Tempo and width

[Farina]

Why are they always linked, regardless of strategy or playing style?

[metac0gnition]

Every part of a good tactic should be interlinked. It makes it coherent and practical. Could you elaborate your question a little more?

[BiggusD]

I think he means that as you swap between strategies, the tempo and width sliders are usually aligned.

Attacking strategies are meant to be wide and the players are meant to get the ball forward quickly. Defensive strategies are meant to keep things tight in the back and are therefore narrower, and passing is supposed to be safer and less risky so tempo is slower.

I would say that Mentality, Tempo, Width and Defensive Line are more or less aligned as you change strategies. In my opinion the tempo should be slow when attacking, since teams that attack tend to want to keep possession, and teams that defend tend to want to go forward quickly whenever the opportunity arises. You aren't allowed to pull this off using the TC only.

[Sleepydude]

In my opinion the tempo should be slow when attacking, since teams that attack tend to want to keep possession, and teams that defend tend to want to go forward quickly whenever the opportunity arises. You aren't allowed to pull this off using the TC only.

It depends really. What you describe as attack is more like "Control" in FM terms, going forward and controlling the game but not taking too many risks. "Attack" in FM is risky, gung-ho football, trying to score goals without relying too much on defense or possession.

What you describe as defend is "Counter" in FM, slow and patient build up and retaining possession but when the opportunity presents itself a very quick break forward. You'll find that when counter attacking the play isn't slow at all, your players will get the ball forward quickly when it's "on".

All these strategies have their time and place of course, picking the right one can be the key to success.

[BiggusD]

It depends really. What you describe as attack is more like "Control" in FM terms, going forward and controlling the game but not taking too many risks. "Attack" in FM is risky, gung-ho football, trying to score goals without relying too much on defense or possession.

What you describe as defend is "Counter" in FM, slow and patient build up and retaining possession but when the opportunity presents itself a very quick break forward. You'll find that when counter attacking the play isn't slow at all, your players will get the ball forward quickly when it's "on".

All these strategies have their time and place of course, picking the right one can be the key to success.

That's how Brazil plays football. That is attacking football, not counter-attacking. A team that drops deep to defend well and then go on quick counter-attacks when the opportunity arises DOES NOT and never will try to keep possession and play a patient game to draw the opponent out. Counter-attacking teams do not care about possession at all, and teams that drops deep to defend well usually do so because they are incapable of keeping possession and outplay the opponent.

Counter-attack as a strategy is not a way to break down a parked bus but a way to win games when inferior.

As you say, in FM it is the other way around, though. Very misleading. Short passing and patient play when the underdog, and quick, simple, direct football when the favourite? That's nonsense! This is my opinion, though, but I think it is important to notify the OP of this since he asked about Width and Tempo being aligned, and that indicates that it is not intuitive to him that it should be so.

[metac0gnition]

I've always thought tempo as being how fast a team wants to move the ball forward. For eg, a team playing high tempo making 3 passes upfield before attempting to score as opposed to a low tempo team making 20 passes before attempting to score. Wider play on a higher tempo could then help open up the channels for the incisive pass. While narrow play on a low tempo could help players

Find each other for a simple pass. The starting strategy then decides how aggressively positioned the players and the passes are. This is how I think the TC defines it. But I think SI understands that there are so many different approaches to this but I think it's not possible to include it all.

[Farina]

I indeed don't find it intuitive. For instance, the alignment between pressing and defensive line is intuitive, because you witness it on the field that one goes with the other. However, I've never seen it mentioned in a tactical analysis or heard a manager say that it's necessary to play wider as you jack up the pace, or vice versa. I'm not discounting that's what actually happens IRL, but it hasn't been obvious to me, nor have I ever seen anyone spell it out.

[Farina]

So nobody has an answer? It's the only pair of settings that are always set the same regardless of general strategies or playing style, so SI must think the link between tempo and width is as close as it gets to an iron law of football.

[BiggusD]

I don't think you will get an answer that is more specific than those you have already got. Tempo and Width are linked because SI favours an understanding of attacking football being direct and based on crosses from the flanks and consequently defensive football is supposed to be careful, narrow and slow.

[Farina]

Well, I guess it's the insistence on a link between passing and width I don't quite understand then. For instance, Roy Hodgson is known for playing direct football, yet keeping his teams narrow. Barcelona keeps the field wide yet plays a short passing game. The understanding of attacking football as you described rather sounds like Graham Taylor's tactics at Watford.