TT&F IV: New Strategies and Theories for '07

[wwfan]

Introduction

I hope SI forgive me for saying so, but as of yet their arguably unparalleled simulation of football management fails in one respect to live up to the real thing. It is not yet sophisticated enough tactically. I know that some of you who are struggling with the game may sit with gaping mouths when reading this and think my brain has become addled, but I’ll explain.

In the modern game of football it is next to impossible to come up with a tactical formation that top clubs boasting experienced managers and quality players are unable to outperform with some degree of consistency. If it could happen then by now a smaller side would have won the Premiership via sheer tactical nous alone. Yet it hasn’t happened and is increasingly unlikely to. Why? Simple. Money and quality always, always outperforms lack of quality. Tactical mistakes from big sides (picking the wrong player for the match, being too attacking, too defensive) may allow a small side to win the odd match, but it won’t happen with regularity. Witness Man Utd’s return to the 4-4-2 that has been the cornerstone of their success and the required ditching of a work-shy goal poacher to accommodate it. Did Ferguson make tactical errors over the last two years? Undoubtedly he did. Did he buy the wrong players? Indisputably. Has he learned from his mistakes? Seems he has. Did Man Utd finish outside the top four in those 4-5-1 days, a position most fans of small clubs would die for? Not once!

The FM tacticians still have a serious advantage over real life managers. They can exploit tactical weaknesses in general terms that don’t exist in the real world. A new system of play can undermine the carefully thought out logic of the game-engine and allow a user team to outperform the AI despite a serious quality gap in personnel. That rarely happens in real life. A team will only get promoted if its squad is among the better squads in the division. Yes, the best team may not win the title and tactical variations can give slight advantages, but they are slight only. Until this version of FM this has not been the case in our virtual world. Many tactics have outperformed the AI in ways that could never happen in real life, with Diablo being the most notable. SI obviously want to eliminate this, as a simulation’s main intention is to successfully mimic real life. So, each version of the game sees a battle between developer and tactical guru, as one tries to build a more and more realistic system of play and the other tries to undermine it with creative tactical innovations. So far, the gurus have always won.

Both FM06 and FM07 began their shelf-lives with constant criticism from consumers. ‘The game is too hard’, ‘tactics are too complex’, ‘it’s unrealistic that I can’t get Chelsea to win the title in my first season’ are common complaints. These should read ‘the game is hard because it is more realistic and thus bad user tactics get ripped apart by AI managers that know what they are doing’ and ‘I can’t get Chelsea to win the title in my first season because I’m a newbie manager who really doesn’t know what he is doing which is realistic in the extreme.’ In ’06 the tactical gurus then kicked in and new ways of tactic creation were explained and implemented and the SI forums went quiet. Some of the theories and tactics, as in previous versions, went on to have seminal status. In ’07 these have yet to arrive.

Have SI finally defeated the tactical gurus and developed a tactical system that constantly prevents user systems from outperforming the game-engine? I think they are close, but they are not there yet. I’m still performing much better than my player quality would suggest I should, although I haven’t reached the comfort zone I achieved in ’06 in which I could sit back and relax after 10 minutes of a game in 95% security I would get a draw at least. I have to remain focussed all game. But, I believe I am outperforming the game-engine, and am within touching distance of cracking it. I will certainly dominate divisions with players equal to or above the divisional average, which is what we are all trying to do.

The rest of this article/thread discusses the whys and wherefores of tactical methodologies, their strengths and limitations and argues that a whole new mind-set is required when designing tactics in ’07. Finally, it offers the beginnings of some theories and frameworks that will, hopefully, allow users to create solid tactics and reduce their frustrations.

Three Philosophies of Tactic-Building

There are many individual philosophies concerning tactic building in the T&TT Forum. Some ‘gurus’ prefer highly complex methodologies consisting of tactics for every situations. Others prefer simplified approaches that require little tweaking or adjustment. Others still try to construct weird asymmetrical formations that confuse the AI and take advantage of engine weaknesses. This opening section will analyse the intricacies of the different approaches.

Complex

I would be regarded as a ‘complex guru’. My tactics and threads take into consideration the minutiae of the tactical settings and require considerable building and setting up before game-play begins. I demand individual mentality settings for each player and different home and away settings for individuals and the team as a whole. My theories have been criticised as being too anal and determent on constant minor tweaks before coming to fruition.

These criticisms have always rankled. My own take on my approach is that I try to build a logical mentality framework that can be adjusted to suit any formation, within which individual settings can be manipulated to produce the required results. The framework I devised in ’06 did that exceptionally well and allowed me, towards the end of 06’s shelf-life, to be able to showboat, switching between formations as and when I pleased with no detrimental affect on performance. The football was fluid and effective, capable of scoring goals and keeping things tight defensively. At no point did I believe it was over complex or reliant on slight slider tweaks. The mentality framework was logical, as were the home and away settings, and I rarely thought about minor slider adjustments. Once it was right, it was right.

Yet, I became a victim of my own success. Within 10 minutes of any game I would be able to see if my chosen tactical-flavour was the right one and either leave the game to run, or switch to another system before the opposition had too many chances and win the match in the second half. I only lost 5 or 6 games in total in all competitions over my last four seasons. My interest waned as the game became too easy and I began to play half-heartedly. Although it is fun winning there does need to be a challenge. When ’07 came out I hoped it would answer said challenge and it has not disappointed. I will further this discussion later in the ‘Demise’ of the Rule of Two.

Simple

The archetypal ‘simple’ approach is the Slider Apathy favoured by Asmodeus. It is based (or was based in ’06) on a dual mentality setting which linked strikers to defenders by use of a high defensive line. This enabled the team to remain compact whilst ensuring five players defended and five attacked at all times. Other settings were left to user preference as to their judgement of player ability. It produced a different style of play than the Rule of Two system I was using, but was equally effective. Unlike myself, Asmodeus has never been accused of over-complexity and his ideas and system, although theoretically and intellectually sound, offered effective tactics for the more casual game-player. Like myself, Asmodeus built tactics that out-performed the game engine (and here’s the rub, to be discussed later).

Asymmetrical

The asymmetrical ‘gurus’ build tactics that rely on formations that would be unthinkable in real-life football. Four-three-threes with weird side-arrows are the most common variant but there are others. I would also place Diablo, with its long-farrowed MC, in this category even though it is not asymmetrical, as a midfielder constantly sprinting half the length of the pitch to become an auxiliary centre-forward is highly unrealistic. These tactics all work(ed) because they challenged the logistics of the game-engine and took advantage of scenarios unimagined by the programmers. Another example of the AI failing to deal with unrealistic tactical plans is the ‘everyone at the back post’ corner routine which warped any testing of ’06 tactics as it guaranteed too many goals from set-pieces.

It is easy to write off the asymmetrical tactical gurus as game-engine hackers who search for bugs and errors within the engine and exploit them. Their tactics have little to do with real football and a lot to do with the difficulties of programming a football simulation that can cope with unrealistic and unexpected systems of play. These tactics have their place, as they will help SI develop an understanding of where their game-engine holes are located so they can fill them. They are also the result of highly creative thinking and analysis and should be commended. However, that doesn’t stop me from hoping that they all fail. Once asymmetrical tactics fail to out-perform the engine then a greater level of realism will have been reached than ever before. I think ’07 may well have reached this plateau.

Before I am attacked by the asymmetrical gurus, I wish to state here and now that I also regard my and Asmodeus’s systems as ones that took advantage of inadequacies in the game-engine and should be as equally open to criticism as asymmetrical tactics. The following section will explain why I have come to think this way.

The ‘Demise’ of the Rule of Two and Slider Apathy

Demise is too strong a word. The Rule of Two still works and, judging from Asmodeus’s New Year resurrection of Slider Apathy, so do his theories. However, they are seriously challenged by the new engine and nowhere near as effective as before. Rule of Two still over-performs in terms of results but not in terms of possession, chance creation and fluidity of play. It would be relatively easy to remain on the Rule of Two bandwagon and still do quite well. But ‘well’ is not enough. I want to be able to dominate possession, play pretty football, score well worked goals and win in some style and the Rule of Two does not do this. I’ll try to explain why and how I think its dominance has been challenged.

Defensive Line and Mentality

Arguably, the reprogramming of the defensive line and increased mentality differentials have been the undoing of both the Rule of Two and dual mentality frameworks. In ’06 employing a high defensive line kept both types of formation tight and allowed for solid defence and fluid attack. The user had the best of both worlds. His team could be both defensive and attacking at the same time. The game-engine couldn’t cope with this and both systems out-performed to a huge degree. In this respect they are no different to the asymmetrical tactics I challenged before, with the exception that they were built on logical frames that the game designers hadn’t foreseen, rather than exploiting holes and gaps with weird arrows and positions.

The reworking of the defensive line, so that it only kicks in when a team loses possession, is one of the key elements that have forced an alteration of approach for the tactical gurus. Any formation that relies on heavily split mentalities will struggle with the gaps in and behind the defence that a high line leaves with low mentality defenders or a low line leaves with high mentality midfielders. The defence retreats more quickly than the midfield so there is too little cover in front of it and the defenders becomes horribly exposed. This affect is minimised by working out the average mentality for the team and then giving the defensive line the same slider setting, but this still fails to combat the other main issue of heavily split mentalities, which is player confusion.

Mentality has been reworked so that on field mentality differences are more acute than previously. Thus, a heavy mentality split will produce a loose formation that offers a lot of space that a tight, (near) global mentality system then exploits. This weakness of this type of tactic is accentuated by player confusion as to where they should be passing. A player with a low mentality is unlikely to play a risky ball to a high mentality player up the pitch and instead will pass to a player with similar mentality settings, which leads to lots of aimless passes between the back four and a defensive mentality midfielder. Eventually possession is lost as the opposition closes them down and the team is under pressure. The risk of such play is minimised by employing defensive midfielders who sit in front of the back four and protect it from counters whilst still being high mentality enough to launch attacks of their own. The best Rule of Two tactical set I have seen employs one or two defensive midfielders in all its flavours. However, it seems next to impossible to build a fluent 4-4-2 using the Rule of Two framework.

Width

Although not as influential as the defensive line and mentality, width has also been reworked in ’07 and requires a different outlook. In ’06, to get the full-backs into space to cross and defeat the 3-3-2-1-1 you were required to give them short-farrows. In ’07 as long as you have a normal width and mixed forward runs on the full-backs they will overlap and support the attack. As goals per game have decreased dramatically, overlapping full-backs are necessary to defeat tight AI formations and they only do so with low split mentalities and a reasonably wide formation.

Conclusion

Both the Rule of Two and Slider Apathy theories took advantage of game-engine weaknesses, albeit in a logical manner, that the developers hadn’t foreseen. As in previous generations of FM, these weaknesses have been largely wiped out by reworking the engine, thereby reducing their effectiveness. Neither of them are toothless but they are more frustrating than in ’06 and both almost certainly require DMCs to function. Neither will adapt comfortably to the most common formation in football, the 4-4-2, and therefore their validity must be questioned. Hence, a strategic rethink is required.

Apologies to Asmodeus if his Slider Apathy is working as well as it was in ’06. According to his posts and my assumptions it shouldn’t be, but I haven‘t tried it and am basing my arguments on observation of the match engine and his own comments on the validity of his theory

Rethinking Strategy

As I stated previously, my Rule of Two tactics were overachieving in terms of results, but not in terms of style. My original post in ’06 suggested that the match engine was flawed and that it was impossible to make a decent 4-4-2. I disproved my own argument over a period of intense experimentation and constructed a solid 4-4-2 which eventually evolved into a diamond. It became more complex as I began to better understand the game and resulted in the Tactical Theorems and Frameworks thread that ran to three incarnations prior to this one. Hopefully, this thread will be as popular and useful as its predecessors.

Unfortunately, or fortunately in real terms as my life is considerably more fun and interesting than it was in late 2005, I don’t have as much time to devote to Football Manager as I did. Come January 2007 I am only 9 matches in to my 5th season. Therefore, I don’t have as much time to experiment with tactics as I did previously and thus my approach has been different. In ’06 I downloaded and rejected a series of so-called super tactics before embarking on a mission to design a logical framework. This required a huge amount of testing and game-play. For ’07, much of this testing has been carried out by others (Supersaint, El Padre, crazy gra, Beevster, The New Diaby, thegooner spring to mind) and for that I thank them. From their writings and observations I was able to build a reasonably complex theoretical picture of how the game worked which allowed me to circumnavigate a lot of the testing. The following is a rough guide to my thought processes in terms of re-imagining tactical excellence in ’07. As in ’06, I was working entirely towards producing a solid 4-4-2 that could perform above the ability of the AI. Also, as in ’06 my testing team was a team that had been promoted to a Regional Conference division the previous season (Maidenhead in ’06, Blyth in ’07), so was low in terms of quality.

For a long time I remained trapped in the Rule of Two approach to mentality. I adjusted many tactical elements of the game in trying to get RoT working well. All of them failed on one count. I could get results but not the performance I wanted. Possession was low, shot count was low. The one thing that stood in its favour, and the element that SI has still failed to resolve in dealing with heavy split mentality systems, was the percentage of goals scored per shot on target. Rule of Two still guarantees a few really good chances every game as the high mentality split forces the odd overload of the AI’s defence, but it happens with much less frequency than in ’06. Eventually, I became frustrated with the system (exactly paralleling my experiences in ’06 as I gained promotion in the play-offs first season but wasn’t happy with playing style) and began to play around with different mentality settings.

For a while I played around with the Ro3, in which each stratum of the team (defence, midfield, attack) operated on the same mentality split by three from the stratum above it. Thus, defence would be 6, midfield 9, attack 12. However, there were no perceivable benefits and I scrapped it. I also experimented with Supersaint’s take on the Rule of Two in which attacking systems would start with the central defence on 10 and defensive ones with the central defence on 2 with adjusted defensive line and closing down for each system. There was some improvement, but not to the extent I wished. At this stage I began to get frustrated and played around with global mentalities and slightly split mentalities, but I still couldn’t get things working the way I wanted. Finally, as I was about to permanently dent my forehead from constantly bashing it on a wall, I came across a thread offering a different perspective.

I hope he won’t mind me saying this, but the majority of this user’s threads and comments are less than sophisticated and generally limited in their worth. This one, however, offered me the building blocks for a series of mentality frameworks that finally got my team performing in the manner I wanted. Titled simply ‘Experiment’, this thread by PAGEY124 revolutionised my thinking, and were it not for its existence I doubt I would be writing this thread right now. Implementing its mentality settings, although not his other suggestions, immediately produced the requisite quality change in playing style and the mentality frameworks I had been searching for.

As in ’06, once I had a mentality framework I was happy with, it became relatively easy to build a decent 4-4-2. I tend to build from defence, first concentrating on preventing goals and then scoring them. As soon as I implemented the new mentality frameworks my defence tightened immeasurably. Indeed, my early versions of the tactics were so defensively sound I only conceded through defensive errors (exasperating but something you have to live with) or via set-pieces. I was conceding circa 0.3 a game which is a decent record when you are predicted to come 17th in the Conference National. Unfortunately, I wasn’t scoring many goals, with most matches being 1-0, 0-1, 1-1 or 0-0. I was happy with that short-term but needed to improve the attacking variations and quality in order to be entirely satisfied. I won the Conference by 3 points and readied myself for further experimentation the next season.

In my RoT tactics in the first two seasons of ‘07 I used a tall target man who was undisputedly my best player in terms of performance if not attributes. I had stopped using one after he retired but felt that as it was so effective in the Conference North it should be equally effective with a slightly better target man in L2 (two promotions in three seasons), so I splashed out my first significant outlay (16 grand) on a target man who had been solid if unspectacular in the Conference National to see if I could get him working in L2. Initially, I used balls to head to get him winning flick-ons to the left-winger and the other centre-forward, but they were failing due to my short passing system. In order to get more out of him I switched to direct passing for my defenders, and shortly afterwards mixed for my central midfielders, and he exploded into life. My goal-scoring rocketed (in relative terms) from being less than 1 a game to circa 1.7 a game by the end of the season. This may not sound like much but was in the top three performers in the division, with my defensive record being far and away the best.

I now had a system I was reasonably satisfied with. It was defensively solid, offered enough chances both home and away to grab wins or draws in most matches, and the target man was the form player in the division. Player weakness (I was predicted to come 24th) stopped it from being all it could be, but I ended up winning the division by circa 20 points. It was a little one-dimensional, but ready for upload. I tested it out with a supporting thread in another forum and after a few good responses linked to it in Tactical Theorems and Frameworks to see how it fared. Again, the reaction was positive. Another user whose opinion I trust implicitly (The Next Diaby) has also reworked the framework into a diamond and pronounced it equally valid in that formation. I have since tweaked it some more, but the basic settings remain. So, after a long journey, often paved with jagged stones, I am ready to write a new set of Theorems and Frameworks, which takes me up to this thread and my next heading.

[wwfan]

Introduction

I hope SI forgive me for saying so, but as of yet their arguably unparalleled simulation of football management fails in one respect to live up to the real thing. It is not yet sophisticated enough tactically. I know that some of you who are struggling with the game may sit with gaping mouths when reading this and think my brain has become addled, but I’ll explain.

In the modern game of football it is next to impossible to come up with a tactical formation that top clubs boasting experienced managers and quality players are unable to outperform with some degree of consistency. If it could happen then by now a smaller side would have won the Premiership via sheer tactical nous alone. Yet it hasn’t happened and is increasingly unlikely to. Why? Simple. Money and quality always, always outperforms lack of quality. Tactical mistakes from big sides (picking the wrong player for the match, being too attacking, too defensive) may allow a small side to win the odd match, but it won’t happen with regularity. Witness Man Utd’s return to the 4-4-2 that has been the cornerstone of their success and the required ditching of a work-shy goal poacher to accommodate it. Did Ferguson make tactical errors over the last two years? Undoubtedly he did. Did he buy the wrong players? Indisputably. Has he learned from his mistakes? Seems he has. Did Man Utd finish outside the top four in those 4-5-1 days, a position most fans of small clubs would die for? Not once!

The FM tacticians still have a serious advantage over real life managers. They can exploit tactical weaknesses in general terms that don’t exist in the real world. A new system of play can undermine the carefully thought out logic of the game-engine and allow a user team to outperform the AI despite a serious quality gap in personnel. That rarely happens in real life. A team will only get promoted if its squad is among the better squads in the division. Yes, the best team may not win the title and tactical variations can give slight advantages, but they are slight only. Until this version of FM this has not been the case in our virtual world. Many tactics have outperformed the AI in ways that could never happen in real life, with Diablo being the most notable. SI obviously want to eliminate this, as a simulation’s main intention is to successfully mimic real life. So, each version of the game sees a battle between developer and tactical guru, as one tries to build a more and more realistic system of play and the other tries to undermine it with creative tactical innovations. So far, the gurus have always won.

Both FM06 and FM07 began their shelf-lives with constant criticism from consumers. ‘The game is too hard’, ‘tactics are too complex’, ‘it’s unrealistic that I can’t get Chelsea to win the title in my first season’ are common complaints. These should read ‘the game is hard because it is more realistic and thus bad user tactics get ripped apart by AI managers that know what they are doing’ and ‘I can’t get Chelsea to win the title in my first season because I’m a newbie manager who really doesn’t know what he is doing which is realistic in the extreme.’ In ’06 the tactical gurus then kicked in and new ways of tactic creation were explained and implemented and the SI forums went quiet. Some of the theories and tactics, as in previous versions, went on to have seminal status. In ’07 these have yet to arrive.

Have SI finally defeated the tactical gurus and developed a tactical system that constantly prevents user systems from outperforming the game-engine? I think they are close, but they are not there yet. I’m still performing much better than my player quality would suggest I should, although I haven’t reached the comfort zone I achieved in ’06 in which I could sit back and relax after 10 minutes of a game in 95% security I would get a draw at least. I have to remain focussed all game. But, I believe I am outperforming the game-engine, and am within touching distance of cracking it. I will certainly dominate divisions with players equal to or above the divisional average, which is what we are all trying to do.

The rest of this article/thread discusses the whys and wherefores of tactical methodologies, their strengths and limitations and argues that a whole new mind-set is required when designing tactics in ’07. Finally, it offers the beginnings of some theories and frameworks that will, hopefully, allow users to create solid tactics and reduce their frustrations.

Three Philosophies of Tactic-Building

There are many individual philosophies concerning tactic building in the T&TT Forum. Some ‘gurus’ prefer highly complex methodologies consisting of tactics for every situations. Others prefer simplified approaches that require little tweaking or adjustment. Others still try to construct weird asymmetrical formations that confuse the AI and take advantage of engine weaknesses. This opening section will analyse the intricacies of the different approaches.

Complex

I would be regarded as a ‘complex guru’. My tactics and threads take into consideration the minutiae of the tactical settings and require considerable building and setting up before game-play begins. I demand individual mentality settings for each player and different home and away settings for individuals and the team as a whole. My theories have been criticised as being too anal and determent on constant minor tweaks before coming to fruition.

These criticisms have always rankled. My own take on my approach is that I try to build a logical mentality framework that can be adjusted to suit any formation, within which individual settings can be manipulated to produce the required results. The framework I devised in ’06 did that exceptionally well and allowed me, towards the end of 06’s shelf-life, to be able to showboat, switching between formations as and when I pleased with no detrimental affect on performance. The football was fluid and effective, capable of scoring goals and keeping things tight defensively. At no point did I believe it was over complex or reliant on slight slider tweaks. The mentality framework was logical, as were the home and away settings, and I rarely thought about minor slider adjustments. Once it was right, it was right.

Yet, I became a victim of my own success. Within 10 minutes of any game I would be able to see if my chosen tactical-flavour was the right one and either leave the game to run, or switch to another system before the opposition had too many chances and win the match in the second half. I only lost 5 or 6 games in total in all competitions over my last four seasons. My interest waned as the game became too easy and I began to play half-heartedly. Although it is fun winning there does need to be a challenge. When ’07 came out I hoped it would answer said challenge and it has not disappointed. I will further this discussion later in the ‘Demise’ of the Rule of Two.

Simple

The archetypal ‘simple’ approach is the Slider Apathy favoured by Asmodeus. It is based (or was based in ’06) on a dual mentality setting which linked strikers to defenders by use of a high defensive line. This enabled the team to remain compact whilst ensuring five players defended and five attacked at all times. Other settings were left to user preference as to their judgement of player ability. It produced a different style of play than the Rule of Two system I was using, but was equally effective. Unlike myself, Asmodeus has never been accused of over-complexity and his ideas and system, although theoretically and intellectually sound, offered effective tactics for the more casual game-player. Like myself, Asmodeus built tactics that out-performed the game engine (and here’s the rub, to be discussed later).

Asymmetrical

The asymmetrical ‘gurus’ build tactics that rely on formations that would be unthinkable in real-life football. Four-three-threes with weird side-arrows are the most common variant but there are others. I would also place Diablo, with its long-farrowed MC, in this category even though it is not asymmetrical, as a midfielder constantly sprinting half the length of the pitch to become an auxiliary centre-forward is highly unrealistic. These tactics all work(ed) because they challenged the logistics of the game-engine and took advantage of scenarios unimagined by the programmers. Another example of the AI failing to deal with unrealistic tactical plans is the ‘everyone at the back post’ corner routine which warped any testing of ’06 tactics as it guaranteed too many goals from set-pieces.

It is easy to write off the asymmetrical tactical gurus as game-engine hackers who search for bugs and errors within the engine and exploit them. Their tactics have little to do with real football and a lot to do with the difficulties of programming a football simulation that can cope with unrealistic and unexpected systems of play. These tactics have their place, as they will help SI develop an understanding of where their game-engine holes are located so they can fill them. They are also the result of highly creative thinking and analysis and should be commended. However, that doesn’t stop me from hoping that they all fail. Once asymmetrical tactics fail to out-perform the engine then a greater level of realism will have been reached than ever before. I think ’07 may well have reached this plateau.

Before I am attacked by the asymmetrical gurus, I wish to state here and now that I also regard my and Asmodeus’s systems as ones that took advantage of inadequacies in the game-engine and should be as equally open to criticism as asymmetrical tactics. The following section will explain why I have come to think this way.

The ‘Demise’ of the Rule of Two and Slider Apathy

Demise is too strong a word. The Rule of Two still works and, judging from Asmodeus’s New Year resurrection of Slider Apathy, so do his theories. However, they are seriously challenged by the new engine and nowhere near as effective as before. Rule of Two still over-performs in terms of results but not in terms of possession, chance creation and fluidity of play. It would be relatively easy to remain on the Rule of Two bandwagon and still do quite well. But ‘well’ is not enough. I want to be able to dominate possession, play pretty football, score well worked goals and win in some style and the Rule of Two does not do this. I’ll try to explain why and how I think its dominance has been challenged.

Defensive Line and Mentality

Arguably, the reprogramming of the defensive line and increased mentality differentials have been the undoing of both the Rule of Two and dual mentality frameworks. In ’06 employing a high defensive line kept both types of formation tight and allowed for solid defence and fluid attack. The user had the best of both worlds. His team could be both defensive and attacking at the same time. The game-engine couldn’t cope with this and both systems out-performed to a huge degree. In this respect they are no different to the asymmetrical tactics I challenged before, with the exception that they were built on logical frames that the game designers hadn’t foreseen, rather than exploiting holes and gaps with weird arrows and positions.

The reworking of the defensive line, so that it only kicks in when a team loses possession, is one of the key elements that have forced an alteration of approach for the tactical gurus. Any formation that relies on heavily split mentalities will struggle with the gaps in and behind the defence that a high line leaves with low mentality defenders or a low line leaves with high mentality midfielders. The defence retreats more quickly than the midfield so there is too little cover in front of it and the defenders becomes horribly exposed. This affect is minimised by working out the average mentality for the team and then giving the defensive line the same slider setting, but this still fails to combat the other main issue of heavily split mentalities, which is player confusion.

Mentality has been reworked so that on field mentality differences are more acute than previously. Thus, a heavy mentality split will produce a loose formation that offers a lot of space that a tight, (near) global mentality system then exploits. This weakness of this type of tactic is accentuated by player confusion as to where they should be passing. A player with a low mentality is unlikely to play a risky ball to a high mentality player up the pitch and instead will pass to a player with similar mentality settings, which leads to lots of aimless passes between the back four and a defensive mentality midfielder. Eventually possession is lost as the opposition closes them down and the team is under pressure. The risk of such play is minimised by employing defensive midfielders who sit in front of the back four and protect it from counters whilst still being high mentality enough to launch attacks of their own. The best Rule of Two tactical set I have seen employs one or two defensive midfielders in all its flavours. However, it seems next to impossible to build a fluent 4-4-2 using the Rule of Two framework.

Width

Although not as influential as the defensive line and mentality, width has also been reworked in ’07 and requires a different outlook. In ’06, to get the full-backs into space to cross and defeat the 3-3-2-1-1 you were required to give them short-farrows. In ’07 as long as you have a normal width and mixed forward runs on the full-backs they will overlap and support the attack. As goals per game have decreased dramatically, overlapping full-backs are necessary to defeat tight AI formations and they only do so with low split mentalities and a reasonably wide formation.

Conclusion

Both the Rule of Two and Slider Apathy theories took advantage of game-engine weaknesses, albeit in a logical manner, that the developers hadn’t foreseen. As in previous generations of FM, these weaknesses have been largely wiped out by reworking the engine, thereby reducing their effectiveness. Neither of them are toothless but they are more frustrating than in ’06 and both almost certainly require DMCs to function. Neither will adapt comfortably to the most common formation in football, the 4-4-2, and therefore their validity must be questioned. Hence, a strategic rethink is required.

Apologies to Asmodeus if his Slider Apathy is working as well as it was in ’06. According to his posts and my assumptions it shouldn’t be, but I haven‘t tried it and am basing my arguments on observation of the match engine and his own comments on the validity of his theory

Rethinking Strategy

As I stated previously, my Rule of Two tactics were overachieving in terms of results, but not in terms of style. My original post in ’06 suggested that the match engine was flawed and that it was impossible to make a decent 4-4-2. I disproved my own argument over a period of intense experimentation and constructed a solid 4-4-2 which eventually evolved into a diamond. It became more complex as I began to better understand the game and resulted in the Tactical Theorems and Frameworks thread that ran to three incarnations prior to this one. Hopefully, this thread will be as popular and useful as its predecessors.

Unfortunately, or fortunately in real terms as my life is considerably more fun and interesting than it was in late 2005, I don’t have as much time to devote to Football Manager as I did. Come January 2007 I am only 9 matches in to my 5th season. Therefore, I don’t have as much time to experiment with tactics as I did previously and thus my approach has been different. In ’06 I downloaded and rejected a series of so-called super tactics before embarking on a mission to design a logical framework. This required a huge amount of testing and game-play. For ’07, much of this testing has been carried out by others (Supersaint, El Padre, crazy gra, Beevster, The New Diaby, thegooner spring to mind) and for that I thank them. From their writings and observations I was able to build a reasonably complex theoretical picture of how the game worked which allowed me to circumnavigate a lot of the testing. The following is a rough guide to my thought processes in terms of re-imagining tactical excellence in ’07. As in ’06, I was working entirely towards producing a solid 4-4-2 that could perform above the ability of the AI. Also, as in ’06 my testing team was a team that had been promoted to a Regional Conference division the previous season (Maidenhead in ’06, Blyth in ’07), so was low in terms of quality.

For a long time I remained trapped in the Rule of Two approach to mentality. I adjusted many tactical elements of the game in trying to get RoT working well. All of them failed on one count. I could get results but not the performance I wanted. Possession was low, shot count was low. The one thing that stood in its favour, and the element that SI has still failed to resolve in dealing with heavy split mentality systems, was the percentage of goals scored per shot on target. Rule of Two still guarantees a few really good chances every game as the high mentality split forces the odd overload of the AI’s defence, but it happens with much less frequency than in ’06. Eventually, I became frustrated with the system (exactly paralleling my experiences in ’06 as I gained promotion in the play-offs first season but wasn’t happy with playing style) and began to play around with different mentality settings.

For a while I played around with the Ro3, in which each stratum of the team (defence, midfield, attack) operated on the same mentality split by three from the stratum above it. Thus, defence would be 6, midfield 9, attack 12. However, there were no perceivable benefits and I scrapped it. I also experimented with Supersaint’s take on the Rule of Two in which attacking systems would start with the central defence on 10 and defensive ones with the central defence on 2 with adjusted defensive line and closing down for each system. There was some improvement, but not to the extent I wished. At this stage I began to get frustrated and played around with global mentalities and slightly split mentalities, but I still couldn’t get things working the way I wanted. Finally, as I was about to permanently dent my forehead from constantly bashing it on a wall, I came across a thread offering a different perspective.

I hope he won’t mind me saying this, but the majority of this user’s threads and comments are less than sophisticated and generally limited in their worth. This one, however, offered me the building blocks for a series of mentality frameworks that finally got my team performing in the manner I wanted. Titled simply ‘Experiment’, this thread by PAGEY124 revolutionised my thinking, and were it not for its existence I doubt I would be writing this thread right now. Implementing its mentality settings, although not his other suggestions, immediately produced the requisite quality change in playing style and the mentality frameworks I had been searching for.

As in ’06, once I had a mentality framework I was happy with, it became relatively easy to build a decent 4-4-2. I tend to build from defence, first concentrating on preventing goals and then scoring them. As soon as I implemented the new mentality frameworks my defence tightened immeasurably. Indeed, my early versions of the tactics were so defensively sound I only conceded through defensive errors (exasperating but something you have to live with) or via set-pieces. I was conceding circa 0.3 a game which is a decent record when you are predicted to come 17th in the Conference National. Unfortunately, I wasn’t scoring many goals, with most matches being 1-0, 0-1, 1-1 or 0-0. I was happy with that short-term but needed to improve the attacking variations and quality in order to be entirely satisfied. I won the Conference by 3 points and readied myself for further experimentation the next season.

In my RoT tactics in the first two seasons of ‘07 I used a tall target man who was undisputedly my best player in terms of performance if not attributes. I had stopped using one after he retired but felt that as it was so effective in the Conference North it should be equally effective with a slightly better target man in L2 (two promotions in three seasons), so I splashed out my first significant outlay (16 grand) on a target man who had been solid if unspectacular in the Conference National to see if I could get him working in L2. Initially, I used balls to head to get him winning flick-ons to the left-winger and the other centre-forward, but they were failing due to my short passing system. In order to get more out of him I switched to direct passing for my defenders, and shortly afterwards mixed for my central midfielders, and he exploded into life. My goal-scoring rocketed (in relative terms) from being less than 1 a game to circa 1.7 a game by the end of the season. This may not sound like much but was in the top three performers in the division, with my defensive record being far and away the best.

I now had a system I was reasonably satisfied with. It was defensively solid, offered enough chances both home and away to grab wins or draws in most matches, and the target man was the form player in the division. Player weakness (I was predicted to come 24th) stopped it from being all it could be, but I ended up winning the division by circa 20 points. It was a little one-dimensional, but ready for upload. I tested it out with a supporting thread in another forum and after a few good responses linked to it in Tactical Theorems and Frameworks to see how it fared. Again, the reaction was positive. Another user whose opinion I trust implicitly (The Next Diaby) has also reworked the framework into a diamond and pronounced it equally valid in that formation. I have since tweaked it some more, but the basic settings remain. So, after a long journey, often paved with jagged stones, I am ready to write a new set of Theorems and Frameworks, which takes me up to this thread and my next heading.

[wwfan]

Theorems and Frameworks ‘07

Frameworks

The aim of Tactical Theorems and Frameworks has always been to provide a systematic approach to tactical building that users can apply across the board, no matter what team or what level. The following is no different and a logical and systematic application of the frameworks described below and related theories should guarantee quality performance. As in previous renditions, the framework section focuses entirely on mentality settings, whereas the theorems section deals with all other aspects of tactic design. The frameworks below are no longer based on the Rule of Two and, for simplicity’s sake, will be known as the Rule of One. With luck they will produce the same level of user performance in ’07 as the Rule of Two framework did in ’06.

As mentioned before, I am not refuting the validity of the Rule of Two or Slider Apathy frameworks in totality; rather I am suggesting they require DMCs (and possibly AMCs) to function and are thus unable to meet the requirements of the 4-4-2 formation. They definitely require multi-strata formations of some kind in order to reach the effectiveness level of ’06. As the 4-4-2 is the cornerstone formation of modern football (1966-2000) a new framework is required. Alternate, super-modern formations, such as Benitez’s 4-2-3-1 or Mourinho’s 4-5-1/4-3-3, should still lend themselves to RoT or SA as they both use DMCs.

In advocating new frameworks for the 4-4-2, I am being forced to switch to multi-flavoured tactics for a variety of home and away situations. User intuition will then decide on which framework to implement for which situation. Inevitably, some user choices will be wrong and performance will suffer. This cannot be avoided and is part and parcel of the trials and tribulations of real and virtual management. Some of the side effects of bad choice making can be negated through other tactical elements, which will be theorised later. However, user error must be kept in mind when applying the following frameworks and in-match flexibility and adjustment is a necessity.

The key to building a successful mentality framework is to envision the system that the AI will use and implement a tactic that first negates and then outperforms it. In designing my current set of frameworks I followed the basic premise that stopping the other team scoring guaranteed a level of performance from which I could experiment in terms of attacking strategy. After eliminating the vagaries of performance due to excellent or poor man-management I wanted to have a set of tactics that offered me the possibility of winning in every match. This is not to say that I would or could win every match. It is sufficient to be equal or above AI performance in terms of match stats in general terms. If each match guarantees a level of performance that offers a chance of victory, then a combination of quality man-management, good play and luck will result in a winning record. Matches you should have lost will transform into draws, and draws become wins. Once that plateau is reached, consistent performance becomes more related to media and player management and matches lost due to poor tactical implementation become few and far between.

Home Framework

The home framework may seem on face evidence overly attacking and unrealistic. Both central defenders are given attacking mentalities, which would seem to be unusual instructions for the position. But, what it does is ensure that the defence, in a match in which the tactic is effective, concentrates 75% of its energies supporting the attack and only 25% on defending. If the team is playing to form then that statistic is acceptable, as a home team should be looking to attack considerably more often than defend. However, if the team is having a bad day then the user manager should adjust the formation to provide more defensive stability before trying to buck the troops up at half-time.

The home framework offers solid performance levels as long as the team is playing equal or above its quality level. The odd occasion in which they fall below this level will require some tactical adjustments and quality man-management at half-time. Ideally, the user manager will realise his team is below par early enough in the half to switch to a more defensively sound formation and thus minimise any damage. Early indicators for team performance are possession and pass percentage. Although neither really stabilises until the 10th minute, an advantage for the AI after this point in either or both stats is an indication that you have either got your tactics wrong or that the team is performing below expectations.

The home framework mentality ensures that the team is looking to attack more often than not. It will force players to take attacking risks and forwards to have a shoot on sight mentality. It will fall down heavily against sides of a higher level that will destroy it on the counter, but, in my experience, that only happens against teams operating in higher divisions.

Mentality

GK 14

DC 15

FB 16

MCd 17

ML/R 18

MCa 19

FC 20

There is a set of theories complementing this mentality framework that will be discussed later.

Away Framework

The basic away framework operates as a negative copy of the home framework. In opposition to the home framework, it concentrates entirely on defending. Assuming that the home side is focusing on attacking moves >75% of the time, a tactic that has eight of its eleven players focused on defending to greater degree should provide some stability. As three players are, although still defensive, looking to attack above 25% of the time there should be some attacking potential on the counter-attack. It primarily focuses on stopping the opposition playing and only looks to score from lightening raids and set pieces.

As for the home tactic, indicators of performance are possession and pass percentage. Unlike the home tactic, in which you should be seeing a relative advantage for your team, matching AI performance, you should be looking to match the AI in both areas. Possession should ideally hover around 50% but this can’t be guaranteed for away tactics. As long as it isn’t falling below 47% you should be relatively happy. Pass percentage is a more solid indicator of performance away and you should see your team dominate in this area. However, if you are achieving over 50% possession, pass percentage importance decreases.

Mentality

GK 1

DC 2

FB 3

MCd 4

ML/R 5

MCa 6

FC 7

There is a set of theories complementing this mentality framework that will be discussed later.

And there my frameworks would have ended had I finished writing the article the same day I started it. However, there has been a time delay, during which time I have discovered some limitations of the away framework. Before discussing them and an alternate framework to combat them, it is necessary to turn our attention to the intricacies of re-ranking and match odds to offer some reasoning behind the limitations.

Re-Ranking and Pre-Match Odds

I previously wrote that re-ranking was happening on a match-by-match basis and this constituted a greater level of sophistication in AI responses to user performance. I will now refute that in returning to my original position that re-ranking occurs mid-season (in a minor form) and with greater degree at the end of season. The pre-match odds are an indicator of recent form. The combination of the two will suggest how the AI will line up against you.

In my most recently completed season I was the bookmakers’ favourite for relegation, being predicted to come 24th with odds of 80-1 to be champions. Not surprisingly, this meant that all of the AI teams expected to beat me when I played away against them. Naturally, I consistently came up against attacking formations. Early season odds had the AI team as heavy favourite for my away games, with my home games being close calls either way. In the away games the ultra-defensive mentality of the Away Framework negated the heavy attacking strategy of the AI and I performed pretty consistently away from home. If the AI scored first I was in trouble, but if I could frustrate them for the first hour I would usually sneak a one or two-nil victory.

This tactic had also worked effectively the previous season when I had also been predicted to come 24th (in L2) and had walked the division, losing three games in total. In L1 it was less effective as player for player I was often out-matched, but my away record was pretty solid. I had a major injury crisis mid-season (four goalies and three centre forwards out simultaneously is tough to cover for a small club with few resources), which knocked me down from challenging for the title to mid-table. I regained form as my players returned to fitness and ended up in a play-off spot, finishing only 3 points away from automatic promotion. I was two minutes away from going up in the play-off final when, out of the blue, as I had seen no chances against for 10 minutes, the AI equalised and went on to win in the penalty shoot-out. The whole season ruined in the space of a few short minutes!

But, with every cloud comes a silver lining. I strengthened the squad and readied myself for a serious crack at the title. I was pretty confident that I would dominate the division as my player quality had improved dramatically. My pre-season odds were 8-1, and all the away games were short-odds either way. Sorted, or so I thought. It was then a wrecking ball smashed my illusory self-confidence to smithereens. My away performances had only needed to shift in level slightly for me to pick up the extra few points I needed for automatic promotion. As I had a much better first eleven I was sure they would do. However, in the away games I was getting pounded. I barely managed a shot on goal. The opposition dominated me. Something was seriously wrong.

The AI was now playing less aggressively against me. Previously, I had played my ultra-conservative tactics against high mentality / high defensive line systems and undid them through committed defence and lightening breaks. However, as the AI was now playing more conservatively against me, my through balls to the breaking forwards were now being intercepted by the deeper lying defenders and recycled back to the AI attack. I held out for a couple of draws due to magnificent performances from my centre-backs and keeper, but I was never going to win any away games this way. A rethink was required.

I had already designed an alternate away tactic for the theoretical games in which I would be the favourite despite not being at home. Due to my poor pre-season ranking this had rarely happened (twice only) so I hadn’t really tested it. However, logically it should work as it followed my defensive theories in order to remain defensively sound, but increased mentalities throughout the team. I implemented it for my next few away games to give it an extended run out. The result was outstanding. Since the shift in mentalities I have won all bar one away game (which was a cup game against higher level opposition). Had I not shifted I would have been average the first half of the season before the AI teams decided I was cannon fodder away, at which time my successful strategy would reinsert itself as the AI began to attack me again. If I hadn’t come to terms with the tactical switch required early in the season, a serious bout of frustration would have ensued. I’m sure one or two FMers have experienced the scenario of over-performing, strengthening the squad pre-season before crashing and burning without realising why. Fortunately, I reacted quickly enough to minimise the morale damage the away performances would bring and, with the new tactical plan in operation, embarked on the successful run I had envisioned pre-season.

Attacking Away Framework

Although most settings are unchanged from the Away Framework, the mentality switch ensures a more aggressive performance without compromising too much on defensive stability. As this framework should be employed on short-odds away games in which the AI can be assumed to play a conservative attacking game, the defensive compromise should be negligible. At the same time, the forwards will be operating further up the pitch which will place the deeper defensive line employed by the AI under more pressure than the away tactic. Simply, the mentality framework places the last line of defence, the centre-backs, on same mentality as the first line of attack in the Away Framework.

Mentality

GK 6

DC 7

FB 8

MCd 9

ML/R 10

MCa 11

FC 12

As for the previous frameworks, there is a set of theories complementing this mentality framework that will be discussed later.

A Hypothetical Framework

It may be that these three frameworks offer all that is required to defeat the various permutations of AI tactics. However, as I am yet to reach the higher echelons of the game, I am not certain if even the attacking away framework will suffice when your team is all conquering. This level of performance may well require a final, fourth framework to outperform AI teams that play semi-defensive formations at home. The hypothesized framework is based on the assumption that the attacking stratum, the forwards, should operate on the same mentality as the most defensive stratum of the Home Framework.

Mentality

GK 9

DC 10

FB 11

MCd 12

ML/R 13

MCa 14

FC 15

It is interesting to note that no secondary home framework seems to be required. Even with a team predicted to come dead last, the Home Framework outperforms the AI tactics. The only issue with it is its lack of cutting edge against weak teams that park a bus in front of the goal, but again, these issues can be minimised by applying certain attacking theories.

Theorems

Passing, Width & Tempo

These three settings are intrinsically related and are vital to get right when designing tactics. If you have lots of short passing in an ultra wide formation, passes will be constantly under hit and the opposition will frequently intercept the ball mid-move and counter. Likewise, long balls and a narrow formation will reduce possession percentages as the only option for most players will be a pump up to the FC who will be surrounded by both his own team and the opposition as players are so close together, so his flick ons are likely to be very ineffective. Although you can play a quick tempo with short passing you need highly technical players to do this, and as technique stats seem to have reduced considerably since ’06, you will require a world-class side to pull it off.

If you watch quality teams play in real life, you will notice that it is the central midfield that sets the tempo. Think Viera with Arsenal, Keane with Man Utd. When Keane was at his peak, his quick winning of the ball, bringing it forward from defence and pinging counter-attacking balls forward to the breaking midfielders was the fulcrum off the team. When Veron joined, his slower playmaking style disrupted the team and results fell away. As in real life, when designing your tactics link the tempo and width with your MCs’ passing.

Basically, set the MCs’ passing to whatever passing style you would like your team to play, be it a continentalesque 5, a very Premiership 10, or a LLM 15. Adjust the team width and tempo sliders to match. Then, adjust the passing of the players operating behind the MCs (central defenders, full-backs and goalkeeper) to be slightly (2-5 clicks) longer than the MCs, and the players operating higher up the pitch (wingers and forwards) to be slightly shorter (2-5 clicks).

The logic of this system is based around the position players take on the pitch and how close players are to them when they have the ball. In general, defenders, when in possession and under little pressure, are further away from their nearest player than midfielders or attacker are. So a more direct passing style is more viable. Employing such a style also offers them more passing options, as a direct through ball could find a breaking winger and set a one-pass attacking move in motion. However, when an attacking player is in possession, he is, unless on a quick break, likely to be surrounded by team mates who are all operating in a small zone of the pitch. Short, intricate passing is needed in such situations for moves to succeed.

Defensive Line

The defensive line links heavily with whatever mentality framework you have chosen. Defender attributes, specifically pace and positioning, will allow for some level of line adjustment but I would advise not placing the defensive line in a position that unlinks it from the framework. Simply put, the defensive line should be placed at mid-point of the framework mentality. Thus, if you have chosen to implement the attacking framework, with player mentalities ranging from 14-20, you would position the defensive line at midpoint between the two (17). If you have chosen the heavily defensive away formation (1-7), you would set the defensive line at four.

If you have quick defenders who have good positioning stats you could happily place the defensive line higher than the mid-point of the mentality framework in confidence that their pace and ability to read the game will allow them to cover any counter-attacks over the top with relative ease. However, if they are slower than average, then dropping the d-line back slightly will allow them to cover quick attackers without becoming over exposed to balls over their heads into the space behind them.

Closing Down

Defenders

Although I appreciated supersaint’s experiments on mirroring closing down with the defensive line, unfortunately my final conclusion is that I don’t agree with him. His matching of the defensive line to average mentality, as explained above, is exemplary and a cornerstone of the theorems, but in my opinion, quality defending relies on low closing down (3-5). Low closing down defenders hold their position and thus require the attacker to do something special to get past them. If they close down heavily, they may well reduce space for the player on the ball, but they also leave space behind them that can be too easily exploited for my liking. Therefore, for both home and away frameworks, I keep closing down low for the defence.

Central Midfielders

Midfielders’ closing down is the only closing down instruction I regulate heavily through the frameworks. Like the defensive line, their closing down links to the framework I have selected. Thus, in the high mentality home framework, they close down to the same setting as the defensive line (17), whereas in the away framework they only close down to four. The logic behind this is that in the home framework they will be high up the pitch most of the time, so heavy closing down is likely to win the ball in or near the opposition’s half, which will be dangerous for them. If they fail to win the ball there is little damage done to the user team, as the defence are still reasonably high up the pitch and should cover any through ball/attacking move. However, in the defensive framework, high closing down for midfielders will be taking place in front of their own penalty area which is exceedingly dangerous should they miss the tackle. So, I prefer them to hold position with low closing down, which forces the AI players to try something, rather than offering them space if my player makes a mistake.

DMCs

If employing a DMC you will need to play higher closing down than if you employ pure MCs. If you follow the above guide, the DMC will be dragged into the defensive line and provide no cover. Therefore, he should be closing down reasonably heavily in front of the defensive line to offer the protection you are looking for.

Attackers and Wingers

One of the common user complaints in FM07 is the difficulty of defending deep crosses or balls over the top of the defence. Getting the closing down settings for the forwards and wingers correct seems to counter this. The key, certainly in away formations, is to close down heavily and have easy tackling. This gets your players in position to challenge the AI player in possession, but not to tackle him, unless the tackle is obviously ‘on’. However, you put him under enough pressure to ensure he can’t hit comfortable through balls or quality crosses into the box, as the forward or winger is blocking the ball. Since I employed these settings I have hardly ever conceded a goal from deep passes or crosses.

Marking

Home Tactics

It is important to tight mark with the defence to reduce space for opposition attackers. As man-marking has finally been fixed (7.0.1), I prefer to man mark the opposition with the defence, although tight zonal should work equally well. The rest of the team generally focuses on attacking, so to ensure they are often in space, loose zonal marking seems to be the best option.

Away Tactics

For the away tactics I recommend tight man-marking across the board for midfield and defence, as it is the best way to reduce space for the opposition. The forwards should remain loose marking though so they are available to pick up pressure relieving balls from the defence.

Tackling

Home Tactics

One of the simplest settings in the game, I have everybody on normal tackling. I want the team to contest balls all over the pitch, but generally rely on my heavy pressing midfield and attack to force the opposition to play quicker balls than they would wish to regain possession.

Away Tactics

Here, things are a little more complex. I would suggest a combination of easy, hard and normal. The only normal tacklers are the central defenders and the goalkeeper. This is because most tackles they make are likely to be in the penalty area and hard tackling gives away too many dead ball situations, so penalties will become commonplace. However, as the midfield and full-backs should normally be outside the box, I have them on heavy tackling. I would rather give away a free kick with a heavy challenge outside the box than allow opposing midfielders to opportunity to outmuscle my midfield and play uncontested passes towards a deep defensive line. Finally, the wingers and forwards are on easy tackling, as their job is to block deep passes and crosses into the area. I don’t want to risk them missing tackles and allowing uncontested balls in, rather I want them to hold their positions and make things as difficult as possible for the AI player in possession.

Forward Runs

The way forward runs works is a key change in the match engine between 06 and 07. In 06, leaving your forwards on high forward runs was fundamental to their settings and guaranteed a lot of goals. Now, all it guarantees is a lot of offsides. The best settings for forward runs seem to be, and I’m happy to be challenged on this, as follows:

GK: Rarely

DC: Rarely

FB: Mixed at home, Rarely away

MCd: Rarely

MR/L: Often at home, Mixed away

MCa: Often

FCd/TM: Rarely

FCa: Mixed

Split Midfield/Attack Forward Runs

I devised these split runs based on observations of the game engine. The AI, in a 4-4-2 formation, always had one central midfielder staying back and one joining the attack. In ’06 I used to have a mixed/often split for home tactics, but this seemed to give the AI too much space in front of the d-line when they countered. Likewise, a rarely/mixed split meant my midfielders through balls were being played from too deep on the park and were being easily intercepted by the AI. Thus, a rarely/often split seemed the way to go and has proved to be highly successful.

The AI does seem to play two forward running forwards. This is one of the reasons that user were struggling to contend with quick counter attacks. Therefore, one of your forwards should at least have forward runs to mixed to offer the AI the same problems. However, it does seem advantageous to have the other FC having forward runs to rarely, as he can then drop deep to pick up balls for the midfield and allow the wingers to get ahead of him. Once he has turned, he then has options to run at the defence or play a through ball to the breaking winger. This seems to create a lot of good scoring opportunities.

Target Man

I would advise the target man to have forward runs set to rarely because he plays with his back to goal. Giving him these settings allows him to win a lot of balls in the air or hold the ball up when played to feet which brings a lot of other players into the game.

Playmaker

Usually operating as a pure AMC, a playmaker should also have forward runs set to rarely. This will allow him to drop deep, pick up the ball and influence the game. If you are playing a flat 4-4-2, it may be worthwhile dropping the forward runs of the MCa to mixed if you wish to employ him as a playmaker.

Time Wasting

I mirror time wasting with the defensive line settings. If you choose the home framework, with the defensive line ranging from 15-19, then time wasting should be set at 5-1. Likewise, as the away framework is designed with frustrating the opposition in mind, time wasting should be at 15-19. The mixed time wasting settings for the attacking away framework work exceptionally well, with players attacking in the last 10 mins when a goal down, but time wasting if they are a goal up. The difference with the away framework is that your players will time waste if the scores are level.

Creative Freedom

Many posts on the forums are of the assumption that the creative freedom slider stops a player from obeying other individual instructions. If it is set high then a player will be more unlikely to do what he is told, if set low then he will adhere to instructions. I believe there are elements of truth to this, but it is not the whole story.

A player on high creative freedom will inevitably look for options in attack as soon as he gets the ball. If he decides that the creative/killer ball is on he will play it. Sometimes it will come off, sometimes it won't. That is the very nature of creativity in all walks of life. If he decides the creative/killer ball is unfeasible, he will play a safe ball and move into position to try again. Hence, decision making is also key to a truly great creative player. A creative player with good decision making will invariably choose the right time to play the right ball. Other factors will influence whether it comes off, such as the defensive stats of the opposition players trying to intercept the ball/tackle the creative player and the off the ball/decision making stats of the player trying to pick up the pass, but on the whole a player with good creativity/decision making will create chances. Alternatively, a player with good creativity/bad decision making will often try to play unfeasibly difficult balls that will result in interceptions and counter attacking moves more often than creating chances for his own team. When setting instructions for such a player, be aware that giving him total freedom will likely result in you losing possession and having to defend quick countering moves as often as getting into scoring positions yourself.

Finally, in terms of creative freedom for the whole team, be careful setting it too high for too many players. If you do this, too many people will be looking for the killer ball, and your truly creative players will have less opportunity to influence a game. Also, too many passes are likely to be intercepted as they are being hit from unfeasible positions on the pitch, and possession will turn over almost the second you have the ball. Tweak it high for a few players, and let the others focus on more mundane tasks, such as defending or scoring goals.

Team Instructions

Use Target Man

This setting works exceedingly well and can create a plethora of chances if used correctly. The archetypal target man, tall, big and strong, can be devastating when set to no forward runs and balls played to head, to feet, or mixed. Obviously, if you want him to run onto ball forward runs are required.

Use Playmaker

A playmaker needs to be in position to pick up easy balls, so giving him high forward runs into attacking zones will lessen his effectiveness. Low or mixed forward runs, low closing down, loose, zonal marking and possibly free role will enable you to get the most out of a playmaker.

Play Offside

Use it in conjunction with a high defensive line, so if the offside trap is beaten your defenders will have time to get back and cover. Thus, it is ideal for the home framework, but less effective for the away ones. Obviously, there is a greater risk in employing it if all your defenders are slow.

Counter Attack

Counter attack is, somewhat ironically, counter intuitive. It does not mean that your players will sprint forward into attacking positions once you get the ball, but rather your players will only launch attacks that are definitely ‘on’. Thus, it is a defensive measure. I use it for all tactics and only turn it off when I come up against tactics in which the opposition is time wasting from the word go. It does mean you won’t see a lot of big wins, but it also guarantees a level of defensive stability that allows your side to grind out one or two nil victories.

Individual Instructions

Run With Ball, Long Shots, Through Balls and Cross Ball

My default set-up, for both home and away tactics, is to have no player doing any of the above instructions more often than mixed. This ensures stability in the tactic as no player gets undone by constantly following the same game plan against an opponent who is better than him. If you are sure your player will be able to heavily influence the game with often instructions because he is obviously better than his marker, then, and only then, turn his relevant instructions to often. When this works it is a joy to behold.

Cross From

Home Tactics: Wingers cross from byline, full-backs from mixed.

Away Tactics: Wingers cross from mixed, full-backs from deep.

Cross Aim

This depends considerably on your tactical set up. If you have a tall, strong target man it can be more than worthwhile aiming to target man. If both strikers are good in the air then mixed is the best option. If one striker is considerably faster than his opponent, aim for him at near post. If both strikers will get constantly beaten to the ball, aim for far post and hope your winger out jumps the opposing full back.

Swap Position

Best used with MCs or FCs. If you have a playmaker MC, the swap position roles will keep him as a playmaker, but sometimes drop him deeper and sometimes play him higher up the pitch. This can pull the opposition around very effectively. Likewise, a target man striker who is also fast can switch between the rare forward runs and mixed forward runs roles and, with balls at mixed, can run riot.

Free Role

Especially effective in conjunction with an AMC playmaker.

Hold Up Ball

This seems to give your team an advantage if set the right way. For a while, in conjunction with others, I was testing tactics with 7 players holding up the ball. This was sound defensively and helped hugely with Rule of Two tactics. However, with the Rule of One framework, a better setting seemed to be having the players operating on the outside and in front of the defence (i.e. full-backs and MCd) holding up the ball, which allowed the team to regain its shape and counter. The target man or FCd should also hold up the ball to allow other players to get in front of him when attacking.

Forward Arrows

I have only experimented with the standard forward arrows on a 4-4-2 tactic i.e. long forward arrows at home, short forward arrows away, and they are very effective. They are basic position aids to help you get players forward or backwards (when employing backward arrows) in order to complement offensive or defensive situations. I’m still reliably informed that side arrowing the forwards when the AI goes to 4-2-4, together with balls played down the flanks, disrupts the AI formation and often results in a goal.

Hypotheticals

I haven’t tested this scenario, but it makes logical sense to me and should work.

Focus Passing

As my frameworks can only operate between a width of three and a width of eighteen due to the pass, tempo, width, MC linking, it seems sensible to divide the focus passing element into three different settings.

Width 3-7: Passing Focus Down the Middle

Width 8-13: Passing Focus Mixed

Width 14-18: Passing Focus Down Both Flanks

Opposition Instructions

I only use these from the start when playing against the Chelsea 4-5-1/4-3-3 system, against which I force the AML and AMR onto the wrong foot. Hypothetically, if you have a good tactical and player quality scout, he will also give you good information on the opposition’s danger man and you can use opposition instructions to snuff out his threat. However, if your scout is dodgy, you may well find you are marking the wrong player out of the game, so be careful at lower levels.

Scouting Knowledge

Many players are having success in preparing instructions that counter the AI manager’s preferred playing style. Thus, if he is high tempo and aggressive, a low tempo, possession game should nullify his tactics. I am unable to verify this as I play on a Mac, and one of the Mac’s idiosyncratic bugs is to inform me that every manager is ‘very cautious’. However, in theory it is a fine idea and could be used to apply pre-game tweaks to your preferred tactic.

Variations

With thanks to The Next Diaby.

I am still using more closing down for FBs (10-14) and it has a great impact on restricting space for opposition wingers.

Another SI winner: forward runs. They are very powerful now, and they allow close to "real-life" setups throughout the whole team! E.g. if using a DMC, forward runs and right instructions can turn your FBs into driving forces for the whole team. Or you can determine if your AMC is a playmaker or a 2nd/3rd striker or if your DMC is an anchorman or deep lying playmaker. Who could ask for more?

I am using forward runs "often" for the strong striker, since I am using a fast target man. I did not see too many offsides that way (most of them are a bit slower anyway...), and the strong striker goes into position, while the fast striker is looking for a position to play the pass/cross or convert on his own.

Man-Management and Media Interaction

Pre-Game Odds and the Media

Getting your interaction with the media wrong pre-game can be catastrophic. If you tell the media that you expect a win with a close odds game, your players are likely to freeze and perform way below expectations. Deal with the media as follows:

Really close odds: No comment

Heavily favoured to win at home: We can win this if we play to our best

Heavily favoured to win away: They could cause us problems

Heavily favoured to lose away: I just want a good performance

Heavily favoured to lose at home: They could cause us problems

This seems to minimize poor player reaction and generally keeps morale levels high.

Pre-Game Team Talks

Generally, the ‘we can win this’ is the best option for home games and the ‘wish luck’ the best for away games. However, the ‘no pressure’ option works well against good sides and the ‘do it for the fans’ against local rivals. I rarely employ the ‘I expect a win option’, preferring the ‘we can win this’ followed by a ‘disappointed’ at half-time if the performance isn’t matching the pre-match odds.

Half-Time Team Talks

When your team has good morale a ‘disappointed’ team talk works wonders at home if your team is performing below expectations. I have used it even when winning but playing less well than I would have wanted and seen an amazing second half performance. As in most away games you would have ‘wished luck’, a ‘we can win this’ if level or losing by one goal often changes the match. If you are winning, then ‘pleased’ does the trick, as it also does with a winning score line and good performance at home. If your morale levels are low, stay away from angry or disappointed comments and focus on encouraging.

Post-Match Team Talks

Generally, be positive post-match. If your team has lost away but played well, be pleased. If they have drawn at home but should have won, be pleased. Only lay into the players if they have performed way below expectations. You will know if you have judged the mood correctly if morale stays high.

[wwfan]

A Big Shout to the Following

Sir Bobby Moore: King of the Tactic Pimps and a high-class theoretical contributor. It would be good to see you back on the scene.

Asmodeus: Tactical genius and caustic wit! I hope my evaluation of your Slider Apathy sits well with you.

crazy gra, The Next Diaby, thegooner, supersaint, Beevster Interesting and erudite commentary that forced me to stretch my grey matter and come up with more complete theories and settings.

El Padre For designing the first successful Rule of Two tactic for ’07 and directing a lot of people to my theories.

ntfc & CB&C: Constant support and kind words. Truly appreciated. Quieter than previously, but still around and pointing people in the right direction.

RedefiningForm & Tays: For the Rule of Two and Radius Theory.

Neonlights: For his alternative approach that keeps FM06 fresh for many

Bflaff, smacksim, sjm, Elrawkum(Keith): Intelligent comments and quality posts.

The Old Skool: kennedy, Justified, Buxton, rashidi, Noel: Without you the SI forums would have died long ago.

The Translators: Those that have translated my words into Danish, Polish, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Thai & Turkish. For the time, effort and dedication, I salute you.

Cleon: I may not always agree with your theories and definitions, but your dedication to the forums and your patience when dealing with some of the abuse you receive should be commended. It’s a tough job and you do it very well.

FrazT: For the dubious pleasure of trying to direct GQ users to my theories

Saarbrücken, Ikthop: For testing TT&F theories in the ’07 Demo

PAGEY124: For the Rule of One Theory

GarryWHUFC For still not falling out with me after a year of reading and commenting on my articles.

Gaz and all at FM-Britain For the time at effort they put in on a quality site. If it weren’t for you my articles would be less thorough and my motivation to write them less energetic. Promises and deadlines!!!

Everyone that has contributed to TT&F over the last year Thank you all. Your kind words and support are hugely appreciated.

[awhec]

F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S, simply F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S!

Thanks wwfan, reading all this stuff makes me go back and fire up FM.

Superb.

[bflaff]

Ha, there should be a marble bust of you outside SI's new HQ. This is so well done.

Thanks a million. This will shortcut my fumbling around with crap settings to a significant degree.

Can't wait to take these ideas for a spin.

[GrimaH]

This is the God of Football Manager. I am truly honoured to have read his absolutely inspiring (confusing? XP ) posts.

[Asmodeus]

There goes my morning.

[FrazT]

God, my head hurts- again! I though having spent about 10 hours reading, digesting and putting into operation your previous thread philosophies, I had cracked these tactics- obviously not

I will need to go and get more printer ink!

Another fabuluous thread

[Dayle Wood]

Cheers WWfan.... good food for thought there... Appreciate the time and energy put into your above work. A big thank you from across the ditch here in NZ!

[Goncharenko]

I've only skimmed so far...a lot to take in. Most of it is simple stuff but somehow the majority, including me gloss over it. Nice to have someone who can put it in writing for us to feed on! Thanks again!

[SGartz]

wow, I've just read all that and I must say your dedication is inspiring!

I think I may have to print this off and read again - there goes my evenings and weekend - my g/f will not be impressed!

[Millie]

Excellent thread, and I love the way everything is layed out in such an ordered way. TT&F has always been my starting point for tactic building and experimentation in my own games, and it's nice once you've not kept up with the thread in a while to not have to sift through 42 pages of incredibly insightful but long descriptions and hypotheses. Once again, superb.

Quick one for you though.

I've noticed that in setting up your team and your tactical approach you're not afraid to go to the absolute extremes of the sliders. Indeed, your mentality framework for home attacking and away defending are about as extreme as one could get (without perhaps experimenting with a very negative "rule of minus one" or whatever).

However, I'm quite a conservative in my approach, and I feel I'm somewhere inbetween Slider Apathy and Rule of One/Two, and I'd like to hear some thoughts.

Personally, I spread my mentalities pretty evenly (one or two notches at a time) between the lowest setting of normal and the highest setting of normal, with the centre backs my only real exceptions. From there, I use pretty much the same closing down, creative freedom, width etc. systems as TT&F have advocated since the early FM2006 days, with modifications based on what comes up in my game.

My main point is, I think the extremes of the sliders are there for extreme situations. I can't argue with your logic on a results basis, nor on a stylisitc one; in terms of playing style and defensive solidity or attacking power you seem to be reasonably faultless. However, I feel that slider settings of less than 5 or more than 15 are extremes. Not that they should never be used, but a normal team in normal situations should look to base itself within these borders.

Now, I will gladly admit that my results are far from perfect, but in trying to impliment this "fear of the extreme" (or the "Tory" system as it should probably be called) I have got progressively better. My tactics are probably closer to your conservative home and attacking away approaches, and in most cases my losses have come from not paying due attention to the game and reacting to the AI rather than any fundamental tactical failure (playing against Tottenham Hotspur seems to be the exception. Still to find out why...).

The system I use takes very little changing in terms of the individual instructions once I have them as I want them. From there, all my changes come from changes of personel (pace to break them down, a tall guy to stop the aerial threat etc.) or team slider changes.

Is your use of the extremes of the sliders based on what appears to be quite a mathematical and mechanical approach to the match engine, or do you genuinely believe it is the right way to go, producing realistic, exciting and ultimately winning football? I ask only due to my fear of the extreme really, but also a genuine belief that if you start off in the extremes, you really have nowhere to go.

I'll close by saying excellent post. I cannot stress enough how much of a help these threads have been over the countless hours of playing FM, and I hope these continue for FM08 and beyond!

[wwfan]

@ Millie: In 06 I always stayed away from extreme settings and it took me a long time to try them out in 07. My early experimentation with the home system was so good that I didn't really need to adjust it in any way. I did play with split mentality forwards for a little, but there wasn't much difference in performance. All in all I stand by my league results over four seasons. Having been predicted to come 17, 24, 24, 15, I posted a W60, D28, L4 record over the four completed seasons while playing/testing early variations of the RoO frameworks. Despite my early doubts the results won me over.

However, that is not to say you can't split from my frameworks and design an 'in-between' tactic. There is no reason to stick to my mentalities and a mentality framework running from 12-18, or 10-16, with matching theories should work just as well. It is very interesting to note how sound my defensive record has been at home over the four seasons. I have only conceded 50 goals in 92 home matches, despite the high mentalities. Slightly lower mentalites should reduce this further, and would work well if you have a striker who is guaranteed to bang in the goals. As I mentioned before, the extreme defensive framework is only really effective when you are outclassed man-for-man, so the extreme settings in that framework can be dangerous. However, I have no issues about the settings of the home framework. They are mathematical as you pointed out, but in keeping with my aim of offering up 'across the board' frameworks for tactical development, they have to be. That is not to say people shouldn't experiemnt with having one FC at 14 in the high mentality framework, or one at 15 on the away framework, even if it is just to see what happens.

Hope that helps.

[SGartz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mentality

GK 14

DC 15

FB 16

MCd 17

ML/R 18

MCa 19

FC 20 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean by FC 20 for e.g.? Is this the number of times you click the slider? If so I'm sure the slider only goes up 19 clicks.

Not questioning the great man, I'm just a bit confused.

[swash]

slider starts on 1, so if you click 19 times you will be on 20

[SGartz]

Right. Thanks swash. I cannot see my floor now for crumbs of humble pie!

[FourThreeThree]

I applaud your effort wwfan. The effort itself deserves an accolade with or without the material. It is fantastic that such a composition is made to help while it excites. I just could not imagine if you had put it into pictures. Create a web simply for FM tactics, might as well. None of that download tactic web but all theories and pratice. Probably all the tactic gurus should finally get together and create a decent web purely for tactical analysis.

[Corned beef & cabbage]

Absolutely marvellous stuff. You've done it again. Hats off for you.

Time to shelf the apathetic approach for a while and invest a couple of long evenings being a tad more sophisticated me thinks

[Millie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

@ Millie: In 06 I always stayed away from extreme settings and it took me a long time to try them out in 07. My early experimentation with the home system was so good that I didn't really need to adjust it in any way. I did play with split mentality forwards for a little, but there wasn't much difference in performance. All in all I stand by my league results over four seasons. Having been predicted to come 17, 24, 24, 15, I posted a W60, D28, L4 record over the four completed seasons while playing/testing early variations of the RoO frameworks. Despite my early doubts the results won me over.

However, that is not to say you can't split from my frameworks and design an 'in-between' tactic. There is no reason to stick to my mentalities and a mentality framework running from 12-18, or 10-16, with matching theories should work just as well. It is very interesting to note how sound my defensive record has been at home over the four seasons. I have only conceded 50 goals in 92 home matches, despite the high mentalities. Slightly lower mentalites should reduce this further, and would work well if you have a striker who is guaranteed to bang in the goals. As I mentioned before, the extreme defensive framework is only really effective when you are outclassed man-for-man, so the extreme settings in that framework can be dangerous. However, I have no issues about the settings of the home framework. They are mathematical as you pointed out, but in keeping with my aim of offering up 'across the board' frameworks for tactical development, they have to be. That is not to say people shouldn't experiemnt with having one FC at 14 in the high mentality framework, or one at 15 on the away framework, even if it is just to see what happens.

Hope that helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent. I can totally see where you're coming from, and obviously I wansn't trying to suggest that these things should be set in stone. It's just, like I say, I do have quite an aversion to extremes on the sliders, simply because that's not really my way of doing anything. However, if I come unstuck, I at least have a few alternatives to try and experiment with.

Another question.

You talk at length at how you set up individual instructions and your team instructions apart from one crucial point - team mentality.

Now, when I first started using RoT and later RoO (or, like I say, somewhere in between) I always left the t. ment. slider slap bang in the middle. Do you do the same? I ask because since discovering that t. ment. overides (sorry, compliments) i. ment. in terms of the overall feel of the side, I've not really felt the need to overly change my individual mentalities once I've got the spacing right.

Do you use the team mentality slider, or are you more happy solely using individual instructions to attack and/or defend?

[pukkekind]

Yep purely brilliant,

i have read the Experiment thread about two weeks ago and have since then laid off any other system.I played the two (home/away) versions of his (PAGEY124) system and had moderate to good succes. then deviced 4 extra systems (less att/less def) for myself (you could device up to 16 different versions) and was happy about the way my BCFC played, but something was missing. The way you set up passing gives much more flow to my team (it was equal for all players and they only had the shorter option), giving Defs somewhat longer and Atts shorter really uped my game. The coherence of passing/width and tempo is obvious. PAGEY124 played a wide (20) width throughout his tactics, this will stretch the team out to much, but there is a point to be made for wider formations as narrow (3-4) away formations will give up the flanks, giving FBs higher CD can nullify this, but i will go with you on the pass/width/tempo sliders. Your settings on CD,marking,tackling,forwruns,timewaste,crossing,swapping,teamtalks are really helping. As you have stated yourself in Variations i would go for a higher CD for FBs putting pressure on the wings.

I am missing (or have misread) the Team Mentality settings, am i right to say that it links with the Defline settings ?

So thanks where thanks is due, Cleon for setting me up with playing as a team (sheffield project), PAGEY124 for his wonderfull experiment, and WWfan for his perfection of this system and taking the amount of time for putting this into words (and finally giving me back my sleeping hours as i was pondering night after night to perfect my system).

[horseman_Plague]

Brilliant work man

just one question about swapping positions

i usually play a 433 with the wingers in the highest position and in an ideal situation all my forwards can play in any forward position and in that situation i want them all to rotate. Now for the question: if i set my FL to swap with the FC and the FC to swap with the FR and the FR to swap with the AMC and the AMC to swap with the FL... still following?? will this work??

i tested it and sometimes it does or it seems to but most of the time it doesnt

thx in advance

[wwfan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Millie:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

@ Millie: In 06 I always stayed away from extreme settings and it took me a long time to try them out in 07. My early experimentation with the home system was so good that I didn't really need to adjust it in any way. I did play with split mentality forwards for a little, but there wasn't much difference in performance. All in all I stand by my league results over four seasons. Having been predicted to come 17, 24, 24, 15, I posted a W60, D28, L4 record over the four completed seasons while playing/testing early variations of the RoO frameworks. Despite my early doubts the results won me over.

However, that is not to say you can't split from my frameworks and design an 'in-between' tactic. There is no reason to stick to my mentalities and a mentality framework running from 12-18, or 10-16, with matching theories should work just as well. It is very interesting to note how sound my defensive record has been at home over the four seasons. I have only conceded 50 goals in 92 home matches, despite the high mentalities. Slightly lower mentalites should reduce this further, and would work well if you have a striker who is guaranteed to bang in the goals. As I mentioned before, the extreme defensive framework is only really effective when you are outclassed man-for-man, so the extreme settings in that framework can be dangerous. However, I have no issues about the settings of the home framework. They are mathematical as you pointed out, but in keeping with my aim of offering up 'across the board' frameworks for tactical development, they have to be. That is not to say people shouldn't experiemnt with having one FC at 14 in the high mentality framework, or one at 15 on the away framework, even if it is just to see what happens.

Hope that helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent. I can totally see where you're coming from, and obviously I wansn't trying to suggest that these things should be set in stone. It's just, like I say, I do have quite an aversion to extremes on the sliders, simply because that's not really my way of doing anything. However, if I come unstuck, I at least have a few alternatives to try and experiment with.

Another question.

You talk at length at how you set up individual instructions and your team instructions apart from one crucial point - team mentality.

Now, when I first started using RoT and later RoO (or, like I say, somewhere in between) I always left the t. ment. slider slap bang in the middle. Do you do the same? I ask because since discovering that t. ment. overides (sorry, compliments) i. ment. in terms of the overall feel of the side, I've not really felt the need to overly change my individual mentalities once I've got the spacing right.

Do you use the team mentality slider, or are you more happy solely using individual instructions to attack and/or defend? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ignore team mentality as everybody is on individual mentalities, so it is slap bang in the middle. I'm still not convinced about the complimenting theory. As far as I can see, individual overrides team.

[wwfan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseman_Plague:

Brilliant work man

just one question about swapping positions

i usually play a 433 with the wingers in the highest position and in an ideal situation all my forwards can play in any forward position and in that situation i want them all to rotate. Now for the question: if i set my FL to swap with the FC and the FC to swap with the FR and the FR to swap with the AMC and the AMC to swap with the FL... still following?? will this work??

i tested it and sometimes it does or it seems to but most of the time it doesnt

thx in advance </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No idea, but it is an interesting method.

[pukkekind]

One more thing.

Your team passing equals the MC passing with the defs +2/+5 and atts -2/-5.

Would you say that in a home tactic it would be +2 and -2 as your team is higher up the pitch?

And in the away tactics it could be:

away +5/-5

attacking away +4/-4

hypo away +3/-3

tnx

[Cleon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Millie:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

@ Millie: In 06 I always stayed away from extreme settings and it took me a long time to try them out in 07. My early experimentation with the home system was so good that I didn't really need to adjust it in any way. I did play with split mentality forwards for a little, but there wasn't much difference in performance. All in all I stand by my league results over four seasons. Having been predicted to come 17, 24, 24, 15, I posted a W60, D28, L4 record over the four completed seasons while playing/testing early variations of the RoO frameworks. Despite my early doubts the results won me over.

However, that is not to say you can't split from my frameworks and design an 'in-between' tactic. There is no reason to stick to my mentalities and a mentality framework running from 12-18, or 10-16, with matching theories should work just as well. It is very interesting to note how sound my defensive record has been at home over the four seasons. I have only conceded 50 goals in 92 home matches, despite the high mentalities. Slightly lower mentalites should reduce this further, and would work well if you have a striker who is guaranteed to bang in the goals. As I mentioned before, the extreme defensive framework is only really effective when you are outclassed man-for-man, so the extreme settings in that framework can be dangerous. However, I have no issues about the settings of the home framework. They are mathematical as you pointed out, but in keeping with my aim of offering up 'across the board' frameworks for tactical development, they have to be. That is not to say people shouldn't experiemnt with having one FC at 14 in the high mentality framework, or one at 15 on the away framework, even if it is just to see what happens.

Hope that helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent. I can totally see where you're coming from, and obviously I wansn't trying to suggest that these things should be set in stone. It's just, like I say, I do have quite an aversion to extremes on the sliders, simply because that's not really my way of doing anything. However, if I come unstuck, I at least have a few alternatives to try and experiment with.

Another question.

You talk at length at how you set up individual instructions and your team instructions apart from one crucial point - team mentality.

Now, when I first started using RoT and later RoO (or, like I say, somewhere in between) I always left the t. ment. slider slap bang in the middle. Do you do the same? I ask because since discovering that t. ment. overides (sorry, compliments) i. ment. in terms of the overall feel of the side, I've not really felt the need to overly change my individual mentalities once I've got the spacing right.

Do you use the team mentality slider, or are you more happy solely using individual instructions to attack and/or defend? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ignore team mentality as everybody is on individual mentalities, so it is slap bang in the middle. I'm still not convinced about the complimenting theory. As far as I can see, individual overrides team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Individually it does override team slightly, however they still work in tandom and both the options do 2 different things if you read the manual. Team one instructs the players how to play, the individual one is a positional and agression tool.

[wwfan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pukkekind:

One more thing.

Your team passing equals the MC passing with the defs +2/+5 and atts -2/-5.

Would you say that in a home tactic it would be +2 and -2 as your team is higher up the pitch?

And in the away tactics it could be:

away +5/-5

attacking away +4/-4

hypo away +3/-3

tnx </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems a good enough theory. If you could test it and post back with some conclusions I would be more than grateful.

[SGartz]

wean, I seem to have trouble bossing possession of a game and also pass percentage. This is happening even though I am winning games, but I am finding I have trouble with possession even against lesser teams.

Do you find your teams boss possession? If so can you advise how I can adjust me tactics?

At the moment I have a short passing game with a slow tempo (playing with Leeds). Width is to clicks passed middle if that helps.

[Stephanie McMahon's Secret Lover]

Indeed a quality post!

My only gripe is with the game itself. As a real-life manager I cannot turn around to my players on a Saturday afternoon and tell each player to have a mentallity based on 1 to 20. It's just silly. I'm not a big fan of the sliders.

Now the rare, mixed, often type sliders are much better.

95% of what you have come up with has a lot of relevance with real-life footy. However there is no way on a Saturday afternoon I am telling my fullbacks (no matter how good) to hold up the ball. Thats asking for trouble!

[FourThreeThree]

I'll give you guys something to think about. For me the answer to this is the match engine, playing anything behind the oppostion defenders.

I'll add that Ars had a penalty given. Sorry if this post is untidy.

[FourThreeThree]

And the result. Ars has a dubious penalty given. FA went silent.

[pukkekind]

returning on the passing:

the +2/-2 option gave better stats in posession and passing ratings in any tactic than the +5/-5 , which was to be expected. As the tactical framework does not alter, the relative space between players is approx the same in any tactic, home or away. Passing, or better relative passing, can be the same in any tactic.

Better results could be found in shifting the MC/team passing. My take on it is that MC/team passing is relevant to the tactic. Shorter/Slower at home and slightly faster (mixed/normal) for away with alterations for the amount of defending. This would give (Def/Mid/Att):

Home: mixed/short/short

Hypo: mixed/mixed/short

AttA: mixed/mixed/mixed

Away: direct/mixed/mixed

Not concluded all testing but it seems obvious for my team (and should be altered for better/worse teams).

The home tactic seems to be a killer, the aways are a lot of fun as you (i) change back and forth in tactics on away games.

[crazy gra]

Brilliant thread, wwfan

I shall look forward to implementing these later.

[kevtrev]

brilliant post.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Millie:

You talk at length at how you set up individual instructions and your team instructions apart from one crucial point - team mentality.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this for me gets to the heart of the matter. the difference between

team ment 7, ind ment 4-10

team ment 10, ind ment 1-7

is the difference between solid and exceptional. why? have you found the major flaw in the 07 game engine? your set-up (the second) goes against the manual and yet is undoubtably better...

thanks for bothering, and being smart enough to have figured it all out. the fm world salutes you.

[kevtrev]

sorry for the double post, but what i said was unclear.

what i meant to say is:

leaving team ment on 10, as ww does (and hence why he doesn't mention it in his theories) achieves greater success than the arguably more logical positioning of the team mentality slider at midpoint of the individual mentality range.

any ideas why?

[Millie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kevtrev:

sorry for the double post, but what i said was unclear.

what i meant to say is:

leaving team ment on 10, as ww does (and hence why he doesn't mention it in his theories) achieves greater success than the arguably more logical positioning of the team mentality slider at midpoint of the individual mentality range.

any ideas why? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because based on his mentality settings the teams would over-emphasise their mentality: that is to day, the home tactic with 16-18 team mentality would run around like a blue-arsed fly trying to get the ball in the net, leaving gaping holes for the opposition to exploit. On the away tactic (team mentality around 3 or 4) the team would never try and leave their own half.

In my game my mentalities are more central, so I need to artificially get my team forward or keep them tight by using the team mentality slider. wwfan's method does it the exact opposite - a more central team mentality forced to attack or defend by individual mentalities.

The question is, really, what are the physical and stylisitc differences between these two approaches - and is one more desirable than the other?

[aston_martin]

wwfan, i have not been on FM in 2 weeks

but after reading this thread I will certainly go back on tonight,

I think its great that you take the time to go into this amount of detail, about your own, and other peoples theories.

as i said i will start testing tonight(sure it will go well!) i will then give feedback on here and in my own thread about my 4-2-3-1 development(will give you a mention for your work in there)

just 1 last thing to say KUTGW

cheers, aston

[kevtrev]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Millie:

In my game my mentalities are more central, so I need to artificially get my team forward or keep them tight by using the team mentality slider. wwfan's method does it the exact opposite - a more central team mentality forced to attack or defend by individual mentalities.

The question is, really, what are the physical and stylisitc differences between these two approaches - and is one more desirable than the other? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a well phrased response. my personal experience is that the shift from your method (which is what i used, mainly because it compliments the advice in the manual) to dub-dub's has yeilded better results. perhaps more testing is in order, or maybe both systems work and as you say it is now only comes down to our analyses of the stylistic variations as we pursue a particular brand of winning football.

[bacardi]

god knows how long it took to read this thread,i can only judge it on the fact i've had two cups of tea....which normally take me a while to drink

great thread and really interesting to read,it certainly resonated with some of the games i've played and watched,i'll probably have to read it again though to be able to implement some of your theories.

[SGartz]

Right, it's took me all day but I have come up with two tactics (home & away) based on these ideas.

I hope this is ok with wwfan, if not I can delete them. I've tested these tactics with Leeds Utd and I am getting some really positive results so feel free to test them with your chosen teams! Good luck.

Home

Away

All credit goes to wwfan & the creator of Minimal Fuss (and me for spending all day testing/tweaking!)

[gunnerfan]

Nicely done, wwfan. I have set up a whole new section in my Tactics binder for it.

[bacardi]

wwfan i have a question concerning passing style and tempo,would i be better to stick to the passing style that best suits the quality of my side or should i change the passing to counter my opponents style as set out in the scout report,which is the better way to go..in your opinion.

[kimjjj]

So basically if I want to play a short passing style of 5, I should put width at 5 and tempo at 5 as well ?

[Gabi80]

wwfan

where i can find translate your text in polish?

[aston_martin]

just played my 1st game using your set up,1st game of season also(slight variation af attacking way)

i am Villa(league champions for 2 seasons running, start of 4th season now)

I played blackburn; the result: 0-1 to me

they absolutely killed me lol, but the important thing was that we won.

Positiives:

tight marking for CM's; this stopped blackburns CM's having a good impact on play thus resulting in the ball constantly being rushed out wide.

tight marking& higher mentality for CB's; becuase of the tight marking and higher mentality the opposition strikers were caught offside a lot and my CB's made a lot of interceptions. i lowered CB mentality at H/T and my possesion immediatly dropped.

closing down for forward(s) and wingers; this pressured the opposition to play the ball out wide, and although they had a lot of possesion and put quite a few balls in the box, it didn't worry me becuase i have CB's with 19 & 20 heading and 20 & 17 jumping.

CM's on team passing; i noticed that like this i was able to transition smoothly from defence to attack, and although they had more possesion, there CM's hardly got a touch

defensive line averaging; this made the defence solid and shut blackburn out

CM closing down averaging: made sure opposition CM's were never influential.

negativesonly 2)

matching width to passing; i like to play short passing and a slow tempo but having the width on narrow let balckburn get a lot of crosses in and made my play unentertaining(may push width up 1 or 2 notches so wingers can still get involved and to help prevent crosses.

putting wingers on no more than mixed crossing, RWB; seemed to make my wingers pass when on the by-line, and stopped my wingers from taking people on.

overall i am very impressed with this 1st game, mainly becuase the defence was solid.

will report back after more testing and tweaks

kutgw

aston

[aston_martin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">negativesonly 2) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

than was ment to be negatives: (only 2)

[van_zanten]

Very interesting read. Lots of points worth bearing in mind.

Good work wwfan.

[crazy gra]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kimjjj:

So basically if I want to play a short passing style of 5, I should put width at 5 and tempo at 5 as well ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes. that means the central midfielder's passing should be 5. the wingers should have slightly less passing and the defenders should have slightly more direct passing.

for example, i wanted a tempo of 6. so i set my MCd to a passing setting of 6. this is what i have for my other players:

GK - 11

DCs - 11

DR/L - 9

MCa - 5

MR/L - 5

FCd - 5

FCa - 4

I think wwfan has his MCs on the same setting, but I like to have them slightly different as one will usually be further back and the other further forward.

Then you also have width of 6 to compliment the passing. I stated in the previous TT+F thread that these three should be linked, but I imagine wwfan was already on to this.

[fg]

wwfan

so you played with low closing down to both MCs, what is your creative f. for MCs? And at least why d-line should be the same as MCs closing down? sorry for english

[errol]

Another excellent post from a quality contributor.I can't express my gratitude to players like 'wwfan',who brings the game alive for others and give us all another reason to dust off FM and get managing again.I really do hope ,that one day, SI will reward you in a significant way for your service to the CM\FM community.Keep the good work up!!!!