Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
sporadicsmiles

AMR/L players not closing down or tracking back at all.

Recommended Posts

My personal opinion on the topic at hand - I don't know why they removed the STL/STR positions, when if implemented properly they could make both camps happy. IMO they should have left those positions but given STL/STR stay high behaviour, and AML/AMR track full backs behaviour. Makes sense to me - if you play someone as a wide striker they act like a striker, if you play someone as a wide attacking midfielder, they act as a midfielder.

What's the point of the MR/L strata in that case? You've assigned all of their behavior to the AMR/L.

The removal of the wide striker positions is already a move to clear up the respective roles of the wider positions.

Having thought about it it's not even a database issue as I said before. Many top wingers aren't going to be entirely comfortable with the defensive role of the MR/L positions even if it is often required of them (Hazard is an example that comes up a lot and he makes a lot of mistakes in that area, and often only a token effort). Natural MR/Ls are those players that are as adept at providing cover for their full-backs as they are going forward.

Whether you want a proper defensive performance or just a body in the area (coupled with devastating forward play) is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the point of the MR/L strata in that case? You've assigned all of their behavior to the AMR/L.

There's different roles - which primarily influence attacking behaviour - available to ML/R and AML/R, so no, that wouldn't eliminate the point to have similar track back behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the point of the MR/L strata in that case? You've assigned all of their behavior to the AMR/L.

The removal of the wide striker positions is already a move to clear up the respective roles of the wider positions.

Having thought about it it's not even a database issue as I said before. Many top wingers aren't going to be entirely comfortable with the defensive role of the MR/L positions even if it is often required of them (Hazard is an example that comes up a lot and he makes a lot of mistakes in that area, and often only a token effort). Natural MR/Ls are those players that are as adept at providing cover for their full-backs as they are going forward.

Whether you want a proper defensive performance or just a body in the area (coupled with devastating forward play) is up to you.

Surely that is more to do with the player's attributes (e.g. Hazard having low Marking/Tackling/Positioning) than their not being Accomplished at playing ML/MR? The point is the AI hardly ever uses ML/MR, while in real life teams may use either ML/MR or AML/AMR depending on their tactics. The fact that none of this is made clear in-game and the default tactics have the AML/AMR positions and hardly any players in the database being anything above Accomplised at ML/MR means anyone who does not read these threads will be misled into thinking the AML/AMR positions are what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's different roles - which primarily influence attacking behaviour - available to ML/R and AML/R, so no, that wouldn't eliminate the point to have similar track back behaviour.

The wide striker roles didn't function properly, the ME had issues recognising them and couldn't tell what the actual positions were. They behaved weird. So even if they stayed you'd not have them working like you wanted. The positions have rightly been removed imo pointless keeping something that just doesn't function properly in the ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the point of the MR/L strata in that case? You've assigned all of their behavior to the AMR/L.

Ideally, both STs and AMs would provide a better balance between offering a counterattacking outlet, tracking runners from the opposition defence threatening to create overloads and helping to pressure in-possession attackers held up and isolated ahead of the midfield line. However, even with better defending, the basic defensive trade off of AMLR vs. MLR would still be there when a team gets pushed back.

If you played a 4-3-3, the AMLR will be more concerned about keeping pressure on the defence and cutting out the pass to the fullback (with a mistake on the part of the opposition defence setting you up for a potential 3v1 on the break), but this will expose an incisive pass to an advanced player in a wide position.

yFcXFUn.jpg

If you played a 4-1-4-1, the MLR will cover deeper space, helping cut out that pass through the channel, but then, the opposition is in a better position to maintain possession at the back with MLR having to step out a fair distance if they're to help the striker pressure defenders:

aWh8Apr.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the decision ability hit caused by playing a player out of position just impacting his decision making defensively or offensively as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the decision ability hit caused by playing a player out of position just impacting his decision making defensively or offensively as well?

Both because he'll be starting from a different position so that means attacking and defending will be happening in different positions to what he's normally used too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even for a winger? As if you set a winger at MR or AM R will they not both end up in roughly the same position when attacking? So by playing an AM R in MR he's going to be less decisive as to whether to take a man on or cross the ball in the final third than he would if he was playing as an AM R?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even for a winger? As if you set a winger at MR or AM R will they not both end up in roughly the same position when attacking? So by playing an AM R in MR he's going to be less decisive as to whether to take a man on or cross the ball in the final third than he would if he was playing as an AM R?

He'll start from a different position. The positions might end up in a similar place but that doesn't mean the build up play is not different. Decision making is not classed as attacking or defending separate, it is a constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risk v Reward. If you look at what THOG posted above with the screen shots, you can clearly see the difference.

If you want to play a pure 4-3-3 with AMLR then you're going to be exposed down the flanks behind the AMLR. However, doing so also means you can tightly mark / close down quicker against opposition fullbacks.

In the 4-1-4-1 you see the MLR are positioned further back, and thus can intercept a pass more easily, but would have to go further distance to close down the opponent fullbacks.

So it's risk v reward. Whichever you value more IE (closing down full backs quickly, or retaining shape and forcing them to pass through you) is one way to decide.

It's important to mention that players in the MLR spots WILL aggressively close down, and it does work. So it's not like you're blunting your ability to press. It's just that their starting position isn't as close to the AI fullbacks as they could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if you're finding the oppo FB is poor or not attacking you could move your player into the AML/R slot and then swap them back if they do start to cause problems. What hit does the familiarity take if you do this during the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tactical familiarity is going to take a hit if you change to a formation that your team isn't familiar with. But I'd imagine it won't be too significant if your not making a drastic change (like, say going from 4-4-2, to cantenaccio!)

I'm on FMC so I can't say for sure but I've had some experience in FM 14 with the full mode and so that's what I'm basing this off of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players in the AML/R slots should really put in more of a defensive shift. There are always the STL/R slots if you want your wingers to be positioned all the way up the pitch at all times like strikers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The wide striker roles didn't function properly, the ME had issues recognising them and couldn't tell what the actual positions were. They behaved weird. So even if they stayed you'd not have them working like you wanted. The positions have rightly been removed imo pointless keeping something that just doesn't function properly in the ME.

I didn't say leave them as is, I said I wish they'd fixed them to be useful rather than removing them. My preferred fix rather than fix by deletion would have been to assign the current AML/R to the STL/R slots, and develop new behaviour for AML/R that's a hybrid of the current AML/R and ML/R behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players in the AML/R slots should really put in more of a defensive shift. There are always the STL/R slots if you want your wingers to be positioned all the way up the pitch at all times like strikers.

No there aren't, they are gone. See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what role do you think is better for counter-attacking tactic: amlr who doesn't contribute much to defence and stays behind the opposition fullback to make himself instantly available after we get the ball or a mlr who sits deeper and helps to defend the wing but can't exploit the space left by the opposition as effectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so what role do you think is better for counter-attacking tactic: amlr who doesn't contribute much to defence and stays behind the opposition fullback to make himself instantly available after we get the ball or a mlr who sits deeper and helps to defend the wing but can't exploit the space left by the opposition as effectively?

It depends entirely on the opponent and the players you use. If you keep three up front, you'll need midfielders who can deal with situations where they don't have a spare man to help defend. If you keep five in midfield, you have more flexibility with who you play in midfield on the defensive end but you need wingers who can cover a lot of ground and break forward at pace as well as a centre forward who can play his way out of isolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so what role do you think is better for counter-attacking tactic: amlr who doesn't contribute much to defence and stays behind the opposition fullback to make himself instantly available after we get the ball or a mlr who sits deeper and helps to defend the wing but can't exploit the space left by the opposition as effectively?

I've had some success with one of each for my Swansea side. Wayne Routledge stays upfield on the left to provide an early out ball, and the insanely fast Nathan Dyer catches up from deep on the right.

Position your more defensively capable midfielder on the exposed flank for a bit more security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is needed, apparently, is a role called "inverted winger" for MR/L. You shouldn't have to PI (PI is a verb now) a wide midfielder to act in this fairly real-life-common role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that if SI go down the route of creating specific Roles for all different types of players, then we end up with an unwieldy number of Roles (particularly when a couple of them don't really seem to perform in line with the descriptions already).

Some compromise is needed somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the wide playmaker (who plays at ML/MR) already basically SI creating an inverted winger? Granted the player isn't necessarily driving at goal, but it seems like this would be a decent choice?

I don't see the issue with instructing a wide mid to cut inside. It works very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wide Playmaker was primarily added to allow us to gain a Role which has the Playmaker ball attracting effect at ML/R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed AM L/R not tracking fullbacks, even with mark tight instructions.

I put it down to a beta bug but if thats not the case I might have to rethink my ideas. Explains my shoddy defence away from home for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've noticed AM L/R not tracking fullbacks, even with mark tight instructions.

I put it down to a beta bug but if thats not the case I might have to rethink my ideas. Explains my shoddy defence away from home for sure.

Tight Marking only kicks in when they are near a player. In order to get them to track back from AML/R, you'd need them to have Specific Man Marking instructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely not a beta bug. As RT says you need to make sure you've added the specific man marking instruction. Mark tighter is kind of like saying "mark this space tightly" whereas combining it with the specific man marking, will see the player stick very close to the man, rather than the space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Jose Mourinho's favored in-game formation is 4-2-3-1 and the vast preponderance of AML/R players seems to be a clear indicator that one should be able to use those positions in a defensively sound and balanced tactic. The whole "use ML/R" thing seems like a poor workaround. Players like Hazard and Willian are considered AMs by just about everyone in the world but they still put in a defensive shift and FM should be able to model that without forcing players to either play them out of position and suffer reduced decision-making or waste training resources retraining them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Jose Mourinho's favored in-game formation is 4-2-3-1 and the vast preponderance of AML/R players seems to be a clear indicator that one should be able to use those positions in a defensively sound and balanced tactic. The whole "use ML/R" thing seems like a poor workaround. Players like Hazard and Willian are considered AMs by just about everyone in the world but they still put in a defensive shift and FM should be able to model that without forcing players to either play them out of position and suffer reduced decision-making or waste training resources retraining them.

Very much agree. "Use ML/MR" is a workaround as is "specific man mark" thus not fully allowing a manager to instruct his players on how the said manager wants his possible tactical philosophy implemented which is the very point of the game!

As I have said before there should be some sort of track back option in the PI's or at least a defensive variation of those wider roles, (eg defensive winger or defensive IF), the former I believe has been left out of 15? You can have a defensive forward with the support and defensive duties but no option for wide men? Bizarre IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should, but there isn't. There wasn't one in FM14, and I highly doubt it'll change in FM15 full version. It's a shame, especially because vast majority of players do not hang out on the forums, and go by their football understanding. It's a failure by SI to make the game ME do as promise (we want you to think tactics in football not gaming terms) since we now need gaming workarounds. At least you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defensive behavior of AMs need refinement, but it's not a workaround to point out that most teams play MLR in real life. Using specific man marking does not model how most teams play whereas using MLR does. You may want AMLR to play like MLR, but I want a 4-3-3 to actually play like a 4-3-3, not a 4-5-1.

It's also the case that AMs are played out of their position IRL. I don't consider Ozil to be a natural MLR but managers play him there when they feel it benefits the system over the individual. Hazard is another example. Hazard was trained as more of a wide forward under Garcia and, while Mourinho has been shaping him into a more complete midfield player, Mourinho himself is actually very dynamic with his use of formations to get the best out of Hazard over the course of match.

As for the defensive winger, he does not and never did track back more. Rather, he closes down higher up the pitch and tackles aggressively, trying to win the ball in the attacking half. You can replicate that role by telling players to close down more and tackle harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that since most teams play MLR in real life, the game should have more players accomplished in the role and it should be a part of the default tactics. It's misleading as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that since most teams play MLR in real life, the game should have more players accomplished in the role and it should be a part of the default tactics. It's misleading as it is.

I completely agree with that point, but I don't agree with the idea of reworking the game in potentially confusing, restricting or contradictory ways. If FM is going to operate as a tactics sim, it will inevitably have to conflict with someone's initial assumptions because many tactical concepts don't have universal, systematic definitions, especially in the context of the modern game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that since most teams play MLR in real life, the game should have more players accomplished in the role and it should be a part of the default tactics. It's misleading as it is.

I don't think most teams in real life play with MRL. It's been said so many times by certain gurus that people start to believe it blindly like the specialist vs generalist in therms of fluidity theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaah that's where the thread was moved to!

So for my part, I've no problem with the theoretical reasons for using ML MR players. It's just not acceptable that most ai teams play 4231 and therefore an really offensive shape while that's not what was intended by the research nor the ai manager. Even the ultra defensive managers play this way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think most teams in real life play with MRL. It's been said so many times by certain gurus that people start to believe it blindly like the specialist vs generalist in therms of fluidity theory.

Whether they do or they don't, the point still stands that wide players should be accomplished at both AMLR and MLR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think most teams in real life play with MRL. It's been said so many times by certain gurus that people start to believe it blindly like the specialist vs generalist in therms of fluidity theory.

It doesn't matter what anybody says, guru or otherwise. The relevant thing is that in Football Manager, better defensive effort, tracking back, call it what you will, stems from ML/R rather than AML/R. That is the gist of it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean really, I would just beg that people try using ML/MR for a season and see how it goes. I get the impression that some people feel ML/MR's are just incapable of contributing anything, which is far from the case.

More importantly, from what I understand, SI isn't going to make sweeping changes to the database to reflect more ML/MR players because it would be quite tedious. Playing a player out of position, albeit slightly, has never hurt me in the long run. Plus, players learn the more you play them there, what more can you want?

I think we're always going to have this discussion because we don't 100% know what managers in real life are doing. Unless we literally go ask Mourinho where exactly Hazard's starting position is most of the time, it would be difficult to ascertain. Especially considering how flexible managers are becoming. Maybe one day Hazard plays as AML and the next at ML. But then again, during the match it could change. Maybe during the match it looks one way or another, you know? It's pointless in FM terms.

To me the only thing that matters is how many players you have in attacking midfield. I'm seeing less of the 4-2-3-1 denmark in the beta, and it's a good thing. The denmark is ridiculously wasteful and overaggressive. Essentially a 4-2-4. Certainly managers like Mourinho and etc wouldn't be using it in real life. So if we know that managers like to use a "#10" behind a striker, then chances are they're not using 2 other attacking mids next to him. I mean it would be such a risk in real life. You need guys to track back. In FM it's different. You can get away with a lot in FM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone show me how they would set up a 4-1-4-1 formation? Is it just 1 cdm, 4 across midfield and one up top?

Just want a back up for my 4-2-3-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone show me how they would set up a 4-1-4-1 formation? Is it just 1 cdm, 4 across midfield and one up top?

Just want a back up for my 4-2-3-1.

That's such a general question though. What's the style of football intended? What's the goal of the tactic? So many things at play.

I'll just use my Arsenal counter attack (plan B sort of) as an example for you..

I use this tactic in games where I know we'll be under heavy pressure. Luckily, not too many like this, but it can be a necessary evil.

4-1-4-1 base formation. Counter mentality. Very fluid.

GK-D

Left FB-A

CD-D

CD-D

Right FB-S

DLP-D

Left W-S

CM-A

CM-S

Right W-A

Defensive Forward-S

Team Instructions: more direct passing, pass into space, be more disciplined, stay on feet, close down less.

Player instruction: I've got the GK set to distribute to my playmaker, which tells my playmaker to come deep and get the ball from the back, almost forming a back 3 when we start our moves.

It's incredibly simple, and effective. Now, if the other team is dominant but not aggressive we may need to shorter the passing and be a bit lower tempo'd. It's all about being compact and denying space. I don't care about possession in this case. I worry about space.

The other thing is time on the ball. If we're being given a lot of time on the ball then like I said above, I need to make some changes and be less direct. If we're not being given much time, and they're pressing like hell (think Dortmund, Barca, etc.) then we need to make sure we're playing quick enough to move the ball around and not get caught in possession.

The defensive approach does not change, barring extreme circumstances. I want the team to tackle easier, and close down less. I want to retain shape, and be hard to play through.

Also, if there is a specific threat, I can change PI's to deal with it. For example, if playing against Eden Hazard perhaps my fullback will be told to stay narrower, and close down less.

OR if playing against a slow player with excellent technical skills, perhaps I will actually forgo a tiny bit of my shape and structure and tell one of my players to go hard on that guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used almost exactly the same setup as above (post #90) in FM14 and found it incredibly toothless in the attack. The only way I found ML/R in 4141 work is playing control or attacking; they're closer to the goal, less space to cover in order to do something dangerous.

I never understood how people manage it, especially when I see others use the same style as I do (or tried, at any rate) almost to the letter.

On the other note, getting AML/R to mark their respective fullbacks seems to work reasonably well on FM 15 as far as I noticed. It is a workaround and tedious to set up before every game (can't set specific player marking between matches), but it does work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about if i put the two CM's at AMC, Will this be too attacking? I'm trying to control the game more (The blades in league 1) but by more direct, Not so much hit it long just quick attacks. I wannt attack in numbers but make sure my players defend in numbers also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. I can't say because I haven't had any reason to try that in my system.

Chances are if you're trying to play a solid / countering style, putting 2 players at AMC and 1 at DM is probably unwise :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've used almost exactly the same setup as above (post #90) in FM14 and found it incredibly toothless in the attack. The only way I found ML/R in 4141 work is playing control or attacking; they're closer to the goal, less space to cover in order to do something dangerous.

I never understood how people manage it, especially when I see others use the same style as I do (or tried, at any rate) almost to the letter.

On the other note, getting AML/R to mark their respective fullbacks seems to work reasonably well on FM 15 as far as I noticed. It is a workaround and tedious to set up before every game (can't set specific player marking between matches), but it does work.

But, there is 11 other players on the pitch. It may be toothless if the other team sits back and gives you no space to be direct into. But, if the other team is leaving space behind, then that kind of style should work very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly my AML/AMR V ML/MR quandary in FM14 came from my efforts to create a real life 4231. To be fair IRL the shape is probably more of a :

-----------F-----------

ML-------MC--------MR

------DM-------DM-----

LB----CB-------CB-----RB

-----------GK----------

So basically three in the midfield strata rather than the attacking midfield strata. Now yep fairly solid if you are going by the point that it is the defensive positioning you see on screen and yes I will obviously concede that tracking back is better using this rather than AM's however for the life of me I couldn't get any attacking intent from those CM strata three no matter what I tried and certainly couldn't create a counter attacking tactic for love nor money in FM14 so I would be really interested to see how people actually managed to get those midfield three to act like an attacking midfield three when attacking?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly my AML/AMR V ML/MR quandary in FM14 came from my efforts to create a real life 4231. To be fair IRL the shape is probably more of a :

-----------F-----------

ML-------MC--------MR

------DM-------DM-----

LB----CB-------CB-----RB

-----------GK----------

So basically three in the midfield strata rather than the attacking midfield strata. Now yep fairly solid if you are going by the point that it is the defensive positioning you see on screen and yes I will obviously concede that tracking back is better using this rather than AM's however for the life of me I couldn't get any attacking intent from those CM strata three no matter what I tried and certainly couldn't create a counter attacking tactic for love nor money in FM14 so I would be really interested to see how people actually managed to get those midfield three to act like an attacking midfield three when attacking?!

You need the wingers to get forward with PI's in my opinion. I prefer a 4-4-1-1 to replicate the 4-2-3-1 with an advanced playmaker in the #10 role. Varies depending on who I have though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know. I can't say because I haven't had any reason to try that in my system.

Chances are if you're trying to play a solid / countering style, putting 2 players at AMC and 1 at DM is probably unwise :)

What about;

--------------F--------------

ML---------------------MR--

--------MC-----MC----------

------------DM--------------

LB----CB-------CB-----RB--

-----------GK---------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's basically my set up. Seems reasonable to me as a counter attacking formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, no and no to those questions in game. However, all the answers have been explicitly stated in this forum repeatedly over the past couple of years.

Missing the point.

Not everyone comes on these forums. If you want people to understand it more and therefore less whinging about it, then it has to be put in game and made explicit with lots of big red fingers and exclamation marks pointing at the bit that teaches people. And I personally think it should be made explicitly clear in game PLUS things such as the natural positions being re-formulated to demonstrate that.

Otherwise this issue is not going to go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether they do or they don't, the point still stands that wide players should be accomplished at both AMLR and MLR.

But why? It doesn't necessarily reflect their real life positions.

It doesn't matter what anybody says, guru or otherwise. The relevant thing is that in Football Manager, better defensive effort, tracking back, call it what you will, stems from ML/R rather than AML/R. That is the gist of it all.

Of course it matters, because people start to believe it blindly and don't think/analyze for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it matters, because people start to believe it blindly and don't think/analyze for themselves.

And that is the point :seagull:

If people just watched the differences between ML/R and their AM equivalents, they would see it for themselves. It would be the same end product as blindly listening to people in this instance. I agree that the best way to learn FM is to get your hands dirty, but not all advice dished out is just people waffling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The wide striker roles didn't function properly, the ME had issues recognising them and couldn't tell what the actual positions were. They behaved weird. So even if they stayed you'd not have them working like you wanted. The positions have rightly been removed imo pointless keeping something that just doesn't function properly in the ME.

Can we therefore expect the inverted wingbacks, libero and halfback to be removed in the release patch then? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...