Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
difran8

How to choose the correct fluidity ?

Recommended Posts

Very many threads have tried to explain this very important tactic option.

However, i still face some confusion stemming mainly from the over-abundancve of analysis and information on the forums.(not the only option that still baffles me, mind you)

Even when successful players explain tactical concepts, contradictory/confusing information is often a given. Many have figured out the mechanics of the game and dress their observations afterwards with pedantic analyses, while others dress them with real-world footballing concepts. The user is standing at the foot of seemingly inapproachable holy peaks of FMwisdom and there are dozens of seasoned climbers offering help all together.

On topic now, and sorry for the minor frustration caused rant. Fluidity (Philosophy) decides both mentality and creative freedom distribution. The first two questions coming to my mind are:

1. are mentality frameworks and strategy connected? and 2. are mentality frameworks and team formation connected?

By connected i mean influencing one another in such a way that the choice of one naturally leads to one or two variations of the other.

Can we really be successful if we try to diverge from the ideas that led to the game's basic concepts? For example: very fluid, by giving everyone the same mentality, is quite compressed. Can one play "attacking" with very fluid with success? Is it not a bit contradictory trying to play long high tempo football and have the players near one another?

And here comes the third question: if the above is not correct (and team shape is decided primarily by formation placement and forward runs) , then the mentality distribution aspect of frameworks is less important than the creative freedom distribution aspect.

So, in the end what is more important and what should we look for when deciding the fluidity setting? The special/general player role concept or how we want our team to shape when the play develops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know where you are coming from.

If you had asked this 3 or 4 months ago, my reply would have been an overly simplistic and completely un-scientific one: I used to say to myself the Fluidity steps are akin to the Mentality steps, thus "Very Rigid" equates to "Defensive" through to setting "Very Fluid" with "Attacking" (I ignored Contain and Overload). As I said, overly simplistic and un-scientific, but it worked. I had great success, for example, with Very Fluid / Attacking tactics and guided West Ham to European glory using a very nice Rigid / Counter tactic.

Anyway, that was then.

Nowadays, I follow the Universalism vs Specialism theory, as discussed in this thread http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/366111-How-to-Play-FM14-A-Twelve-Step-Guide. I decide how I want my team to play (Mentality), set my team formation and assign roles / duties to the players. Once I see how many "specialists" I have, I fix my Fluidity accordingly. Then, when I start playing pre-season friendlies, I make adjustments to player roles if required and thus alter Fluidity as necessary.

Again, perhaps a little simplistic, but it does actually get me thinking about how I want my team to play without agonising for hours over the minutae of detail that it is very possible to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herne is on the money - doesn't matter if it is simplistic if it is correct. In general, the more specialists, the more rigid your team mentality, a more universal approach means a more fluid mentality. Your team strategy does not equate in such simple terms to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I wouldn't say they're necessarily connected. Fluidity would help support the fine details of a specific approach, but it's not broadly tied to something as general as strategy or formation.

I think people get too hung up on this setting because it's abstract and theoretical and somewhat removed from real life coaching terminology, and as my thread argues, the in-game description incorrectly ties to the concept to phases of play which creates further confusion. And because of that, if they're not successful, they wonder if getting their fluidity "right" would be like some magic switch that brings everything together, but the effects are really much too subtle for that to be the case. Fluidity can complement a specific tactic aiming to encourage certain specific behaviours, but a soundly constructed tactic used appropriately can break every stickied guideline regarding fluidity without seeing much difference.

As herne and llama said, the main thing to consider is how you want to use your players. Do you want to limit the number of players who are free to express themselves? How meticulous are you about assigning specific responsibilities to specific players? How much of a goal-scoring focal point do you want your centre forward to be? Do your defenders push up close behind the midfield or drop back to create more depth for circulating the ball? Does your midfield have a pronounced destroyer/creator split or are responsibilities more loosely structured? These are fine detail considerations, but the differences are not so great that they will make or break a tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't subscribe at all to the specialist/generic roles in this. In my opinion it doesn't really matter. As a general guide it works, but there's no right or wrong way here. But I'll tell you how I choose one. (roughly)

For me, I start by imagining how I want my striker(s) to behave. Do I want them to be the most attack-minded players? This would mean rigid or very rigid.

Or do I want them to behave more like a midfielder? This would be Fluid or Very fluid.

Then I think about my defenders. Do I want them to just defend and not worry about much else? Anything from very rigid to fluid will do as far as mentality goes, but less creative freedom is good for this so rigid or very rigid are the frontrunners.

Or do I want them to be more midfielder-y, having the freedom and even responsibility to take part in build up. Very fluid is the specialty here, making the defenders as much a midfielder as he can be.

Wide play? More reserved play wanted? Very rigid. More adventurous? Rigid(?), Very fluid. Full backs reserved and more adventurous wingers? Fluid.

When it comes to creative freedom, I don't really care. You can change it in team instructions, so you can have expressive rigid system or disciplined fluid system.

Balanced wasn't mentioned here. I don't use it. It seems all but balanced to me. Any of the other systems have more balance to them in my opinion. You can very well use it but I don't have anything on it really.

All of this is very subtle in the ME and you can't really tell what fluidity you're using by watching any one player, but it's visible (somewhat) when you view the behavior of your team as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if we use rigid, what would happen? dlp in defend role wold not help attack?full back wont overlap?

A DLP Defend won't support the Attack in any Fluidity really.

The full back behaviour will depend on their Duty. An Attack Duty full back will attack in Rigid. People misinterpret Fluidity all the time and equate it to defensive play, which is completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A DLP Defend won't support the Attack in any Fluidity really.

The full back behaviour will depend on their Duty. An Attack Duty full back will attack in Rigid. People misinterpret Fluidity all the time and equate it to defensive play, which is completely wrong.

RTH I agree to some extent with what you say, but...

... if I have a set-up where my fluidity/philosophy is very rigid or rigid, my FBs on support duty will be pretty cautious.

If I keep those FBs on the same duty, but nudge fluidity even just up to balanced, their mentaility will be higher and that is obvious in the way they play - balanced can be a nightmare sometimes!

Hence, while I agree with you that people mistakenly, in a simplistic way, equate fluidity to defensive play in general terms, I think it does apply to specific positions and, in a back 4, that is very important. If you want to see a back 4 properly defend, use a more rigid approach.

It is worth mentioning, as much as I have criticised the Ass. Man feedback on another thread, that a consistent theme of advice I've come across when protecting a lead is to change the fluidity to something more rigid (yes, this is from the Ass Man) and on this one, the Ass Man's advice is pretty on the money.

I've also found from personal experience that if I drop from control to counter (mentality shift), that then shifting fluidity from fluid to rigid, makes it work much more effectively and I see players defending properly, while also springing the kind of effective movement and counter-attacking that I'd want to see.

My overall view is that if you want to play on the front foot from the outset then more fluidity is the way to go.

However, if you want to play in a reactive fashion from deeper-lying players bombing forward (btw I'm sure mentality can be high - but starting positions are important) then a more rigid structure is more effective and IIRC that is consistent with Cleon's threads on the defensive arts.

SI may not have intended it this way, it may not sit with real-life football entirely but I personally think it is the case with the FM14 ME. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say it's a question of defending "properly." I would say it's a question of how eager they are to move play forward by either playing a risky pass or moving away from their defensive position. Cleon's points concern how the team transitions. A fluidity/mentality combination that encourages fullbacks or non-holding mids to spring forward more quickly can leave the team compromised defensively if there's a quick turnover of possession, but they'll still track back and defend just as they would on another fluidity.

I'd also point out that fullbacks on Fluid have the same mentality as fullbacks on Very Rigid, so it's not quite as simple as 'more rigid = more defensive.' Fluid will give you a cautious back four with the "fluidity" mainly concerning how forwards interact with the midfield. Similarly, Very Fluid on Defensive will have the whole team quite defensive with, iirc, fullbacks and central midfielders on a lower mentality than Rigid/Defensive, so the exact way fluidity works also depends on your mentality to some extent. The most defensive fluidity/mentality combination possible is actually Very Fluid/Contain as it instructs the entire team, top to bottom, to focus purely on staying as deep as possible for as long as they can safely hold onto the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't subscribe to this universalism/specialist theory either. To me it seems too arbitrary.

My understanding of philosophy, mentality and strategy is incredibly simple. Philosophy is how many groups of responsibilities do you want. Very fluid being 1, and since all your players have 1 responsibility, then that responsibility encompasses all,which is what very fluid is about. Fluid has 2, attack and defense, but to prevent your units being split, they help each other on transitions. Balanced has 3, determined by roles set by you. Rigid and very rigid is more positionally dependent on which players have what responsibilities.

You can field any sort of strategy with any mentality framework you want, but some would work better than others. Eg if you want a free flowing midfield diamond. A very fluid or fluid philosophy would help since it'll put them in the same responsibility group. If you use rigid or very rigid, you'll have to tinker your roles and mentalities to promote cohesion. You might want a defend duty in the MC, a more proactive support in DM and maybe a TQ on AM.

Conversely if you were building counter-attacking system, you might want to promote split responsibilities. Rigid or very rigid might be helpful so you can easily define who does what. But if you want a counterattacking system where everyone sits behind the ball, very fluid might be what you're after.

So it all depends on what you want to do. This is a game after-all, and although frameworks are designed for certain amounts of cohesion, you can always tinker the individual components of that framework. I wouldn't pull my hair out regarding this to be honest. At the end of the day it's a tiny part of what makes your tactic succeed or fail. I'd just read how the ME describes each philosophy and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RTH I agree to some extent with what you say, but...

... if I have a set-up where my fluidity/philosophy is very rigid or rigid, my FBs on support duty will be pretty cautious.

If I keep those FBs on the same duty, but nudge fluidity even just up to balanced, their mentaility will be higher and that is obvious in the way they play - balanced can be a nightmare sometimes!

Hence, while I agree with you that people mistakenly, in a simplistic way, equate fluidity to defensive play in general terms, I think it does apply to specific positions and, in a back 4, that is very important. If you want to see a back 4 properly defend, use a more rigid approach.

I think this is only the case with balanced. Also a little bit with rigid. Those are the two philosophies that split the mentality of center vs. full backs. Fluid, Very fluid and Very rigid don't do that. It's good to understand that each of the philosophies are their own separate entities. They are on scale only in regards to creative freedom, which you can change easily.

It is worth mentioning, as much as I have criticised the Ass. Man feedback on another thread, that a consistent theme of advice I've come across when protecting a lead is to change the fluidity to something more rigid (yes, this is from the Ass Man) and on this one, the Ass Man's advice is pretty on the money.

I've also found from personal experience that if I drop from control to counter (mentality shift), that then shifting fluidity from fluid to rigid, makes it work much more effectively and I see players defending properly, while also springing the kind of effective movement and counter-attacking that I'd want to see.

May this have everything to do with creative freedom? For a counter strategy a more expansive philosophy would make the most sense to me. That would be Rigid, Fluid and Balanced for me.

My overall view is that if you want to play on the front foot from the outset then more fluidity is the way to go.

For example if you want to defend with 10 men in a 442, then there's nothing better than very fluid, more disciplined system, where every player have the same responsibility to defend (although with defenders being defenders and attackers being attackers).

However, if you want to play in a reactive fashion from deeper-lying players bombing forward (btw I'm sure mentality can be high - but starting positions are important) then a more rigid structure is more effective and IIRC that is consistent with Cleon's threads on the defensive arts.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I'm sure that I'd disagree if I did! :D (That seems to be the theme in this post. I'm not trying to agitate, I just don't agree.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fluidity / Rigidity does two things.

1: It sets a creative freedom level, e.g. how much a player is allowed to deviate from tactical instructions and express himself (essentially a flair boost)

2: It alters mentality structures (five mentalities - one mentality from very rigid to very fluid).

The specialism / universalism concept applies to the former. Do you want all your players to contribute creatively (very fluid), will you only allow a few select players to be the creative hub of the team (very rigid), or will you do something in between? You need to note that some of the specialist roles might actually reduce creativity, so you could also send out a hugely disciplined team aimed at scoring and defending repeating playing patterns and never deviating from instructions through the rigid philosophies.

The debates that rage over fluidity relate to the mentality structures. Each philosophy treats its players in a slightly different way. As described in my guide to FM14, this breaks down roughly thus:

  • Very Rigid: Each player is given a specific job
  • 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

The level on the debate on the forum has suggested that the link between 1 & 2 is actually a false one and that teams should be able to be Very Fluid in mentality but Very Rigid in creative freedom structure. To an extent you can force this with the team instructions, but it is a point well made.

The nature of the forums is that new theories and ideas supercede those that originally informed the conceptualisation of the module. Firstly 20 point sliders superceded the original five point sliders, then TT&F theorised tactics creator superceded 20 point sliders, and, over time, forum theorising about the tactics creator is superceding its original form and combatting its limitations. It's great that this happens because, as we know, SI will listen to, adopt and adapt these ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluidity / Rigidity does two things.

1: It sets a creative freedom level, e.g. how much a player is allowed to deviate from tactical instructions and express himself (essentially a flair boost)

2: It alters mentality structures (five mentalities - one mentality from very rigid to very fluid).

The specialism / universalism concept applies to the former. Do you want all your players to contribute creatively (very fluid), will you only allow a few select players to be the creative hub of the team (very rigid), or will you do something in between? You need to note that some of the specialist roles might actually reduce creativity, so you could also send out a hugely disciplined team aimed at scoring and defending repeating playing patterns and never deviating from instructions through the rigid philosophies.

This is something that has confused me a bit over the last few weeks on particular when trying to get the "absolute best" out of my CAM, I have a few questions if you don't mind :)

If he is to be the prime creator and most play is intended to channel through this man, is it then counter-productive to play a very fluid system? Is it correct to assume that other creative players around him may "try to to their own thing" so to speak to make and impact on the game rather than pass it to the main creative player?

Also, if you only want 1 or 2 creative hubs in the team, does it then make little sense to assign the main creative players an unspecialised role (going by the specialism/universalism concept) as opposed to a specialist one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluidity / Rigidity does two things.

These two things are of equal importance or does one take precedence over the other? The guide suggests we should decide based on how we want creative freedom to be distributed (and not on how we want mentality to be structured). Is this intended for ease of understanding?

Also, taking into account that roles offering specialization are mostly central ones, is it safe to assume some formations are intended to work with specific philosophy in mind? 442 seems to be set for very fluid aggressive long ball strategies. A rigid defensive 442 would require extensive tinkering to play right. Or tactics favoring middle pitch play with DM and AM, that seem fit for short less-aggressive football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These two things are of equal importance or does one take precedence over the other? The guide suggests we should decide based on how we want creative freedom to be distributed (and not on how we want mentality to be structured). Is this intended for ease of understanding?

Also, taking into account that roles offering specialization are mostly central ones, is it safe to assume some formations are intended to work with specific philosophy in mind? 442 seems to be set for very fluid aggressive long ball strategies. A rigid defensive 442 would require extensive tinkering to play right. Or tactics favoring middle pitch play with DM and AM, that seem fit for short less-aggressive football.

Anything can work as long as it is set up correctly. You don't have to play a certain way just because of your formation.

I really think people get too caught up with fluidity. You just need to know how you want to play and think about what you have to do to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that SI should remove the current philosophy settings of Very Rigid through to fluid and replace them with either a new system or none whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think that SI should remove the current philosophy settings of Very Rigid through to fluid and replace them with either a new system or none whatsoever.

What new system would you replace it with? :brock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What new system would you replace it with? :brock:

To be honest RTH I haven't yet come up with anything that is better to more easy to understand than the current system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the confusion is regarding this example: If I want to park the bus, I set the mentality as contain but what happens if I pair it with very fluid? the contain mentality suggests that the team is very defensive orientated, but if paired with very fluid(which SI explains as how much you want the players to be involved in the different phases of play iirc), then won't you have defenders doing a david luiz and running all round the field? (which is very non-containish)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think the confusion is regarding this example: If I want to park the bus, I set the mentality as contain but what happens if I pair it with very fluid? the contain mentality suggests that the team is very defensive orientated, but if paired with very fluid(which SI explains as how much you want the players to be involved in the different phases of play iirc), then won't you have defenders doing a david luiz and running all round the field? (which is very non-containish)

You wont have defenders running all over the place in any fluidity, as they are guided by their roles and mentality, even though they have extra creative freedom, they aren't morons, and going to start going all crazy and dashing all over the place. A contain mentality would be even more restrictive and you would be unlikely to see players deviating too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You wont have defenders running all over the place in any fluidity, as they are guided by their roles and mentality, even though they have extra creative freedom, they aren't morons, and going to start going all crazy and dashing all over the place. A contain mentality would be even more restrictive and you would be unlikely to see players deviating too much.

That's debatable on 14.3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think the confusion is regarding this example: If I want to park the bus, I set the mentality as contain but what happens if I pair it with very fluid? the contain mentality suggests that the team is very defensive orientated, but if paired with very fluid(which SI explains as how much you want the players to be involved in the different phases of play iirc), then won't you have defenders doing a david luiz and running all round the field? (which is very non-containish)

No, just ignore the part about phases of play.

Very Fluid will slightly increase the chance that a Central Defender might try to do something more ambitious on the ball (random examples: clearing with an overhead kick or trying to side step a pressuring forward to pass it out of the back) but you can just offset this with a "Be More Disciplined" TI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, just ignore the part about phases of play.

Very Fluid will slightly increase the chance that a Central Defender might try to do something more ambitious on the ball (random examples: clearing with an overhead kick or trying to side step a pressuring forward to pass it out of the back) but you can just offset this with a "Be More Disciplined" TI.

Do CF levels differ between mentalities with the same Fluidity. (ie. would a CM (S) have the same CF in a Defensive strategy as he would in an Attacking Strategy; both using the same Philosophy (Rigid, Fluid, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, just ignore the part about phases of play.

Very Fluid will slightly increase the chance that a Central Defender might try to do something more ambitious on the ball (random examples: clearing with an overhead kick or trying to side step a pressuring forward to pass it out of the back) but you can just offset this with a "Be More Disciplined" TI.

It will also modify other players' CF. Removing manual Creative Freedom settings is a mistake. One option less, who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do CF levels differ between mentalities with the same Fluidity. (ie. would a CM (S) have the same CF in a Defensive strategy as he would in an Attacking Strategy; both using the same Philosophy (Rigid, Fluid, etc.).

No, CF levels are constant but mentality will have an effect on how they're expressed.

In gamey non-football terms, think of CF as a flat modifier on the probability that a player will choose certain options but mentality still sets the baseline for how that player will generally look to balance risk and reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, CF levels are constant but mentality will have an effect on how they're expressed.

In gamey non-football terms, think of CF as a flat modifier on the probability that a player will choose certain options but mentality still sets the baseline for how that player will generally look to balance risk and reward.

So having a Defensive tactic while using a Very Fluid philosophy wouldn't give everyone high a CF setting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So having a Defensive tactic while using a Very Fluid philosophy wouldn't give everyone high a CF setting?

A player in the same role on Very Fluid/Defensive and Very Fluid/Attacking will have the exact same CF setting in terms of the game mechanic. However, in practice, it's just one of several settings that interact to shape a player's decision making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A player in the same role on Very Fluid/Defensive and Very Fluid/Attacking will have the exact same CF setting in terms of the game mechanic. However, in practice, it's just one of several settings that interact to shape a player's decision making.

Okay thanks

Would it be a acceptable idea to have a Fluid/Attacking system for games where I'm favourite and want to be on the front foot. Then have a Rigid/Counter-Attacking style for tough games (UCL Away Games)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay thanks

Would it be a acceptable idea to have a Fluid/Attacking system for games where I'm favourite and want to be on the front foot. Then have a Rigid/Counter-Attacking style for tough games (UCL Away Games)?

Fluid and Rigid are not synonyms of Attacking and Defensive, or Better Team and Worse Team. It's a managerial preference regarding how much structure he wants in his team and how much he trusts his players to have their heads.

How much structural freedom do you want your players to have? That's the first question to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluid and Rigid are not synonyms of Attacking and Defensive, or Better Team and Worse Team. It's a managerial preference regarding how much structure he wants in his team and how much he trusts his players to have their heads.

How much structural freedom do you want your players to have? That's the first question to answer.

Well a lot; I like idea of being disciplined and structured, beating teams 1-0. I want to be a Mourinho esque player. However I do have a lot of good Attacking Midfielders with good flair and technical stats.

I've been using this in tough games and brought me relative success:

ScreenShot2014-08-16at163644_zps6a1cece3.png

However sometime I can't even register a shot on goal. So I think I need a more Fluid system to use when playing at home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing more fluid won't neccesarily equate more shots at goal. For that to happen regardless of what fluidity you use needs runners and people getting into good areas to fire shots off. In the system above I don't actually see much of this, if the Treq gets marked out of a game or can't influence like he is set up too then I can't see how you'd score goals or where they'd come from. I'd actually start with looking at this. Everything about the tactic above revolves around the treq in my opinion and if he has a bad day I can't see a threat coming from elsewhere.

Before all else what you should do is these important things;

  • The shape you want to use
  • Which players will be playing
  • Then have a think about the roles and duties
  • Then question the roles

The reason for questioning the roles is once you have a general idea and have messed around with it on the tactics screen, then begin to think how the roles/duties will interact with each other. For example determine where the goals will come from, who will be providing them the ball, will it be central players, wide men or a mixture of all? Then you fit the roles/duties around this. It's no good using a CM defend if actually you want him to support attacks and try playing the attacking players in down the centre of through the channels.

The rest will fall into place when you decide all the above. Then when it comes to fluidity I always ask myself do I want specific players to dictate how I play via the roles and duties I've selected or can I trust all players to be more creative? If its the latter then I'll look to be more fluid or if its the first then I'll look at being more rigid and allowing the more creative roles selected to make the team function instead. For me it really is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playing more fluid won't neccesarily equate more shots at goal. For that to happen regardless of what fluidity you use needs runners and people getting into good areas to fire shots off. In the system above I don't actually see much of this, if the Treq gets marked out of a game or can't influence like he is set up too then I can't see how you'd score goals or where they'd come from. I'd actually start with looking at this. Everything about the tactic above revolves around the treq in my opinion and if he has a bad day I can't see a threat coming from elsewhere.

Before all else what you should do is these important things;

  • The shape you want to use
  • Which players will be playing
  • Then have a think about the roles and duties
  • Then question the roles

The reason for questioning the roles is once you have a general idea and have messed around with it on the tactics screen, then begin to think how the roles/duties will interact with each other. For example determine where the goals will come from, who will be providing them the ball, will it be central players, wide men or a mixture of all? Then you fit the roles/duties around this. It's no good using a CM defend if actually you want him to support attacks and try playing the attacking players in down the centre of through the channels.

The rest will fall into place when you decide all the above. Then when it comes to fluidity I always ask myself do I want specific players to dictate how I play via the roles and duties I've selected or can I trust all players to be more creative? If its the latter then I'll look to be more fluid or if its the first then I'll look at being more rigid and allowing the more creative roles selected to make the team function instead. For me it really is that simple.

I did consider this actually, I thought I had it covered. The WMs are set-up like Inside Forwards (GFF, Cut Inside, Cross Less Often) and the Creative Forward I thought would constantly be a threat within the box; I added Move Into Channels to try and make some space for the Treq and WMs. The Treq is supposed to be the Sneijder of the team, the creative hub. Added to this the DM (S) has Get Further Forward, in an attempt to support the attacks more; while the CWB attempts to create some needed width (Maicon Role).

However the plan was to soak up pressure (Drop Deeper, Stay On Feet) and then release quick attacks into the space created (Direct Passing, Pass Into Space, Much Higher Tempo)?

To answer your check points:

1) I wanted to use a Deep 4-2-3-1 in an attempt to create the Mourinho system at Inter, however I wanted the Wingers to contribute more defensively, hence the 4-2-2-1-1.

2) I have a very talented Regen as a Sneijder type player; I have a great CWB (Maicon Role) and have to good, fast wingers who IMO are great for counter-attacking. I also have a great set of DMC all very all rounded.

3) I'd ideally want to make the DMC (S) a B2B but you can do that from the DMC position. Apart from that I was pretty happy with how the team's roles complemented each other and the Players.

Edit: It's clicked now what you mean about the over reliance on the Treq. I played a against a team that played with 5 Central Midfielders (1 DM, 2 CMs & 2 AMs). I got smashed! I'm considering maybe adding a DLP as one of the right Defensive Midfielder to add some more creativity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that time when you wake up in the middle of the night with an idea to explain something...

Could you explain Fluidity as a multiplier of your Strategy e.g.

Very Rigid = 1

Rigid = 2

Standard = 3

Fluid = 4

Very Fluid = 5

Then multiply that by your strategy.

Defensive = 1

Counter = 2

Balanced = 3

Control = 4

Attacking = 5

So Very Fluid and Defensive = 5 * 1 = 5

or

Very Fluid and Attacking = 5 * 5 = 25

This means that Very Fluid and Defensive is the same team attacking level as Attacking and Very Rigid?

So the most attacking you could ever be is Very Fluid and Attacking and most defensive is Very Rigid and Defensive.

Just a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can simplify it like that, to be honest. For the most part, all of the fluidities are balanced with the exceptions of Very Fluid on the extreme breakdown approaches (those being Contain and Overload). Again, it's not about how attacking or defensive you are, it's about how the team is structured to carry out your approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well a lot; I like idea of being disciplined and structured, beating teams 1-0. I want to be a Mourinho esque player. However I do have a lot of good Attacking Midfielders with good flair and technical stats.

I've been using this in tough games and brought me relative success:

ScreenShot2014-08-16at163644_zps6a1cece3.png

However sometime I can't even register a shot on goal. So I think I need a more Fluid system to use when playing at home?

To support Cleon's post, I'm worried about disconnect. You are basically vacating your midfield when attacking, requiring everything to go through the TQ. Passes are being hit from deep at pace to him, so his chances of controlling the ball and influencing the match will be minimal. He needs to have world class first touch and technique, and even if he does, you are asking a lot from him. If he's being specific marked with any efficiency, you've got not way of breaking down the opposition.

If you have lots of creative flair players but want a disciplined system, play a rigid structure but give them playmaker roles. Work out a passing and movement system to get the ball to them in space and let them dictate the game from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To support Cleon's post, I'm worried about disconnect. You are basically vacating your midfield when attacking, requiring everything to go through the TQ. Passes are being hit from deep at pace to him, so his chances of controlling the ball and influencing the match will be minimal. He needs to have world class first touch and technique, and even if he does, you are asking a lot from him. If he's being specific marked with any efficiency, you've got not way of breaking down the opposition.

If you have lots of creative flair players but want a disciplined system, play a rigid structure but give them playmaker roles. Work out a passing and movement system to get the ball to them in space and let them dictate the game from there.

Thanks for the reply, did you read my post #33?

I'm thinking I'm probably more suited to play a 4-2-3-1 deep formation, having the 3 midfielders in the Attacking strata. Therefore I leave 4 players up high, ready for the counter attack? When you say play them as Playmakers, do you mean possibly having the wingers as APs (A)?

As for the Passing and Movement system, do you movement between the lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did consider this actually, I thought I had it covered. The WMs are set-up like Inside Forwards (GFF, Cut Inside, Cross Less Often) and the Creative Forward I thought would constantly be a threat within the box;

While I do understand the reasonings for this the issue still exists. The WM's and they way they're set up still require someone actually passing them the ball when they get into those situations. This still heavily relies on the treq being able to do this. Beside the treq I don't see anyone who can create at all for your side.

I added Move Into Channels to try and make some space for the Treq and WMs. The Treq is supposed to be the Sneijder of the team, the creative hub. Added to this the DM (S) has Get Further Forward, in an attempt to support the attacks more; while the CWB attempts to create some needed width (Maicon Role).

Remember a treq drops quite deep. The DMC won't offer any real threat going forward. You don't have much movement apart from the WM's cutting inside but then if the treq doesn't get the ball to them then its wasted and I can't see how else they'd be able to get the ball. Having the team rely on 1 player to be responsible for everything that happens in a creative sense is really risk. It'll be quite inconsistent.

However the plan was to soak up pressure (Drop Deeper, Stay On Feet) and then release quick attacks into the space created (Direct Passing, Pass Into Space, Much Higher Tempo)?

Much higher tempo can rush the attacks too much. Just let them happen more natural, if a counter is on in the ME then they'll end up with maxed tempo when it kicks in under the hood anyway. So rather than trying to always force the past paced play let it happen more natural and you might end up with better attacks as you shouldn't give the ball away as easily.

To answer your check points:

1) I wanted to use a Deep 4-2-3-1 in an attempt to create the Mourinho system at Inter, however I wanted the Wingers to contribute more defensively, hence the 4-2-2-1-1.

2) I have a very talented Regen as a Sneijder type player; I have a great CWB (Maicon Role) and have to good, fast wingers who IMO are great for counter-attacking. I also have a great set of DMC all very all rounded.

3) I'd ideally want to make the DMC (S) a B2B but you can do that from the DMC position. Apart from that I was pretty happy with how the team's roles complemented each other and the Players.

How did you think the roles complemented each other? Take the treq away for a second and when movement happens of the WM's how are they going to get the ball? The team is heavily favoured towards narrow central play yet you actually lack anyone to provide the role of linking up the attacking players or being creative enough to get the ball to them with ease. The same with supplying the ball to the treq, I don't see many in the side who can do it and give him the ball.

Edit: It's clicked now what you mean about the over reliance on the Treq. I played a against a team that played with 5 Central Midfielders (1 DM, 2 CMs & 2 AMs). I got smashed! I'm considering maybe adding a DLP as one of the right Defensive Midfielder to add some more creativity?

If it was me I'd actually be thinking more along the lines of a regista maybe as they tend to offer more going forward and could actually link up well with the treq and offer him a bit of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the reply, did you read my post #33?

I'm thinking I'm probably more suited to play a 4-2-3-1 deep formation, having the 3 midfielders in the Attacking strata. Therefore I leave 4 players up high, ready for the counter attack? When you say play them as Playmakers, do you mean possibly having the wingers as APs (A)?

As for the Passing and Movement system, do you movement between the lines?

Well if you have playmakers then you need people who go beyond them and can create space and use space. So for example if I had an AP then I'd need people to be actual passing options for him while at the same time them being able to provide an attacking threat. So I'd maybe have a AF as the striker so he stays high up the pitch to keep the oppositions defenders busy and push them back. Then I'd look at who can get up and support him, I'd maybe use an IF so he cuts in side and uses space and on the other side I might use a winger who starts deeper and offers more of a threat by using the width and stretching the defenders. By starting them as less attacking they should start deeper meaning later timed runs can be extremely useful for causing issues and making the opposition have to make a decision on how to deal with it. If you make the opposition make decisions then you're winning the battle imo. Then I'd look at the central areas and see if I could also get someone to link up or go beyond the AP depending on what shape you actually use.

Your idea of having 4 players upfield is good in theory but again who/when/how are you going to get the ball to them? Considering you'll have a keeper and 4 forward that leaves you with 6 players who can do this. But then at least 2 will be central defenders so that leaves you with 4 players realistically who could be an option. How would that work? Which of those 4 would link the ball from the back to the attacking players? Are the fullbacks and DMC's actually capable of doing that job? What happens if the more creative DMC gets closed down or is under pressure constant? How will you then get the ball to the 4 isolated attacking players up top?

This is the sort of thing you should be looking at and questioning. Then it'll become much easier to understand the shape you have created and how all the roles actually work as a team and what they offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if you have playmakers then you need people who go beyond them and can create space and use space. So for example if I had an AP then I'd need people to be actual passing options for him while at the same time them being able to provide an attacking threat. So I'd maybe have a AF as the striker so he stays high up the pitch to keep the oppositions defenders busy and push them back. Then I'd look at who can get up and support him, I'd maybe use an IF so he cuts in side and uses space and on the other side I might use a winger who starts deeper and offers more of a threat by using the width and stretching the defenders. By starting them as less attacking they should start deeper meaning later timed runs can be extremely useful for causing issues and making the opposition have to make a decision on how to deal with it. If you make the opposition make decisions then you're winning the battle imo. Then I'd look at the central areas and see if I could also get someone to link up or go beyond the AP depending on what shape you actually use.

Your idea of having 4 players upfield is good in theory but again who/when/how are you going to get the ball to them? Considering you'll have a keeper and 4 forward that leaves you with 6 players who can do this. But then at least 2 will be central defenders so that leaves you with 4 players realistically who could be an option. How would that work? Which of those 4 would link the ball from the back to the attacking players? Are the fullbacks and DMC's actually capable of doing that job? What happens if the more creative DMC gets closed down or is under pressure constant? How will you then get the ball to the 4 isolated attacking players up top?

This is the sort of thing you should be looking at and questioning. Then it'll become much easier to understand the shape you have created and how all the roles actually work as a team and what they offer.

Have been at work today and have been thinking about this all day for some reason! Read your replies this morning so have had some time to mull over some of your thoughts. The one thing that I can't quite get my head around, however understand what your saying; is the part about the supply. When you say about the situation in where the Treq and a possible DLP at the DMC position are under-pressure and unable to provide the supply to the runners. Then who is will do this in there absence. Well I don't know is the answer! So I looked through you Design, Create & Maintain thread and try to see how you get round this. However I see you also have two Playmakers, so how does that system get round it? I suppose it's completely different football and probes a lot more than what I'm trying to achieve?

My current thinking is to have a DLP (D) next to a DMC (S). The idea possibly being that the DLP provides the supply from deep and the Treq from more advanced areas. Then the DMC (S) can essentially link the two together and be passing options for both when perhaps nothing else is on. However I know you going to ask me, What happens when the DMC (S) is marked? To that I would suggest maybe the WB (A) to the left? :confused:

Here the revised shape and roles:

ScreenShot2014-08-18at184540_zpsc3e2bd25.png

I thought I'd share who I want to play in the AMC strata:

AML: http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag365/321hello123/ScreenShot2014-08-18at185034_zps56d8329a.png

AMC: http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag365/321hello123/ScreenShot2014-08-18at185056_zps0a45645c.png

AMR: http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag365/321hello123/ScreenShot2014-08-18at185113_zps418f3105.png

I'm leaning to perhaps have a more calm build up than what I was previously doing. I had absolutely no clue about how the counter-attacks worked within the ME! Hence why I had the Passing and Tempo settings as they were! So if I can create enough space and have my players in the right position once I win the ball back will my team play more direct & at a swift pace? By slowing things down I suppose it will give me a better chance of getting the Treq on the ball more?

As for the role choices, will the IF (S) still get into the box? I'm hoping he will vary his runs, sometime arriving early or late. I still don't know whether to have an Attack or Support duty? What I want him to do is to exploit the space that hopefully we can create by the TIs, run at the defence, either slipping in the Striker, Winger or sometimes the Treq; or even go all the way and go for goal himself. As for the adding another creative outlet in on the DMC positions. I don't really have someone capable of playing in a Regista role; I also don't want an aggressive player in the DMC positions, leaving space that could be exploited. I want them to fairly disciplined.

Thanks for help thus far aswell :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have been at work today and have been thinking about this all day for some reason! Read your replies this morning so have had some time to mull over some of your thoughts. The one thing that I can't quite get my head around, however understand what your saying; is the part about the supply. When you say about the situation in where the Treq and a possible DLP at the DMC position are under-pressure and unable to provide the supply to the runners. Then who is will do this in there absence. Well I don't know is the answer! So I looked through you Design, Create & Maintain thread and try to see how you get round this. However I see you also have two Playmakers, so how does that system get round it? I suppose it's completely different football and probes a lot more than what I'm trying to achieve?

Totally different shapes and logic behind them. You stay high in the hope you can get the ball to the front players. I'm deep and the whole team moves forward when I have the ball as a unit. Plus I don't always use the same roles in the centre and change it depending on what I think is needed. Even my striker is a defensive striker so plays deeper too. Like I state in the thread you mention, that is just a base you work from I don't use those exact settings for every game. However the point is still the same, I tend to prefer the play deep advance forward as a unit movement compared to your team being split into 2 different bands, a static attack and relying on the midfield to link up play :)

My current thinking is to have a DLP (D) next to a DMC (S). The idea possibly being that the DLP provides the supply from deep and the Treq from more advanced areas. Then the DMC (S) can essentially link the two together and be passing options for both when perhaps nothing else is on. However I know you going to ask me, What happens when the DMC (S) is marked? To that I would suggest maybe the WB (A) to the left?

Well that might work. What I'm trying to do by questioning your thoughts and set up if to provide you with the doubt and why it might be happening so you can spot it in game. It's something you need to keep an eye on and after a while you should be able to know that its not working rather quickly and be able to try something different. The more you do it the easier it'll be to spot which will also mean the sooner you are fixing the issues and results should improve. I like the idea of switching the focus to the flanks if that happens, its logical. Another option is to maybe make the DLP a regista so he becomes the driving force who moves forward too instead :). Over a period of time you'll likely try other things too but as a starting base small changes like that can have a dramatic impact on how you are playing and change the way the game was going.

I'm leaning to perhaps have a more calm build up than what I was previously doing. I had absolutely no clue about how the counter-attacks worked within the ME! Hence why I had the Passing and Tempo settings as they were! So if I can create enough space and have my players in the right position once I win the ball back will my team play more direct & at a swift pace? By slowing things down I suppose it will give me a better chance of getting the Treq on the ball more?

Yups when the criteria for a counter attack is met then they will break with max tempo/mentality yeah. It's a bit like a switch under the hood of the ME that gets turned on. Slowing down could see the treq see more of the ball yes but it all depends on the space he has, finds and uses. That will be determined by the opposition and how aggressive they might be.

As for the role choices, will the IF (S) still get into the box? I'm hoping he will vary his runs, sometime arriving early or late.

He will yeah. I use support IF in the 4-3-3 that I used and he used to get around 20 assists and 20 goals a season every year without fail. That's due to how he functioned in the set up used though and how he interacted with the rest of the roles. That's what I'm trying to get you to see so you can understand the strengths and weakness in the set up you want to use. It becomes a lot easier for you once you know the shape inside out :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally different shapes and logic behind them. You stay high in the hope you can get the ball to the front players. I'm deep and the whole team moves forward when I have the ball as a unit. Plus I don't always use the same roles in the centre and change it depending on what I think is needed. Even my striker is a defensive striker so plays deeper too. Like I state in the thread you mention, that is just a base you work from I don't use those exact settings for every game. However the point is still the same, I tend to prefer the play deep advance forward as a unit movement compared to your team being split into 2 different bands, a static attack and relying on the midfield to link up play :)

I see exactly what your saying, if my supply gets compromised then I'm pretty screwd offensively. I'm playing my next game against Zenit, whom I've played before and I got completely destroyed! I think I stated earlier, but they play a narrow 4-1-2-2-1. Due to the numbers that they have in the centre means my supply is overwhelmed. My Treq is marked in the 'hole' by the DMC and even if he wants to come deep, he has to deal with another two centre midfielders. So he's virtually useless. Also my two DMCs are being marked out of the game Zenit's two AMCs. I'm a bit miffed into what my options are here. I know you aren't one for spoon feeding people, but I'd be interested to see how you'd potentially by-pass this? Focusing the play down the channels and get it away from the central areas is my only thought (Play Wider, Clear Ball to Flanks, Exploit the Flanks); also maybe making one of the wingers an AP.

Well that might work. What I'm trying to do by questioning your thoughts and set up if to provide you with the doubt and why it might be happening so you can spot it in game. It's something you need to keep an eye on and after a while you should be able to know that its not working rather quickly and be able to try something different. The more you do it the easier it'll be to spot which will also mean the sooner you are fixing the issues and results should improve. I like the idea of switching the focus to the flanks if that happens, its logical. Another option is to maybe make the DLP a regista so he becomes the driving force who moves forward too instead :). Over a period of time you'll likely try other things too but as a starting base small changes like that can have a dramatic impact on how you are playing and change the way the game was going.

I suppose what your saying here is that it will work in certain games and not in others. Which again, I fully understand where your coming from. I must admit I do try my upmost to see what happening in the game; I do watch in comprehensive mode now and do my best to tinker where I see fit. I'm a little bit worried that only a certain player can play in a Regista role. I really like the idea how he comes forward and joins the attack and to be honest that what I wanted, hence why I added 'Get Further Forward'. I don't have anyone who can be a real creative force from deep, but I do have some players who have some creativity that can come forward from Deep.

Here are 3 of them:

http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag365/321hello123/ScreenShot2014-08-18at210352_zps97316296.png

http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag365/321hello123/ScreenShot2014-08-18at210424_zps0321eb06.png

http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag365/321hello123/ScreenShot2014-08-18at210409_zps965aabb4.png

He will yeah. I use support IF in the 4-3-3 that I used and he used to get around 20 assists and 20 goals a season every year without fail. That's due to how he functioned in the set up used though and how he interacted with the rest of the roles. That's what I'm trying to get you to see so you can understand the strengths and weakness in the set up you want to use. It becomes a lot easier for you once you know the shape inside out :)

Wouldn't mind that to much! What kind of player plays this role? I always thought a Ronaldo/Hazard, someone who cuts in early and looks to pass or shoot; rather than an IF (A), who I liken to Alexies Sanchez, someone who plays on the back of the fullback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time to do a proper reply atm but I will tomorrow. What I wanted to say though was don't worry too much about the player you have because anyone can play any role they will just play it differently. I tend to always have someone who can play every role differently and this in itself can be a great tactic. For example I have a strong treq who is more focused on his strength for those tricky games where he might have a DMC hounding him all the game. I also have one who is all about his speed rather than technical to offer me something different. And then I have the usual type. I try and apply this to almost all the roles and try to use it as a strategy. I like to always experiment with how different players interpret the role. So don't think someone can't play the role as they aren't the typical kind of player you think you need for the role :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have time to do a proper reply atm but I will tomorrow. What I wanted to say though was don't worry too much about the player you have because anyone can play any role they will just play it differently. I tend to always have someone who can play every role differently and this in itself can be a great tactic. For example I have a strong treq who is more focused on his strength for those tricky games where he might have a DMC hounding him all the game. I also have one who is all about his speed rather than technical to offer me something different. And then I have the usual type. I try and apply this to almost all the roles and try to use it as a strategy. I like to always experiment with how different players interpret the role. So don't think someone can't play the role as they aren't the typical kind of player you think you need for the role :)

Food for though definitely :thup:

Okay I'll look out for it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To support Cleon's points, you are beginning to develop some shape, but are still lacking in creativity for me. The Rigid philosophy limits creativity for all players except playmakers. You only have one playmaker, the TQ. If he's taken out of the game through specific-marking (which the AI does on a regular basis), where is your second line of creativity? Who's going to pull the strings?

It's not 100% necessary to have multiple playmakers in a Rigid tactic if you are certain of the passing and movement patterns and trust that they will create chances in themselves. However, I don't think you have a nailed on understanding of structure and will thus struggle to develop a tactic that can do this. You either need to add creativity through extra playmakers or by moving to a more fluid philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To support Cleon's points, you are beginning to develop some shape, but are still lacking in creativity for me. The Rigid philosophy limits creativity for all players except playmakers. You only have one playmaker, the TQ. If he's taken out of the game through specific-marking (which the AI does on a regular basis), where is your second line of creativity? Who's going to pull the strings?

I've decided to add either a DLP (D) next to the DMC (S); or contemplating the other way round (DMC (D) & DLP (S).

This was the reasoning: "My current thinking is to have a DLP (D) next to a DMC (S). The idea possibly being that the DLP provides the supply from deep and the Treq from more advanced areas. Then the DMC (S) can essentially link the two together and be passing options for both when perhaps nothing else is on."

It's not 100% necessary to have multiple playmakers in a Rigid tactic if you are certain of the passing and movement patterns and trust that they will create chances in themselves. However, I don't think you have a nailed on understanding of structure and will thus struggle to develop a tactic that can do this. You either need to add creativity through extra playmakers or by moving to a more fluid philosophy.

Are you referring to the first image I showed post #31 or post #40?

Well Fluid would split the mentality two ways. Which is essentially what I'm wanting to do; keep players high up the pitch, ready for a quick counter-attacks. However I want to keep the structure in defence with the back 6, which I believe Rigid gives me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then when it comes to fluidity I always ask myself do I want specific players to dictate how I play via the roles and duties I've selected or can I trust all players to be more creative? If its the latter then I'll look to be more fluid or if its the first then I'll look at being more rigid and allowing the more creative roles selected to make the team function instead. For me it really is that simple.
These are fine detail considerations, but the differences are not so great that they will make or break a tactic.

I will stick to keeping it simple then and follow wwfan's simple CF-distribution rule rather than mess with how mentality is spread along the team. To be honest i like it more that way, it allows the user to focus on different more important parts of the tactic.

@Luizinho

This 4-2-3-1 shape may be not that useful for quick counter attacks. I think that shapes with more deep positioned players break the opposition attack more easily and run into the available space better.

But disregard that. I m also trying (stubbornly) to make this shape work. The main issue i find myself facing is that i can't overcome the limitation of the shape itself: I always end up with two units and - at the best scenario - i can only link them effectively but not make the deeper players have any effect other than supporting the frontline

So, you have a rather limited attack with not so effective support. Deeper formations have better ways to attack the space and make players cooperate. Despite that, im going to stick to it. There has to be something that makes it all click together

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking I'm probably more suited to play a 4-2-3-1 deep formation, having the 3 midfielders in the Attacking strata. Therefore I leave 4 players up high, ready for the counter attack?

I tend to leave just 2 players high up as an outlet when I'm looking for counter. One wide and one central. You can't pass the ball to all of them at once. ;)

A couple of willing runners from deeper positions is, in my opinion, more useful than letting them all stay up. And gives you more defensively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to leave just 2 players high up as an outlet when I'm looking for counter. One wide and one central. You can't pass the ball to all of them at once. ;)

A couple of willing runners from deeper positions is, in my opinion, more useful than letting them all stay up. And gives you more defensively.

I do see you point, I am toying with the idea of adding a Regista at DMC alongside a Defensive Midfielder (D); in an attempt to get some movement. A bit worried about how he would connect with the Treq though, I'm thinking that their going to get in the way of each other?

Also struggling with my wide roles and not sure which I prefer. At the moment I'm using what I posted in post #40 and i'm fairly satisfied; no fireworks though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Fluid would split the mentality two ways. Which is essentially what I'm wanting to do; keep players high up the pitch, ready for a quick counter-attacks. However I want to keep the structure in defence with the back 6, which I believe Rigid gives me?

Well, your WB-A will still go forward and not form a back 6 while you are attacking to prevent a counter and keep that defensive shape, he will go forward even in Fluid. Movement, how you are going to attack, offensive shape are more about roles and duties selection, fine-tuning offensive transition and construction and define team tactical freedom is more related to fluidity.

I have made some diagrams using your 4231 Deep (based on FM13 fluidity) to help figure out how mentality is spread around your strategic choice with the base mentality X (standard, X=10; control, X=12, etc...)

First with Rigid

BEAoEXQ.jpg

Then with Fluid

xKJYk2S.jpg

So, rather than saying "my IF-S is 11 when I am playing standard strategy", it's more correct to say "My IF-S is slighty more adventurous than my overoll team risk-taking". Fluidity, regarding mentality spread, is a setting relative to the strategy you have chosen and I advice you to think in term of "how much this player is performing is role duty relative to team risk-taking, slightly more cautious or really more adventurous?".

Here, between Fluid and Rigid you'll notice the +2 difference between the AF-A and the AM Strata and the -2 difference between the CB zone and DM+WB/FB zones. The fluid has a +4 difference between back 6 and front 4 while rigid has a +6 difference between CB and AF-A with two intermediate strata. In other word, Rigid is a more structured Fluid.

Now, between the two, you will not see a big difference in the play within you back 6 and within your front 4. But, you may notice slight a slight difference for the interplay between the DM+FB and AM strata. With +4 difference instead of a a +2, you have to make sure your DM/FB strata is connecting to your AM-Strata since they may note take that pass forward if it's a bit too risky. The passing between DLP-D and Treq-A via the DM-S is something really important with the 4231 Deep with a Fluid setting. It will not broke your offensive play, but I your facing a tough game in DM zone shutting down passing lane through the center to reach the Treq-A, you may find it difficult and the fluidity may contribute a little to that.

--

A more radical change would have been going balanced

GpjSsrJ.jpg

Here, between a WB-A in Fluid and one in Balanced, the mentality difference (+5 for the same strategy) is huge and he will perform his role more adventurously and fluidity is really helping you in the design of your offensive transition and play. Compare to the fluid on the back 6 strata, it's almost like playing a counter strategy with a WB-A on attacking (+6).

In such particular case, fluidity is adding some flavor to your role distribution in how they will be performed by the player. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...