How to Play FM: A Twelve Step Guide

[yonko]

If you can't choose an option (i.e. it's greyed out) then that's because the option is already selected as a default for that role.

Or it's not available for the role. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is it.

[savier]

What's the importance of 'key passes' statistic in the game? I manage Man United and what I notice is that in almost every game my players make not many key passes and provided their quality I assume there should be more that kind of passes. I try to follow the rules from this topic. What does exactly key passes mean?

[llama3]

I actually find this version easier than FM13. Not sure why yet, probably a reason that will become obvious with a new ME.

[THOG]

What's the importance of 'key passes' statistic in the game? I manage Man United and what I notice is that in almost every game my players make not many key passes and provided their quality I assume there should be more that kind of passes. I try to follow the rules from this topic. What does exactly key passes mean?

Key passes are basically "assists" that don't produce a goal. Key passes + assists together tells you how many chances a player directly created.

[petergoddard]

Or it's not available for the role. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is it.

Indeed, still there must be some magical powers yet to be discovered because SI tends to think it's very easy to know the default instructions.

[RTHerringbone]

Indeed, still there must be some magical powers yet to be discovered because SI tends to think it's very easy to know the default instructions.

There are plans to tweak the UI at some point with an update to make this stuff clearer.

[petergoddard]

There are plans to tweak the UI at some point with an update to make this stuff clearer.

Thank you, that's great news

[janbak]

There are plans to tweak the UI at some point with an update to make this stuff clearer.

Very good news Thank you

[janbak]

1. The in-game descriptions needs a lot more clarification
   For instance, let's take Barcelona's style of play (Pep Team):
   wwfan wrote a thread (in 2011) about his interpretation of Barça that argued Counter was the most natural strategy for them and that they were far more rigid than fluid (in FM Language).
   Now, in this guide he makes the distinction/difference between specialist & generic roles: in short, the more specialist roles, the more rigid the tactic.
   So, in order to replicate Barcelona's style of play in FM accordting to wwfan, the best choice seems to be a counter/rigid strategy?
   Hmm, can we conclude that the most natural choice for Borussia Dortmund is a Control/Fluid strategy in FM Language?
   This seems to be in contradiction with the in-game descriptions.
   Logically, after reading the in-game descriptions, my first choice for Barça is Control & (Very) Fluid:
   
   • SI's description of the Control mentality is the one which matches more with Barça's Possession Football.
     
   • As Barça is a team were the collective is more important then individuals, the fluidity should be Fluid or even Very Fluid.
     

To tell you the truth, even though wwfan's guidelines are his own interpretation and not hard & fast rules, that does not prevent me from being confused:

Are the in-game definitions of the different mentalities & fluidities clear enough?

Can we actually rely on/trust them or, like for the roles, do we also need to guess and get experience before really understanding how each mentality & fluidity works in detail?

Remark: I'm not arguing whether wwfan is right or not. I'm addressing the subjet of the lack of clarification of the in-game descriptions.

I don't know if I'm clear enough, but using the "words" Counter and Rigid for Barça's Tiki-Taka Style of Play sounds really strange for me...

To conclude, I believe that we need to understand how a game is actually conceptualised to be able to translate correctly our football knowledge in a game. Am I wrong?

[*] Versatile Players

Sacchi describes/confirms that (Pep Guardiola's) Barcelona is a team that attacks as a unit, and defends as a unit.

So, we should translate this in FM by a Very Fluid system.

But, when he says that football is not a sport of specialist, is Arrigo Sacchi implying that Barca plays (a Very Fluid system) with a vast majority of Generic Roles, or in other words with 0-1 (or 2) specialist? I don't think so...

First of all, What is a specialist?

A specialist is a player who is great at one aspect of football.

But, does that necessarily mean that he isn't good in multiple aspects of the game? Does that mean that a specialist is not a versatile player?

So, its not about specialist or generic roles. Its about their abilities of beeing able to play in multiple positions.

Its about the versatility of the players.

Now, lets have a look:

• In Real Life, Barça has at least 3 specialists: Messi is a F9, Iniesta a DLP or AP, Xavi a DLP.
  --> regarding to this guide we should opt for "Standard" or "Rigid" in FM.
  
• Daniel Alves is a CWB, Piqué is a BPD and Victor Valdes is a SK.
  If you regard that those roles are also specialist roles than we have a total of 6 specialists.
  --> regarding to this guide we should translate this in FM by "Very Rigid" in FM.
  

Did the Pep Team played in a more Rigid system In Real Life? Of course not! The Pep Team had a fluid, expressive, and proactive system that focuses on team work.

Remember, Arrigo Sacchi insist in most of his interviews that the collective is more important than individuals!

When Sacchi said "Football is not a sport of specialists.", I think that he actually meant "Football is not a sport of individuals".

Check this article in which Sacchi gives Real Madrid Galácticos as an example of a reactive system were the individual became more important than the collective.

Sacchi puts the emphasis on Teamwork. So, again, its not about specialist or generic roles, because both can play collectively.

Its all about creating a tactic/strategie in which the collective/whole is more important/greater then individuals.

The secret is a Well-Balanced Team that only can be achieved by teamwork regardless of the type of roles.

Finally, does FM (or this guide) has the same definition of a specialist?

If philosophies in FM's ME are coded like this, then it seems that FM/this guide confuse specialists and individual players.

Is this interpretation implying that a player becomes more a individual player then a team player when we increase his creative freedom in FM?

Don't you think that a player with a lot of creative freedom can still remain a team-minded player?

Although, Barça players has a lot of creative freedom, they remain a very structured and organised team in which the players bear in mind the teamwork.

Barça play football as a unit nevertheless they have the most extreme specialists...

So, it seems that the use of the word specialist is misleading, isn't it?

The real question is:

Is it possible to play a Very Fluid system with a lot of specialist in FM? According to this guide's "no hard and no fast rules" the answer is No.

This discussion is getting more and more interesting but it seems to me that confusion is increasing along with interest

In fact it seems that sometimes we are focusing more on words than concepts, mainly as regards Fluidity settings that seem to be a misleading concept. A very Rigid settings in my opinion (and my tests) doesn’t mean that the team doesn’t play as a whole but simply changes the way you meet your goal.

In my understanding, a team with a “Very Rigid” setting is like a symphonic orchestra where each musician has its own score (very different from the score of the other orchestra members) and has to stick to it, focusing on the rhythm or harmonic section according to the score received and sticking to orders received from the Director … and the symphony comes out as a magic, with the orchestra playing as a whole.

On the other side, a team with a “Very Fluid” setting is like a jazz orchestra where there’s a main theme around which each musician build its own improvisations, in this case every musician shares the main theme but plays its own improvisation covering both the harmonic and rhythm section … and the jazz masterpiece comes out as a magic, with the orchestra playing as a whole.

As you can see in both cases the orchestra plays as a whole but the result is reached in different ways.

In both cases the orchestra is more important than single musicians, but musicians are asked to do different things in different ways.

As regards Sacchi’s philosophy it was “Very Rigid” meaning that in his view he was the Director and the team a symphonic orchestra, each player received its own score and was asked to stick to it without exception (from this point of view in the Sacchi’s Milan every role was a very specialized role), he didn’t like too creative players because they were more suitable for a Jazz Orchestra instead of a Symphonic one

In my opinion, but in this case maybe I’m wrong, an example of “Very Fluid” approach comes from Brazilian soccer where the main theme is “Attack” (note that Brazilian defenders, more in the past than now, were considered too offensive for European teams) and very talented players build their own improvisation around this theme without sticking to a score given by the Director. This is the reason why they cannot have specialist roles although each of them is a very special player with a unique set of abilities. I think that my understanding is confirmed from the fact that when you think to Brazilian soccer you immediately think about famous players and not famous coaches

These are two my cents, now I hope in a wwfan’s feedback confirming if I’m right or wrong

[petergoddard]

This discussion is getting more and more interesting but it seems to me that confusion is increasing along with interest

In fact it seems that sometimes we are focusing more on words than concepts, mainly as regards Fluidity settings that seem to be a misleading concept. A very Rigid settings in my opinion (and my tests) doesn’t mean that the team doesn’t play as a whole but simply changes the way you meet your goal.

In my understanding, a team with a “Very Rigid” setting is like a symphonic orchestra where each musician has its own score (very different from the score of the other orchestra members) and has to stick to it, focusing on the rhythm or harmonic section according to the score received and sticking to orders received from the Director … and the symphony comes out as a magic, with the orchestra playing as a whole.

On the other side, a team with a “Very Fluid” setting is like a jazz orchestra where there’s a main theme around which each musician build its own improvisations, in this case every musician shares the main theme but plays its own improvisation covering both the harmonic and rhythm section … and the jazz masterpiece comes out as a magic, with the orchestra playing as a whole.

As you can see in both cases the orchestra plays as a whole but the result is reached in different ways.

In both cases the orchestra is more important than single musicians, but musicians are asked to do different things in different ways.

As regards Sacchi’s philosophy it was “Very Rigid” meaning that in his view he was the Director and the team a symphonic orchestra, each player received its own score and was asked to stick to it without exception (from this point of view in the Sacchi’s Milan every role was a very specialized role), he didn’t like too creative players because they were more suitable for a Jazz Orchestra instead of a Symphonic one

In my opinion, but in this case maybe I’m wrong, an example of “Very Fluid” approach comes from Brazilian soccer where the main theme is “Attack” (note that Brazilian defenders, more in the past than now, were considered too offensive for European teams) and very talented players build their own improvisation around this theme without sticking to a score given by the Director. This is the reason why they cannot have specialist roles although each of them is a very special player with a unique set of abilities. I think that my understanding is confirmed from the fact that when you think to Brazilian soccer you immediately think about famous players and not famous coaches

These are two my cents, now I hope in a wwfan’s feedback confirming if I’m right or wrong

Very good mate, excellent analogy. So, where would you go with Guardiola's Barcelona ? The symphonic orchestra or the jazz orchestra ?

[llama3]

I think people often forget about a Balanced system, as regards to their own choices, and as the "Barcelona" philosophy. I feel that a Balanced system offers a good compromise between playmaking specialists and an overall team shape/theme/tactical philsophy.

[Steve Odom]

I think people often forget about a Balanced system, as regards to their own choices, and as the "Barcelona" philosophy. I feel that a Balanced system offers a good compromise between playmaking specialists and an overall team shape/theme/tactical philosophy.

Yeah, but "balanced" carries also the risk of making a tactic completely unbalanced because you have such a great influence on your players behavior.

[janbak]

Yeah, but "balanced" carries also the risk of making a tactic completely unbalanced because you have such a great influence on your players behavior.

Do you mean that "Balanced" is the Fluidity settings where the coach has the most influence in the behaviour of its team? It sounds strange to me I thought it was "Very Rigid", could you explain more in detail, please?

Thank you

[wwfan]

This discussion is getting more and more interesting but it seems to me that confusion is increasing along with interest

In fact it seems that sometimes we are focusing more on words than concepts, mainly as regards Fluidity settings that seem to be a misleading concept. A very Rigid settings in my opinion (and my tests) doesn’t mean that the team doesn’t play as a whole but simply changes the way you meet your goal.

In my understanding, a team with a “Very Rigid” setting is like a symphonic orchestra where each musician has its own score (very different from the score of the other orchestra members) and has to stick to it, focusing on the rhythm or harmonic section according to the score received and sticking to orders received from the Director … and the symphony comes out as a magic, with the orchestra playing as a whole.

On the other side, a team with a “Very Fluid” setting is like a jazz orchestra where there’s a main theme around which each musician build its own improvisations, in this case every musician shares the main theme but plays its own improvisation covering both the harmonic and rhythm section … and the jazz masterpiece comes out as a magic, with the orchestra playing as a whole.

As you can see in both cases the orchestra plays as a whole but the result is reached in different ways.

In both cases the orchestra is more important than single musicians, but musicians are asked to do different things in different ways.

As regards Sacchi’s philosophy it was “Very Rigid” meaning that in his view he was the Director and the team a symphonic orchestra, each player received its own score and was asked to stick to it without exception (from this point of view in the Sacchi’s Milan every role was a very specialized role), he didn’t like too creative players because they were more suitable for a Jazz Orchestra instead of a Symphonic one

In my opinion, but in this case maybe I’m wrong, an example of “Very Fluid” approach comes from Brazilian soccer where the main theme is “Attack” (note that Brazilian defenders, more in the past than now, were considered too offensive for European teams) and very talented players build their own improvisation around this theme without sticking to a score given by the Director. This is the reason why they cannot have specialist roles although each of them is a very special player with a unique set of abilities. I think that my understanding is confirmed from the fact that when you think to Brazilian soccer you immediately think about famous players and not famous coaches

These are two my cents, now I hope in a wwfan’s feedback confirming if I’m right or wrong

I like the analogy very much. Might use it in a future guide, if I may

[janbak]

I like the analogy very much. Might use it in a future guide, if I may

You're welcome :-) Thank you very much for appreciating

[Steve Odom]

Do you mean that "Balanced" is the Fluidity settings where the coach has the most influence in the behaviour of its team? It sounds strange to me I thought it was "Very Rigid", could you explain more in detail, please?

Thank you

What I mean is choosing balanced offers you more flexibility to choose an assymetric (like the hand of God already mentioned before) tactic, or by giving you the opportunity to mimic an almost very fluid playstyle (like SFRaser did in his Meet the system" for example). Because role is considered more important than actual position, it gives you the chance to alter individual mentality significantly more than any other style.

If you choose a very rigid style, for example, you backs will get more or less the same mentality regardless of their role. If you choose balanced, on back can be extremely attacking, the other can act as a defender out wide, with the same mentality as your central defenders. Because of this, a balanced tactic can be extremely unbalanced if put together mindlessly.

Very fluid: all the same mentality. The only real influence you have on individual mentality is the team strategy

Fluid: back five, front five split. Team strategy and player position/overall formation define mentality.

Balanced; Team strategy and role define individual mentality

Rigid: Team strategy and position define individual mentality

Very rigid: Team strategy and position define individual mentality

So, the only way to affect individual mentality significantly in a very rigid play style, is by altering the players position on the pitch or changing the strategy, none of which is needed when using a balanced style. That's why I find balanced the option that gives you the most influence on individual players' behavior.

[janbak]

Very fluid: all the same mentality. The only real influence you have on individual mentality is the team strategy

Fluid: back five, front five split. Team strategy and player position/overall formation define mentality.

Balanced; Team strategy and role define individual mentality

Rigid: Team strategy and position define individual mentality

Very rigid: Team strategy and position define individual mentality

... but what you write it is not consistent with what wwfan wrote in his first post ...

Very Rigid: [/b]Each player is given a specific job and is supposed to stick to it (usually 5+ different jobs across a team)

Rigid: Players are assigned a responsibility that contributes to a specific element of play (Defence, defence & transition, transition & attack, attack)

Balanced: Players focus on their duty (Defend, Support, Attack)

Fluid: Players are given instructions to focus on defence or attack

Very Fluid: Players contribute to all aspects of play

... it seems you are calling "Balanced" what he called "Very Rigid", isn't it?

[Steve Odom]

Absolutely not. In the ME, the players are spaced out so the central defenders are given a more conservative role then the backs, the backs are more conservative than the central midfielders and so on. So each player is more concerned with their individual position on the pitch. When choosing balanced, your back can be more attacking than your central midfielder. . If you're looking for overlapping players, balanced can give you the best way to achieve exactly that: wingers on support and backs on attack.

The very rigid -> very fluid is not a scale. The hand of God also mentioned he would define balanced as asymmetric because of this. That is also why he didn't perceive fluid as fluid at all. It is indeed in some form a more rigid approach.

EDIT, I just realised I mixed op role and duty in that post, where uis say role, I men duty. Sorry. It should have read like this:

Very fluid: all the same mentality. The only real influence you have on individual mentality is the team strategy

Fluid: back five, front five split. Team strategy and player position/overall formation define mentality.

Balanced; Team strategy and duty define individual mentality

Rigid: Team strategy and position define individual mentality

Very rigid: Team strategy and position define individual mentality

[THOG]

... but what you write it is not consistent with what wwfan wrote in his first post ...

... it seems you are calling "Balanced" what he called "Very Rigid", isn't it?

Balanced basically makes the effect of duty more pronounced, so if you set attack duties in defence or support duties among the strikers, you will see much more dynamic movement between the lines (i.e., fluidity). This is why I argued that Balanced can make a tactic extremely fluid or extremely rigid depending on how you set it up. Very Rigid, in theory, is intended to make the effect of role more pronounced, if that makes sense.

[Steve Odom]

Balanced basically makes the effect of duty more pronounced, so if you set attack duties in defence or support duties among the strikers, you will see much more dynamic movement between the lines (i.e., fluidity). This is why I argued that Balanced can make a tactic extremely fluid or extremely rigid depending on how you set it up. Very Rigid, in theory, is intended to make the effect of role more pronounced, if that makes sense.

But even then it is difficult to create as much overlap in a very rigid formation, no? Because that's the reason why I argument that balanced is the strongest style for a manager to influence specific players' behavior.

A very rigid / rigid style seems to the most effective way to give a certain formation more standard flavor.

A fluid style will give you a balanced formation, with defenders defending, attackers attacking and little overlap

Very fluid gives you a more cohesive team as a whole, giving you the option to easily shift between overloading and containing

Standard can go either way, if implemented with care.

What 's your thought on this?

[janbak]

But even then it is difficult to create as much overlap in a very rigid formation, no? Because that's the reason why I argument that balanced is the strongest style for a manager to influence specific players' behavior.

A very rigid / rigid style seems to the most effective way to give a certain formation more standard flavor.

A fluid style will give you a balanced formation, with defenders defending, attackers attacking and little overlap

Very fluid gives you a more cohesive team as a whole, giving you the option to easily shift between overloading and containing

Standard can go either way, if implemented with care.

What 's your thought on this?

I think that you can create this kind of overlap in a Very Rigid approach too: for example with an advanced midfielder in the Trequartista or Shadow Striker role and a forward in the False9 role and your defensive midfielders with a Regista and Anchor Man role: in this way forwards tends to support defense and midfielders to support attack ... creating a dynamic movement between lines in a different way from what you do with a balanced approach, where you use Duties instead of Roles to meet this goal ... the result it's the same but reached in a different way

[Steve Odom]

Ofcourse you can create overlap, but it is much more difficult. In a rigid setup your backs will be considered defenders for the purpose of mentality, regardless of their role. In a balanced setup, the duty becomes more important when it comes to mentality. It is much easier to create a lot of overlap in a balanced setup because of this.

The overlap you're creating with your very rigid approach has more to do with their "run from deep" instruction then their mentality, though it alsa plays a small part, especially when two players play in the same basic position, like a striker partnership. In balanced you would have both "run from deep" and mentality interacting, thus creating easier overlap.

[janbak]

Ofcourse you can create overlap, but it is much more difficult. In a rigid setup your backs will be considered defenders for the purpose of mentality, regardless of their role.

It seems to me that you are confusing Roles and Positions, in a Very Rigid setup Roles prevail over Positions meaning that a Wing Back has a more offensive mentality than Full Back, the same for Central Defender Vs Ball Playing Defender ... so it is not true that in a Very Rigid setup all my backs are considered Defenders regardless their Role because Very Rigid is the setting where Roles prevail over every other setting

[Steve Odom]

Role and position. The position defines the mentality setting, the role defines runs, passing, crossing,..

[glyndav]

Quick question if thats ok. In old iterations of FM, I used to start just using the generic tactics and build as I went along, at least until I got a better idea of my players and the game.

I'm wondering though, given the set roles and duties of the tactics, are they not illogical themselves unless the philosophy is changed to very fluid due to their lack of specialist roles...? If that is the case, might there be some merit for the people that struggle with tactics, or create ones that further accentuate the issues in the ME, to redo the default tactics with particular styles of play in mind? Might at least help them to logically thing about the football they want to replicate.

[Steve Odom]

No, they were just a base to build from. Changing the philosophies would change the style of your tactic, imo.

[janbak]

Role and position. The position defines the mentality setting, the role defines runs, passing, crossing,..

May be you're right ... but it seems to me different, and to some extent in contrast, compared to what wwfan said in his opening post ...

[glyndav]

"No, they were just a base to build from. Changing the philosophies would change the style of your tactic, imo."

They would, they still have an illogical starting point though, surely.

[Steve Odom]

I believe it is not, anyway. I am installing FM 13 again. So I can show in screenshots what I can't explain in my basic English.

[Shake Appeal]

I love how everyone's understanding of mentalities, roles, positions, etc. is predicated on their knowledge of how these things affected the sliders in FM13.

Anyone who started with FM14 would not even understand the conversation you're having.

[janbak]

I believe it is not, anyway. I am installing FM 13 again. So I can show in screenshots what I can't explain in my basic English.

... I'm sorry but I thought we were talking about FM14

[Steve Odom]

We are but in fm14 the sliders are gone but the mentality structure still exists.

[janbak]

We are but in fm14 the sliders are gone but the mentality structure still exists.

You're right but I get that Roles are much more "sophisticated" now than in the past, but it seems you're underrating them ...

[Steve Odom]

I don't believe much has changed apart from the options, managers havenow when creating tactics. You can't alert mentality now erich makes replies more important inthis version. Since youcan't alter mentality, fluidity settings restrict rules more than they used to too.

[janbak]

Since you can't alter mentality

I not sure about that, for example you can greatly alter your Forward mantality assigning a Poacher role instead of Deep Lying Forward or False9, the same for Anchor Man Vs Regista for your defensive Midfielders

[Steve Odom]

Dependingon your fluidity settings, yes. But the whole point of the rigid style is; it doesn't(much).

[HaydarAli]

I'm back after a week, and I see that my last 2 posts in this thread have generated a very instructive discussion about the fluidity/mentality structures in FM.

I'm going to make a good cup of coffee and read all the interesting posts in this thread again!

Thanks for everybody

[janbak]

First of all, just to set things straight, Steve I don't absolutly want to argue with you but I'm simply trying to clarify my ideas and looking for confirmation to my understanding, so thank you very much for this positive discussion

Dependingon your fluidity settings, yes. But the whole point of the rigid style is; it doesn't(much).

IMHO according to the first wwfan's post the "Very Rigid" setting is where Roles have the greatest influence on players' Mentality

In fact my understanding is that every setting allow you to alter players' Mentality but in a different way:

- do you prefer alter Mentality mainly by Roles? Go for Very Rigid

- do you prefer alter Mentality mainly by a mix of Roles and Duties? Go for Rigid

- do you prefer alter Mentality by Duties? Go for Balanced

- do you prefer alter Mentality by a mix of Strategy and Duties? Go for Fluid

- do you prefer alter Mentality by Strategy? Go for Very Fluid

It may be (and for sure it will be) I'm wrong but for the time being this is what I get from wwfan's and THOG's posts

[Steve Odom]

Hey janbak

I just meant to post a similar "thank you for the constructivediscussion" post but you beat me to it. I will post more later, this samsung peace of c***p I'm usinng to post this, just doesn't work for me.

[Cleon]

- do you prefer alter Mentality by Strategy? Go for Very Rigid

This basically sums up my play style

[HaydarAli]

In fact my understanding is that every setting allow you to alter players' Mentality but in a different way:

- do you prefer alter Mentality mainly by Roles? Go for Very Rigid

- do you prefer alter Mentality mainly by a mix of Roles and Duties? Go for Rigid

- do you prefer alter Mentality by Duties? Go for Balanced

- do you prefer alter Mentality by a mix of Strategy and Duties? Go for Fluid

- do you prefer alter Mentality by Strategy? Go for Very Rigid

It may be (and for sure it will be) I'm wrong but for the time being this is what I get from wwfan's and THOG's posts

Did you mean: Go for Very Fluid?

[janbak]

Did you mean: Go for Very Fluid?

You're right, thank you I edit my previous post

[Steve Odom]

As promised, I've posted some screenshots about philosophy in this http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/374515-Philosophy-a-debate. thread. I felt it would be unfair claiming WWFans excellent thread with the debate about philosophies. I also felt it deserved it's own spot, so feel free to comment on it there.

[daleuk8]

Can I ask what a nonsense midfielder is?

[llama3]

It is a no-nonsense midfielder - a player who is not there to do the fancy stuff, simplying the running, tackling, working hard and simple passes stuff

[kstoyle]

Thank you wwfan. An amazing guide.

I was on the verge of quitting FM14 as I could not seem to get any consistency. I read the guide, plus the threads by Llama3, Cleon etc and have made some fundamental changes to the style of play. In hindsight they were obviously not going to work but after reading, re-reading and reading again I now have a tactic that seems to work (4 wins out of 5 after 11 games without a win) and I will develop.

Thanks again

[llama3]

Thank you wwfan. An amazing guide.

I was on the verge of quitting FM14 as I could not seem to get any consistency. I read the guide, plus the threads by Llama3, Cleon etc and have made some fundamental changes to the style of play. In hindsight they were obviously not going to work but after reading, re-reading and reading again I now have a tactic that seems to work (4 wins out of 5 after 11 games without a win) and I will develop.

Thanks again

I always have a smile when I read that anything I've written has helped someone's fundamental ability to enjoy the game. All of us that write stuff have been on the other side of the fence at somepoint.

[daleuk8]

It is a no-nonsense midfielder - a player who is not there to do the fancy stuff, simplying the running, tackling, working hard and simple passes stuff

Would a BWM be classed as one?

[llama3]

Would a BWM be classed as one?

Yes, although be careful about his lack of positional discipline.

[Str0aK]

Okay, this is how I've set up. Let me know if there are any glaring problems.

Fluid and Standard

GKd

WBa

CBd

CBd

WBs

CMd

DLPs

AMs

SSa

AMa

AFa

both WBs running wide with wall, AMa roaming from position, SSa and AFa moving into channels.

Shorter passing

Work ball into box

Play wider