Jump to content

Kcinnay

Members+
  • Content Count

    234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Kcinnay

  1. Does playing with a higer mentality make players defend more agressively in duels? Or hasn't mentality no impact on that?
  2. 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:
  3. @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 so
  4. 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.
  5. 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. Ev
  6. 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?
  7. Couple of examples from the pkm I attached: 14.51: No transition. Ball is on the flank. LM (21) presses, but block doesn't shift over. LCM (16) and SCL (9) should move towards the ball, should be ball-oriented, not man-oriented. 29.40: Shortly after transition. Ball is passed to the flank. LM (21) presses, but block doesn't shift over. LCM (16) and SCL (9) should be way closer to the ball. Compactness means: the whole team closing in on the ball. 45.46: Ball is on the left flank. RB (22) presses, but RM (11) and RCM (25) should be closer to the ball. 64.35: LB (15) and LM (20) and LCB
  8. Hi I've observed that the lateral compactness settings really don't make that much difference. I've used multiple set-ups, but this time, in my horizontal and vertical compact 4-4-2, it's quite clear that the whole team doesn't shift over, like they should do in a good compact block. My team is Beerschot, we play in a cautious 4-4-2 with gegenpress settings, extreme pressing, NO tight marking. You see: the counterpress is okay-ish, although 13 and 22 should be much closer to the ball, since gegenpressing should be hunting in packs. But what bothers me the most, is that 15 an
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. I'm sure. I've used it quite a lot. Was very disappointed that that option disappeared for FM18. Was the prime option for me to buy the IGE. It's not like it can't be done; some non-official editors are still able to do so.
  12. That's not true. In FM17, you were able to change the hair and skin colour of players, staff and referees.
  13. Apart from the 'too much time added on' remark (the opposite was a bug in FM16 and FM17, whereas you'd almost always get just 1 or 2 minutes of stoppage time): spot on. I actually don't understand how the ME Team let this ME version pass through. All the 18.2 fixes listed were a welcome adjustment, but the side effects are a huge step back. And El Payaso is right too; the gaps between the lines in the defensive phase are huge.
  14. Even though the ME had it flaws in 18.1.3, I was quite happy with it. It often felt als a real game of football; realistic results, realistic shot amounts. But since 18.2, it's a shooting gallery. Lots of shots, lots of goals in most of the games. The balance is off. It feels like it's FM 15 all over again. Hope the shot amount will be toned down again in a 18.2.1 update.
  15. You're right. It's a matter of personal preferences and philosophy, and in fact, it should be possible to recreate both of those options. And you're 100% right about the problem with shape. Something that could help you with the wide midfielder problem is het 'mark position' option? Make your MR mark the position of ML and vice versa? This also should be a matter of instructions. A CD with more closing down and/or a stopper duty and/or tight marking instruction should step out of the line and challenge for the first ball. But it isn't something that every defender should do. Som
  16. That's not an issue, in my opinion. Although it should be a tactical decision, maybe something where shape kicks in. Lots of teams try to create defensive overloads by agressively closing down certain zones with lots of player, to squeeze the opponent at the touchline. There are other managers who are happy with 1vs1 duels. I consider the first option as fluid defending, the second option as structured defending. In my perception, since 18.2, it happens less and less that 2 or 3 players charge the same player, which is a pity. In my tactical philosophy (FM and real life), defensive overlo
  17. I'm toying with a 4-4-2 myself. It seems that if you give your wide midfielders a support mentality, a close down more PI and no tight marking PI, they tuck in to the center in the defensive phase and defend really narrowly, just like the wide midfielders in Marcelino's teams do.
  18. This article is a very good analysis of Marcelino's tactics at Valencia. It could give you some ideas. https://www.esdfanalysis.com/manager-analysis/valencia/
  19. For me, the dogma that the formation is the defensive set-up, is still the biggest tactical flaw in FM. It doesn't match the player roles and the stratas where those player roles are located (the in-game logics) nor with the way people refer to real life football formations (football logics). There is not a single team in real life that defends in a 4-2-3-1, with three attacking midfielders and a striker. I liked the earlier FM's more in those aspects, where the formations with the arrows allowed you to create a hybrid. The screen showed the basic formation. If you wanted to push someone
  20. There are topics asking for stuff like that that are two years old. Those are no new requests. They wouldn't make the game more complicated. Weird concepts like fluidity make the game more complicated than it really is. Team shape defines vertical compactness, that's true, but it also defines creative freedom. Why? Be my guest. And that aside: a fluid team shape doesn't/(didn't?) make strikers fall back to midfield in the defensive phase, like some users want, like a lot of manager irl make them do.
  21. Disappointing. No defensive width settings, no vertical compactness settings, no extra pressing settings, no clear distinction between zonal marking and man marking. Still no extra options to tweak creative freedom. I sincerely hope that a defensive forward now will be tracking back like an attacking midfielder, to achieve vertical compactness. I was hoping that we could set out how a wide midfielder in a midfield 4 would defend (tuck in centrally, very narrow, or stay wide). Underwhelming.
  22. I'm very curious about the tactical changes. A bit disappointed that the team shape concept isn't gone. Firm hope that there is more creative freedom nuance (much more expressive, much more disciplined) to mitigate the team shape settings. I'm also hoping that a defensive width setting has been implemented, and that one of the new player roles is a striker role that actually tracks back to midfield, so that you can get everyone behind the ball in defense. Apart from that: the first look is promising. Player dynamics and squad hierarchy are features that make the game even more realistic.
  23. The board wants me to play 'direct football', but even though I've maxed oud the passing length in the team instructions and player instructions and use the 'more through balls' instruction, the board is very unhappy with the playing style of the team. What are the criteria they base their opinion on? The number of long passes in the post-match analysis? Or other factors?
  24. Are there acutally good working tactics that *don't* make you have more possession than (big) opponents? Almost all tactics in this section guarantee huge loads of possession, even with smaller teams versus big teams. So I'm looking for a good, solid, physical tactic that makes the opponent have the ball.
×
×
  • Create New...