikerless formation he doesn't post up as a target in the box enough, or at least higher than Hazard/Pedro. So without enough depth to our attack, we end up sort of giving up and passing a lot of balls to the wing backs that ought to have gone more incisively into Costa's feet. I added "exploit the middle" TI to combat this and it helped a bit. Wide CB's don't push up enough to be useful for a pass from the pressured Wing Backs. Instead the Wing Backs ignore them and play to the CMs, sometimes forcing flat passes that the CB could ideally help swing over much more safely. When the Wing Backs receive the ball swung to them with nobody near them in attacking positions (as is one of the benefits of the overload in this formation), they refuse to play the cross and instead wait for a defender to get to them and then try to take him on. Horrible. Further experimenting is going to require putting all 3 front players as a flat 3 ST rather than AMC. To see if that does better with having the central striker in a more useful spot at the top of the box during our possession in the attacking third. I also am tempted to try an offset AMC, an ST, and an AMR/L on the other side. Question for the group -- What wing AM role do we think makes the player play furthest inside? Assuming all helpful PI's are ticked like "Sit narrower", and "Roam from position" Raum? IF? AP?
  9. Hi everyone. Been reading this thread since it began, reading external articles on Conte's recent system, and watched the recent matches. I'm trying to make a version of the tactic for my Torino FM16 squad. This tactic is CLEARLY crying out to be strikerless with 3 AMCs. Map from the Everton game. Who is the striker, anyhow? Even in each of your great methods so far -- everyone is getting at this from all angles but it hasn't been said yet. (The Leverkusen guy is going strikerless but keeping the AML/AMR that are causing everyone else headaches. A few people are going 3 across the ST band but then having issues with them not defending. Others are just debating between 2 narrow AMCs and 2 wide AML/AMR, and there is an issue with each that has been made clear.) What has bothered me forever about FM is that when you play 3 players in the center of any band (3 CBs, 3 CMs, 3 AMCs, etc) the wider two play in these terrific half-space positions. But when you remove the center player, then it automatically narrows the other two. Like you can't have them in those slots without a central guy pushing them apart. Which is stupid because if the game engine can handle them there then I should be able to instruct it if I want. IDEALLY I think we would all agree we want to move Aouar up to ST and have Pjaca and Bernardeschi remain exactly where they are, at AMCL and AMCR. But as you all know as soon as I move him up, the two AMCs will narrow back to where @RocheBag has been using them. Which for reasons you've all been back and forth about isn't perfect. My sense is that the evolution of what we want is to play strikerless with 3 AMCs and get the "Hazard"/"Pedro" roles perfectly lined up in the half spaces. They can defend wider than Matic/Kante but not as wide as the Wing Backs, and they can roam wherever on attack. The only issue left then is getting the "Diego Costa" role, Aouar in my Torino team, the central AMC to act more like a striker. Which I think can be achieved by just some testing of various PI's. I'll be starting with the AMC as a SS because the definition sounds most like what I want. "...main goalscoring threat... aggressively pushes forward into goalscoring positions when the ball moves into the final third and looks to close down opposing defenders when out of possession." This sounds like a central forward. The only downside I expect is that I'm not able to use the PI "Hold Up Ball", which Costa seems to do. I've also put Bernardeschi in the "Pedro" role as a AM(s) because I want that depth of positioning among them instead of an entire band of 3 on (a). Also this gives him a deeper base position but I used very aggressive PI's like "Dribble More", "Get Further Forward", and "Move into Channels". Pjaca in the "Hazard" role has default PI's for AP(a) plus "Roams from Position". Going to see how this goes. I expect I'll be fiddling with instructions to the front 3, especially the central one, but at least I should have the Hazard / Pedro roles playing where I want them. Hopefully that brings us all one step closer.
  10. Interviewed after today's Spain match, Conte said that his team are playing (tactically) like a combination of Barcelona and Atletico. This is a great quote and would be a very interesting prompt to help us with this tactic.
  11. This is huge. If the game is allowing us to make specific promises like this then of course it should not lump them together? Sometimes I take care to tell one player he will be sold if there is a bid that meets our valuation but another player that he will be sold after we find a replacement. It is a big difference.
  12. Yes, Spurs08, that would make sense. And it would not surprise me if he did indeed manage to get his demanded 65k p/w at Bayern. He was brought to the Euros with Italy and made his intl debut so I bet that on the open market he would earn around that much. Your experiment would be interesting to check for sure, but I do think he would earn in that ballpark and I actually think that makes perfect sense as far as realism goes. My issue is not this, but the unhappiness penalty it seems that the manager gets inflicted with when "breaking a promise", as I described earlier. First of all, there has been no actual bid from Bayern, just interest I noticed on his player screen. So if he wants to get all unhappy about me rejecting a bid that will be a different and understandable situation. As a manager now I expect realistically that, having rejected my offer of 4x his wages, he should now either buckle down and work at his current deal w 3 years left and ask again later, be unhappy that he didn't get a raise but play on, or make a big fuss to leave if a bid comes in.
  13. Yes, that is one example of a way to do it. In the much larger ecosystem of professional football/soccer obviously there are many ways to run your club (as a selling team, a buying team, etc etc...). I think that the issue here with FM is that the player unhappiness comes about a little too forcefully and automatically for what in real life might be a much more cloudy situation with far more nuance than the FM system accounts for. Actually, I think the FM system mentions and discusses lots of the nuances of this complex contract renewal player unhappiness dynamic but doesn't actually account for them. In the end it just gives a binary either A) player unhappy or B) player agrees to continue along. When the game does a good job of discussing among the media, agents, players, all of the factors involved, the outcome is a let-down when the result is always just one of two clear options. In my example with Baselli, I'd love for the game to have factored in my contract offer, the interested other clubs, the time remaining on his deal, etc etc and perhaps made him unhappy to the point where his performance might suffer for a time, or he asks to leave if an offer actually comes in, but not go so far as to make him unhappy that I "broke a promise" and now the whole team is mad at me.
  14. Cheers for the responses. Hunter you've exactly right, but it definitely seems like something worth figuring out... and not all that hard, since numbers are involved inherently anyway in the offer negotiation. Realistically, I would understand if the player were unhappy that we were unable to agree terms, so the game ought to reflect that level of unhappiness. Ideally it would recognize that a reasonable offer was made and allow the player a level of unhappiness (disappointment) accordingly, but not penalize the manager for a "promise break", since an offer was made in good faith. Obviously the manager offering a lowball throwaway offer ought to result in the equivalent or close to the unhappiness penalty of a promise break. I would expect that the game engine could scale the unhappiness that the player feels based on the level of contract offered, proportionate to his demands. The way I see the whole situation, the in-form player asked for a new contract despite a long duration remaining (3 years), the manager agreed to reward the player and that his new level of play deserved a higher contract, they discussed terms and the player was offered to quadruple his wages but turned the offer down wanting more. Obviously it is a complex situation, but it would suit the level of FM's generally exceptional realism better if the game handled this with less black and white.
  15. Well if thats the case, then I would recommend to SI that they create some more detail within this promise system so that all promises aren't fully binary. I promised to offer him a new deal and did. If he has insane demands and doesn't agree then its as if I never offered anything at all and broke my promise. As a manager my thinking behind the handling of the situation, as I described in the first post, seems pretty realistic. It would be great if SI figured out a way to allow this sort of process to occur more freely to accommodate a realistic handling like I tried to have happen.