[How many of you still use 2D Classic?]

22 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

We've released a hotfix which has addressed a couple of the issues raised with the 2D view:

 

Zoom helps a lot.

 

If there are any opportunities to optimize what portion of the stadium you render based on zoom, I suspect you can free up resources for those of us who zoom all the way in like this screeenshot.

I still believe it would be useful to remove / freeze the sign boards in this view.

Thanks for the quick turn around on the feedback!

[How many of you still use 2D Classic?]

Good to hear.

Another suggestion: Allow disabling of the moving signboards.  Either allow a config option to stop them from scrolling / moving or allow an option to remove them entirely.  I don't find they add a lot in the 2d view and they become distracting as they move around.

[How many of you still use 2D Classic?]

It appears camera height and camera zoom is disabled in the 2D view.  It would great to be able to zoom in such that I can maximize the pitch size when pinning widgets.

Also note that pinning affects the view between match highlights.  I'm not sure you need that.

 

 

 

[How many of you still use 2D Classic?]

I'm really missing 2D classic and am finding the remaining 2d option not viable.  I'll have to give the data analyst camera view a try.

[Chief Scout Important?]

2 hours ago, Joey Numbaz said:

One other question, does knowledge of the country the player is playing in, or knowledge of the country he is from 'count'?

So if I scout a Polish kid who is playing in Spain, do I want my scout who knows Poland to scout him, or my scout that knows Spain?

As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter - its just the club's knowledge (not the individual scout's knowledge) of the country he's playing in (Spain) and the ability of the Scout assigned to scout him.

[Chief Scout Important?]

@Joey Numbaz

I do something similar but I've never really thought of my cross-checker scouts as tied to a given region.  I sign associate scouts with knowledge in the country (countries) they are sent to scout.

But once they uncover a player who *might* have 4 1/2 or 5 stars in potential, I just send any of my cross-checker scouts with high attributes in Scouting Potential Ability.

I ask because according to my experience and documentation like this, the club's "Scouting Knowledge" for the country along with the quality of the coach scouting  the player is what appears to maximize the chance of reaching 100% knowledge for a player.

Meaning that it doesn't matter what the scout's knowledge level of the country of the player being scouted is with regards to how effective that particular scout is at scouting that particular player.

Have you noticed that scouts with a higher scouting knowledge of the country of the player being scouted are more effective at reaching 100% player knowledge when scouting a given player?

[Marcelo Bielsa's Tactical Philosophy in Football Manager 2017]

@Ö-zil to the Arsenal!

Question regarding the decision to go with More Direct Passing:

You wrote:

On 8/25/2017 at 11:59, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Verticality or - for those not a fan of tactical jargon - passing the ball forwards.

I took this to mean that there is a tendency to play the ball forward towards the opponents goal rather than side to side or back.  I didn't take it to mean that there is a tendency to play long passes.  I.E. short but vertical passes would fit the style.  Is this correct?

If so, do you think that the degree to which a player plays the ball forward governed by their mentality as opposed to passing directness?  I.E. would short passing also work for a team instruction if you were playing attacking mentality?  Or do you think that the presence of short passing causes players to play fewer balls forward in addition to shortening the length of the pass they wish to play?

I still get confused about how these two things (mentality and length of desired pass) work together and I'm wondering what your take is int he context of this setup.

[Arsene Wenger's Invincibles]

I find it interesting to compare and contrast this thread with Cleon's Project Invincible thread.  I'm less interested in the question of who's right or wrong and more interested in looking at the ways in which we analyze real life tactics and interpret them in FM.

Team Summary

Cleon summarized the team as follows:

1. Played a 4-4-2 system or a lopsided 4-2-3-1
2. Was quite fluid and players moved around a lot and morphed into different shapes as they played
3. The players also roamed from positions and were allowed to be more creative in their thinking
4. Wenger’s system is often translated as “Flexible” in FM. He likes players to express themselves, but also sees it as a team game
5. Tended to sit deep at times before launching devastating Counter Attacks
6. Could keep the ball and move it around in the final third with attacking moves, but the Counter was their most potent weapon
7. Played a high tempo game even though they used to sit deep waiting for counter attacks.
8. Were quite direct at times and moved the ball around with urgency,
9. Not such a high pressing side either, they traditionally tended to drop off and became compact when they needed to
10. Whipped crosses across the box with real pace for Ljungberg, Henry & Pires to get on the end of

Ozil summarized the team as follows:

1. Could describe the team as a flat 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1 or a variant 4-2-3-1
2. Lined up in a fluid 4-4-2 shape with Bergkamp in a slightly withdrawn role
3. High creativity, free-flowing football but the main attacking weapon is attacking - or counter attacking - at speed
4. Without the ball, operated a medium-block
5. Would invite the opposition forward
6. Organized into an attacking unit and a defensive unit, with everyone contributing towards transition play

Those are pretty similar!

The one thing that jumps out at me is Cleon asserted they could move the ball around in the final third (which implies patient build up?) while Ozil asserted that they attacked at speed (though Ozil, you may have been focused on the counter attack when you wrote that?).  The reason this jumps out at me becomes more obvious when we look at Mentality and Team Instruction differences.

Team Shape

The Arsenal Rewind Article has a nice section that provides visual references for what the "Starting Formation" (Without the Ball?) looked like and what the "Attacking" formation (With the Ball?) looked like, which helps me think about Team Shape (and Individual Roles and individual instructions like whether to encourage forward runs).

Cleon asserted that the team shape should be Flexible while Ozil concluded the team shape should be Fluid.  Its interesting to me when I compare the analysis of style to what I understand about the two mentalities.  Here's what I mean:

Flexible is described as:

1. Players are expected to contribute to more than one phase of play
2. Defenders and more defensive midfielders are responsible for both defensive and transition phases
3. More attacking midfielders and forwards are responsible for both transition and attack phases
4. The team will aim to find a balance between the movement of players and keeping its shape

Now from The Hand of God's amazing writeup of the mentality ladder, we have a lot of information about what flexible shape results in (remember that it used to be called balanced).  

There's a lot to digest there, but for me the key part is this:

On 1/23/2014 at 05:36, THOG said:

Balanced mentality structures divide the team into three units based on the duties assigned to individual players. As with fluid structures, a more cautious defensive unit provides a stable, structural core that frees a more adventurous attacking unit to get forward aggressively, though this is further balanced by a "supporting" unit that serves to provide a more consistent link between the two. However, since a player's respective unit is defined by his duty rather than position, this gives the manager greater flexibility in refining his defensive and attacking shape to fit the personnel at his disposal. Consequently, Balanced mentality structures can accommodate a high degree of either duty-based specialization or general versatility.

Cleon's point #3 is what seems to stand out as leading him to choose Flexible.  Although its interesting that Ozil's point #6 might be interpreted to support arriving at Flexible.

However, Cleon's point #2 and Ozil's point #2 and #6 could be interpreted in a way that steers us away from Flexible and maybe to Fluid?

Fluid is described as:

1. Players are expected to contribute to more phases of play than the balanced philosophy (this is a bug in the description as balanced became standard and philosophy
2. The team is split into broad attacking and defensive units
3. More creative players are responsible for the attacking phase and more defensively disciplined players are responsible for the defensive phase
4. However, players from each unit are expected to move into the transition phase when the right opportunity arises
5. The team will be encouraged to play more flowing soccer with players allowed more creative freedom

Here's what THOG said about Fluid.

It is a bit too long to quote, but what is interesting to me in there is what he writes about the two groups that have narrow and distinct duties.  However, his points regarding the controller affect only applying when using lower mentalities (Contain, Defend, Counter) makes me wonder if Fluid (with Attacking mentality) makes sense or not.

For me the questions that come to mind are:

1. Do we want Flexible or Fluid in order to create the right amount of vertical separation between Attack, Midfield and Defensive lines both regarding where players close down and also so that the CF and AM roles are staying up high enough to break quickly without getting too isolated?
2. Do we need Flexible or Fluid In order for get the LWB to aggressively get forward in attack while the RWB stays deeper to support and defend due to using Attack and Support for their respective roles?
3. Likewise, do we need Flexible or Fluid in order to get the LCM to support the attack and make runs into the box (like that great clip of Vieira) while the RCM stays back and shields the CDs due to using Support and Defend for their respective roles?
4. Do we need Flexible or Fluid In order to set the proper distribution of responsibilities among the individual roles?
5. Do we need Flexible or Fluid In order to get the desired amount of creative freedom?

What sources of evidence might help us decide between these two choices?

Positioning and Movement Questions (#1-3)

The Zonal Marking article's diagram help us determine that the LWB needs to make runs further up the field than the RWB.  It also seems to suggest that we need the average position of the LCM to be slightly higher than the average position of the RCM.  LIkewise, it appears to suggest that we need the average position of the LM to be slightly higher than the RM.  And of course, it reinforced what Ozil and Cleon concluded regarding the AM being deeper than the CF.

The Football Performance Analysis graphs that display location (albeit location when scoring and assisting vs. true average position) helps us understand where the ST and AM players should position themselves relative to one another.  For example, we can tell that Bergkamp spent very little time on the right side of the pitch and was both on the left side and central while also staying quite a bit deeper than Henry.

Likewise, part 4 helps us understand where Cole and Pires spent their time (when assisting at least).

I can't find sources of information for the other roles and I can't find average position.  But If I play two versions of the tactic (one on Fluid and one on Flexible) and look at the average position under the team section of analysis, I get this:

Flexible with the ball

Fluid with the ball

Flexible without the ball

Fluid without the ball

So which of these two looks more like what we're going for?
 

Distribution of Responsibility Question (#4)

I'm unsure how to approach that question and would like to hear what others think.

What I guess I need to do is look each position's statistics?  For example, taking analysis from the Fluid version of the tactic:

Does this look like where the LWB should be completing crosses from?

 

Does this look like where the LM should be completing passes from?

 

Does this look like where the LCM should be touching the ball?

 

Does this look like where the CF should be taking shots from?

 

Degree of Creative Freedom Question (#5)

I'm unsure how to approach that question and would like to hear what others think.

What would I look at to help me determine whether the amount of Creative Freedom Flexible vs. Fluid allows is more appropriate?

 

So that's what I came up with for Team Shape analysis - have I left anything out worth considering with regards to reaching a conclusion about Team Shape?

 

Mentality and Team Instructions

Cleon asserted that the Mentality should be Counter while Ozil concluded the Mentality should be Attack.  That's a big difference!

However, I don't think the whole picture is clear until we look at the team instructions that went along with that.  Here's what I mean:

Cleon's Team Instructions were as follows:

1. Higher Tempo
2. Pass Into Space
3. Be More Expressive
4. Whipped Crosses
5. Roam from Positions

Ozil's Team Instructions were as follows:

1. Exploit the Left Flank
2. Play out of Defense
3. Pass Into Space
4. Low Crosses

So when we take the Mentality and Team Instructions together, how do they compare?

1. Tempo is similar.  Cleon gets it by raising the base tempo of the Counter Mentality.  Ozil gets the fast tempo from the Attack Mentality.
2. Both pass into space.  Watching the video clips tells us this makes a lot of sense and its clear why they both landed on that. (But are there other sources of evidence that reinforce?)
3. Creative Freedom is similar.  Cleon gets it by raising the base Creative Freedom of the Flexible Team Shape.  Ozil gets the high Creative Freedom from the Fluid Team Shape. (Does Mentality also affect Creative Freedom?  If yes, then the same point would apply).
4. Roaming is similar (I think).  Cleon gets it by raising the base Roaming of the Flexible Team Shape.  Ozil gets the increased Roaming from the Fluid Team Shape. (Does Mentality also affect Roaming?  If yes, then the same point would apply).
5. Crosses are similar but different.  Cleon goes with Whipped Crosses, which implies crosses in the air but low and fast (so near post but to head?).  Ozil goes with Low Crosses, which implies on the ground and fast (so near post but to feet?).  What source of evidence help us understand which was more common?

So in summary, a lot is similar.  But why is Cleon going with Counter and Ozil going with Attack?  I think it has to do with their different interpretations of:

1. The defensive line and how high/low the block should set itself
2. The degree of risk the team is willing to take
3. How the teams should pass the ball.

Defensive Line

The Arsenal Rewind Article has a nice section that provides visual references for what the "Starting Formation" (Without the Ball?) looked like and what the "Attacking" formation (With the Ball?) looked like.  Information like this helps me think about Mentality and Roles.  But I wonder if this kind of information can also help evaluate Defensive Line?  Or is there an alternative source that is better referenced?

Attack Mentality results in a higher defensive line and Counter results in a lower defensive line.   Cleon references this when he writes:

On 1/7/2016 at 23:55, Cleon said:

The mentality that I’ll end up using long-term is likely to be something higher than counter attack. The reason behind that thinking is, last year I found that counter was far too deep at times. But for now, counter attacking is ideal and I’ll use that to see how it goes.

So it seems like he believes it might need to be set higher than the Counter Mentality default.

Here's how the average positioning look in a few different variations of the tactic:

Counter / Flexible / Normal Defensive Line With The Ball

 

Attack / Fluid / Normal Defensive Line With The Ball

 

Counter / Flexible / Much Higher Defensive Line With The Ball

 

Counter / Flexible / Normal Defensive Line Without The Ball

 

Attack / Fluid / Normal Defensive Line Without The Ball

 

Counter / Flexible / Much Higher Defensive Line Without The Ball

 

Degree of Risk

I'm unsure how to approach that question and would like to hear what others think.

Reading again through the The Arsenal Rewind Article , I see the following description:

Quote

Few teams kept possession as well as Arsenal did, they would be patient and draw the defenders out of their comfort zone, then with a sudden acceleration of pace and an inch perfect through ball would open up the defense and they would score.

But what stats would I look at to help me determine the degree of risk they took?

I guess one would look at statistics like:

1. Pass Completion % (how safe did they play their passing?)
2. % of Passed received by other roles for a given role (how often did they make a safe pass - either something short and horizontal / backwards or a hoof way down the field vs. how often did they try to make a direct and incisive pass / through ball?)
3. Dribbles Lost (How often did they try to take on the defender?)
4. Missed Interceptions (How often did they step and risk the passed ball going past them?)
5. Missed Tackles (How often did they step and risk the opponent skinning them?)

 

Passing

For me, an Attack mentality implies:

1. Less direct passing in the back (shorter, more sideways passing to build up the attack)
2. More direct passing in the front (aggressive, vertical balls moving toward the opponent's goal).  

Counter Mentality implies the opposite

1. More direct passing in the back (to catch an opponent that has overcommitted or to get the ball to safety)
2. Shorter passing in the front (careful movement to not waste possession and patiently try to hold on to the ball until a good opportunity presents itself).

I guess in order to figure this out, I'd need to see graphics or statistics that showed me where each role tended to pass the ball.  I'm not sure if that exists.  Here's what the two variations of the tactic look like with respect to passing:

CD Passing on Counter

CD Passing on Attack

 

LM Passing on Counter

LM Passing on Attack

 

AM Passing on Counter

AM Passing on Attack

 

CF Passing on Counter

CF Passing on Attack

 

It is a bit hard to tell, but I believe in general my descriptions of the two mentalities WRT types of passes are evident in the analysis.  The question becomes, did the CD pass short more often or direct more often?  And likewise for the other positions.

I couldn't find the information to help answer that unfortunately.

 

Player Role Differences

There are differences but I'll have to save that analysis for another day.  I recognize that Ozil was quite clear that only through a combination of the Mentality, Team Shape, Team Instructions and Player Role Instructions was he able to define his desired re-creation.  Likewise, Cleon had a series of specific points regarding Player Role Instructions and PPMs.

Conclusion

It is really interesting to me to look at two examples of interpretation of the same team's playing style.  I hope I'm on the right track regarding how to look for inputs and what information in the game I can use to determine if my interprettion is faithful or not.

[[FM17][SKIN] VITREX17 v2.0 (updated 1.1.2017)]

21 minutes ago, DimitriFromParis said:

Looks good, but i can tell you now, that you will have problems with longer team names like Crystal Palaca ect.

So reduce the text widgets' size further I guess?  Do you think its possible to revise so that the offset and size are a % of resolution instead of absolutes?  If you anchored to left/right top/bottom and applied percentages, I wonder if you could get the same alignment regardless of resolution?

[[FM17][SKIN] VITREX17 v2.0 (updated 1.1.2017)]

I was able to do it.  My laptop is 1440x900.  I had to make changes to:

1. Size of various text widgets (team names, team scores, clock)
2. Size of the team logos
3. Offset values of various containers related to the team logos, various text widgets and the competition logo

Got it to look like this:

 

 

For those interested in trying it out, you can:

1. Make a backup of ../Sports Interactive/Football Manager 2017/skins/Vitrex17 1.4/panels/match/match title bar.xml
2. Download the attached file, which is my modified version of match tile bar.xml and place in the ../Sports Interactive/Football Manager 2017/skins/Vitrex17 1.4/panels/match/ directory

match title bar.xml

 

Also...I wonder if its possible to revise most of the containers' sizing to be a dynamic % of available size so that these things just scale up and down automatically?

[[FM17][SKIN] VITREX17 v2.0 (updated 1.1.2017)]

On large monitors, the score at the top of the match panel looks like this:

However, on a laptop with lower resolution, it looks like this:

What file / objects should I edit in order to reduce the size of the logos, team names and match score so that it fits in the available space?''

[Pairs & Combinations FM2015 - UPDATED]

Thanks - understand and agree about the purpose. I felt I could apply the learnings best by minimizing differences with your example.

Reading some additional posts on the subject, it seems my challenge with through-balls by the opposition might come squarely back to the concept of midfield pairs that you outlined.

I guess it may not be obvious (it wasn't to me for quite some time) that when we talk about a midfielder breaking up play, we don't mean a midfielder closing down relentlessly and tackling the ball away, we mean interceptions or we mean standing in the way to slow down a dribbling attacker. Is that a fair description?

If one of the pair isn't well positioned to do so, especially on the side of the field where you are pushing up a fullback, then the team is compromised defensively, yes?

With respect to the three man midfield, what are your thoughts on pros and cons of using all three strata as follows?:

AM

CM

DM

[Pairs & Combinations FM2015 - UPDATED]

llama3,

Great thread. Thanks for putting it together.

I've applied your tactic to an Arsenal save.

When I'm playing away to weaker opponents (West Brom, Aston Villa, Southampton), I am using the Control Mentality with "Push Higher Up", "Hassle Opponents", and "Use Offside Trap" (+ the various other settings in your example), I'm seeing a few common trends causing me to lose games.

1. My opposition scores via through-balls (either over the top from GK/Defenders or on the ground from Midfielders)

2. My opposition scores via crosses from the byline/touch line after a slow dribble despite 1-2 defenders tightly pressing at the time of the cross as well as defenders in the box.

Also, I'm not finding that switching to a Counter Mentality, moving the CMs to DMs and replacing "Use Offside Trap", "Push Higher Up" "Hassle Opponents" and "Play Out Of Defense" with "Drop Deeper" and "Stay On Feet" is resulting in less goals nor am I see much in the way of Counter Attacking chances.

Did you see these issues as well and if so, how did you deal with them?

Lastly, I rarely fashion through-ball chances to Walcott or Podolski when playing them at the AF position despite their speed and acceleration. Why do you suppose that's the case?