The Art of Possession Football

[JimmyGuitarist]

Hard to say anything without whole setup but I see something there. For first picture, I generally use a F9 role without using any real runner like you. I don't know it is true or not. But I thought F9 tent to act real nine because he thinks there is nobody to leading box. So especially with creativity, he can take control himself. It is just an idea I did not try yet. But I guess it can be happen because of that. You will be welcome to correct me. For second picture, you use a playmaker in very fluid shape. He has full creativity. And I remember Saul has triess killer balls often PPM. He saw the run and play with it. It does not sure he is in offside or not.

I've tried essentially every combination. From Higher Structured, right through to Very Fluid - Fluid & Very Fluid have proved the best ones from a possession point of view. I can force us to have ridiculous possession stats through thorough searching of every mentality, player roles, formations & philosophies or whatever you want to call it. But none have proved to be the sort of possession/position game I want. It just looks messy & I bet there's lots of others who think so as well.

The main issues are not enough players are ready to block off counterattacks when play breaks down in the final third - And way to many throughballs out to wide players and even central attackers making runs forward, and it generally always results in a stoppage in play because they're always offside. Any time they run behind the opponents defence, players seem to just hoof it to them willy-nilly.

[mikcheck]

I'd also like to know what Cleon said about it. Doesn't he has like to beat offside trap or gets forward whenever possible PPM?

[Lew]

Just finished my 2nd season. Roughly 50:50 played on 16.1.1 and 16.2.0

League

Europe

Can't honestly say 16.2.0 has had any noticeable change on my tactic. I've specifically been trying to pick out any changes to how my DMC plays after the update, but nothing glaringly obvious.

I would be really interested in taking a look at your tactic if possible, Ben - I haven't been able to get anywhere near those figures!

[Rui]

First off I'd like to say a big thank you for a terrific guide and discussion. Top job!

I'm currently in preseason during my first FM16 save (N.Forest) and have been observing friendlies to understand the good/bad of my core tactic:

----------F9(s)----------

IF(s)----------------W(s)

-----RMP(s)-B2B(s)-----

---------DM(s)----------

FB(s)DC(d)DC(d)FB(a)

---------GK(d)----------

Standard, Flexible / TI's: Retain possession, roam from position, play out of defence / PI's: GK to distribute short

I've generally seen been pleased with what I've seen despite some quirks here and there but understand it's very early days. I'm still experimenting with optimum roles for my CM's and also deliberating over my IF role.

However I'm most concerned about the W(s). He's arguably the most exciting player I have and is brilliant at jinking runs past defenders but hardly crosses the ball despite great opportunities to do so. He often gets some space from the opposing FB, thinks a bit (could be a 3D animation flaw?) and often passes it to the my supporting FB who then typically passes in field or attacks the box himself. I've tried setting his passing directness higher but this has little impact (although only tried this in one game). Sure, by not crossing we keep possession but it's equally frustrating to see an opportunity for a whipped cross go to waste when I have players in/or rushing into the box. Are there any solutions to this? I was perhaps thinking of increasing my mentality to control which may promote more crosses?? I dunno. Any help would be appreciated.

Many thanks,

Rui.

[rvd313]

Anyone else gone strikerless?

Having a lot of fun with this setup. Although the shape is flexible it's actually very fluid up front, with constant movement and positional interchanges. Been dominant possession wise in all my games so far, but I am playing against mostly inferior opposition.

The TQ works really well - due to his lack of closing down and attack mentality, he stays relatively high up the pitch when defending and offers a consistent out-ball.

We're pretty much deadly on the counter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mulRaLdLS8

[Cleon]

I don't use anything which should make my CM's bomb into the penalty box and my F9 to play like a target man

Well you do. You use very fluid and control, which is a very aggressive mentality. It allows players to be more expressive and pushes them further up the pitch. It's a slightly lesser of attacking than attacking is but it's still a very attacking mentality to use. It uses a high mentality structure.

Pardo's position isn't dreadful but after making his cross to the badly positioned F9, he'll run forward like I've been saying. There's just no sense of calm or control in the play.

Control is a risk taking mentality structure though. That's what you expect when you use an aggressive mentality structure as the base. It seems like you've used control yet really, it seems you don't actually want this. So then the question is why did you use control strategy to begin with?

Your MC is going forward because that's what is role is. Add to this you use control strategy then you're instructing him to get forward more than usual, especially when you add in very fluid team shape too. If that's now what you want then you use the wrong team shape and the wrong mentality. You seem confused and instruct your players to play differently to what you actually want.

And when you use playmaker roles, this is an example of the problem which happens -

I just have no idea what's going on there, but it shows the dreadful positioning I'm talking about. To add to it, one of my playmakers hoofs it forward to my F9 making runs inbehind the defence, which are always offside anyway.

This screenshot isn't valid to back up the point you're trying to illustrate because you've forgot one vital point here. Saul has the tries killer balls often PPM............

I'm now resorting to obscure shapes for better possession structures - at the expense of our shape without the ball though. It still doesn't stop the constant long diagonals to wingers though & constant stoppages in play because they're always offside.

This is because you aren't really set up for a possession game yourself despite thinking you are. This is very clear because you decided to go really wide in your play, which doesn't help with a possession game.

All your issues are your own fault as the TI's you use don't match the style you're trying to create.

[Cleon]

First off I'd like to say a big thank you for a terrific guide and discussion. Top job!

I'm currently in preseason during my first FM16 save (N.Forest) and have been observing friendlies to understand the good/bad of my core tactic:

----------F9(s)----------

IF(s)----------------W(s)

-----RMP(s)-B2B(s)-----

---------DM(s)----------

FB(s)DC(d)DC(d)FB(a)

---------GK(d)----------

Standard, Flexible / TI's: Retain possession, roam from position, play out of defence / PI's: GK to distribute short

I've generally seen been pleased with what I've seen despite some quirks here and there but understand it's very early days. I'm still experimenting with optimum roles for my CM's and also deliberating over my IF role.

However I'm most concerned about the W(s). He's arguably the most exciting player I have and is brilliant at jinking runs past defenders but hardly crosses the ball despite great opportunities to do so. He often gets some space from the opposing FB, thinks a bit (could be a 3D animation flaw?) and often passes it to the my supporting FB who then typically passes in field or attacks the box himself. I've tried setting his passing directness higher but this has little impact (although only tried this in one game). Sure, by not crossing we keep possession but it's equally frustrating to see an opportunity for a whipped cross go to waste when I have players in/or rushing into the box. Are there any solutions to this? I was perhaps thinking of increasing my mentality to control which may promote more crosses?? I dunno. Any help would be appreciated.

Many thanks,

Rui.

Does he really have great crossing opportunities? I can't see who the winger would initially cross the ball to? You have no-one in the box to aim for initially. It seems like you want to focus on a crossing game yet don't use any roles that would really take advantage of that or compliment that style. You have a striker who drops deep and generally moves backwards rather than front wards. Then you have a inside forward who starts deep and a box to box midfielder who starts even deeper.

[Sleepydude]

Does he really have great crossing opportunities? I can't see who the winger would initially cross the ball to? You have no-one in the box to aim for initially. It seems like you want to focus on a crossing game yet don't use any roles that would really take advantage of that or compliment that style. You have a striker who drops deep and generally moves backwards rather than front wards. Then you have a inside forward who starts deep and a box to box midfielder who starts even deeper.

Yeah you need someone getting into the box to get on the end of those crosses.

I have almost the same setup except my striker is a CF(s) and my left IF has an attacking duty, making him act like a second striker at times. I score plenty of goals from crosses from the right winger.

This is my setup:

Standard mentality, Structured team shape, TIs: Close down more, Retain possession, Play out of defense.

When playing at home or big favorites away I usually change to Control.

[jorgvandervloed]

I'm trying to create a system without playmaker roles but the roaming playmaker role is great for in my setup so I was wondering if it's possible to create this role by using a central midfielder on support with the PI's roaming and dribble more active. Or do you need more PI's? Or is it simply not possible to recreate this role?

Don't like how other players try to pass the ball to the playmaker(s) while there might be a better option. Therefore my question.

Thanks in advance

[Cleon]

I'm trying to create a system without playmaker roles but the roaming playmaker role is great for in my setup so I was wondering if it's possible to create this role by using a central midfielder on support with the PI's roaming and dribble more active. Or do you need more PI's? Or is it simply not possible to recreate this role?

Don't like how other players try to pass the ball to the playmaker(s) while there might be a better option. Therefore my question.

Thanks in advance

Just tailor one of the none playmaking options, to get it as close as possible to the behaviour you expect. It should be easy enough to do if you use the CM role as I think that is the most customisable option you have in central midfield.

[jorgvandervloed]

Just tailor one of the none playmaking options, to get it as close as possible to the behaviour you expect. It should be easy enough to do if you use the CM role as I think that is the most customisable option you have in central midfield.

Thanks for the quick reply Cleon. I figured it would be possible to create something that acts very similar on the field. Do you agree with the PI's or do you think you need different ones?

[pedromanuelpinto]

Hi there,

I have implemented a succefull possession game in the Championship with Leeds, using a fluid mentality.

I have don’t like structured way to play, because I prefer generic roles above specific roles and that the players do what they want to do. This implies that the players must have good mental skills (at least in my mind).

I would implement the Roam of Position when my players are better them now.

Any suggestion/change to improve the tactic?

Thanks

[Rui]

Does he really have great crossing opportunities? I can't see who the winger would initially cross the ball to? You have no-one in the box to aim for initially. It seems like you want to focus on a crossing game yet don't use any roles that would really take advantage of that or compliment that style. You have a striker who drops deep and generally moves backwards rather than front wards. Then you have a inside forward who starts deep and a box to box midfielder who starts even deeper.

Yeah you need someone getting into the box to get on the end of those crosses.

I have almost the same setup except my striker is a CF(s) and my left IF has an attacking duty, making him act like a second striker at times. I score plenty of goals from crosses from the right winger.

This is my setup:

<...>

Standard mentality, Structured team shape, TIs: Close down more, Retain possession, Play out of defense.

When playing at home or big favorites away I usually change to Control.

I do see quite a few opportunities for him to cross, although I suppose this is more with players rushing into the box rather than actually in the 6 yard box waiting. I should say that I've had my RPM(s) set on CM(a) for a few games and I certainly see him pushing forward, but it impacts his overall productivity so have settled for the RPM role.

I initially had my IF on attack duty but he was hardly getting involved in moves. I'll try tinkering him again with a view to using him as a "second striker", along with changing my ST role as you've suggested.

Thanks guys.

[MANUMAD]

Cleon,

You know Ive been studying this for some time (like all your stuff).

Any particular reason you chose a dm? Cos in a possession set up with the formation you chose I find its better to have a dlp on def (which come to think of it is not much different from dm on support ) to link with the other playmaker (you use a RP whereas I usually use an AP)

[Cleon]

Cleon,

You know Ive been studying this for some time (like all your stuff).

Any particular reason you chose a dm? Cos in a possession set up with the formation you chose I find its better to have a dlp on def (which come to think of it is not much different from dm on support ) to link with the other playmaker (you use a RP whereas I usually use an AP)

I wanted the DMC to be involved but for it not to be forced play, i.e like a playmaking role would have done. I wanted the RPM to be the main creative driving force who brings the ball forward in the centre. What this means is at times if the middle is crowded the ball will be brought out from the back via the fullbacks, something which would hardly happen if there is a playmaker in the DMC spot influencing how the ball is distributed. I didn't want to limit my options.

[JimmyGuitarist]

Well you do. You use very fluid and control, which is a very aggressive mentality. It allows players to be more expressive and pushes them further up the pitch. It's a slightly lesser of attacking than attacking is but it's still a very attacking mentality to use. It uses a high mentality structure.

Control is a risk taking mentality structure though. That's what you expect when you use an aggressive mentality structure as the base. It seems like you've used control yet really, it seems you don't actually want this. So then the question is why did you use control strategy to begin with?

Your MC is going forward because that's what is role is. Add to this you use control strategy then you're instructing him to get forward more than usual, especially when you add in very fluid team shape too. If that's now what you want then you use the wrong team shape and the wrong mentality. You seem confused and instruct your players to play differently to what you actually want.

This screenshot isn't valid to back up the point you're trying to illustrate because you've forgot one vital point here. Saul has the tries killer balls often PPM............

This is because you aren't really set up for a possession game yourself despite thinking you are. This is very clear because you decided to go really wide in your play, which doesn't help with a possession game.

All your issues are your own fault as the TI's you use don't match the style you're trying to create.

On FM 15, Control mentality and Very Fluid played nothing like the way it does now. I often used Attacking with Very Fluid on FM 15 and still got closer to what I wanted.

I have tried almost every combination. I don't see much, if any, improvement using lower mentalities either, and it makes pressing worse as well. I disagree with your point about achieving possession football as well - I could show plenty of stills of the width used by teams in real life who dominate possession.

Anyway, If we're talking purely about possession then I've achieved possession football and average 67% of the stuff. I just dislike the way it's looking.

[rninejr]

On FM 15, Control mentality and Very Fluid played nothing like the way it does now. I often used Attacking with Very Fluid on FM 15 and still got closer to what I wanted.

I have tried almost every combination. I don't see much, if any, improvement using lower mentalities either, and it makes pressing worse as well. I disagree with your point about achieving possession football as well - I could show plenty of stills of the width used by teams in real life who dominate possession.

Anyway, If we're talking purely about possession then I've achieved possession football and average 67% of the stuff. I just dislike the way it's looking.

remember that now in all team shape, duty gives a more noticeable different mentality setting for each player in a similiar way with Flexible team shape does

back then, in a very fluid team shape, an attacking duty n support duty have slightly different mentality settings, lets say in a standart mentality it is 12 for attacking duty n 10 for support duty. Now the difference is more distant n clear. IMHO

that way, a F9 in a structured team shape still acts like a F9, unlike FM15

[mikcheck]

rninejr how would a F9 act like a real F9 in FM15? With a more fluid shape?

[cyoung17]

rninejr how would a F9 act like a real F9 in FM15? With a more fluid shape?

With a more structred shape

[mikcheck]

"that way, a F9 in a structured team shape still acts like a F9, unlike FM15"

That's why i asked if he behaves like a true F9 in a more fluid shape.

[rninejr]

rninejr how would a F9 act like a real F9 in FM15? With a more fluid shape?

the F9 back then wasnt dropping deep enough unlike the current F9, even with more fluid team shapes. it's all on the past tho

---

interesting thing is, when I use 4-2-3-1 wide, n deployed a F9 in front of an AMC, the F9 didnt drop as deep as usual (or as often as usual) compared when there is no AMC behind him. it does make sense IMO. they wont take each other space. But idk with lower league. perhaps mental attribute does affect this behaviour

[roggiotis]

...and why did you put a F9 ,since you have someone in AMC?

[rninejr]

for the sake of curiosity

after stable patch released. i went to FMT to play with all team shapes n mentalities, also experimenting with roles to get the feel of this new ME

[JimmyGuitarist]

Another example of poor positioning, especially from both of my 2 CM-S running into the penalty box. This was no counter either, we built play but as soon as one of my CM's passes wide it's like they all run forward. This is from a new Valencia save where I'm actually using some of your advice but I've seen no improvement. I'm trying Defensive, Counter & Standard mentalities as per your advice -

And to add to my annoyance, my DM even joined in as play progressed -

The team aren't completely fluid with the tactic yet so I'll stick with it. But it's no change from what I've been seeing in my other save.

[Paul Scholes]

You can give your CM-S "Hold position" PI and see what happens.

[rninejr]

@jimmy

Have u tried using other team shape? if not, then try.

Im no longer using any team shape above flexible (no more fluid or very fluid)

the reason is, F9 is dropping deeper n more often with more structured team shape. No kidding, i've tested myself. seems nonsense but actually there is an explanation for this

with fluid/very fluid teamshape your team will be close in term of depth, means the distance between the furthest player up front n the deepest outfield player behind is quite close by default. add High Defensive line n it will be closer. so, if the distance between your STC n his teammates behind him is already close, what's the point to drop deeper? it will cause your STC, the F9 to oftenly take the same space with the midfield strata. Both MCs are generalist role so they wont stay deeper like playmaker roles but instead, moving around because they have high freedom (worse if they are instructed to roam) n potentially looking for space ahead since as generalist role without defend duty, they have the right to go forward unlike most playmaker roles.

these are the rough illustrations about the difference of depth between very fluid and Highly Structured. the left one is Very Fluid team shape

u can see clearly how small the space behind the F9 in a very fluid team shape compared to the one in a highly structured team shape. your STC aware of this fact, n since he has a greater freedom he choose to stay up front to give his teammates behind some space to work with. both of your MCs acts like runners instead of passers in response to your STC's static movement ahead of them. Perhaps you're using exploit the middle TI as well? in my opinion this is the main cause of why your STC isnt dropping deep more often. but it's not like that with a highly structured team shape. there is a much bigger space to share with numerous players, n because players have small freedom they're being forced to obey the roles given to each of them, along with TIs/PIs, this way u can force them to fill a tight space with number of players like this:

in this SS im using a highly structured team shape. Gaston as F9 is dropping deep almost as deep as Clasie the only playmaker here. Aside of both DCs and DMC who are on Defend duty, all of them are on Support duty except Cedrid (DR) who is on attack duty

even if you werent asking for both of your MCs to roam, they will still moving out from their position since they have greater freedom (there is a reason why roam from position TI cannot be used together with be more discipline TI) n because they're both in a generalist role, going forward is also an available option for them. it would be different if u ordered them to hold position

however, in a very fluid team shape, if you give your MC with Defend duty or playmaker roles for both of them, your STC may drop deep to fill the space behind him since both MC are unlikely to go forward. but this means you cant hope for any forward run from central area

[jujigatame]

Cleon, just a few questions regarding this tactic, as I'm trying to adapt it to my own squad and also understand it a bit better. I have a very good squad and am about to start a new season after underacheving in the last one, so I'm really trying to "get it right" this time.

1) With a "highly structured" shape I'd expect the ST and AMs to stay high and maybe get isolated which would reduce possession. Is this ameliorated by the "roam from position" instruction? Or is just giving them support duties enough to get them to track back? Also with "highly structured" and "retain possession" I'd think crosses and killer balls would come very seldomly, yet it looks like you're creating quite a few chances.

2) Is there a reason for the lack of attack duties? Especially on the left flank it looks like you won't have much of a goal threat or crossing threat from there.

3) You're using retain possession AND lower tempo. What are the practical effects of having such a low tempo? And is it still appropriate for a squad with a lot of top attacking talent?

4) You don't get any problems with your defensive shape with closing down set so high? I get nervous doing that because I think it makes my CBs both act too much like stoppers. Is that ameliorated by the "highly structured" shape?

[Cleon]

1) With a "highly structured" shape I'd expect the ST and AMs to stay high and maybe get isolated which would reduce possession. Is this ameliorated by the "roam from position" instruction? Or is just giving them support duties enough to get them to track back? Also with "highly structured" and "retain possession" I'd think crosses and killer balls would come very seldomly, yet it looks like you're creating quite a few chances.

Why do you think they'd come very seldomly?

Strikers aren't really going to chase back in all honesty. Playing them on support will get them deeper but you're not going to see them tracking deep in your own half. Also why do you expect the ST and AM's to get isolated? Are you talking about the shape I used or your own here? In mine they're not isolated as they compliment the player roles behind them. I'm asking these questions as I want to see how you're viewing the game and think things work.

2) Is there a reason for the lack of attack duties? Especially on the left flank it looks like you won't have much of a goal threat or crossing threat from there.

Again why do you think that? It seems you've fell in the trap that so many people fall into and think that a support duty can't be attacking or provides very little going forward, which isn't the case. The IF on the left still supports attacks, he still makes forward runs, he still goes into the box etc. It's just he does it from deeper positions because he's on support.

3) You're using retain possession AND lower tempo. What are the practical effects of having such a low tempo? And is it still appropriate for a squad with a lot of top attacking talent?

The squad is secondary for me. I base all my tactical instructions and player roles on what the style of football I'm creating and not on if the squad is capable or not. It's what benefits the team as a whole what's important. Base these decisions on what you are trying to create, nothing else. It's easier then. Because if you focus on the your style then adapt it to fit certain players, then you've lost the style you was intending to create. Then it's a domino effect throughout the tactic. So I simplify things.

4) You don't get any problems with your defensive shape with closing down set so high? I get nervous doing that because I think it makes my CBs both act too much like stoppers. Is that ameliorated by the "highly structured" shape?

I do have problems, I've mentioned them throughout the thread, especially when my DMC on support gets caught out of position. It comes down to risk vs reward and for me the risk of playing this way is worth the reward. Every shape, system and team has problems. It's just how you cover them up and make them work for you what's important. If you think real life football for a second, you'll see that all the successful teams are the ones who take risks and do different things that aren't classed as the normal. I apply this to FM. Sure it's a weakness but the end product yields results. I don't worry about what doesn't work or that this might be dangerous. Instead I focus on all the things that do work and make sure I'm utilising them to the best of my abilities. The rest falls into place.

[bababooey]

Cleon,

Would it be wise to think that perhaps an "art of attacking football" would include quite a few attacking duties? Sort of like the reverse of this type of tactic?

Do you have any plans to do something like that? Perhaps going based off of Sir Alex's insane treble winning side in 1999? His teams almost exclusively played with a very high-risk mentality, and it's clearly something that would be interesting to see in FM.

[Cleon]

Cleon,

Would it be wise to think that perhaps an "art of attacking football" would include quite a few attacking duties? Sort of like the reverse of this type of tactic?

Do you have any plans to do something like that? Perhaps going based off of Sir Alex's insane treble winning side in 1999? His teams almost exclusively played with a very high-risk mentality, and it's clearly something that would be interesting to see in FM.

I have no plans. But if I did it wouldn't require lots of attack duties because that's not the key to attacking football. Attacking football is all about space and movement. To be really successful you need movement from high up the pitch dropping deep and deep players pushing up. So I still wouldn't over do the attacking mentalities. It's all about balance. I still don't think Fergie from 1999 used that many attacking duties though. They might have played a fast tempo and been high risk but that was how they used the ball rather than the areas of the pitch players took up.

The latest thing I'm writing is the Arsenal Invincible stuff which is on my blog that I posted today. It wont be posted on here though until I've released more parts.

[jujigatame]

Why do you think they'd come very seldomly?

Strikers aren't really going to chase back in all honesty. Playing them on support will get them deeper but you're not going to see them tracking deep in your own half. Also why do you expect the ST and AM's to get isolated? Are you talking about the shape I used or your own here? In mine they're not isolated as they compliment the player roles behind them. I'm asking these questions as I want to see how you're viewing the game and think things work.

Again why do you think that? It seems you've fell in the trap that so many people fall into and think that a support duty can't be attacking or provides very little going forward, which isn't the case. The IF on the left still supports attacks, he still makes forward runs, he still goes into the box etc. It's just he does it from deeper positions because he's on support.

The squad is secondary for me. I base all my tactical instructions and player roles on what the style of football I'm creating and not on if the squad is capable or not. It's what benefits the team as a whole what's important. Base these decisions on what you are trying to create, nothing else. It's easier then. Because if you focus on the your style then adapt it to fit certain players, then you've lost the style you was intending to create. Then it's a domino effect throughout the tactic. So I simplify things.

I do have problems, I've mentioned them throughout the thread, especially when my DMC on support gets caught out of position. It comes down to risk vs reward and for me the risk of playing this way is worth the reward. Every shape, system and team has problems. It's just how you cover them up and make them work for you what's important. If you think real life football for a second, you'll see that all the successful teams are the ones who take risks and do different things that aren't classed as the normal. I apply this to FM. Sure it's a weakness but the end product yields results. I don't worry about what doesn't work or that this might be dangerous. Instead I focus on all the things that do work and make sure I'm utilising them to the best of my abilities. The rest falls into place.

I say seldomly because I noticed that when I played with "retain possession" there was a major reluctance to play killer balls and crosses, those "assist" type of passes. For instance, I had very high cross completion percentage but low total crosses completed, despite having some really good attacking fullbacks. Because of this I'd rarely score more than 1 goal in a match and I'd drop points due to 0-0 draws. I'd think a highly structured setup would exacerbate that since it lowers creative freedom. About the isolated forwards, I just thought that since a highly structured setup would have them starting higher up and require longer passing to link them to the midfield.

About the left flank, I just say that because I have thought an IF/S will basically stay more towards the edge of the box and act more as a creator than a scorer. From my (amateurish) understanding of the ME, your tactic looks like it has a lot of pass-first creators but nobody to get on the end of balls in the box.

I'm still curious about the tempo. Does it really need to be that low for players to assess all their options? Do you find this increases instances of players being caught in possession? Where we differ in general is that I don't have a particular style I want to create. I just want to get good players, put them in a setup that lets them work together reasonably well (at least in terms of sensible role/duty pairings and combinations) and watch them do their thing. Do you think that dooms me from the start?

While I'm sure you lost games here and allowed goals here and there, the fact that you won the league with Swansea means those problems are manageable, to say the least.

[rvd313]

So, I ditched the strikerless system due to a lack of pressing from goal kicks. I've now ended up with the following:

The MCL role has been a bit of a puzzle so far. Started out with a B2B, but he ended up playing too close to my DLP, and on the rare occasion he did venture forward he pushed right up next to my striker, leaving a huge gap in midfield. Tried a CM(s) after that, but he ended up playing even deeper than the B2B, with no hint of ever getting forward. So I've arrived at the CM(a) and early signs are pretty good. He doesn't bomb forward aimlessly like I feared and actually tends to time his runs pretty well, pushing forward in line with either my F9 or IF(s) when they come deep. With better runs from midfield, my F9 is starting to pull the strings up front, whereas before he was a little bit isolated at times from the midfield.

Right now my average possession rate is around 64%. At home I usually end with somewhere between 65-71%.

The next step is to increase my goals scored. Right now I'm winning most games 2-0 and 1-0, but I'd rather not just pass teams to death.

[bababooey]

I have no plans. But if I did it wouldn't require lots of attack duties because that's not the key to attacking football. Attacking football is all about space and movement. To be really successful you need movement from high up the pitch dropping deep and deep players pushing up. So I still wouldn't over do the attacking mentalities. It's all about balance. I still don't think Fergie from 1999 used that many attacking duties though. They might have played a fast tempo and been high risk but that was how they used the ball rather than the areas of the pitch players took up.

The latest thing I'm writing is the Arsenal Invincible stuff which is on my blog that I posted today. It wont be posted on here though until I've released more parts.

I'm planning out some attacking football right now with my Benfica side who've just won the UCL playing classic possession football. Going to be fun to see how it pans out.

My first thought was to use like, say, 5 attack duties. But your comments make a lot of sense because if we're already attacking as a baseline, why on earth would I need to tell so many players to be that much more attacking? I'm going to start with 3 attack duties and see how it looks, and then drop down to 2 or 1 if needed.

Cheers.

[jujigatame]

I have a feeling Cleon's highly structured shape and all-support/no-attack setup work hand-in-hand. If you go highly structured and use attack duties I'm presuming the attackers will stay extremely high and not link up well.

[TehJoehh]

Testing something out with my Manchester United save, so far the signs are good but I'm struggling for goals but i think that may have something to do with have no strikers fit.

On average my team has about 65%-70% when we play at home. When were away from home i have around 60%-64%. I'm very pleased with the ball possession but not enough CCC's.

After some more testing i will post some of my results and hopefully you lovely people may have some suggestions on how to increase my CCC's.

[Cleon]

I say seldomly because I noticed that when I played with "retain possession" there was a major reluctance to play killer balls and crosses, those "assist" type of passes. For instance, I had very high cross completion percentage but low total crosses completed, despite having some really good attacking fullbacks. Because of this I'd rarely score more than 1 goal in a match and I'd drop points due to 0-0 draws. I'd think a highly structured setup would exacerbate that since it lowers creative freedom. About the isolated forwards, I just thought that since a highly structured setup would have them starting higher up and require longer passing to link them to the midfield.

I think you're putting far too much emphasis and importance on the team shape compared to what it really is. I'm not saying it isn't important but I think you're over stating things and over thinking it a little here. You also seem to be talking about it in isolation and not considering the roles I use and the rest of my settings.

About the left flank, I just say that because I have thought an IF/S will basically stay more towards the edge of the box and act more as a creator than a scorer. From my (amateurish) understanding of the ME, your tactic looks like it has a lot of pass-first creators but nobody to get on the end of balls in the box.

The IF, F9, B2B, AP and RMP all play in and around the box. I have plenty of people in those positions. Again though, just because someone is on a support duty doesn't mean they won't get into the box or contribute in phases of play high up the pitch. All it means is they start from deeper areas.

I'm still curious about the tempo. Does it really need to be that low for players to assess all their options?

No. But it had to be for what I was creating, as it's the style I was going for.

Do you find this increases instances of players being caught in possession?

No because I have lots of movement and roaming. I highlighted this in the opening posts. That's the key to possession, movement. The roles I use all compliment each other and work together. You only get people caught in possession when your side has bad balance and a lack of passing options. Mine has plenty of different variants of passing options all throughout the pitch when someone has possession of the ball.

Where we differ in general is that I don't have a particular style I want to create. I just want to get good players, put them in a setup that lets them work together reasonably well (at least in terms of sensible role/duty pairings and combinations) and watch them do their thing. Do you think that dooms me from the start?

Well if you have no general idea at all how do you know what to change when something isn't working or how can you improve? If you have nothing to aim for or no style in mind then the changes you could make are too broad because you have nothing to compare against and say things like 'Oh the player should be doing this not that' etc. You need some sort of idea of what you want. Without that then I think it will be very rare that someone can have success especially in the short term. It might work if you have the best players in the world but imo starting with no vision means you're already fighting a losing battle.

While I'm sure you lost games here and allowed goals here and there, the fact that you won the league with Swansea means those problems are manageable, to say the least.

The key is to focus on what your side is doing not what the opposition does. Also don't panic if you have a bad game, it happens

I have a feeling Cleon's highly structured shape and all-support/no-attack setup work hand-in-hand. If you go highly structured and use attack duties I'm presuming the attackers will stay extremely high and not link up well.

Regardless of the team shape that would be an issue if the rest of the side wasn't set up properly. If you use attacking duties in the final third of the pitch then that means those players need the ball brought to them to stop them getting isolated because they aren't really that involved if high up the pitch. So whether you are highly structured or very fluid it would still be the same issue. It's the role and duties you use around those players that will make the difference and not the team shape. Team shape can't off set bad balance in the side.

[lewis999]

Cleon, just re-read all this again and i'm going to change what I usually try and do style wise with the team I manage. One question though and I know you say team shape isn't as important as people make out, it's more the balance of the roles and duties for the cohesion of the tactic but in what system would you use a very fluid team shape? Just asking because in this instance you used highly structured so the players followed your plan to a tee.

[Cleon]

Cleon, just re-read all this again and i'm going to change what I usually try and do style wise with the team I manage. One question though and I know you say team shape isn't as important as people make out, it's more the balance of the roles and duties for the cohesion of the tactic but in what system would you use a very fluid team shape? Just asking because in this instance you used highly structured so the players followed your plan to a tee.

It's not about 'what systems' you'd use it in, it's about what you're creating and want from the players. The system you use doesn't matter and isn't a factor. I think that's what people are getting confused about because their trying to apply it to shapes and systems when that's illogical. Because any system can be highly structured or very fluid.

[Conflictinbanno]

Cleon, could I ask, would you feel comfortable using this setup with any other team, as I noticed you picked Swansea who are already well known for playing in a possession oriented way. I just ask because of the players you may have available at a different club?

It's just I have an idea of how I want to make a team play, where I'm confident it would work for a team like Arsenal, yet I would love to get it working with West Ham but they don't have the best strikers available unless they are a target man, which doesn't suit the role I'd imagine would suit the style of play I have in mind.

Obviously I wouldn't expect the style to maybe work as well as it would with another team as they have superior players but you could still have the idea in place and slowly build towards it throughout the seasons with signings etc.?

[Cleon]

Cleon, could I ask, would you feel comfortable using this setup with any other team, as I noticed you picked Swansea who are already well known for playing in a possession oriented way. I just ask because of the players you may have available at a different club?

It's just I have an idea of how I want to make a team play, where I'm confident it would work for a team like Arsenal, yet I would love to get it working with West Ham but they don't have the best strikers available unless they are a target man, which doesn't suit the role I'd imagine would suit the style of play I have in mind.

Obviously I wouldn't expect the style to maybe work as well as it would with another team as they have superior players but you could still have the idea in place and slowly build towards it throughout the seasons with signings etc.?

Swansea might have been known for it in real life but in game they have a poor squad outside of Siggy, who I sold at the start along with Ki anyway. In terms of attributes the squad doesn't have the right attributes.

My approach doesn't change and whether I'm in Conference or Premiership I'd handle it the exact same way. It's just the more successful you become the more refined the tactic becomes.

[Conflictinbanno]

Swansea might have been known for it in real life but in game they have a poor squad outside of Siggy, who I sold at the start along with Ki anyway. In terms of attributes the squad doesn't have the right attributes.

My approach doesn't change and whether I'm in Conference or Premiership I'd handle it the exact same way. It's just the more successful you become the more refined the tactic becomes.

Thanks, that perfectly answers my question, never realised they were quite poor on FM. I will give my idea a go, it is possession based but I'd see it more of a form of 4231 so might take me a while to get right, I just imagine the satisfaction I'd have of having a team play the style I want to will make each win that bit more enjoyable!

[Cleon]

Thanks, that perfectly answers my question, never realised they were quite poor on FM. I will give my idea a go, it is possession based but I'd see it more of a form of 4231 so might take me a while to get right, I just imagine the satisfaction I'd have of having a team play the style I want to will make each win that bit more enjoyable!

Just remember that a 4231 is more about using possession rather than it being a possession based system. A 451/433 retains possession better but a 4231 uses that possession in a better way.

[Conflictinbanno]

Just remember that a 4231 is more about using possession rather than it being a possession based system. A 451/433 retains possession better but a 4231 uses that possession in a better way.

I will take that into consideration as that could make it tough to implement my idea, although I was struggling to get the idea right with the midfield as I looked at how I played Fifa as the platform where although the formation is 4231, I imagine it plays more like you said, as one DM sat back, while the other was more like a B2B cm, while the AMC in the way I play, was very likely to drop into a gap, it was just with the ball I liked him close to the striker, which could be acheived with an AP in the CM position I imagine. I will watch it closely to see how what makes the tactic work in my head! Thanks again.

[Peter G]

I'm assuming the best attributes are passing, vision, off the ball and then position attributes for each position. I.e Finishing for strikers.

[Cleon]

I'm assuming the best attributes are passing, vision, off the ball and then position attributes for each position. I.e Finishing for strikers.

While the attributes are obviously important, the roles used are more important because it's movement and available passing options what are the vital aspect. The attributes almost become secondary if you would.

[Bigpapa42]

While the attributes are obviously important, the roles used are more important because it's movement and available passing options what are the vital aspect. The attributes almost become secondary if you would.

This bears out with the success that wpmk has had with Koln, seen in his post at the top of this page. I actually started a game with Koln and haven't gone as far with it, but its entirely possible. Despite having rather poor Passing players by Bundesliga standards, I was able to get about 60% possession in a 1-1 draw away to Dortmund.

[Chris2509]

[video=youtube;5V6TYI8Y1ds]

Seeing some amazing football thanks to your ideas Cleon.

[Special_One]

[video=youtube;5V6TYI8Y1ds]

Seeing some amazing football thanks to your ideas Cleon.

What role is Giaccherini?! He's everywhere!

[Chris2509]

What role is Giaccherini?! He's everywhere!

Box to Box

[Jean0987654321]

I've tried every role in every mentality and fluidity and can never seem to gain any sort of control in games. The best I've made is a 3-3-4-0 with 3 DM's - 2 support CDM's with an Anchor-D in the middle. It makes for ugly build-up play from the back as the 2 support DM's always step into the defensive line but it looks better as play progresses into the opponents half. The main frustration I've come across is the constant throughballs to fullbacks - There seems to be no way of stopping it as well. I'm now trying a formation with no fullbacks as I've said but I still can't stop the incessant throughballs & switchplays out to wide players.

Cleon, I've tried your ideas as well and I'd really like a copy of your tactic if you've managed to stop these things I've been winging about.

Just make the tactic yourself. The roles, TIs and PIs are in the first post