Kcinnay
-
Posts
296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by Kcinnay
-
-
A step back in this version of the ME is that attacking wingbacks - even with an attacking mentality and maxed out pressing - are defensively more conservative and fall back in a back 5 way too soon. That was also the case in previous versions of FM and it's sad that that improvement has disappeared.
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!
Spoiler
0 -
11 hours ago, Kcinnay said:
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.
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!
1 -
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 -
16 minutes ago, crusadertsar said:
Again like others did before, you are using examples of real life football to apply to a problem with FM game. That does not help the OP's issue at all. The way the game works is different from how real football does.
Like @Experienced Defender alluded to before, you can't compare apples and oranges. You could be a world-class coach like Pep Guardiola and you could still be garbage at the game. Especially if you don't understand the intricacies of ME and the current tactic creator. It's like saying that a five star army general should instantly be a pro at playing a war strategy game like Total War or something. Or a real football player should be amazing at FIFA. There is a huge difference between video game and real life. So stop comparing apples and oranges.
I dont know what is so hard to understand. In the game, by the game mechanic logic, if you defend too passively and tell your defenders to sit back ( as you would by using lowest DL and lowest LOE + defesive mentality) you are basically giving a superior AI team license to attack you from around your box. And not even world-class centrebacks can withstand that for long.
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.
2 -
22 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:
Given how extremely passive your tactic was - with virtually no resistance at all - it would have been no surprise if there had been 100 shots. But never mind.
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.2 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
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?
10 -
Does playing with a higer mentality make players defend more agressively in duels? Or hasn't mentality no impact on that?
0 -
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!)0 -
@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!0 -
4 hours ago, dazza11 said:
Having your players attack:defend half spaces isn’t just about the player roles you give them, you need to have your TI and PI’s spot on to get them to behave as you want. Unfortunately your screenshot isn’t in English so I can’t help with suggesting adaptions to those.
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!0 -
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!0 -
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?
0 -
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 (4) are too wide, should be around 5 meters closer to the ball.
That aside: I played with a low block. Cautious mentality, very low LOE, lower DL. Individual pressing maxed out, no tight marking, to make the pressing radius bigger and to avoid man-oriented pressing - I want no 1 vs 1-situations, but defensive overloads. In horizontally and vertically compact blocks without tight marking, a team should shift over in a pack around the ball, but that doesn't happen when the ball is on the flank.In my opinion, a wide or narrow defensive width doesn't make that much of a difference. It should be a tool. A narrow defense should see the whole team way closer to the ball, to cut out the long pass - with the risk of leaving the gap on the other flank open. A wide defense should spread out way more, to avoid being caught by a long ball to the other flank, but should have more trouble to recuperate the ball due to the lower number of defensive players in the zone nearby.
A compact defensive setting in FM20 mostly works well when the ball is in a central zone. The wide players tuck in as they should do with a narrow width, but when the ball is in a wide space, the team doesn't shift over, but instead, leaves a lot of gaps. The difference between a wide, regular and narrow defensive should be much more visible - as should the difference between ball oriented pressing (high closing down, no tight marking) and man oriented pressing (tight marking).
About the two sceptical reactions: of course, my first post wasn't a complete, detailed report. It was an observation, a ball thrown in the air, waiting for response and questions for more detail to be given. I have a life, a job, I am not able to play FM in endless streams. I wanted to report the problem, but didn't have much time, had to find a picture of a compact defense IRL quickly. I didn't have the time to find thé perfect similar example from real life. Give us some slack, please.
When someone from the SI staff asks for more information, I give this information. Hence this post. If more information is needed, I'll be glad to give it.
0 -
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 and 4 and 20 are way too far on the other side, certainly because I play on 'cautious' mentality. 15 should be where 4 is, 4 and 6 should move a bit to the right as well, 20 should be closer to 16. That's shouldn't even be extreme compactness, but regular compactness.
It has been posted before on this forum, but this Getafe set-up is a good example of what the extreme horizontal compactness setting should look like. The RB and the RM (in my game: the LB and LM) should be in the central space of the pitch.
3 -
7 hours ago, PulpoCris said:
Hello everybody! I play the FM 2019 and at the time of playing the 3D match, all the managers are bald. I tried in-game editor and didn't work.
Does the same thing happen to someone?
Thanks and regards
The same is happening in my save.
1 -
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!
1 -
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.
0 -
4 hours ago, dkouv said:
First impressions are that UI is much improved, but the ME feels like a big step backwards. What annoyed me most about FM16 were the OP far post crosses. What annoyed me about FM17 was the ease with which you could dominate possession, have lots of shots, and get crappy teams playing beautiful tiki-taka. I know both are tactic related, but it was too easy to fall into those traps, or end up using them if you wanted an effective tactic.
Both of those things were absent in FM18.1. Teams in lower leagues could play hoofball effectively. It was easy to avoid possession based tactics, and the number of shots in games seemed pretty normal (at least relative to chances created). There were still issues with powerful 3ST formations and lots of goals + too much time added on, but these felt pretty minor.
Now I feel like with 18.2 both of those issues from FM16 and FM17 - far post crosses and too many shots - are back. Tbh I think the far post cross thing is quite tactic specific so may not be a big issue, but I found the "lots of shots" problem much more pervasive. A lot of these shots are also pretty good chances, but the keeper / last ditch defence / striker indecision seems to reduce the number of goals (note: this is the case for both me and the AI). I hope that the ME gets brought back closer to the 18.1 version in the next iteration.
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.
1 -
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.
1 -
3 hours ago, rdbayly said:
I guess it's about opinions, but I want my wide players to press their wide players and my central players to press their central ones. The problem with shape in FM is that it also applies to both attacking and defensive play. I want to defend in a structured fashion but attack in a fluid way, but this is hard to recreate.
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?
2 hours ago, El Payaso said:Yep, this basically should always be the case as that is basically the first thing that is taught to defenders, well at least that was first thing that I was told when I played. Challenge for the first ball always to make it harder for the attacker even if you don't win it.
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. Sometimes, a coach instructs his central defenders to not challenge for the long ball with a striker that's too powerful in the air, because by stepping out of the line, you open space for a fast striker to play in. In some cases, it's better to not challenge in the air, stand off, and wait for the second ball or challenge for the ball on the ground. That behaviour should be something for a CD with (much) less closing down and/or a cover duty and/or no tight marking. And maybe the explicit opposition instructions NO tight marking and NO closing down on that specific player.
1 -
5 minutes ago, rdbayly said:
I agree that central defenders are now aggressively challenging for long balls more often, but I'm still finding it inconsistent. There are still major issues with the closing down mechanic, which all too often sees 2 or 3 players close down the same wide man; vacating large areas of central space which leaves your backline exposed.
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 overloads are very important.
1 -
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 up in possession, you needed to give him an arrow forward. If you wanted someone track back when out of possession, you gave him an arrow backwards. Just like on a real tactical board. You played a 4-2-3-1 (for example), you defended like a 4-4-1-1, attacked like a 2-4-1-3. Simple and logical, in accordance to real life football. If duty was replaced with the reintroduction of an arrow that allowed you to push up or push down a role to one strata higher or lower, a lot of problems would be solved. You could make a center back push up in possession with that forward arrow, but he would still defend like a center back. You could give a striker a backward arrow, which would make him defend like an attacking midfielder, but would make him attack in accordance with his role.
Keep the roles, delete the duties and replace them with an optional forward or backward arow. All would be much more logical, without having to throw away the tactics creator.
1 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 minute ago, A.Pierfrancesco said:Be realistic, it is impossible to have a completely different game within a year. Moreover, the game will be much more complicated than before. I'm right with you about the pressing setting. You already have vertical settings using the team shape.
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.
8
FM22 - Pressing Has Been Reworked
in Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion
Posted
The worrying thing is: wingbacks in teams who defend with a back 3/back 5 are doing that as well. It was an issue that after many years was solved with FM22, but after the first patch, without the ball, even the most gung-ho wingbacks with press to the max are as conservative as Kim Jong-un. You see it in game, you see the differences in the average positions without the ball as well. A pressing team playing FM's 5-2-3 wide (abysmal naming) could (depending on roles) looking like a flat 3-6-1 or a 3-4-3. Now it's always, always a 5-4-1, even when you're dominating possession big time. The little impact pressing has on certain positions is frustrating. And it's time for FM to implement pressing certain zones, not positions or players, and most of all: with how many players nearby? Double zonal marking and wolfpack pressing are more and more common in football (at last!), but the game doesn't allow you to create consequent defensive overloads.