Jump to content

Kcinnay

Members+
  • Posts

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Kcinnay last won the day on October 12 2017

Kcinnay had the most liked content!

Reputation

129 "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Knokke

Recent Profile Visitors

2,852 profile views
  1. And at last, in FM 22, you can make inside forwards (and maybe some other roles in the AMR-AML position) defend the half spaces, on average and in specific situations. This is the defensive average of my 5-2-3 DM WB formation. Two times WB(A), two times IF(s), central midfielders are BWM(s). A very compact 3-6-1 with a mid press that plugs all the essential holes on the pitch. Happy me!
  2. And almost better: at last the 'sit narrower' function for inside forwards does something. They operate in the half spaces in possession ànd out ouf possession. So if you play a 5-2-3 DM WB with wingbacks on attack and inside forwards on support, you attack - and most of all - can defend in a straight line of 6 in midfield. René Marić and his 3-6-1 article are finally alive! (Which is a good thing. Most 'pocket players' defend the half space IRL, wasn't really replicable before in FM. 2 AMC's sat too narrow before, defensively, 2 IF's were too wide before). I love the positional awareness & fluidity FM 22 shows!
  3. The interface is suffering a bit from a lag, but that aside: great game it seems to be. Really happy that WB's in the DM-strata now actually defend higher up the pitch than a WB in the CD-strata. Until FM 21, it didn't matter that much defensively whether you played 5-3-2 flat or 5-3-2 WB (3-2-3-2 with two higher WB's). Now they can join the high/medium press and eventually (as a last resort) track back to become a back five. Like most of the back 3/back 5 teams defend in real life. (Chelsea, for example.) Looking forward to exploring the ME further.
  4. I don't compare apples and oranges, I compare real apples and plastic apples. If you can't apply some basic football knowledge to the most realistic football simulation game, then the game is failing. I've never encountered an FM game with 70 shots on target, for the record, I don't have the impression that it's an arcade game where you can have a one shot per minute ratio, but plainly dismissing the notion that defending in a passive manner shouldn't be treated so harshly by the game as a lack of knowledge of understanding is quite bold. Speaking about bold and boldness: I can read without highlighted Ctrl + B phrases.
  5. In the 2010 game between Barcelona and Inter, the return of the semi-final of the CL, Barcelona played for more than an hour against ten Inter players who had no intention to play forward, that was the hyperbole of extremely (!) passive defending. Barcelona won 1-0, managed to get 20 shots (not 70, not 100), 4 (four!) on target. I can't find the exact possession stats, but if I remember correctly, Inter had 18% possession. Whoscored says they had a passing success ratio of 54%. It was the lowest block possible, no striker, no attack duties in FM language, and even then, Inter only conceded one goal and four shots on targets. That game was peak Mourinho, a masterclass in defending, but lower, more passive defending than that was not possible. According to your logics, Inter should have been slaughtered, which they weren't. The point of this thread: it isn't normal or logical to park the bus and concede 70 shots on target, even with a huge quality difference. I've won games with 20-0 in my (real) coaching career against minnows, attack after attack, high tempo, but even then, we 'only' managed to get around 40 shots on target.
  6. My two cents as someone who's a real life football coach and a CM/FM player for 20 years now: the whole 'attacking/defensive' debate is pointless. There's a defensive phase, an attacking phase, there are two transition phases and there are multiple sorts of set pieces. Even a passive side has to attack and can be quite spectacular in their direct attacks. So called 'attacking teams' with lots of possession and slow, short passes in their attacking phase use that as a defensive tool, "resting with the ball", as José Mourinho called it 15 years ago. Defending in a low block doesn't make you a 'defensive' side. In Belgium, one of the most spectacular teams at the moment, KV Oostende, defends aggressively, hunts in packs, is considered as one of the most entertaining - if not thé most - entertaining team in the league, but would be considered as a defensive team by that standard. Those are lame labels. That aside: it would be nice if the tactics forum would be a little more openminded, like it used to be. Of course, tactics need some balance, but more than that, they need to have a clear vision. Agressive defending isn't 'wrong' per se - it can be a choice, a choice that can work in real football and in FM. The same goes for passive defending, ultra-direct football, very low possession football. It would be nice if there'd be more space for talking about creating a tactical vision, less stigmatisation about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Your team doesn't need to be moderately compact vertically, your team doesn't need to be moderate in risk taking, in formation choice. It's all a matter of context, of vision, of perspective. The official advices in this forum are often too dogmatic to my liking nowadays, pushing everyone to some sort of mainstream playing style, and that's... boring? And it has been said before in this topic, but: succesfull (smaller) AI teams tend to use those passive mentalities and so-called overkill settings with some sort of success. The playing style templates aren't optimized, but it's not like they can't work. Better labels will need to be used for mentality, greater diversity in set pieces and defending - it's for example very difficult to play an aggressive ball-oriented press where you defend zonally and attack the ball with multiple players at a time - and maybe a step back in the player role dogma's, because they don't match the way you coach real players. I get it, it's a handy tool for the AI, but in football logic, you're more inclined to give your central midfielder specific - or general - tasks, instead of thinking whether he's a defensive, roaming or advanced playmaker - or maybe a mezzalla? FM is a video game, but it would be better if it were easier to implement football logic - instead of gaming logic and dogmatic tendencies. Some thoughts were slightly off topic, I know, but are they really? - in a topic about the alleged absurdity of FM?
  7. Does playing with a higer mentality make players defend more agressively in duels? Or hasn't mentality no impact on that?
  8. A first update: the things I tried to get rid of where the asymmetric formation and the specific marking. I like it when my players double up, ball oriented, act as a swarm of wasps - and a 3-6-1 flat is perfect for that compactness. What I'm trying to do, is to use a 3-2-4-1 formation all the time and make sure the two DM's sit inbetween the MEZ's, even without possession. Another thing about the chain of six in a medium or low block is that you don't create gaps in the line when someone steps out for a light press due to OI. An example: An open play situation. We're Genk (in blue). The inverted wingback had the ball and my left MEZ Toma steps out of the chain to force a long ball to the center, thanks to the OI. Behind him, you clearly can see the chain of five in perfect order. DW(s) Munoz - MEZ(a) Limbombe - DM(s + get further forward Heynen) - DM(s + get further forward) Eboué - DW(s) Uronen. At that moment, we played with a balanced low block, no tight marking. Another example, now from a set piece, directly at a free kick situation, with attacking mentality, high line, tight marking. I tried the extreme mix of two SV's (a) and two MEZ's (a). Even then, you have the chain of six, although it bothers me that the two blonde guys are in the middle, whereas the most left blond guy (Toma) is the left MEZ and the guy next to him (Eboue) is the left SV. Later in the game, I tried both DM's as regista's with get further forward. Something to explore further. In the first attempt of the game - which I used only for trying whether a 3-2-4-1 framework could provide me a 3-6-1 in defense at all, you could see some nice patterns in open play. Here, my right MEZ presses the ball and the chain of five is behind him in correct order, ball oriented. In an earlier game against Eupen, I used a 3-6-1 with two SV's (A) and two MEZ's(s) for something more than 20 minutes. It gave a nice average defensive shape. You see, it's a chain of six, but as I was using it to press more (therefore, I played 5-2-3), you saw the MEZ's step up first in the halfspaces, closely backed up by the defensive wingers and the SV(s). Thinking about the player descriptions of René Marić and his case study of the Chelsea squad, I would prefore to stay close to 'logical' roles that fit types like Matic, Fabregas, Kanté. I'd prefer a defensive playmaker, but the hardcoded hold position would make him not push up, probably. Some questions. - For the the requested defensive behaviour, would it be better to play with a narrow defense (which I instinctively prefer) or a wide defense? Or keep things neutral? - I added 'be more expressive' to increase fluid behaviour and the stepping up of the DM's. Is that a good idea? Or would 'be more disciplined' help the MEZ's to defend wider? - Does MEZ(s) or MEZ(a) make a difference in their tendency to drift wide and defend the halfspaces? Does mentality have an impact on that? It's not all like I want at the moment, but I'm close. And: in the game I seriously played (the experimental game ended 1-2 for us, very lucky we were), we were defensively really solid. 0,3 xG, 4 shots against, only 1 on target, where we had 1,01 xG, 13 shots, 4 on target. I look to expand this trajectory further and be able to provide a framework for a symmetrical 3-6-1 without having the need to focus play down to one side in possession. (Oh, and: bravo to FM21. DW's now actually defend like offensive WB's should do. They press high up but aren't afraid to track back at right back when the ball's really close to goal. In FM20, a three man defence that wasn't heavily focussing on possession would get hammered on the flanks, now the wide CD's and the wingers do their job perfectly, assisted by the DM's. PI's, TI's and OI's now clearly make a difference. Suggestions are welcome!)
  9. @Flußkrebs Wow, amazing work! I adore your commitment to try and test multiple formations, shapes and settings. Thank for that! I think you've nailed it indeed, your tactic provides a great framework. It's good to see that it seems to be possible to create a chain of six in the defensive shape. In possession, it's easily done, multiple formations allow the creation of a pure 3-6-1, but defensively, not at all. It would be better if we had more options, formationwise - or if we had more options for defensive positioning. A 'stay wider' or 'stay narrower' PI for the defensive phase would solve a lot. For example: IRL, some teams who defend in 4-4-2 make the back 4 spread wider than the midfield 4 - or the other way around. In FM, that's not really possible. Another thing that's lacking is the pressing behaviour of wingbacks in the DM strata. The back three is very popular IRL, and lots of teams combine that with a high press. But to achieve that, it's essential that the wingbacks press very high in the opposite half and don't form a back five too early - which doesn't happen in FM. Seeing RB Leipzig or Atalanta press in FM isn't even close to real life due to the defensive behaviour of the wingbacks. In my opinion, WB's in the DM strata should defend way much higher in the opposite half. The difference with a FM back five is negligible. What I'd really like, is a PES-like possibility to move positions 'freely' on the tactics board, with some zonal restrictions ofcourse. It should be possible to push inside forwards more to the middle, in the halfspace, it should be possible to get two DM's/CM's inbetween two MEZ's. Those thoughts aside: I'm gonna toy around with your settings, try to create a tactic that presses and defends like I want. I'll get back to you!
  10. Thanks for your answer! The importance of the defensive shape isn't necessarily to attempt a pure recreation of the article; it's because I'm a football coach myself and it's the formation I use myself. I get the offensive behaviour and patterns that I want, but defensively, the four wide players end up on top of each other, and I really like the flexible chain of six where every lateral zone (wing, halfspace, center, halfspace, wing) can be covered - and having a double pivot as well. I've seen that inside forwards defend the halfspace more easily when the double pivot is in the DM strata. I've toyed with a 5-2-3 DM, but the problem is that the wingbacks don't press high, even on max. pressing. We defend way too deep. I don't think it's impossible to recreate the defensive movement I want, but it's like you say: TI's and PI's need to be spot on. I'll translate my TI's: Attacking In possession: Much shorter passing Attempt through balls Much higher tempo Narrow In transition: Counter Counterpress Without possession: Push opponent to the wings Much higher defensive line Much higher line of intervention Extremely urgent Hard tackling Offside trap I've created the narrow shape to make the inside forwards defend more narrow, but unfortunately, the defensive wingers do the same. Is there a way to make the wings in one strata defend wider and the wings in another strata defend narrower? That's what I'm looking for. Could lowering the team mentality help? (I've used 'Attacking' as I prefer a really high tempo game.) Thanks!
  11. Hi y'all A new FM, a new try to recreate the defensive high block/mid block shape that René Marić has written about a couple of years ago. He saw the 3-6-1 as the next step, and in a way, he was right. More and more teams are playing a 5-4-1/5-2-3/3-4-3/3-6-1 hybrid, where the wingbacks push up really high in possession, stay there in transition and only when the ball is the own half, return to their spot. All in all, it seems impossible in FM to replicate those wingbacks' behaviour. A wingback starts in the defensive line and only pushes up when he has no flank player in front of him. Even in the DM strata, he's primarily the 4th of 5th member of the backline. In his essay (https://spielverlagerung.com/2015/12/06/the-3-6-1-a-logical-step/), Marić describes the roles in his formation more or less as follows: -----------------GK------------------ ----------CD---CD----CD--------- -W--MEZ--CM--CM--MEZ-W- -----------------CF------------------- But first, there's the problem, it's impossible in FM to recreate a simple flat 6 in midfield, because only 5 spots are available. But we could work around that, no? The simple solution would be: 3 cd's, 2 dm's or defensive playmakers in the dm strata, 2 defensive forwards and 2 mezalla's (who're described as runners by Marić) and then a deep lying forward. If it were a mid block, I'd ideally want as a 'the ball is in the center of the pitch' situation that my forward harasses the backline, that my wingers occupy the flanks, that my double pivot occupies the center and that the runners occupy the halfspace. But that doesn't seem possible. First try was this: a 3-4-3 wide. I instructed the inside forwards to go further forward and stay narrower / the defensive forwards were ordered to stay wider. But often more than not, they were in each other's way, standing closely in front of eachother, leaving the halfspaces open. I would be there if my wingers would defind wider and the inside forward - or the other way arround, but alas: the defensive width has an impact on all of the four flank runners. Another try was using a 3cd-2dm-4dw-mez-mez-dw-1cf tactic, but the mezalla's kept more of a box shape, didn't cut the passing lines in the halfspace. The same went for a 3cd-4dw-cm-cm-dw-2am-1cf formation. The central midfielders and attacking midfielders form a box, the passing lanes are wide open. I'd really, really like to be able to defend in the mid zone with the narrow occupation of both flanks, both halfspaces and the middle of the pitch with six pleayers more or less in line. Which roles in the DM/M/AM strata defind the half spaces by standard? Would an IWB(d) or (s) do that? Doesn't a IF(s) defend and attack the halfspaces more than an (I)W? Or can a WM modified as a pseudo-mezalla and defending and attacking the halfspaces with a wider defending winger in front of him? I hope you can give me some suggestions. (By the way: I've read a lot of topics on this, from Ozil's 3-5-1-1 to the three failed replications of Marić's 3-6-1. I hope some FM wizards know how to make one flank player occupy the wide spaces and another flank player the half spaces. Or know how runners in the AM strata defend the half spaces, next to two CM's, instead of forming a box.) Thanks in advance!
  12. Does creative freedom have an effect in the defensive phase as well? For example, 'roaming' from a zone to get closer to the ball, to help out a team mate, to double up?
  13. I've honestly never been more excited for a new FM edition than this time. The tactical overhaul sounds great and will give us much more control. For example: great that defensive width isn't predetermined anymore by mentality. I like the 'Line of confrontation' setting, so that I don't have to play strikerless anymore to get my forward get back behind the ball (hopefully). Linked with the massive changes in training, this gives the game even more depth. Very promising. Let's hope there'll be more (zonal) possibilities in set pieces defending and more movement variations in offensive set pieces. In fact, 'thanks' to the announcement of FM19 and the wide array of new options, I've lost the will to play FM18. Come on, beta!
  14. 5 penalties in one game. My team got one (missed it), conceded four (Berge scored all of them). Savage. Must be some kind of record.
×
×
  • Create New...