Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

acmilano112000

Members+
  • Content Count

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About acmilano112000

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I play a very similar setup and also model my DM after 2017-2019 Fernandinho. In possession, I want him to sit in that space and connect the defense to the midfield and help us play out of the back and then be the central fixed player that everyone else can create triangles off of. But, similar to you it seems, I don't want him playing overly creative passes and thinking he has to unlock the opponents from back there. Just helping the ball move along is fine. So lots of the DM roles that are playmaker-ish have too many risky traits that I don't want. I often use a DM(d), sometimes in the past, an ANC, and sometimes to encourage the CBs to look for him rather than hoofing it I use DLP(d). Out of possession I want him sitting in that hole in front of the CBs. Covering for them when needed, blocking the space, etc. Not being too far up and not pressing people. I like him as the trailing press player. When my CMs rush up to press someone, he can follow in behind to deny a passing option, but he doesn't go press the ballcarrier himself. I still need to do more testing on FM20 of the exact differences between ANC and DM(d). Don't have the game open now, but if I recall right I think they have one or two hardcoded PI differences which led me to choose DM(d). For me in my save he's not too far up. And in your second post above I wouldn't feel concerned that the enemy striker is unmarked... its 1 striker vs your 2 CBs. I count that as sufficient. But do your thing. You say he's too far up naturally and pressing too much. So based on what I'm reading, you could try: 1. Tell him man mark their striker (you probably don't actually mean you want this). 2. Play him at CB as a ball playing stopper or Libero 3. Find a DM player with lower aggressiveness? This is sorta a last resort, but maybe you've done all you can tactically and just have a player with high aggressiveness that is making him try to win too many balls everywhere. 4. Use whatever role (DM, ANC...) that has the lowest possible option for pressing intensity. 5. Lower your defensive width... this is sort of a random try, but maybe this will bring your CBs closer together on that pesky striker you mention and then where the DM sits will feel appropriate to you? 6. Ohh just thought of this one. Try dropping your AMR/AML into the MR/ML strata. I know you have them up there for a reason, but sometimes playing around with your three midfield stratas can have effects on the other midfielders. When I play the same formation as you I try everything from 1DM 2CM AML AMR as you have it, to DM and 4 across ML CM CM MR, to 5 straight across with CM(D) as my "DM". Can't tell you why it changes so much but once in a while it unclicks something. I wouldn't be surprised if you notice your DM take up a different spot, subtly, if you drop your wingers one strata. They should be able to have same roles.
  2. Interesting thread here, I'm enjoying the discussion. For many years on FM I've worked with different teams to achieve a Pep City inspired "free eights" 4-1-2-3 concept, so while I have not used a Libero much myself I find this exploration very pertinent to what I've worked with. I strive to create a similar shape and team function where in my case a DM plays the way you're trying to get your Libero to. (Minor detail -- actually I have my wings and fullbacks opposite what yours do, but that's a simple preference. My wings stay wide to stretch room for the CM's, and my IWBs replace where the CM's were in the deep half-space. Sometimes I'll do one flank like this and one like yours.) 1. From old small experiments with Libero in FM17 and what I'm reading here, I think that there are so many hardcoded aspects of their role that it is more important than anything to have PPMs. This may be the only way you can actually get past the hardcoded stuff. In this sense, I wonder how your tactic would work at a team with the perfect player with PPMs you'd want. Maybe Frenkie at Barca. 2. One subtle detail that might be good about the Libero as opposed to the DM (or sometimes even CM strata with hold position and defensive PIs), is that his placement in the defensive line might be forcing your CBs to stand a little wider than they otherwise would if your playmaker was in the DM position. If so, I would be happy with this. In either approach of ours, we are recreating Pep's 2-3-5 formation when in possession in the attacking third. It is vital for this concept that the CBs are spread enough so that they can have a clear passing angle to the widest player on their nearby wing. That may be either a fullback or winger, depending, but Pep always has someone essentially standing on the touchline to stretch the width and be open for this pass from the near side CB. Occasionally when I use a DM, my CBs can be too close together when we have possession and are recycling and probing a set defense. If they are narrow and the wide man does not drop back sufficiently along his touchline, then a CB with the ball can view this pass as too risky and force a ball vertically forward to someone in the crowded midfield when it isn't available. So... maybe silver lining that this makes your CBs wider in possession? Ha. I know Halfback has some coded stuff involving this, but it also can affect the fullbacks in ways that I don't necessarily want. 3. For crazy experiment's sake, I would try moving both of your CMs to the AM strata. They can be AM(s) or something neutral... I wonder if this lack of anyone in CM would beckon the Libero to come up further. This is sort of just an idea to test the ME's interpretation of your tactic. Off chance that it works? I've run minor experiments like this with moving a side-by-side CM to side-by-side AM. It sometimes plays less aggressive than it sounds on paper, because they sort of recognize the space behind them and come back for it. I originally played with this as a way of getting my "free eight" CMs to sit on the back side of the opponents midfielders, between them and the center backs, so my central back 3 CB DM CB could pass through the line to them and we'd have 3v2 on the opponent CBs. Worth a shot, I'd be curious what that did for you. Good luck keep us posted.
  3. @herne79 I don't think we're saying as different things as it may seem. When you say, "Define "enough" [involvement of passes to the Striker]"... well, I don't really want to because every manager would have a different threshold of what they want based on their tactics. I know you'd agree. So the purpose of this thread was to, as I've said, probe this statistic in a crude way to see if what we are seeing is even in the ballpark of the loose realm that managers might consider "enough." Passes Received is absolutely a statistic in isolation as you say, but it is deliberately chosen because it is just that. A simple stat that gives us a rough sense of passing play involving the forward. I wanted to find a simple single stat that we could compare because if we attempted to look at the overall contribution all at once, I felt like there would be too many tactical and preferential variables and the discussion would be more like "well your tactics are different" "well I'm playing counter attack" etc etc. I totally agree of course that the overall value of a Striker's usefulness is so so so much more than how many passes they receive. But for discussions sake to get a basic sense of what is happening and possible in the ME, that seemed like a good stat to look at and talk about in detail, while trying to avoid going into further tactical variables. As I said, I personally try to play a tactical system with a lone striker who drops deeper to link play. In the past, depending on other factors of course, this has been a F9, DLF, Complete Fwd type of thing. I also know that lots of other popular tactical frameworks require a forward doing this sort of thing. Loosely defined. (Everyone has their little nuances.) So for this, passes received carries a lot of weight. I'm not saying my striker is worthless, but to play this tactical style in a large sense, we need the ability to get the ME to look for and play passes to the striker. So this little idea/exercise of being contrived to see how many we can get or find is interesting. If other people are going for a tactical style with a lone striker sitting on the last man stretching the field deep and making forward runs, like a P or AF type thing, then maybe very few passes received and clearing space and tapping in two crosses per game is perfect. I think this ME looks like it can accommodate that. I'm not sure still if it can accommodate the opposite. In whole, what you remind us about looking at the whole picture is of course important, so totally agree. In this topic though, that caveat said, I'm looking at a particular thing.
  4. Agreed. This little Prd experiment is sort of a crude way of looking at the overall picture here, but certainly those deeper things are more important. I think the Prd is sort of a quick thing we can compare more easily between each other without getting too caught up in what tactic exactly, what team, what familiarity, what opponent etc etc. Gives a sense of whether or not there is an issue here. Linking up play as you describe is very much my intent from my single striker. I like to explore Pep's concepts of free eights at City when I'm facing a deep defense. Not to get into my tactic specifically, but my concept is that I want to have my CMs run beyond the dropping-off striker into the space they left, or have the striker turn to shoot if the CBs don't step out with them. In FM17 I had such a great long save where I was getting great variations on this basic idea and lots of passing interactions between the ST - CM - CM triangle. Which obviously requires vertical forward passes from the CM to the ST to sort of begin the idea. Here in FM20 I'm returning to this idea but cannot get any meaningful looks from the CMs to pass the ball forward into the ST. And yes I've tried many many role combinations including ones that used to work, and it's mid season and everyone is familiar, etc. The CMs are just obsessed with passing to the free winger or fullback. Anyhow, all that to say that this bigger idea of lone striker receiving enough passes is very important as the originating concept of many many tactical forms and ideas. The more specific tactical ingredients and combos you say you look for aren't going to happen enough if the basic idea of looking for the forward is not occurring enough.
  5. 100% @Svenc Duh, Treq. It was late. Thanks for bringing in that data from Serie A 2014-15. Be interesting to compare if we get more from FM. I should point out that in addition to throw ins (probably), those numbers also probably include crosses. For raw simplicity's sake I omitted crosses (sorta brings in lots more variables about player height, jumping, etc can mean ability to "receive" cross could lead to lots of targets but few completions... sort of a can of worms for these purposes). Assuming that data doesn't include crosses, I'm worried the ME puts strikers on the low end (without trying to force ball to striker as you did). Assuming it does include crosses, it would put strikers off the charts low. @herne79 Yes, the opening post was an AI vs AI match. (I was managing Nantes so had full detail Ligue 1 and knew that PSG play 1 striker so was looking at their games.) Don't misunderstand me, I certainly didn't create the topic in reaction to that game. I just put that one up as the opening example for fun because it was so astonishingly low. Could be a "bug" of some type. Although I consider all of this to be a "bug". Just not sure if it requires PKMs because my basic theory is this is a theme in every single game in the ME in a single striker system. To that point, it is probably also involved in any system, but people playing multiple strikers generally say their strikers do get involved. Could be because lack of options elsewhere, fewer wing players open, etc. So I'd expect that SI can look at this by just opening any old game. Your examples seem nice, I'm glad to see them, thanks for sharing.
  6. @Svenc Solid entry! Lol. "about 26" is the new number to beat! Its ok that it was against own U-19s. But important to note. Looks like Bayern completed a TON of passes in such an unbalanced game (quick math, like almost 800). So is 26 of those, half around midfield, anywhere near what we would expect? Hard to say. I'd say its still pretty low. Especially since your striker was a Target Man. Doesn't seem like he was targetted much. 26/700? When you are presumably completely dominating the other team and parked in their third... only a handful of passes received near their box. I'm picturing Bayern playing a vastly inferior team like this and completing approx 800 passes, they must be surrounding the opponents deep defense on the edge of the box and moving the ball around a lot to try to probe for space. I'd expect that the central striker would be the target of passes as much as possible with his back to goal to give a 1-2 or flick or lay on to someone to shoot (and because they're so far forward, any other player with the ball would at least be close enough to him to target him). Anyhow, we can hypothetical forever, but I think the data speaks for itself. Of course the ME is never going to be exactly perfect, but painting with large strokes here I think this is a helpful exercise to see if we are even whatsoever close to normal. Thanks for the entry! RE: your question "is this purely about trying to game the numbers up?" -- not explicitly, but yes that's fine too. I'm curious both what the numbers are naturally in this ME, as well as what tactical tricks and workarounds it would take to get them up as high as we can. I'd like to play a 1 striker tactic, but so far I literally can't figure out how to if I want any semblance of realistic play from the focal point of the entire concept.
  7. @CaptainPlanet What was the tactical workaround you found? Would love one. I even tried going strikerless with an AMC replicating my striker. Same deal.
  8. @CJ Ramson Seems like you and your team are at least listening or trying to work on this, so thank you! However I don't understand why PKMs are necessary for exploring the issue. This is a global tactical issue -- that is most pronounced when playing with a single striker. In my save it appears in every AI vs AI game where someone is using a lone striker tactic. I don't pretend to understand your process for digging into these things under the hood, but couldn't you just open any game or save at all and look at a game in which a team uses one striker? My advice on how to locate the problem. Thanks!
  9. Using a single-striker tactic, what is the most passes received by the striker you can get in a match? * RULES: Excluding throw ins (just count them and deduct). Non-extra time. Striker may be positioned any of the central slots, not on the wing. Strikerless tactic with a single-AMC acting as "striker" counts but will be given an asterisk. You may show AI teams (but then we won't fully know their tactics). No crosses received - for now lets keep it simpler and just look at passes. Please post your results with a screenshot if possible and if it is a good result then please share a shot of your tactics too! My experience is that the ME is having big trouble with involvement of strikers in single-striker formations. Which, in turn, leads to many of the ME issues being complained about (low scoring strikers, no central attacking play, etc etc). Let's find out literally the most we can force the ME to involve our lone strikers. My hunch is it will be astonishingly low. In a match page, go to Analysis > Players then select your team and click Passes in the dropdown menu. Then click on the Prd box for the striker so they show on the map. Deduct ones coming from past the sidelines that are obviously throw ins. Here's my entry to start. Cavani recieved 2 passes in a 90 minute game. One looks like a long ball from defense. Seems Strasbourg played a tactic with a lot of central bodies, but PSG also figured to have lots of possession (certainly won a lot of throw ins lol). Striker was just a 90 minute decoy. Couldn't work anything at all to him while they probed around for an opening? PSG v Strasbourg. AI vs AI. December season 1.
  10. Best FM ever. Yep. Wish we had FM20 features and FM17 ME. I'd keep playing 17 if I didn't want to try things on updated rosters. I gave a very thorough half season to FM20 (most games in comp or full highlight) and will be going back to 17 until a ME patch arrives.
  11. I'd like to remind us all to take a wider and more productive perspective in discussing what is or isn't wrong with the Match Engine... 1. Some people are saying "my game doesn't have that issue" or "my tactic is fine" or "my ME is fine" -- but please check AI vs AI games in your save. That's how you'll really know, not just your tactic which could be down to any little detail. For example, the largest problem I'm having with the ME is that strikers in 1 striker systems are just decoys (I wrote briefly about this 3 pages ago, essentially look at lone striker recieved passes that aren't throw ins. they're wildly wildly smaller than real life). If you run a 2 striker system like a 4-4-2 then you may not think you personally are experiencing this -- but you are! Its still in your ME when you play against 1 striker teams. Every 1 striker team you face is having huge abnormalities. Maybe benefiting you, maybe not, but either way it is an extreme overall difference from soccer as we know it. To have the striker be a full decoy. So please, let's have a wider perspective. This isn't about "Its not in my save" or "I'm scoring goals with strikers". Its about the ME in general. If you feel like your ME truly doesn't suffer from this or other problems being discussed then that is good information for the discussion, but please check more than just your particular team's tactics first. And please not just one game as an example. Multiple games! Mid season! Look at AI v AI games in detail. Look at AI vs you... etc. 2. This also goes for team familiarity and all that. Don't base your own takeaways on your first 5 preseason matches. Too many variables about whether the play is even the full potential of the ME, or just undermined by your team has no tactical clue yet. Also please assume that when other people give detailed explanations that they are looking at midseason or long term ME examples. For example, when I looked at AI vs AI 1 striker involvement it was from games in Dec and Jan. So we can at least eliminate one of the variables and hopefully be more constructive. 3. Bug reports and PKMs won't fix problems these large. That's why some of us are posting in this thread rather than bugs forum. To me, the extremely unrealistic lone striker tactic lack of striker involvement is not a bug. Its a huge general issue. Gamebreaking. I could upload a PKM of any game, or anyone at SI could just play a game and use that one. Issues like this and several of the other big ones are large scale and need to be looked at in a big picture way. I have no clue how to begin to fix it and it sounds super complex, haha. But I do have faith that SI can do it... because it wasn't always the case! ME's from years ago did not have this issue.
  12. Fair enough @Mikke. I did say that this seems to be mostly a glaring problem for single striker setups. Did you also see where these passes were being received? It also bothered me that pretty much 95% of them were nowhere near the penalty box. Nowhere near. Have a look at some of the teams in your save who play 1 striker. Maybe in your 2 striker tactic you don't suffer from this. But I find it very gamebreaking because today IRL most of the top teams play tactical concepts based around 1 striker. Trying to replicate any of them fails entirely because of this problem. Barca, Real, Liverpool, City, Bayern,.. etc.
  13. Everybody should look at any game analysis they can of any teams with a single striker formation (possibly any # strikers as well)... select it to display PASSES RECEIVED for the striker during the match. This will prove to you that the ME is [insert your own word]. I'm gonna simply say bad. You can debate later if -to you- it is "unplayable". I gave it a last solid go by watching 2 consecutive games in full highlight and researched striker touches in a variety of AI teams, tactics, situations as well. Also tried going strikerless using AMC instead. Same deal. You just cannot get anyone to pass into where the striker should be. All roles, all tactics (tried so many) and its true with the AI as well in every team I look at. To me, it is completely unplayable that the strikers are just decoys except for receiving throw ins. I'm going back to FM19 which I never got into, so maybe then back to glorious FM17. Sad day. Quick example: Here's Cavani during two entire matches for PSG in a 4-3-2-1 and AI vs AI. He played all 90 min in each. Look how many passes his teammates completed. 5 found him in one game, 2 aside from throw ins in the other game. LOL. Try looking for yourselves at random games of yours...
  14. Thanks @Seb Wassell, didn't ever notice it saying "game created on version" - that's great, but it is listed in a different format than your statement.. Says version 1311627. How do I know, or could you tell me, where that is in terms of before or after 20.1.0?
  15. I think my beta save was started before this as it doesn't obviously seem too off with these attributes, but is there a way to check what the game version was when the save began? (I've updated several times since of course and now to the full game, so game status shows most recent, not what version I began with...) Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...