Defensive Line

[herne79]

While reading through the discussion in this thread http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/416473-Player-and-team-instructions about defensive line settings, a thought occurred to me.

If we want to create a tactic which uses a very high defensive line, are we forced to use a Control or Attacking mentality (I'll ignore Overload for now)? Likewise, if we want a deep defensive line, do we have to use a Counter or Defensive mentality?

My reason for saying this is based on the default defensive line setting for each mentality coupled to the def line positioning from the Team Instructions Drop Much Deeper through Push Much Higher Up. If you start with, say, a Defensive mentality and add in Push Much Higher Up, does this give you the same defensive line positioning if you use an Attacking mentality + Push Much Higher Up? If it does then my opening sentence becomes invalid and we can use any mentality + TI to give us any height of defensive line want.

However, if (as I suspect) Defensive mentality + Push Much Higher Up (to follow through the same example) will only give us the rough equivalent of a Standard mentalities' default defensive line, my opening sentence stands and we are effectively forced to use a higher or lower mentality to achieve the desired defensive line result. The issue then becomes one of all of the other default mentality settings "forced" on us as we are obliged to use a certain mentality just to achieve the defensive line we want.

What if I want to have a very high def line, but use a narrow compact shape? Or a deep line but with a high tempo passing game? Ok use Tis again, but then we have the same issue all over again don't we? How narrow does an attacking mentality play with the TI Play Narrower, when the mentality defaults to a very wide style of play? What about pressing and tempo?

Take the ever popular Barcelona tiki-taka thread which uses a Counter mentality. That tactical recreation of Barcelona needs a heavy pressing game - yet is that actually possible with a Counter mentality? Is the default light press of Counter plus a TI of Close Down More enough? Is it the equivalent of the default heavy press of Attacking plus a the same TI? If not, then we cannot use a Counter mentality to create a tactic with a lot of pressing.

Something is amiss at the moment, and I want to be educated .

[llama3]

Ultimately, if you want a defensive line on the edge of your own box, it tends to lend to a more cautious mentality. Mentality will affect things like a tendency to press or make risky challenges, the type of passes attempted etc.

You can still have a low block on an attacking mentality, and a high block on a cautious mentality. Maximising it requires use of an appropriate mentality. I wouldn't get hung up on it though. The difference between a very high block with standard and a very high block with control is fairly small.

[herne79]

You can still have a low block on an attacking mentality, and a high block on a cautious mentality.

How?

Attacking mentality + Much Deeper def line won't be as deep as a Counter or Defensive mentality def line will it?

Anyway, to be honest this thread isn't meant to be just about defensive line. This is a badly titled thread by me, as my thoughts were developing as I typed.

It's about all mentality default settings, the affect of TIs on them and their knock on effect to other default settings.

Example - Does Counter mentality + More Closing Down give us the same pressing as Attacking mentality + More Closing Down? If not, then we must use a more attacking mentality to achieve the desired closing down effect don't we? But then that has a knock effect to the other default settings, so if we use the attacking mentality in this example to achieve the press we want, we then get a higher tempo, greater width, higher def line, more creativity and so on, which we may not want in our tactic.

This is just an example to illustrate the point - that point being does the use of Team Instructions move a mentalities' default settings to achieve the same result, or will the result differ based on mentality? If the latter, then how can we play a narrow attacking mentality with short passing? Or a Counter mentality with aggressive closing down? Or a Defensive mentality with a lot of width and great creativity played at a high tempo, but still with a low def line?

I'm not looking for answers to the examples necessarily, just trying to get the point across .

[Jambo98]

I think its a great question herne79, and very well put across.

Unfortunately, i dont believe there has ever been a full and proper answer to this. It feels like an area where SI/Sega can do much more to educate users or at least give better in game guidance. It remains a bit of a "black box". Whether that is somewhat intentional, to avoid people creating exploits, or whether its just a slightly neglected area because all efforts have gone into the ME/new roles, i am not sure.

One option is to go back and fire up FM13, which was the last to still show some sliders. That should, i think, show you where each core "mentality" sets the D-line. Of course, in 13 we didnt have the TI to use to manage the Dline, so you cant fully work it out.

I guess the core mathematics say:

Using TI, we have 5 "options" for Dline (Much Deeper, Deeper, no instruction, Push higher, Much Higher). You could call this 1 - 5, 0 - 4, which ever you like, but clearly there are 5 "incremental" options using TI.

The complication, is that there are 7 mentality options (Contain, Defensive, Counter, Standard, Control, Attack, Overload). So if we assume that each does move the D-line (unless the 2 most "extremes" dont move it, because it is already at its max/min?) then it really complicates the scale for the Dline, especially if you look at it mathematically.

It would be great if anyone has any factual info on it, as it can be a bit of guesswork, especially if you are looking to very specifically manage one of these aspects.

[llama3]

No it won't be as deep on a Counter mentality, as it will on an Attacking mentality. But you can still get a pretty deep line on an attacking mentality, even if it isn't as deep as Counter.

I really wouldn't worry about what equals what. Just judge by what you see. If you aren't engaging the opponent and they are having too much time on the ball - press them more, if they are getting in behind, don't press as much and sit deeper.

There is a stacking effect on instructions - so if you have a TI to press more, then PI's to press more - then both the TI and the PI will increase the levels of closing down. If you have an increase in mentality, it will increase the player's closing down again.

Counter + More Closing Down is not the same as Attacking + More Closing Down. You can use the more cautious mentality though, and go for "Much Higher Defensive Line" and "Much More Closing Down" to help this. Add in OI's, or PI's if you want to enhance it. Some formations and shapes make pressing easier than others too.

A new mentality naturally carries an increase in tempo, risk taking, closing down etc - so if you change up mentality, but keep instructions the same, the tempo, closing down, defensive line etc will increase slightly with it.

[Jambo98]

I suppose the challenge comes, llama3, when you do want to achieve one of the extremes or out of the ordinary.

Guardiola tactics are probably the best example. It would be hard to argue that he plays with anything other than the highest possible Dline. At times Neuer is almost on the half way line! His dline couldnt really be pushed any higher. But, i dont believe you could possibly say his mentality is "high risk" - infact in some ways its the opposite (although his risk attitude varies a lot depending on where the ball is - which is very difficult to recreate, but somewhat away from the initial point).

In FM, the only way we could truley create the highest possible Dline, presumably, is to use "attacking mentality". So i cannot possibly create "highest possible dline" + "moderate risk taking".

I think its fair to say that you can still create most shapes within the limitations of the TC settings, although it takes quite a bit of research on here to find out exactly how, but there are clearly still some which are beyond its capability. Its probably a trade off which has to be made in some ways, to avoid over complexity or information overload for the user.

[herne79]

Jambo, you are 100% spot on - I was even thinking of the Guardiola example.

To use such a high def line (for example) we must use an attacking mentality, but of course that also forces other settings upon us - and I think we have found the limitations of the game, and the compromises we have to make.

I like simple, so to me one notch up or down a TI roughly equates to one notch up or down a mentalities' equivalent default setting. Not the most scientific approach perhaps, but it is pretty fundamental to tactic creation - and probably why you keep replying to help posts from people who use Attacking + Close Down More .

[Los_Culés]

This is pretty much how I am currently playing. Defensive mentality and higher d-line (FM11).

Sliders might were not ideal, but removing them was IMO a mistake as there is any other tool to really customize tactics.

[Rui]

One option is to go back and fire up FM13, which was the last to still show some sliders. That should, i think, show you where each core "mentality" sets the D-line. Of course, in 13 we didnt have the TI to use to manage the Dline, so you cant fully work it out.

I really hope SI/Sega address this issue next year as it's not ideal for newcomers to FM. I used to be a fan of no sliders due to simplicity however it's a real pain when you're after a specific way of playing and a lot of parameters are hidden.

I really wouldn't worry about what equals what. Just judge by what you see. If you aren't engaging the opponent and they are having too much time on the ball - press them more, if they are getting in behind, don't press as much and sit deeper.

+1. The best chance of creating a tactic you want is to watch games in full and analyse (I learnt this the hard way!). You'll spot things you don't like and gradually add team and player instructions to get the system you want. I used to refrain from this as I just wanted to get on with actually progressing through games, like most do I guess, but it's actually quite fun and rewarding to get the team playing how you want. Hopefully the creators will be transparent in the future so this process doesn't take as long.