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

[afleiding]

I think the best solution would be to merge the ML/R and AML/R to just one position, and let the roles decide how they are viewed in a tactics creator. This position could hold all the roles that both these positions have. The defensive contribution would then be decided by role and duty. Is their any reason to keep these positions apart?

[RTHerringbone]

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

Yep. Along with goalkeepers and defenders

[THOG]

I think the best solution would be to merge the ML/R and AML/R to just one position, and let the roles decide how they are viewed in a tactics creator. This position could hold all the roles that both these positions have. The defensive contribution would then be decided by role and duty. Is their any reason to keep these positions apart?

The main reason is that they are separate positions in real life that entail different defensive responsibilities, and from a design perspective, you do not want to create inconsistencies and contradictions in terms of what things do, especially since this will inevitably lead to another round of arguments over which roles should defend like MLR and which roles should defend like AMLR. For example, I might want a winger who stays up closer to the striker closing off back pass options and makes frequent off the ball runs into the box in the final third, while you might want him to drop behind the ball into line with the central midfielders to cover space just ahead of the opposition winger while still getting far forward in attack. If the Winger-Attack only did one of these things, as opposed to having two versions of the same role/duty combination in separate positions, that would mean one of us would have to lose a reasonable tactical option.

[pince]

I really wanna know, how to create tactic which will adjust arsenal players. I know a lot about football tactics but in FM15, where AMR/L players don't tracking back is very difficult to find right balance between attack and defence. For example I played friendly match with arsenal against Twente.

The stats: http://postimg.org/image/f117gjlz1/

Formation: http://postimg.org/image/xl9ct75vj/

I know about ME issues, but we allowed 23 shots and that was because AMR/L didn't help my fullbacks. So I don't accept solutions like "move AMR to MR" because Podolski, Ox, Sanchez, Hazard, Sterling, Bale, Neymar, Robben,... are not MR but they also help defending. I think that there will be enough if AMRL players just come back and mark their zone.

Example: My fullback and my midfielder stopped counter attack really well but because Ox didn't come back and mark his zone, their midfield player easily switch possession to the other side of the pitch. Then No.9 was alone and pass fantastically to his teammate (No.11) who scored easy goal.

http://postimg.org/image/42eyoomf7/

http://postimg.org/image/a22psc77n/

If Ox was in the right zone, he could close or disturbed No.9 and he couldn't create fantastic assist.

This is my opinion. I play soccer for 16 years, and I play this AMRL position a lot, and my coach always tells me where i must be when we are defending (red zone http://postimg.org/image/42eyoomf7/) .

Arsenal suffered a lot when Ozil play as AML, but with Ox, Sanchez, Cazorla there is a big difference. So I played with 4-2-3-1 formation last couple of years in fm and I don't have this kind of troubles like I have this year. So guys How we sort this thing out?

P.S. Sorry for my eanglish.

[swansongs]

I'd be more worried about your entire team being dragged over to one side of the pitch than how your wingers are tracking back from those images.

[pince]

Yes i know it looks as you said.

But one midfielder is BWM (D) and another BBM and AMR is raumdeuter. So i think there is enough defensively oriented players. Or maybe i am wrong.

Also in my team instructions i selected drop deeper.

[swansongs]

Yes i know it looks as you said.

But one midfielder is BWM (D) and another BBM and AMR is raumdeuter. So i think there is enough defensively oriented players. Or maybe i am wrong.

Also in my team instructions i selected drop deeper.

Your central midfield roles both roam about to close down the play. A Raumdeuter deliberately doesn't contribute defensively.

Your team lacks a structured defensive shape, and will be exposed down that right hand side as a result of your own instructions, not because the match engine is faulty.

[THOG]

As for the merits of MLR vs. AMLR in terms of attacking output, while the two are indistinguishable in the attacking phase assuming a gradual build-up, the fact that AMLR will tend to be 15-20 yards higher up the pitch when possession is won is going to influence how effective they are in transition.

Realistically, the number of goals scored from open play by wide players isn't that high. The very very best, including those who play as outright forwards, will average slightly more than one in every three games, so if you're relying on wide players to score 20 goals and help you prolong that 300 game winning streak, you probably want to think outside the box anyway.

[bababooey]

For people trying to replicate teams like Arsenal, Chelsea, and etc. (teams that use a designated #10) I recommend using ML/MR. Your team will be so much better balanced in a 4-4-1-1 than a denmark "4231 wide" or whatever.

Just try it.

[herne79]

I'm going to buck the trend here I'm afraid, and say I actually like how the AML/R roles function. I like that they don't track back much / at all. A couple of reason for this:

1) If I put players in these positions, I am employing them to be attackers or attack support, pure and simple. My central striker doesn't track back much, I don't expect my AML/R to either. Does that reflect real life? Yes it does, as in my opinion there are very very few teams that actually play players like that - off the top of my head I can only think of 2 players and they are called Ronaldo and Neymar. Their teams specifically build tactics to account for their lack of tracking back. So I use these positions sparingly and only when I want someone to remain so far advanced up the pitch.

2) With someone positioned in the AML/R position they actually are defending, just in a different way. By leaving someone high up the pitch you are forcing your opponent to make a choice - either keep a man back to cover them, or leave them unmarked and therefore open to fast counter attacks. It's up to us as the manager/tactic creator to ensure our tactics reflect this advantage.

So for me, FM14/15 is fine as it's already set up. If I want a player to track back I put them in MR/L, if I don't I use AMR/L - and to me that reflects real life.

[Ukchris]

I'll often use a combination of both, an Inside Forward at the AML/R position to start higher up and get in behind defences easier to latch onto through balls with a MR/L on the opposite side playing as a winger, collecting the ball a bit deeper before running at fullbacks. Also, as pointed out above, you can play a 4411 if you want them both to track back more and 4231 if you want to be more aggressive in their starting positions when you get the ball.

I like having the option to play them differently, but do agree to an extent that it can be misleading and people will play attacking midfielders expecting them track back more than they do in-game. Perhaps more base formations should use the MR/L positions, with AMR/L used more sparingly for teams with players like Walcott, Hazard and Ronaldo.

As herne suggested, attacking midfielders staying more advanced is good if you know it will happen, and I actually find it can be better defensively too by putting more pressure on opposing fulbacks (depending on who you're playing). Sometimes I drop wide men back to MR/L trying to tighten up but then end up inviting more pressure as their fullbacks are able to push up a bit more.

Edit: If I play an AML as an Inside Forward it's because I consider him more of a forward than a midfielder, but one who starts attacking moves a little deeper than most strikers to find more space. I'm not expecting him to cover the fullback much and as such play a more defensive-minded central midfielder on his side to help cover. If I play a MR as Winger I want him to drop that bit deeper and provide a bit of cover, so my central midfielder on his side can be a bit more adventurous. Two attacking wide midfielders will leave my fullbacks a bit more exposed but can still be effective if the situation in a match is right for it, and if the rest of my team can cover that gap.

[THOG]

I completely agree that AM v. M is not a question of good/bad, just different systems and different tools.

However, I think a lot of players get labeled lazy when it's actually their manager making a conscious tactical decision or simply trying to preserve their fitness. With certain key attacking players, clubs will want them to ideally play 50+ matches per season, so they do not necessarily want them covering a huge distance every match or overuse injuries are going to be inevitable.

At the same time, a lot of attacking players who are quite active in defence are routinely accused of not defending when it's just not really true at all. I recently read a long article that repeatedly insisted that David Silva doesn't defend. Meanwhile, in reality, he averages more tackles and interceptions than Yaya Toure. So there's a lot of nonsense that gets thrown around in football analysis and, whether you agree with my approach to interpreting tactics or not, yonko is correct in saying that you should always be skeptical of what you read and let the actual football decide for you.

[Shakes]

I wonder if a more chalkboard approach to tactics rather than the set position and roles we have would help. Let people drag the players onto a virtual chalkboard and outline their expected attacking position, transition position, position when the ball is left, position when the ball is central, position when the ball is right etc. Or maybe go even further and allow "film review sessions" - after a match you can play back the highlights and if a player is out of what you think is his position should be you can drag him on the pitch to show him where you want him to try to be in future in similar scenarios. Isn't that the way coaches communicate with their players in real life?

[THOG]

I wonder if a more chalkboard approach to tactics rather than the set position and roles we have would help. Let people drag the players onto a virtual chalkboard and outline their expected attacking position, transition position, position when the ball is left, position when the ball is central, position when the ball is right etc. Or maybe go even further and allow "film review sessions" - after a match you can play back the highlights and if a player is out of what you think is his position should be you can drag him on the pitch to show him where you want him to try to be in future in similar scenarios. Isn't that the way coaches communicate with their players in real life?

That's a part of it, though a lot happens on the training pitch as well. IIRC, Cleon has advocated a training ground mode (he'll harshly correct me if I'm wrong ) and I think there should be a non-modifiable build-up phase graphic to give you a sense of where passing will be concentrated and who might get isolated. The argument against in-possession graphics is that build-up and attack phase shape/movement is supposed to be unpredictable to some extent and a single image wouldn't properly convey the different possibilities that might occur in a particular sequence of play. With defending, even if you tell the players to press manically and not worry about actually keeping shape at all, a single graphic can at least give you a consistent visual indicator of how defensive zones are arranged, who will have to cover more space and where you'll generally be well protected.

[bababooey]

The hardest thing for people to grasp, I think, is that the shape you see on the tactics screen is going to be quite changed once you've factored in roles/duties/instructions/etc. In FM15 we get a SLIGHT change by seeing an "attack" duty player move a bit forward, but generally speaking you must wait until the match begins and you'll see on the pitch.

That's the key. It doesn't really matter what you want to do if you can't see what you're doing. You have to watch the games. Most of FM is trial and error honestly.

[pince]

I am allready changed my tactics to 4-4-1-1 but in this formation i think you losses real power of players like walcott, podolski, alexis,...

With Özil you need to play with AMC, because he is unstoppable.

[THOG]

The hardest thing for people to grasp, I think, is that the shape you see on the tactics screen is going to be quite changed once you've factored in roles/duties/instructions/etc. In FM15 we get a SLIGHT change by seeing an "attack" duty player move a bit forward, but generally speaking you must wait until the match begins and you'll see on the pitch.

That's the key. It doesn't really matter what you want to do if you can't see what you're doing. You have to watch the games. Most of FM is trial and error honestly.

Yeah, I think the TC could do a better job though. In practice, you don't really train a formation in the grand, all-encompassing sense of the word. Rather, team training is broken up into phase of play sessions where different positioning and movement patterns are trained in the context of specific match situations. All of that is informed by the manager's complete understanding of his system and theories regarding formation/position, but in practice, tactics are segmented based on phase of play and the different elements are worked on separately until it all comes together in a full match. Aside from covering a few last minute details or reviewing certain key points touched upon in training, tactical instruction doesn't really involve the manager suddenly bringing out a portfolio of diagrams on match day and hoping his players can figure out all the theory he's thrown at them. He builds to what he wants to achieve bit by bit, and illustrating those bits and the phase of play to which they belong is where the TC falls short.

[keithfc]

setting support duties for AM R/L with a lower mentality ( counter, standard), they will be willing to defense more. you can see they will back to M R/L position in average position analysis. This is a great improvement from FM14

[bababooey]

I am allready changed my tactics to 4-4-1-1 but in this formation i think you losses real power of players like walcott, podolski, alexis,...

With Özil you need to play with AMC, because he is unstoppable.

What makes you say that? I'm seeing excellent play out of my wide players in the 4-4-1-1.

[Jyuan83]

I could not agree more with this, not what you read about or see on TV is really what your favourite players are doing out on the pitch. Take Roanldo for instance. Judging by his goals so far, many would expect him to be far forward all the time in a Raumdeuter sort of way but the truth is that he is often seen around the mid-way line in most heat maps of games played so far. Take a look at his heat map against Liverpool http://www.sport.net/cristiano-ronaldo-vs-raheem-sterling-real-madrids-star-man-gives-masterclass-for-englands-boy-wonder_269562# . In this heat map he was often seen lurking around the deep inner left side of the pitch close to the half-way line. What we see on the tactics screen is really just the defensive phase of the game. It is really the roles and duties which give them flavour and character. Although Ronaldo does not enjoy tackling, he does drop back to get a body in the way or hold his position in midfield when the opponents have the ball.

I completely agree that AM v. M is not a question of good/bad, just different systems and different tools.

However, I think a lot of players get labeled lazy when it's actually their manager making a conscious tactical decision or simply trying to preserve their fitness. With certain key attacking players, clubs will want them to ideally play 50+ matches per season, so they do not necessarily want them covering a huge distance every match or overuse injuries are going to be inevitable.

At the same time, a lot of attacking players who are quite active in defence are routinely accused of not defending when it's just not really true at all. I recently read a long article that repeatedly insisted that David Silva doesn't defend. Meanwhile, in reality, he averages more tackles and interceptions than Yaya Toure. So there's a lot of nonsense that gets thrown around in football analysis and, whether you agree with my approach to interpreting tactics or not, yonko is correct in saying that you should always be skeptical of what you read and let the actual football decide for you.

[pince]

It is really the roles and duties which give them flavour and character. Although Ronaldo does not enjoy tackling, he does drop back to get a body in the way or hold his position in midfield when the opponents have the ball.

I'm completely agree with you.

[swansongs]

I am allready changed my tactics to 4-4-1-1 but in this formation i think you losses real power of players like walcott, podolski, alexis,...

With Özil you need to play with AMC, because he is unstoppable.

In my beta season Nathan Dyer was English Player of the Year with 12 goals and 13 assists in 36 games from MR (Winger-Attack). Players with pace and workrate can still make a huge impact offensively from a deeper starting position.

Podolski wouldn't be able to do the same job, but I would imagine Walcott would find a lot of success if he has space to accelerate into.

[bababooey]

Alexis Sanchez / Theo Walcott / Alex Oxlade Chamberlain are all fantastic to use as W-A or W-S in the MLR spots. I mean seriously, they have blazing pace. They all can put in a decent cross, and have good technique.

There is absolutely nothing stopping people from having successful tactics that incorporate MLR's other than your own preconceived notions. Take my word for it!

[bababooey]

Furthermore, my advice on using AMLR's in a "pure 4-3-3" / dutch 4-3-3 whatever is that you probably want to make sure you've got coverage down both flanks from you central mids. If they're not going to help out, then you'll be in trouble.

So perhaps, maybe sacrifice an attack duty from central midfield? It all depends on what you're trying to do. But you can certainly make it work having that front 3 AMLR+STC stay forward. It's just not wise to do so in a system that isn't pressing high / often. Think about it.. If you're system is one where you don't press much, and the opposition has time on the ball, would it make sense to have 3 of your outfield players high up the pitch at all times, often behind the player, and thus not helping out defensively? Nope.

But in the case of teams like Barcelona that have used a "pure" 4-3-3, they press as a team. They press high, and win the ball back high. So those guys stationed higher up the pitch are in an even more dangerous position to hurt the other team.

[iMan]

What instructions will get a wide midfielder attack playing like an If attack?

Cut inside and what else?

[iMan]

Actually from looking at the IF A role in the game and what is already active for I get the impression Dribble More, Cut Inside, Cross Less Often and Get further forward would be the ones to choose?

Is that correct?

[Scottybee]

In fm14 I achieved success using a 3-4-3 diamond with AML and AMR, IF(A) and W(S) with get further forward and free role. This sounds as though I should get mullered on the flanks, but this wasn't the case. It made lovely passing triangles and some great football.

Is the defensive problems of playing with attacking wingers more pronounced in 15?