FM14 - New Tactical Elements

[higgins]

I don't think we are actually far adrift of a common ground, it's just the semantics of interpreting the written word.

Ultimately, your team defends with a principle in mind, but it (has to) respond to the attacking shape of your opponent. Yay or nay?

Yes, but there are different ways to respond, you could choose to take more risks in some areas of the pitch and viceversa.

Choices...

[thomit]

No assumptions, but if I read that how wide your players defend on the pitch is a product of what the other team does in attacking, well, this is simple a nonsense, or a very limitative understanding of how real football works.

Meanwhile the sentence you qouted seems quite self explanatory to me, managers tell players what they want from them, movements, marking instructions, position etc.

It's quite simple, this. Let's say you have a 4 man defense. Now, if the other team comes at you with just 3 attackers, all fairly close to each other in the centre, your defense will naturally shorten the gaps, the cd's will have a shorter distance between them, and the full backs will keep closer to the cd's as there currently are no threats from wide. The distance between left back and right back would be relatively short. This is the wise thing to do. Agree?

Then let's say you are attacked from 5 opponents, they are all spaced out so they cover the whole width of the pitch. Ball is somewhere centrally. Your 4 men will have to adapt, they can't hold these short gaps between them anymore, because if they do that, they will leave very exploitable spaces on the flanks. The distance from left back to right back would have to be longer than in the first example. Your defense will have to adapt, they would be very silly to keep a "set" width. You don't agree?

[RTHerringbone]

Yes, but there are different ways to respond, you could choose to take more risks in some areas of the pitch and viceversa.

Definitely. The way you attack is an extension of how you defend, and vice versa.

Given the way this thread has circled about, are you still of the opinion that the loss of sliders is a critical issue, or are you warming to the idea at all?

I personally would like you to give FM14 a go because I know how good your Blog was while it was up and running.

[Spart]

It's quite simple, this. Let's say you have a 4 man defense. Now, if the other team comes at you with just 3 attackers, all fairly close to each other in the centre, your defense will naturally shorten the gaps, the cd's will have a shorter distance between them, and the full backs will keep closer to the cd's as there currently are no threats from wide. This is the wise thing to do. Agree?

Then let's say you are attcked from 5 opponents, they are all spaced out so they cover the whole width of the pitch. Ball is somewhere centrally. Your 4 men will have to adapt, they can't hold these short gaps between them anymore, because if they do that, they will leave very exploitable spaces on the flanks. Your defense will have to adapt, they would be very silly to keep a "set" width. You don't agree?

I think you're judging this defensive width far too severely. I don't think anyone's suggested players act like robots (at least I hope not for the sake of their interest in real football), but surely it's not wrong to suggest a manager should be able to set a sort of standard lateral definition for their players to adapt and work from?

That's what I assumed people were meaning by a "set" width anyway.

[thomit]

I think you're judging this defensive width far too severely. I don't think anyone's suggested players act like robots (at least I hope not for the sake of their interest in real football), but surely it's not wrong to suggest a manager should be able to set a sort of standard lateral definition for their players to adapt and work from?

That's what I assumed people were meaning by a "set" width anyway.

They do do that. In training.

[higgins]

It's quite simple, this. Let's say you have a 4 man defense. Now, if the other team comes at you with just 3 attackers, all fairly close to each other in the centre, your defense will naturally shorten the gaps, the cd's will have a shorter distance between them, and the full backs will keep closer to the cd's as there currently are no threats from wide. This is the wise thing to do. Agree?

Then let's say you are attcked from 5 opponents, they are all spaced out so they cover the whole width of the pitch. Ball is somewhere centrally. Your 4 men will have to adapt, they can't hold these short gaps between them anymore, because if they do that, they will leave very exploitable spaces on the flanks. Your defense will have to adapt, they would be very silly to keep a "set" width. You don't agree?

I'm going to use a word very used here: holistic, you don't see the whole picture, you see the trees but you miss the forest.

Football is not a fight between a defensive line and an attacking one, more players are involved; I can't answer to your question cause there are missing info, who are the wide players? Ribery and Robben or De Ceglie and Isla?

Who are the strikers in the middle, are they tall or pacey?

What are the central midfielders doing? Staying deep or joining the attack?

Many questions and many factor to consider, as you see.

[Spart]

They do do that. In training.

Yes, and since in FM we use Shouts set at pre-kick off to add more definition to our tactics and alter behaviour beyond what we can control purely through tactics, it makes sense for us to be able to set this through a Shout.

I'm not saying the manager would literally be shouting width instructions, but in the mechanics of FM and how Shouts can be/are used by some users pre-KO to create their desired tactics as well as in-match direction it makes sense without being suicidal or unrealistic.

[higgins]

Definitely. The way you attack is an extension of how you defend, and vice versa.

Given the way this thread has circled about, are you still of the opinion that the loss of sliders is a critical issue, or are you warming to the idea at all?

I personally would like you to give FM14 a go because I know how good your Blog was while it was up and running.

Of course I'm still interested in football simulations and FM is the only one we have, I didn't pre order it but I'll try the demo, then I'll decide.

[thomit]

I'm going to use a word very used here: holistic, you don't see the whole picture, you see the trees but you miss the forest.

Football is not a fight between a defensive line and an attacking one, more players are involved; I can't answer to your question cause there are missing info, who are the wide players? Ribery and Robben or De Ceglie and Isla?

Who are the strikers in the middle, are they tall or pacey?

What are the central midfielders doing? Starting deeo or joining the attack?

Many questions and many factor to consider, as you see.

Well, exactly. Adaption. Why on earth would you tell your defense to maintain a set width then? Do you know exactly how the other team is going to attack? And that they will attack in the same manner the whole match? Are you suggesting that you, as manager, keeps an eye on how wide the opposition is attacking at every moment of the match, and then go shouting "defend narrower" or "defend wider" a 100 times during a match? Seems rather absurd to me.

Edit: And btw, even setting a pre-determined "defend width" once, seems rather absurd to me. Can you give me an example where it would be beneficial to tell your defenders "today we are going to maintain wider gaps between you than what you have trained to do, and wider than you are comfortable with and accustomed to". Why?

[higgins]

Well, exactly. Adaption. Why on earth would you tell your defense to maintain a set width then? Do you know exactly how the other team is going to attack? And that they will attack in the same manner the whole match? Are you suggesting that you, as manager, keeps an eye on how wide the opposition is attacking at every moment of the match, and then go shouting "defend narrower" or "defend wider" a 100 times during a match? Seems rather absurd to me.

Every manager has a game plan, then he should adapt it during a game, so not 100 times per match, but real managers make choices during the whole game.

Deciding to leave space to your opponent flankers cause you don't retain them so dangerous is a manager choice, a tactical decision only a manager could take, not a player.

[thomit]

I fail to see why it should be necessary to pre-determine and choose between different distances between full back to full back at all when defending. Or have different distance gaps between defenders. In attack, or with posession - certainly. In defense? You better adjust those distances according to what the threat looks like in every given moment, or you are seriously screwed. And by "you" I don't mean the manager, but the defenders themselves.

[thomit]

Every manager has a game plan, then he should adapt it during a game, so not 100 times per match, but real managers make choices during the whole game.

Deciding to leave space to your opponent flankers cause you don't retain them so dangerous is a manager choice, a tactical decision only a manager could take, not a player.

Leave space to wide men = tell full backs to go easy with their closing down. Or leave them to the midfielders. That leaves your defenders to maintain comfortable gaps between them.

[higgins]

I fail to see why it should be necessary to pre-determine and choose between different distances between full back to full back at all. Or have different distance gaps between defenders. In attack, certainly. In defense? You better adjust those distances according to what the threat looks like in every given moment, or you are seriously screwed. And by "you" I don't mean the manager, but the defenders themselves.

It happens very often that a manager ask his full backs to help in the middle, and so to stay narrower, cause there's too much pressure on the central defenders.

Never seen that?

[higgins]

Leave space to wide men = tell full backs to go easy with their closing down. Or leave them to the midfielders. That leaves your defenders to maintain comfortable gaps between them.

Ok, do you agree this is a manager's choice?

[thomit]

Ok, do you agree this is a manager's choice?

Of course it is. It has however - in my opinion - nothing to do with setting a fixed initial width for the defenders while defending. That "fixed width", if we can put it like that - is a product of the defenders training and playing together, maintaining gaps and relations between them that they are comfortable with. As a manager, I would be very very carefull about changing that ... at all. And I'm not sure I could, even if I would. This "comfort zone" between the defenders will change relative to what the picture is on the pitch, continously. Nothing a manager should, or could, control.

[siambluebird]

Off topic, this thread is really interesting cause I'm realizing there are a lot of people who don't understand anything about real football, funny.

Really! Perhaps your blinker and prejudice are just a bit tight. I have tried very hard to be open to the discussion here, but seriously, who do you think you are? Basically when one person doesn't have enough evidence to support an argument that resort to "you don't know what you are talking about".

Both sides of the coin have some valid points, but in reality the TC is attempting to bring us closer to football. Things like defensive width for example are debatable. I believe it is not a set width but more a matter of how tight you mark, how hard you press, and the shape you want to have as a whole, the role your midfielders have, the scoreline, the threats from ahead, even your goalkeepers ability, will all adjust the shape of your defense and how wide they tend to play. To me it is far more than to just say "I want you to play with this width."

I feel the TC has allowed me to some extent to control the defensive shape of my team which has led to my defense adopting a width that has come from a number of instructions and shouts and by the looks of FM14 it will be more improved.

What is interesting is that if you search "defensive width football" in google you get a plethora of football manager links. So far I have not found any real life example of discussion of a manger setting a group a defenders to a specific defensive width. I am not saying there isn't one, I just can't find any.

[higgins]

What is interesting is that if you search "defensive width football" in google you get a plethora of football manager links. So far I have not found any real life example of discussion of a manger setting a group a defenders to a specific defensive width. I am not saying there isn't one, I just can't find any.

Really? I'm shocked. But you know, there's a world outside google.

[siambluebird]

Really? I'm shocked. But you know, there's a world outside google.

True, but not much that is written escapes it

[Spart]

Going back to the original theme of this thread, I really hope that we'll be able to assign the Wing-back role to the ML/MR positions.

Would make a real difference to make for when creating certain types of 3-5-2 and 3-6-1 systems.

[Cleon]

Going back to the original theme of this thread, I really hope that we'll be able to assign the Wing-back role to the ML/MR positions.

Would make a real difference to make for when creating certain types of 3-5-2 and 3-6-1 systems.

The defensive winger is more or less a wingback in the ML/MR positions.

[Spart]

The defensive winger is more or less a wingback in the ML/MR positions.

There's no notable difference whatsoever?

[RTHerringbone]

There's no notable difference whatsoever?

Main difference is that the Defensive Winger can actually defend!

On the topic of Roles and Positions, I hope the Inside Forward is no longer available at central AMC, that never made sense to me.

[RocheBag]

Main difference is that the Defensive Winger can actually defend!

On the topic of Roles and Positions, I hope the Inside Forward is no longer available at central AMC, that never made sense to me.

I disagree, when I play 3 at the back systems, my defensive wingers just completely let opponents wide plays behind them with no resistance. When I move the same players back to wingback they defend great.

[RTHerringbone]

I disagree, when I play 3 at the back systems, my defensive wingers just completely let opponents wide plays behind them with no resistance. When I move the same players back to wingback they defend great.

I used 3-1-4-2 a lot on FM13 and found that Defensive Wingers with Stoppers as the outer DCs was incredibly effective.

However, I did often set up specific man marking instructions, so that may be where we differ.

[RocheBag]

I used 3-1-4-2 a lot on FM13 and found that Defensive Wingers with Stoppers as the outer DCs was incredibly effective.

However, I did often set up specific man marking instructions, so that may be where we differ.

Yeah the specific man marking definitely helped, but it also went against what I was trying to do within my system. I just always found wingbacks to be more stable without having to man mark.

The usual goal was a back post cross from deep to the opposite winger, my defensive winger letting him go and my stopper not getting out in time

[thomit]

I play a 4-3-3 (4 at the back, 1 DM, 2 CM, 1 AML, 1AMR, 1 STR, but with the left and right backs moved up to WBL and WBR positions, and I have the most solid defense in the Premier League. Everyone on zonal marking. The wing backs defends in good positions when they defend, with no noticable difference to having them at DL/DR positions, but with their initial positions a bit further up the pitch, contribute even more in putting pressure on the opposition, and are usually better positioned to contribute in attacking, in exactly the way most of us want these guys to contribute. Defense is better, offense is better.

[RocheBag]

I play a 4-3-3 (4 at the back, 1 DM, 2 CM, 1 AML, 1AMR, 1 STR, but with the left and right backs moved up to WBL and WBR positions, and I have the most solid defense in the Premier League. Everyone on zonal marking. The wing backs defends in good positions when they defend, with no noticable difference to having them at DL/DR positions, but with their initial positions a bit further up the pitch, contribute even more in putting pressure on the opposition, and are usually better positioned to contribute in attacking, in exactly the way most of us want these guys to contribute. Defense is better, offense is better.

I played this way with a few teams as well, sometimes with 2 DM and 1 CM for a bit more cover. Found the wingbacks to be extremely effective

[dsch]

... Why not remove that complexity and let us get immediately on with 'controlling' (managing) our players? We talk using language, not numbers, so why not do the same in FM?

When we come around to using the language that the game provides then we don't care what the numbers are doing underneath, it makes no difference to us whatsoever. If my DL is too far forward I need to tell him to play deeper, before I could do that using sliders and checkboxes and such (numerical), now I'm forced to do it using language—the same stuff I use everyday! Whether FM should actually take the stance of forcing this decision on the user (us) is at the heart of the matter of course but it is the way most computing is going, I for one think it's about time too but it always must be a pain point.

Sure, underneath the system needs some numbers, no getting away from it (yet) with computers but as a user of that system I don't need to know how it works, only that it does and I gauge if it does or not by using it (i.e. by experience of whether that system meets my expectations or not).

At the risk of belabouring the point, this is precisely what I think is naively utopian about this vision. To state it strongly, it will always be impossible to bridge the gap between numbers and language, in no small part because the language we use is imprecise. What I think will end up happening is that the language in the game, in order to provide the precision, will become codified and systematised, i.e., become merely another proxy for the numbers and no longer anything like a natural language ideal. Those who understand the codification will think they are playing with language and not numbers, but only because of a naive conception of language. This might work extremely well, but it'll be no closer to playing with concepts than before, though it may feel like it. But I suppose what it feels like is all anyone cares about, and that's fair enough.

[furiousuk]

At the risk of belabouring the point, this is precisely what I think is naively utopian about this vision. To state it strongly, it will always be impossible to bridge the gap between numbers and language, in no small part because the language we use is imprecise. What I think will end up happening is that the language in the game, in order to provide the precision, will become codified and systematised, i.e., become merely another proxy for the numbers and no longer anything like a natural language ideal. Those who understand the codification will think they are playing with language and not numbers, but only because of a naive conception of language. This might work extremely well, but it'll be no closer to playing with concepts than before, though it may feel like it. But I suppose what it feels like is all anyone cares about, and that's fair enough.

Why don't you think that there is already a bridge between the numbers you control and the numbers the game uses?

I do work with numbers everyday to create systems (I'm a coder and designer—mainly interface design, but not usually graphical—so my opinion is skewed because I have fair inkling how things would translate) and I'd find it hard to believe that any slider/instruction works in isolation in the ME so as there is an interaction of instructions that becomes the bridge.

I agree with you that computers can't think or act in concepts at the moment so we are being highly philosophical in this discussion and there is also far too much that we dont know to make any real strong solid opinions (wwfan aside as he does have more knowledge on it).

I also agree that it remains to be seen quite how well using language will allow those of us that like to fiddle with sliders and stuff will get on. Lot depends (for me anyway) on how intuitive it is when we start using that system, its not a vast departure from using the TC so I can't see it being a problem.

[deserter]

What is interesting is that if you search "defensive width football" in google you get a plethora of football manager links. So far I have not found any real life example of discussion of a manger setting a group a defenders to a specific defensive width. I am not saying there isn't one, I just can't find any.

David Moyes is known for his fairly ridig tactical organization. I'd think he has a preference over how wide his team is stretched laterally. Lately Diego Simeone had his Atletico side defend extremely narrow against Real, leaving some huge space on the flanks. Roy Hodgson likely has his opinion about width.

I'm sure there's a lot of talk about the defensive systems out there of which width is a part of. It might be rare for someone to write about the width in isolation. Zonalmarking blog (google) is one place to go for this, as always.

At the risk of belabouring the point, this is precisely what I think is naively utopian about this vision. To state it strongly, it will always be impossible to bridge the gap between numbers and language, in no small part because the language we use is imprecise. What I think will end up happening is that the language in the game, in order to provide the precision, will become codified and systematised, i.e., become merely another proxy for the numbers and no longer anything like a natural language ideal. Those who understand the codification will think they are playing with language and not numbers, but only because of a naive conception of language. This might work extremely well, but it'll be no closer to playing with concepts than before, though it may feel like it. But I suppose what it feels like is all anyone cares about, and that's fair enough.

I certainly would have someone develop the concepts separately. Then pass the concepts to the ME team for implementing.

Besides, when have SI provided us with any preciseness ever?

[craigcwwe]

Just found this:

http://www.fmscout.com/a-fm14-new-player-roles-explained.html

[Spart]

Decent effort but the guy uses some strange choices for player examples and slips up on a few inaccuracies on the real world football context.

[Candre168]

I never thought I'd take this position, but I'm inclined to defend sliders.

1) Yes, they aren't 100% realistic. But neither are attributes from 1-20. 'Realism' would require the attributes system to be removed, and replaced with scout reports that just say 'excellent passer, weak in the air etc'. I doubt anyone here would claim that as a game improvement.

2) The new roles are going to be difficult to define. What a Shadow Striker is to manager X is variable to what it is to manager Y. A lot of players are going to have their own ideas about what a certain role is, and unless there is a clear guide, there's going to be a lot of confusion...especially when players can't see how a role translated into sliders.

3) Granted, I haven't seen the system fully yet, but I do believe sliders allow for players to fit into your style. i.e, when I play a far superior team to mine, I switch 'runs with balls' down to rarely for ALL players excluding my best dribbler. That's just how I play. In real life, a manager could tell his players to rarely run with the ball regardless of their perceived role. It also is the same for team sliders, sometimes I'll play attacking which naturally in game has a higher line, but if I realise that the other team is much faster to me, I'll drop the defensive line and have more midfielders in defensive roles. Again, a manger can do this in real life, and it is quite clearly defined how to do it in FM13...will it be so clear in FM14?

4) I do think that sliders have visual effects on the ME. I can tell when I have set my width to wide or narrow, I can tell when I've set my defensive line to deep or high. It's going to be confusing not being able to see this.

[Braumiller]

Just found this:

http://www.fmscout.com/a-fm14-new-player-roles-explained.html

The problem with something like this is not quality, it is that something like this needs to come from either SI themselves or someone involved in the development.

You can have the most well written / well produced, in depth article or video, but it is still that persons interpretation of the topic, which very well may differ from SI's interpretation.

If the interpretations do differ, it can cause angst when the game / player / tactic / situation doesn't respond how you now (incorrectly) believe it should.

[RTHerringbone]

1) Yes, they aren't 100% realistic. But neither are attributes from 1-20. 'Realism' would require the attributes system to be removed, and replaced with scout reports that just say 'excellent passer, weak in the air etc'. I doubt anyone here would claim that as a game improvement.

I'll claim it would be a game improvement!

As we lose abstract stuff like sliders, it would only make sense to lose other abstract things like attributes and increase our dependency on backroom staff such as scouts.

I think attributes should be next to go, and that we should rely on scout reports.

I also think that the player search should only allow us to look at players who have been scouted

[higgins]

I'll claim it would be a game improvement!

As we lose abstract stuff like sliders, it would only make sense to lose other abstract things like attributes and increase our dependency on backroom staff such as scouts.

I think attributes should be next to go, and that we should rely on scout reports.

I also think that the player search should only allow us to look at players who have been scouted

Not sure it works like that in real life: Tv, internet, there are lots of ways to spot a player, scouting is often the last step, young players apart.

[RTHerringbone]

Not sure it works like that in real life: Tv, internet, there are lots of ways to spot a player, scouting is often the last step, young players apart.

But do any use a 1-20 scale for multiple attributes? I doubt it.

[higgins]

But do any use a 1-20 scale for multiple attributes? I doubt it.

I know for sure they give them a skill rating, let's say that having a perfect match engine we could rate them simply watching matches, like real managers do before signing a player, (FM matches I mean) but it would become a full time job.

[RTHerringbone]

I know for sure they give them a skill rating, let's say that having a perfect match engine we could rate them simply watching matches, like real managers do before signing a player, (FM matches I mean) but it would become a full time job.

This isn't far off what I'd want.

Personally, whilst I agree that the internet and TV are useful tools, I am certain that the majority of professional player recruitment (young and mature) is done by professional scouts.

I'd like a system where you are initially dependent on your scouts' opinions, but you can then supplement your own knowledge of players they recommend by going to watch them play.

I don't think it would be a chore, and I think it would be rather enjoyable to be honest.

[higgins]

This isn't far off what I'd want.

Personally, whilst I agree that the internet and TV are useful tools, I am certain that the majority of professional player recruitment (young and mature) is done by professional scouts.

I'd like a system where you are initially dependent on your scouts' opinions, but you can then supplement your own knowledge of players they recommend by going to watch them play.

I don't think it would be a chore, and I think it would be rather enjoyable to be honest.

Still too time consuming imo, numbers give you instant access to players skills, the need for FMC reveals people are busy but they still desire to have a fun football simulation to play.

[RTHerringbone]

Still too time consuming imo, numbers give you instant access to players skills, the need for FMC reveals people are busy but they still desire to have a fun football simulation to play.

My stance is the same as for sliders - I just don't believe that numeric representations of attributes are realistic footballing concepts.

They are a tangible and familiar legacy of the way CM/FM games have interpreted football, but that is all that they are.

[higgins]

My stance is the same as for sliders - I just don't believe that numeric representations of attributes are realistic footballing concepts.

They are a tangible and familiar legacy of the way CM/FM games have interpreted football, but that is all that they are.

Sliders weren't time consuming at all, once you understood how to use them, micro-management is.

Anyway the debate realism vs. fun could be a good one, but it's another story.

[RTHerringbone]

Sliders weren't time consuming at all, once you understood how to use them, micro-management is.

I'm not talking about consumption of time, I'm talking about FM evolving to a point where all the numerical references are removed.

I'd love it to become purely all about concepts and language. The only numbers to worry about should be held in the league table.

I can't understand a sentence that implies that sliders aren't micro-management. For me, that is exactly what sliders are; unrealistically granular tweaks.

[higgins]

I'm not talking about consumption of time, I'm talking about FM evolving to a point where all the numerical references are removed.

I'd love it to become purely all about concepts and language. The only numbers to worry about should be held in the league table.

I can't understand a sentence that implies that sliders aren't micro-management. For me, that is exactly what sliders are; unrealistically granular tweaks.

Micro-management is something you need to fix game in game out, I didn't use sliders in that way.

Numerical references removed? I think you know the whole game is a sort of magnified excel sheet, do you?

[RTHerringbone]

Numerical references removed? I think you know the whole game is a sort of magnified excel sheet, do you?

Yes, and that isn't what football is - hence (I believe) the move to more tangible, concept based modules.

You and I have opposite opinions on what the game should and shouldn't be. I know you're warming to the idea of FMC, so let's see how things look in a week or so, or whenever it is the public Beta goes live - assuming you have pre-ordered?

[higgins]

Yes, and that isn't what football is - hence (I believe) the move to more tangible, concept based modules.

You and I have opposite opinions on what the game should and shouldn't be. I know you're warming to the idea of FMC, so let's see how things look in a week or so, or whenever it is the public Beta goes live - assuming you have pre-ordered?

I simply think the game should provide the right dose of realism and the right dose of fun, fairly subjective, I know.

The FMC video blog convinced me to pre-order, will share my thought about it of course.

[Shakes]

Yes, and that isn't what football is - hence (I believe) the move to more tangible, concept based modules.

You and I have opposite opinions on what the game should and shouldn't be. I know you're warming to the idea of FMC, so let's see how things look in a week or so, or whenever it is the public Beta goes live - assuming you have pre-ordered?

An excel spreadsheet may not be what football is yet, but it's getting there. I think you want FM to evolve in the exact opposite way that all sports are evolving. Sports are becoming much more numbers based, sports analytics is a booming field as clubs start to realise number crunching is better than the unreliable nature of human judgement.

[kilok]

Can't wait to test all this out in the beta

[RTHerringbone]

Actually quite surprised by the results of this poll so far, was expecting it to be a lot closer:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/362969-FM-14-Sliders-gone-thoughts

[Sunwell]

Can anyone explain me, what position The Engache plays. Is it CM or AM?