thomit Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't subscribe to the idea that you must use X roles of Y type with Z team shape, but wwfan's guide was mainly intended for new and casual players looking for some basic rules to help them find their footing. In that case, hard and unambiguous guidelines are helpful and the generalist/specialist guidelines ease new players into an understanding of what separates the various roles. However, if you've ever conversed with wwfan on here, you'll know he's more inclined to go Socratic on your tactical questions than insist that you dogmatically follow the twelve steps. Well put Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Font Tomasso Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This is the way I see it all based on my own experiences. After much trial and error and adjustment of roles, I finally stumbled upon a system that works great for me, with the use of 'very fluid' philosophy. What this provides is what I'd been trying to emulate without success by using the balanced/flexible philosophy- good flowing football with my passers doing as they should, and my runners likewise. As my players are all set to the base mentality provided with no gaps or staggering, it means that the main factors that shape how my side plays on the pitch: are the basic positions I've placed each player, and the instructions given to each using roles and duties. If you can find the right combinations here, I believe by playing very fluid you can express most purely how you want your roles and duties to act, as their are no mentality nuances to get in the way. However. A by product of playing this way, means that your team attacks as a unit and defends as a unit. In theory, by choosing very fluid your players play more as a block moving up and down the field closer together as their mentality setting dictates. Whereas more rigid systems, the players are more spread out due to staggered mentalities. Having used very fluid for some time now, what I've noticed is that although the main factors in influencing the play are the player's base position on the field and their PI's, also they will sometimes think outside the box to a certain extent. Because they are playing close together as a team which enables them to do this, if the opportunity arises then occasionally one of my players may deviate from the role/duty and I've assigned him because a team mate is out of position, or it'll help keep the move flowing. For example, 9 out of 10 times my advanced playmaker will hold his position and look to play a through ball, but on the odd occasion due to the way the ball has broken and because my players are close enough to each other to do this- he'll find himself ahead of play and make a darting run into the box, and it maybe one of my runners on an attack duty who happens to have slid him in on goal on this occasion. This doesn't mean chaos; most of the time my full back on support will back up the play and do just what he ought to as I've instructed with his role and duty. But just occasionally, due to the close-knit nature of very fluid, he'll find himself in the position to act like more of a winger and will attempt to beat his man and put a cross in from the byline. In my opinion, this why the game builds in greater creative freedom for the more fluid you go. It gives players their head to occasionally think outside the box and fill in for a team mate and do the stuff that they're meant to be doing essentially (almost as if they're swapping roles briefly), if it helps the team as a whole to build an attack or create a chance. I guess their own decision making influences whether they get the last bit right. Now this is where wwfan's specialist vs generalist theory comes in. To enable your side to play this way successfully, you're going to need to have a higher number of players who have high values in a broader range of attributes. You have a system where you're team attacks and defends as a unit, and due to their close proximity on the pitch, players are licensed to fill in for each other on occasion- licensed by a high level of creative freedom. Attackers need to be able to defend a bit as your team moves up and down the pitch as a block, and your defenders vice-versa. So the more attributes each player can train up the better, and the roles that offer you this chance are the more generic ones that wwfan states such as full backs d/s/a, central midfielders d/s/a, inside forwards s/a etc. I also include roles that wwfan wasn't sure he'd label as generic such as complete full back, box to box midfielder, complete forward etc- as they train up such a wide variety of attributes, and I have all 3 of these roles operating successfully in my team. My side encompasses 9 what I call generic roles, plus 2 'specialists' (advanced playmaker and trequartista) which I threw in due to the fact I wanted more through balls from the right areas. So I've broken wwfan's rule of 0-1 specialists (which he's stated is only a rough guide) and it works fine (apart from when using Overload mentality I have to give the Treq a 'shoot less often PI). So in my opinion, the more rigid a philosophy you use will result in your players being spaced out more across the pitch further apart from each other, due to gaps and staggering in their mentality structure. Thus players aren't in the position to fill in for each other, and will concentrate solely on their own jobs. Defenders are more likely to stick to defending; attackers attacking. Therefore it isn't necessary to look for more well rounded players, and instead specialists who have high values in a more narrow band of attributes such as anchor man, ball wining midfielder, advanced playmaker etc. Players are more isolated from each other on the pitch, so why would they need to join in and cover or temporarily swap roles. They can't, so they stick to their jobs. For example in a very rigid system, a centre back is much more isolated from this midfield than in a very fluid system so has no business in supporting attacks, recycling possession, or dropping the shoulder and making the occasional foray into space. His job is to defend, so a good choice would be give him a more specialist role such as limited defender where fewer attributes are trained and the player can focus just on these as they're all he needs. In a very fluid system, the most generalistic role you can fin in central defence is the ball playing centre back which trains the most attributes. This makes sense as in a very fluid system, of course you want him to defend as that's where you've placed him on the pitch, but he also needs to be good enough to perhaps step in to the play once in a while or try a through ball here and there if it benefits the team. As he's much more in touch with his midfield due to the nature of the very fluid system, this enables him to make this possible. My final point which I have seen on these forums and agree with is this. If what I'm saying is correct and the more fluid you go, the more generalist roles you need where high values are needed in a bigger variety of attributes, then it stands to reason that it's going to be harder to find that type of player. So bigger, richer and higher up the pyramid you go (I play as Liverpool) the easier it is to find players to fit into a very fluid system. Presumably down the ladder it's easier to go more rigid and fill your team with specialists due the players available at that level only having a much narrower range of attributes that are ever likely to become adequate or good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farina Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I don't subscribe to the idea that you must use X roles of Y type with Z team shape, but wwfan's guide was mainly intended for new and casual players looking for some basic rules to help them find their footing. In that case, hard and unambiguous guidelines are helpful and the generalist/specialist guidelines ease new players into an understanding of what separates the various roles. However, if you've ever conversed with wwfan on here, you'll know he's more inclined to go Socratic on your tactical questions than insist that you dogmatically follow the twelve steps. Again all very reasonable. It seems to me though that it's having players with limited abilities that makes it advisable to use specialist roles, rather than using a rigid style creating the need. Both using specialist roles and restricting creative freedom are ways to get the most out of a poor team, but one doesn't necessitate the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyro Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I sometimes try and use Fluid or Structured, now sometimes this year also Very Fluid but never tried Very Structured. In the end, I just keep coming back to Flexible because, as far as I understand, the duties affect their mentalities. If I set someone to support, it will be somewhere in the middle, attack will have a higher mentality, and on defend will have a lower mentality. It seems with that setting you just get what it says. That is why I also like to use Standard most of the time and then use shouts to change it from there but I started using Control/Attacking/Counter more often seeing them as some kind of preset. Instead of using Standard, pushing higher up, playing wider, playing higher tempo, I click on control and have something similar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sussex Hammer Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Just thought I would bump this after stumbling across something. I use a 4132 and have always used a fluid philosophy. However I always struggled to get anything meaningful out of my CM A at the tip of the diamond so to speak. I decided to try him as an AP A instead but still no joy. I changed from fluid to flexible and now he has one goal and three assists in two games. Not sure if it is changing the fluidity that has done it but will persevere with flexible for a while! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sussex Hammer Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 You guys should take your tactic, load up FMC, holiday until the start of the actual season, then play some games and experiment. Tactic familiarity and morale don't play a part in FMC, so you can really see how your tactic itself works. Play 15 minutes on Very Structured, then 15 minutes on Very Fluid, then 15 on Flexible, and watch the full highlights. I think you'll quickly see how it impacts your team shape, closing down, and offensive approach. Well I am really confused now!!! This is my tactic. ------------------DF S-----------------CF A-------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------CM D--------AP A------BWM S---------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------HB D----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- WB A----------------CB D-----------CB D----------------WB A ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------GK D----------------------------- Played Wolves away. Started on Highly Structured and went 2-0 up with some great football. Wing Backs seemed to bomb forward more than they do on fluid and closing down seemed more obvious. Changed after 20 minutes to Structured and still played some lovely stuff and went 3-0 up with Wolves not having a sniff - However my Assistant was telling me that there was a large gap between my forwards and midfield that the opposition could take advantage of. Bit of a surprise I must confess especially having a support duty in attack and an attack duty in midfield. Swapped at half time to very fluid and found Wolves came right back into the game and my chances dwindled and Wolves chances shot up but the Assistants message about the gap disappeared. Changed last 20 to Flexible and the message was still not there and played better again although not scoring any more however running out comfortable winners. Only one game and of course Wolves could have changed tactically anyway but I did find my best football was played on very structured or structured and even flexible was fine but is that message important or should you just ignore your Assistant? With my set up above I would be interested to hear how others would play it fluidity wise? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baddragon62 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 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 This, sir, is a true gem! I had always thought in terms of the same player and then changing the role. Never considered changing the player to change how the role played. A follow on question for you - How often do you look at the players in the opposition lineup before the match and try to guess who they might field and then change your starters accordingly, thus becoming reactive? Or do you attempt to assert your style on the game with an idea of maybe a plan B guy on the bench in case plan A gets stomped? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sussex Hammer Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I think you kind of missed the point I was trying to get at. What I'm suggesting is you create a complete throwaway save in FMC, and then do more drastic changes to really see the effect. Going from Very Structured to Structured isn't going to teach you a whole lot visually about how fluidity works on the pitch. Go from Very Structured for 20 minutes or so in the match, and then see how Very Fluid plays differently. Then repeat the process using more generic roles vs specialized roles, etc. Also keep in mind your shouts, and whether you use closing down more or less, etc. and see how those effects are carried out under the different extremes of fluidity. The more structured you are, the more that creative freedom is going to be observed through your specialists and designated playmaker type roles, so you should also just mess around with different roles too later on with extreme differences in fluidity. FMC is a great tool for practice and observation of the game's mechanics. Oh sure hence noticing that my AP A seemed to have far more effect from flexible to very structured although that is probably because with that fluidity he becomes the focal point of the team I suspect. Still confused though as to why there is seemingly a gap with more structured fluidity when you have an attacking duty in midfield and s support in attack. Could understand it if both striker roles were on attack and a bunch of support in midfield. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sussex Hammer Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Wait, what are you saying? There's a gap between where, strikers and midfield? What are the roles and duties again, these?That's what I am saying. The Assistant says that there is too big a gap between my midfield and forwards when I play a structured or very structured philosophy. IMO the AP should be pushing on into that space so provides a link. When watching the games there doesn't seem to be a problem,. Probably best just ignoring the Assistant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pav_Makarov Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I often ignored advice about the roles/fluidity dependance and searched for my problem's solution somewhere else. But recently, after realising, that most of the time i've only been using two strict specialists in my team (i never considered BPD a specialist after all) - RPM and RMD, I switched to fluid philosophy. I can't say, that all my problems vanished, but my team at last stopped struggling and began playing. So if someone is looking for the confirmation, that relativity between roles and philosophy works, I provide one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raniel3 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Wait, what are you saying? There's a gap between where, strikers and midfield? What are the roles and duties again, these?That's what I am saying. The Assistant says that there is too big a gap between my midfield and forwards when I play a structured or very structured philosophy. IMO the AP should be pushing on into that space so provides a link. When watching the games there doesn't seem to be a problem,. Probably best just ignoring the Assistant. He is saying that because you have no player in the OM strata. It is just that, your assistant manager doesn't take into account the duties of your players. Really, just ignore it if the heat map shows everythings okay Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomit Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 "Advice" from the assistant is incorrect, flawed and/or directly damaging to your tactics 90% of the time, I find. Ignore him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.