To Catenaccio and BEYOND!

[Ackter]

The sweeper needs everything possible tbh.

Anticipation, Pace, Stamina, Strength, Jumping, Passing, Agility, Balance, Tackling, Heading, pretty much all of the mentals etc

[RocheBag]

Been messing around with a tactic loosely based on this. I never thought I'd enjoy playing on Very Rigid/Defensive as much as I am, great fun.

[ModernLefty]

Sure, but then it's not really catenaccio!

But in fairness, it's not really catenaccio without referee intimidation and match-fixing, either.

Fair point, I suppose if you wanted to create a true catenaccio you would have most players specific man marking people, but this is only an interpretation of the catenaccio system and idealogy in FM. Claiming you can create an replica of anything on FM is a ridiculous suggestion, as you are just running a data simulation of specific system-esque inputs.

However, what Ackter is doing is heading from the starting point of trying to play a catenaccio system in FM, and as long as the output goals Ackter has set are reached, in this case keeping the scoreline and pinching a goal, along with the system working as it should, i.e. in a catenaccio like way, then Ackter has aimed for catenaccio and recieved catenaccio then it's hard to call it much else.

Would you have preferred Ackter to have called the thread, the 'Catenaccio system, roles and philosophy implemented in the way I see that fits best within the simulation framework of the Football Manager 2014'? It's not exactly concise.

[ModernLefty]

Been messing around with a tactic loosely based on this. I never thought I'd enjoy playing on Very Rigid/Defensive as much as I am, great fun.

Very rigid is great, means your players do what you tell them more, even setting up attacking teams, I have a Mourinho like want to sculpt their play to achieve specific attacking movements.

[Ackter]

Boo, that doesn't fit, just tried it.

Stops at: Catenaccio system, roles and philosophy implemented in the way I see that fits best within the

[ModernLefty]

You'll have to use some moderator magic to politely ask them to extend possible thread title lengths.

[jukilo]

I'm testing this approach with Benfica, with almost the standard team. Just a few buys and out's. Really want to build a team with this approach. Love defensive tactics. 3 matches played. 2 wins and 1 defeat. But that was the first game of the season and things go better now. The CL group (City, Napoli and Shakthar) will provide a good test to this tactic haha.Will report here my progress and thinkings

Also, what do you select as match preparation? And any specific recommendations for other positions, besides WBL? PPM's or so?

Cheers. Great work you've in here

[Ackter]

I leave match preparation to my assistant.

Most of my other players have no game-changing PPMs, they're all pretty standard.

[Steve Odom]

Most of my other players have no game-changing PPMs, they're all pretty standard.

Is there a particular reason behind this or can't you be bothered training/transferring them?

I ask this because I don't like PPM myself because they model players into a certain style, while I want flexibilty from them.

[Ackter]

Don't know really, just never bothered.

[Porthos]

I started bright, but a drop in morale and form across the board definitely hampered my results here. I'm going to put it down to A) Switching tactics mid-season and B) Poor man-management.

[Ackter]

I find it struggles most against narrow 5-man midfields, which is pretty much what the real catenaccio suffered most against as well.

[Falahk]

I appreciate that, mate.. And I understand that P&P tactics (hopefully) won't work in FM14..

nah its just as easy to do plug and play on fm14 as it have been before

I leave match preparation to my assistant.

I died a bit inside when you said that

to be fair I'm not much better, I leave it on tactics only during preseason, when tactic is fluid I stick it on 10% teamwork for the rest of the year

[Ackter]

Right, I thought I'd see just how far I could take this formation. Just how horrible could I be to the opposition? Just how frustrating can I make my team be to play against?

These are the changes I've made, to restrict the opposition all around the box, to let them have as much of the ball as they want as long as it's nowhere near my goal:

Well, this should probably answer that question:

My fans hate me, but I'm loving it.

And yes - I conceded a corner goal to even up the scores.

[kazm]

hahah that's insane.

62 shots wtf!

[Ackter]

Obviously exaggerated like hell by the too-many-shots bug, but still

Most of my other results are more normal, though along the same lines. But occasionally a team will come at me like a truck, and this is what happens to them :muscle:

It would be horrible being a Newcastle fan having to watch this turgid anti-football.

[Steve Odom]

Does your tactic influence how other managers see you? If frustration is your goal, they should really dislike you. If its nit in FM already, it should defenitely be so in the future.

[Ackter]

I wish the game was that sophisticated - though I'd soon find it hard trying to buy or sell anyone when the other teams just hang up on me as soon as they realise who's calling

[RTHerringbone]

That Arsenal game is nuts - how many of their shots were from distance?

Someone posting in General Discussion would have a field day with that match!

[Steve Odom]

That Arsenal game is nuts - how many of their shots were from distance?

Someone posting in General Discussion would have a field day with that match!

j

[Ackter]

36 shots considered as long shots, 4 woodwork hits and only 7 half chances.

Not counting near post corners, there were "only" 12 shots inside the box - and all of them from narrow angles with loads of players in front of them.

[Ackter]

11 of the shots inside the box were headers, I really do need to do something about that.

[Steve Odom]

How do the fans react by the way? They must be ready to lynch you if you play like that for a year or so.

Anyway, this isn't something I'd like to do in my save, even though they don't get any good chance, there 's always that slim chance of scoring every time they get near the box, be it from a deviation or something similar. this couldn't be good for my heart rate.

[Ackter]

If I draw, they're always devastated by how few chances we created.

If we win, they're concerned by it, but are happy to ignore it.

I really need to find a DLP and a backup halfback that can jump - when I'm forced to rest my main halfback, we lose so many more headers.

[Midnight Rob]

Good thread Ackter, thank you for taking the time. I particularly liked post#44 when you screenshot all the roles. I found it enlightening to see how you were individually instructing the players.

If you can remember, your DMCR has no player in his direct area in front of him but is asked to play shorter. The MCL however has an AMCL immediately in front of him though but is asked to pass direct. Normally I would have assumed those passing instructions to be the other way around. Can you explain why you set them as you have please?

[Ackter]

The DMCR spends most of his time filling in the gap to the left of the right-back. His short passing is to ensure it goes the MCL in most cases. The MCL is usually in the dead centre of the pitch at this point and can spray direct passes anywhere he feels like.

[Ackter]

Just turned over Liverpool in similar circumstances:

The match finished 1-2

That 1 CCC is a near post corner, which is where their goal came from. 8 of their shots came inside the box, all of them yet again having to shoot through a crowd of people or were fired in from wide angles (excepting the near post corner goal). Four of those shots (again, excepting their corner goal) were headers because my two DMs are too short.

I'm trying to find better players, but they're just nowhere. There's 3 players I'd love to have, but unfortunately the cheapest of those is going for £42m and I'm just not paying that for someone.

Not sure how to improve my passing rate either, without bringing one of the AMs deeper (which I don't want to do).

[Ackter]

I keep shifting bits of my team around, but I think I'm now settled on this:

[Ackter]

[Ackter]

[Steve Odom]

How long did all of this take you irl? It seems like so much work to get this type of asymmetry working, while also needing to address the squad building around it. You're really onto something special here though!

[Ackter]

This version of it I started with the very first post in this thread and have played a few hours each day with it.

But I've been doing catenaccio style tactics since Football Manager Live was active. It was full of people who threw everything into making their team as attacking as possible, and catenaccio always seemed like the most fun way of hitting them on the counter. I used to get so much abuse about cheaty made up tactics, it was hilarious. All they had to do was get their attacking and defensive balance right and they'd have been able to blunt my tactics pretty easily - all it takes to give a catenaccio trouble is a narrow 5 man midfield.

[Steve Odom]

This version of it I started with the very first post in this thread and have played a few hours each day with it.

But I've been doing catenaccio style tactics since Football Manager Live was active. It was full of people who threw everything into making their team as attacking as possible, and catenaccio always seemed like the most fun way of hitting them on the counter. I used to get so much abuse about cheaty made up tactics, it was hilarious. All they had to do was get their attacking and defensive balance right and they'd have been able to blunt my tactics pretty easily - all it takes to give a catenaccio trouble is a narrow 5 man midfield.

Abuse? I can't even begin to understand why people would do that. Beaten is beaten, I say. Especially if you can prove your logic behind the tactic is sound and not an exploit of the ME. Haven't played FM Live though, for good reasons it seems...

The victories I've been most proud of in the past where all tactical ones, where I had fewer possession and overall dominance, though managed to grab a win by doing the right stuff. It gives you even more satisfaction than a clear win in my opinion. I must add, I'e never, ever managed to put such a highly irregular, asymmetric and complicated tactic to good use, and I've never build my team around it. I just keep tactical victories for occasions where I need them.

Guess your last post also answered my first on your thread. Other managers would hate you.

[Ackter]

There was an over-abundance of the tactic:

DR

DC

DC

DL

DM

MC

MC

ST

ST

ST

because narrow tactics at that point would completely overload someone playing with a back four, so loads of people used that formation. Now, as most people don't actually understand how shape and balance work in tactics, no-one could work out why they were getting destroyed by these narrow tactics and would end up just switching to them instead. (If you can't beat them...).

But then you had me and Cleon (who was effectively my B Team at that point) changing up our tactics to counter this threat and completely abuse the shear amount of space those 4123s would leave everywhere. All you had to do was soak up an attack then launch a counter and you'd pick them apart. I spent 3 days, I think it was, playing and watching matches with this tactic so I could see exactly what was going on and figured that a wing heavy counter team, with a sweeper to help combat the front 3 attack, would be the best bet.

Enter catenaccio.

[Steve Odom]

The last FM also used it as a default for the 433 tactic in game, or was it the one before. Either way, never liked such tactics. I like to diversify most of my attacking threat. One should never have only one option left, unless one knows it is the only option left, imo. I make an exception of the huge exploit of stupidity ofcourse.

Did you ever try and react this way to the 'abusers'? They couldn't be complaining about exploits while all they ever did was using them themself, or am I naive at this point? I guess I am.

[Ackter]

There was no point trying to explain anything to the average FML manager, it was mainly full of people too stubborn to want to learn from others

There was a tactical underground in the game, though.

The game was so much fun and had so much potential. It's a massive shame that it didn't catch on.

[noikeee]

Ackter I see you're using "clear ball to flanks". I'm playing a completely different way from Catenaccio - in fact a complete opposite, fluid 4-2-3-1 - but a recurring problem I've found extremely irritating is that when the opposition presses me hard, I can't seem to do anything against it, and one of the ways I'd like to exploit them would be to let them come at me then hit balls into the space behind their full-backs with at least 1 advanced winger. But I'm having a very hard time to do that in this ME, despite having a few cracking deep-lying playmakers told individually to play more direct, and a super quick guy upfront in Walcott. Very rarely does that ever lead into a goal or a chance. Do you manage to get effective quick counters down the flanks? I found it a curious shout particularly because as you play the Catenaccio formation you don't have advanced wingers! Do they hoof the ball upfront into the flanks where there's effectively nobody to pick up those balls? (other than perhaps the AMCs going on a roam?)

[Ackter]

The defensive winger tends to hover around their fullback and I have him set to stay forward for all set pieces so he's always there as an option on the wing. I also have my striker set to stay forward so the defensive winger tends to stand wider on the set pieces, which helps.

The keeper isn't doing what he's meant to be doing often enough, and his distribution is definitely going to other places as well, but when he does actually listen and launches the ball down the right I know there's a ball getting into the box more often than not.

[Steve Odom]

@Noikee

The fuidity has a huge influence on how players relate to shape and strategy. Which one did you use?

[noikeee]

Clever there with the set-pieces! I remember having a similar set-up a few FMs back (winger + striker staying up) but for some reason doing that again never crossed my mind this time.

But if you win the ball on open play, say the sweeper or one of the DMs intercept it, it's a bit hard to launch a quick counter down the wings no? I suppose with "play out of defence" they'll slow down and the defence will come into position. Not sure how "play out of defence" works together with "more direct passing" there. In fact I just remember I have "play out of defence" in all of my setups so that might be a partial reason why I don't get to exploit that space behind the full-backs. I think the ME's a tiny little bit broken there though, I've been through a few settings and nothing appears to work not even when the opposition plays WB-type roles and a high line (a rare occurrence as defences are also too deep in this ME).

Steve - when I try this strategy it's usually my 4-3-3 formation (4-1DM-2MC-2AML/R-1) which I have on "balanced" fluidity.

Sorry for hi-jacking this thread slightly.

[Ackter]

I've removed play out of defence since then, but what used to happen was when the ball was won back with enough time and space, the ball would be short passed to the DLP who would then spray the ball around. If it was won back under pressure, it would be launched down one of the wings either for the right winger to take on, or for the leftback to run onto.

[noikeee]

That's exactly what I wanted to see on my team! I suppose I need to try "play more direct" when I want to unleash this plan then. The fact I'm using 2 advanced playmakers beyond my DLP (one as the AML who isn't meant to run as much as the other winger, the other as a MC) may also be confusing things I guess. Thanks.

[RocheBag]

Have you given up on the idea of the goal-scoring wingback? Just noticing the "run wide" instruction.

[Steve Odom]

Clever there with the set-pieces! I remember having a similar set-up a few FMs back (winger + striker staying up) but for some reason doing that again never crossed my mind this time.

But if you win the ball on open play, say the sweeper or one of the DMs intercept it, it's a bit hard to launch a quick counter down the wings no? I suppose with "play out of defence" they'll slow down and the defence will come into position. Not sure how "play out of defence" works together with "more direct passing" there. In fact I just remember I have "play out of defence" in all of my setups so that might be a partial reason why I don't get to exploit that space behind the full-backs. I think the ME's a tiny little bit broken there though, I've been through a few settings and nothing appears to work not even when the opposition plays WB-type roles and a high line (a rare occurrence as defences are also too deep in this ME).

Steve - when I try this strategy it's usually my 4-3-3 formation (4-1DM-2MC-2AML/R-1) which I have on "balanced" fluidity.

Sorry for hi-jacking this thread slightly.

I've found it hard to recover from enormous pressure in balanced, probably because of the great impact it has in formation. Nowadays I play fluid (I need to for a lot of reasons in my Redditch save), with a different setup all together and my counters seem to be more effective. That doesn't mean balanced won't be my favorite fluidity anymore, it's just an observation I made wich will impact the choices I make.

My advanced flanks track back less now, which means they're more of an outlet for quick transition.

[Ackter]

Have you given up on the idea of the goal-scoring wingback? Just noticing the "run wide" instruction.

I have no idea why that's on there, need to get rid. Cheers.

Was meant to be cut inside, which I've re-added now.

[noikeee]

I thought it was the other way around, more rigid would make the players stick more to their positions so bigger gaps between the lines, more fluid making the lines closer together hence the wingers would drop back more?

In fact it's precisely the reason why I switched to balanced for the 4-3-3 formation, to spread them out more, I had "fluid" before that.

[Steve Odom]

I thought it was the other way around, more rigid would make the players stick more to their positions so bigger gaps between the lines, more fluid making the lines closer together hence the wingers would drop back more?

In fact it's precisely the reason why I switched to balanced for the 4-3-3 formation, to spread them out more, I had "fluid" before that.

Very rigid would make your backs almost behave as central defenders, mentality wise. Rigid makes the backs /winger slightly more advanced than their central counterparts. Balanced takes only roles in consideration so a given player on defend would differ a lot from the same player on support and a lot more from a player on attack. Fluid divides your team into two parts, defense and offense. Very fluid would give all more or less the same mmentality. Playing around with the fluidity settings could mean a lot of difference in how your shapes defines itself.

[Ackter]

Goddamn it. I nearly made it to the end of my second catenaccio season without conceding more than one goal in a match.

Bloody Chelsea

[Ackter]

Here's the first full catenaccio season:

[gpassosbh]

Just waiting the new patch to try this formation with Ajax or Southampton.