Morale, Team Selection, Tactical or Manager of the Month Syndrome??

[Sussex Hammer]

As the title says. Had been playing really well and was second in the "least conceded list". Lost Winston Reid in the Swansea game and Cresswell a game later so the back four changed a bit but I didn't expect to fall to pieces like this. Suddenly from defending quite well and not conceding too many chances it was like a knife through butter when the opposition attacked. Leicester at home was embarrassing but worse was to come because I was 3-0 up against Southampton and lost 4-3. Spurs I was two down, got back to 2-2 and lost 5-3. It's as if the team had forgotten how to play.

So does morale have an effect in FMT or is it more likely to be injury based thus fielding slightly slower defenders? Whatever it is it was a pretty severe fall from grace!!!

[thesandman]

My perception is absolutely it plays it part - one I find impossible to change on the iPad version. You can be flying - and then just boom: in a hole, getting spanked by bottom of the table sides. My defending falls apart so bad to call it schoolboy level would be unfair on school boys.

In reverse, sometimes I can't lose.

There's definitely some "higher power" over and above just player ability and tactics going on that has a major impacts on results.

[Donners]

Ah yes, the random form slump.

Have a look at this for an even worse example:

Going along smoothly, then suddenly concede 22 goals in five games. Same players, same tactics, just suddenly ineffective.

It might be that morale is a little overpowered.

[Sussex Hammer]

mmmmm, it's interesting how both of us had a totally out of the blue hammering for no particular reason whatsoever, then we both arrested the slump with a draw. I firstly thought it was because I played a higher line and because Reid and Ogbonna were out at various times (pace 15) the stand in defenders were too slow, especially against Vardy and Mane, but it was excruciating seeing Harry Kane do my back line for pace!! Plus I have experienced slumps like this in various other saves and I can't quite put my finger on it. I conceded only 36 goals in the League and finished 3rd and yet I go and concede 18 goals in 5 games?!!! I was lucky 3 of the 4 hammerings were in the Cups.

Then you see my results below after the slump till the end of the season. I was experimenting a bit with a Half Back but never settled on anything tactically and kept tinkering during games. Went and beat Man City 4-2 at their place and have absolutely no idea how!!!

This is why I really have struggled since FM15 because you find a nice balance and then it all falls apart for no real reason. Maybe morale is too sensitive.

[RTHerringbone]

All depends on system far more than the often blamed morale. In the screens above, I see lots of goals generally and could make an assumption that the tactics employed by Sussex and Donners are a bit "open" - maybe overloading the flanks and ultimately getting undone with the space that sort of approach leaves.

[Sussex Hammer]

All depends on system far more than the often blamed morale. In the screens above, I see lots of goals generally and could make an assumption that the tactics employed by Sussex and Donners are a bit "open" - maybe overloading the flanks and ultimately getting undone with the space that sort of approach leaves.

Yep you could be right as I was using a downloaded 442 which did push higher up, hence commenting that it's possible that injuries to my quicker centre backs contributed too the downfall. However I switched to a 4141 deeper when Southampton got back to 2-3 and still got "done" over the top to make it 3-4. Against Spurs it was just Harry Kane being a beast in front of goal. Generally I don't suffer too badly from the dreaded crosses but Kane just got on the end of everything that day and literally nothing I did stopped him.

I can understand a tactic being a bit open but it's just how it comes totally out of the blue considering my defence was pretty solid before that. My previous matches had not given any real clues to the issue. If I had been conceding many chances per game and had just been "getting away with it" then I could understand it a bit more but the defence had been pretty solid. Balls "over the top" were usually aggressively intercepted by my centre backs. Maybe as the season goes on they get more tired and lose sharpness so therefore miss interceptions I don't know. I don't usually get a bad run same season,. For me it's usually a good first season then the team falls apart at the start of the second!!

[BoxToBox]

Could be due to how the other teams treat you. Probably early on more average sides were willing to "have a go" at you, and as you settled into a high place and good form, they'll play it more defensively and counter orientated.

Playing a 442 that attacks and is pushed up, it's likely that there was plenty of opportunity to hit you on the break once they decided to soak and counter.

Looks like you had a long Europa run too, unless you had a large squad and regular rotation, the squad could have been a bit leggy at the points where the season was congested.

As for Donners, nothing too surprising there, a hammering by Atletico, rattled your squad(I'd assume morale took a decent hit) and it took a few weeks to shake off.

[Sussex Hammer]

Thanks for that.

This is a tactic of my own that I tested through pre season and it was doing well.

Yep I know it's got a few attacking roles but first game I hammered Leicester 4-0 at home. Next game I beat Southampton 4-0 away. Played some great stuff and created plenty of chances and quite a few CCC's. Next game at home to Man United I hardly created a chance and drew 0-0. Then played Bournemouth at home and the same, hardly created and drew 0-0. It continued that way. I then made the CF A a CF S and moved the IF roles back to the CM strata yet that made no difference to chance creation.

So it's that massive swing in form and the way a tactic plays. From creating loads to creating nothing within a game or two and no real rhyme or reason why, I certainly can't see anything obvious during a game,. It is literally like the AI as an entity just works it out, plugs all the gaps and leaves your approach useless against whatever team you are playing.

It makes it very difficult to create anything as a base,.

[knap]

Sussex

So it's that massive swing in form and the way a tactic plays. It makes it very difficult to create anything as a base,.

This is why we test over so many games. Accidentally left a tactic running in Holiday mode overnight and it won the testing PL for about 7 seasons in a row about 420 games.

You also may be interested in my latest tactic, as someone won PL with West Ham no signings with 83pts.

[Sussex Hammer]

Sussex

So it's that massive swing in form and the way a tactic plays. It makes it very difficult to create anything as a base,.

This is why we test over so many games. Accidentally left a tactic running in Holiday mode overnight and it won the testing PL for about 7 seasons in a row about 420 games.

You also may be interested in my latest tactic, as someone won PL with West Ham no signings with 83pts.

What tactic is that Knap?

TBH it's the Rambleon 442 I used as a base tactic in the OP, so thanks for creating. With a few tweaks and role changes I thought had something pretty solid.

I have tried quite a lot in various saves including dropping the DL etc and still get this weird collapse in form mid season and quite often at the start of season two.

The difficulty I am finding this year is that roles and duties are like dominoes. If you change one the whole system can fall apart. Take an aggressive 442. If you change an aggressive role to something like a DLP D or a CM D in either the CM or DM strata it has a knock on effect to all other roles and duties and the tactic just falls apart (for me that is).

I do tinker during games but even that doesn't work for me. I'll get done over the top a couple of times so I'll drop the defensive line and get done over the top again. So I think maybe I am closing down too much so I'll lower that and get done over the top again even with a low defensive line and close down less. I'll lower the mentality of a wing back from Attack to Defend and I'll get done over the top again.

Frustrating...

[RTHerringbone]

With respect, that's just such an incredibly unbalanced tactic. Ignore the fact that you sneaked a couple of early 4-0's - that's a flash in the pan and not necessarily indicative of a systems true balance.

Six attack Duties? Not one Support Duty? Thirteen Team Instructions? Are you able to articulate what you wanted each of these things to deliver, and are you able to confirm that those desires were reflected in the matches you viewed? There's no craft, no transitional play and just no balance. I'm actually pleased that people using systems like that struggle - it just doesn't make sense for it to work on a consistent basis.

[knap]

It's called The Crunge but I'm not posting tactics here, so I will PM a link. Ramble On is a few tactics back but the Asymmetric is probably the best of that set.

TBH Roles are just slider tweaking within mentality structures and duties runs, just IMO more complex than the sliders because of the knock on effects. Unless someone takes a team, uses most appropriate roles and duties and produces a winning tactic, then I will still be Old School. Playing F9s in LL is insane but works so there really has to be a rethink of attributes and roles but I daresay there will just be more limiting systems in future rather than making the AI more dynamic.

[knap]

RTH

Produce a tactic for West Ham original squad that wins the PL 1st season.

[RTHerringbone]

RTH

Produce a tactic for West Ham original squad that wins the PL 1st season.

Why? My aim in FM is always to try to play the football I like, and if success follows, then great. Any system with six players on Attack is simply poorly balanced and if it is "inconsistent", then that is a good thing.

[knap]

RTH

Are you not up for it - I think for many it would be a very interesting teaching project.

[Sussex Hammer]

With respect, that's just such an incredibly unbalanced tactic. Ignore the fact that you sneaked a couple of early 4-0's - that's a flash in the pan and not necessarily indicative of a systems true balance.

Six attack Duties? Not one Support Duty? Thirteen Team Instructions? Are you able to articulate what you wanted each of these things to deliver, and are you able to confirm that those desires were reflected in the matches you viewed? There's no craft, no transitional play and just no balance. I'm actually pleased that people using systems like that struggle - it just doesn't make sense for it to work on a consistent basis.

The base tactic I had before that had more than thirteen instructions!!

Sure it's probably unbalanced but it's got to that stage considering since release I have tried all the balanced ideas and got no consistency with those either! I used a lot of attacking duties on this occasion because support ones were just not doing anything attacking wise. They just sit there. It was an experiment to get bodies into the box and for two games it succeeded!!

I think it's the shape personally I just don't think you can get enough bodies into the box with that shape unless you have at least three duties on attack which I have tried before but wing backs on support were just doing nothing.

The irony is that with the six attack duties is that it was defending very well..

It's quite funny really because I made a tactic last year with a couple of attack duties, a few on support and a handful on defend and that was apparently unbalanced as well as I wasn't getting any men into the box. So I guess that there must be some balanced ground between the two.

You look at some real life teams this year and when they attack they have both full backs pushed up and four men in the box with a couple just outside. In FM it is difficult to replicate that unless you have quite a few attack duties because in my experience support duties just don't get forward.

I think that's the difficulty in the game and that's finding the right balance and like I say with regard to the dominoes every role and duty has to be correct or you will have a knock on effect to each decision you make.

However we are going off topic. I didn't post this about balanced or unbalanced tactics I posted because of sudden sharp drops of form. Ok it may be because a tactic is unbalanced but then it shouldn't work from the off rather than just falling apart in March!!

[BoxToBox]

The base tactic I had before that had more than thirteen instructions!!

Sure it's probably unbalanced but it's got to that stage considering since release I have tried all the balanced ideas and got no consistency with those either! I used a lot of attacking duties on this occasion because support ones were just not doing anything attacking wise. They just sit there. It was an experiment to get bodies into the box and for two games it succeeded!!

I think it's the shape personally I just don't think you can get enough bodies into the box with that shape unless you have at least three duties on attack which I have tried before but wing backs on support were just doing nothing.

The irony with the six attack duties is that it was defending very well..

I regularly use that shape, or similar, an important thing is to not have the striker in a pure attacking role. DLP(s), or Trequartista(it's not really an attacking role as it's a playmaker) are better as they'll draw the wingers and CM's into play.

[knap]

Sussex

That is way off the original which should be very fluid! I also use DLF support.

[knap]

Sussex

Kane with Spurs 1st season

[Sussex Hammer]

I regularly use that shape, or similar, an important thing is to not have the striker in a pure attacking role. DLP(s), or Trequartista(it's not really an attacking role as it's a playmaker) are better as they'll draw the wingers and CM's into play.

Yeah have tried support duties but the problem I have is that with a support duty when crosses come in the striker is always standing around the edge of the penalty area. Same with support duty midfielders. Even with a BBM the closest he gets is just outside the area,. I understand what RTH says but that's why I was tinkering with so many attacking duties. I had tried something like this duty wise.

________________DLF S________________

AP S____________________________IF A

__________CM A________CM S__________

________________HB D________________

WB A_____CD D__________CD D____WB S

________________GK D________________

I think that looks balanced!!! Problem was not enough were getting into the box.

Sussex

That is way off the original which should be very fluid! I also use DLF support.

The 451/433 was something totally different Knap it wasn't based on yours, sorry for the confusion. The original post was your Rambleon 442 which played some fantastic stuff hence why I started this thread because I couldn't understand such a mid season slump.

[knap]

1 problem 2nd season could be down to lack of rotation as above Kane needs a good rest.

I try to play with original squads but IMO FM is over the top if you try to play same 11 game in game out.

[Sussex Hammer]

Kane is an absolute beats in FM. I can never stop him at all.

[BoxToBox]

Yeah have tried support duties but the problem I have is that with a support duty when crosses come in the striker is always standing around the edge of the penalty area. Same with support duty midfielders. Even with a BBM the closest he gets is just outside the area,. I understand what RTH says but that's why I was tinkering with so many attacking duties. I had tried something like this duty wise.

________________DLF S________________

AP S____________________________IF A

__________CM A________CM S__________

________________HB D________________

WB A_____CD D__________CD D____WB S

________________GK D________________

I think that looks balanced!!! Problem was not enough were getting into the box.

Hmmm, it of course depends on everything else, but that looks pretty balanced. I use a fairly similar system sometimes. I'd get rid of the half back though, they drop too deep which may be keeping your CM's deeper than you'd like. A DLP(d) or Anchorman who'll sit in between the lines more may suit better.

[RTHerringbone]

That system in post #20 is a lot closer to my view of a "normal" Duty mix. At the end of the day, it's all down to what you want to see - and / or what you want to achieve. I generally don't like to flood the box with players because it's just a bit clumsy - I'm quite happy to win 1-0 or 2-0 and play a more patient game in the final third.

[RTHerringbone]

RTH

Are you not up for it - I think for many it would be a very interesting teaching project.

People wouldn't learn anything from me. I'd use a very normal system and end up coming somewhere between 4th and 10th with West Ham - and that's pretty much where I assume West Ham are expected to finish IRL.

[Sussex Hammer]

Hmmm, it of course depends on everything else, but that looks pretty balanced. I use a fairly similar system sometimes. I'd get rid of the half back though, they drop too deep which may be keeping your CM's deeper than you'd like. A DLP(d) or Anchorman who'll sit in between the lines more may suit better.

Well I tried the above in three games. Changed the HB to an Anchorman and had no TI's or PI's and went with Standard/Flexible just as a little experiment. Beat Liverpool 3-0, drew away at Palace 3-3 and lost 1-3 at home to Bournemouth. Going forward it was ok but defensively it was shocking. Big gaps all over the place.

[knap]

Starting base tactic and results - If anyone wants to try their tactic in this league let me know and I will see how it does.

[knap]

Sussex

Tactic V1 and test - download by PM

[knap]

Sussex

You need to use my standard OIs with my tactics.

Despite CF and 2 playmakers works fine with Margate.

[Donners]

Geez, this all makes me long for the days - less than a decade ago - where I would visit the tactics screen a couple of times a season, and then only to shift my formation around to cover a weak position.

[knap]

I only use PnP.

Margate get a result against League 1 Southend using 4231.

[knap]

This is the 451 tactic and test results. HB is a problem role in LL like F9s so I would change this role. I used AF (as the most extreme) just to see it works. 95pts is good in this League as England are predicated a 6th place finish.

[Sussex Hammer]

Not much working for me tbh. I seem only to be able to score with two up front for some reason. Think I'll stick with your Rambleon 442 it was the best I had used.

[knap]

I am going to start testing with West Ham in testing league.

Are you seeing what you expected from the roles and tactics compared to real West Ham?

[Sussex Hammer]

The only player who seems to consistently play well is Payet in an Advanced Playmaker Attack role on AML position. AP S and he doers very little. I feel that real life is impossible to replicate because West Ham have fairly attacking roles IRL but in FM that's suicide. As I say I think also getting a lone forward to score regularly is also impossible.

Having a look at the West Ham tactics as well it's possible that there are too many PI's.

[knap]

With FM this year the usual is to use opposite feet on wings with cut inside, attacking full backs and progressive CD. This suits Spurs squad but probably not West Ham except Payet,

[Sussex Hammer]

Knap. Maybe you can test this. It's the same really as your 451/433 in post 32 but whilst using that I was giving the ball away and just couldn't get men into the box. What I tried was to swap the HB for a DM D, make the WS and IF A and swapped the AFA to a CFS. I also took off "more risky passes" on the DM and full backs in an effort to keep possession in own half and leave the risky stuff to the central midfielders and forwards. I also swapped low crosses to whipped crosses.

Beat Villa 4-0 with Moses 2, Sakho and Kouyate with the goals. Only one game admittedly but it played quite well. One role I am not sure about is the striker. Find it so difficult to get a solo forward scoring regularly.

[knap]

All looking good but is it enough like West Ham? Also not sure how Andy is going to fit in to the fwd role.

[Sussex Hammer]

All looking good but is it enough like West Ham? Also not sure how Andy is going to fit in to the fwd role.

The only thing I am not sure about is the PI of "close down less" on the DM D. I want him sitting but not backing right off so should I be more aggressive in that role, maybe a neutral closing down?

If I can get enough out of each player it will be good enough! When all are fit (see Tomkins in DM role) the roles probably suit the players. I think with West Ham they have a holder (DM - Kouyate/Song) a sitter (Noble/Obiang) and a runner (Lanzini). I think it probably IRL is something of a 4231 but I think it's a difficult formation to get right. 4231 with DM/CM strata not attacking enough - 4231 with CM/AM strata not defensive enough. This 433/451 shape is the closest shape you can get I think especially with Payet in that AP role which is where I get him playing best although I don't know if 86 passes, 69 completed and 15 key passes is good, bad or indifferent really? Bar this I think 442 is the only other way. Tried various 4411 combinations and couldn't get anything at all working.

As for Carroll I have spent the last three FM's trying to get anything out of him and failed every time. Either he is just hopeless or it's my tactics!!! Problem is his technical stats are awful in the game so even if you can get him to hold it up he usually loses it and floated crosses at a TM I have never got to work. Maybe I can swap around the forward role depending on who is playing. Maybe Carroll as a DLFS with dribble less may work.

BTW Re some of the PI's you use. How important do you reckon they are to how a tactic plays in your opinion? I ask because you have "dribble more" on the CMS but playing Noble there I think it's the last thing I would want him to do. Do you think PI's have a massive knock on effect ?

Also I note that your PI's are generally tackle harder., close down more, mark tighter. Is that a personal preference because I have never been sure about mark tighter. Can it pull your players out of position?

[knap]

I use quick pick to speed up process, so players are per screenshot - changed both to dribble less so good away win to start

[knap]

Changed to DLFS and now working very well.

If you look at the tactic you were using you will note lack of PIs except Tackle Hard, so I have no hard or fast rules, which is why happy to use a blank canvas to start.

[knap]

Top of the pile with good avg poss

[Sussex Hammer]

Knap, Can you link the above tactic in post 42 because the one I am using has quite a lot of PI's on all positions?

[knap]

Still has - took them off then had to put them back, the major change was to DLFS - just looking at getting a little more from Payet. I can PM the tactic as it stands when you are ready.

[Sussex Hammer]

Still has - took them off then had to put them back, the major change was to DLFS - just looking at getting a little more from Payet. I can PM the tactic as it stands when you are ready.

great could u, at least we can tinker from the same tactic

[knap]

I will send latest.

[Sussex Hammer]

great, thanks

[Sussex Hammer]

Re My original post I have come to the conclusion that "pace" is unbelievably important for "all" of your defenders if playing a high line and that seems to be what is giving me bad results a lot of the time.

In a new save I beat Southampton 6-1 away and Fiorentina 5-1 at home then lost bizarrely against Derby away 4-1 in the Capital One Cup even though I had 21 shots on goal with 12 on target to Derby's 10 with 4 on goal. The difference was I rotated a bit and even though I had Ogbonna and Cresswell playing I rotated Jenkinson and Reid for Byram and Collins and they are somewhat slower than the other two. Even lowering the DL didn't really help I still got caught.

I been done 4-3 at home by Bournemouth with the full defence available but I am starting to see a pattern with defeats and for definite if you play a high line you need four pacey defenders 100%. Some games you get away with it because your defenders anticipate well and get in ahead of strikers. But then you have games where even with a heavy press and high line your players meander about slowly and that's when you need pace. So I think Collins will be sitting on the bench for the long term!!!

[shirajzl]

Re My original post I have come to the conclusion that "pace" is unbelievably important for "all" of your defenders if playing a high line and that seems to be what is giving me bad results a lot of the time.

Oh, yeah, could've told you that off the bat. Pace is immensely important for your defence if you want to play with a high line. It seems perfectly logical, but the difference in performance is striking. When you have fast defenders, everything else falls into place, the tactic works like a clock. On the other hand, if your defenders are slow, everything seems to be falling apart, even going forward.

I've done some massive turnarounds in my saves just by signing fast defenders. They don't even have to capable of tackling, marking or positioning, just have them be quick and your problems are solved in FM 16.

[thesandman]

Oh, yeah, could've told you that off the bat. Pace is immensely important for your defence if you want to play with a high line. It seems perfectly logical, but the difference in performance is striking. When you have fast defenders, everything else falls into place, the tactic works like a clock. On the other hand, if your defenders are slow, everything seems to be falling apart, even going forward.

I've done some massive turnarounds in my saves just by signing fast defenders. They don't even have to capable of tackling, marking or positioning, just have them be quick and your problems are solved in FM 16.

OK then. So just sign 4 Kyle Walkers and everything will be fine then!