Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Recommended Posts

By the way; for those interrested in Henry's PPM's, for training the "next Henry" - these are what he had the last time he was in the FM data base as a player: Places shots/Cuts inside (from left)/Comes deep/Knocks ball.

Given that he had the comes deep PPM, you'd maybe want to give him a CF/attack role if he was a player still, just to keep him from doing that too often. But that was indeed something that it was not uncommon to see him do in his Arsenal days.

If anyone is able to fire up FM 06 and take a look at his attributes, that would be interresting ... even though there's been changes in FM's list of attributes since then.

Actually, a slight issue I observed was that even as a CF(S) my striker went quite a lot further forward than my midfield so I was concerned about isolation. In the early transition - you can see it a couple of times in the counter-attacks - he's out there on his own. Fortunately Martial is a very good player and can dribble / beat players and create a solo effort or find support. For this reason, I'd be very wary of a CF(A).

In addition - Henry actually assisted a lot of goals too. I had Martial assist quite a few but could be more. A CF(A) role would reduce the creative element.

You can see the attributes for Henry, Vieira, Bergkamp, Campbell, Pires, Ljungberg in the video posted in

Hef9w92.png

For comparison, here is Martial.

DX0b0s4.png

It'd be nice to improve Flair and Teamwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hef9w92.png

Thank you, sir. Those attributes are insane.

Translated into FM 2016, they would surely exceed the 200 CA limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly. If you watch the video in the main post, there are a lot of 20s floating around..

Hey Ozil, out of curiosity, how would you do Jupp Heynckes's treble winning bayern's playing style?They were extremely flexible, so I ended up with a stunted 4-4-2(a mirror image of yours)with Vidal and Alonso/Thiago in midfield with Prevent GK distribution(something they surely did), Play out of defense and Pass into space.Everything else can be changed manually(D-line, offside trap, pressing etc).Another thing I did was give the team OIs to never tightly mark any opposition player(this should help us stop players getting dragged out of position and helps us keep our shape)do you think this will work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Ozil, out of curiosity, how would you do Jupp Heynckes's treble winning bayern's playing style?They were extremely flexible, so I ended up with a stunted 4-4-2(a mirror image of yours)with Vidal and Alonso/Thiago in midfield with Prevent GK distribution(something they surely did), Play out of defense and Pass into space.Everything else can be changed manually(D-line, offside trap, pressing etc).Another thing I did was give the team OIs to never tightly mark any opposition player(this should help us stop players getting dragged out of position and helps us keep our shape)do you think this will work?

Hey Ozil I have added Granit Xhaka to my Arsenal side he cost me about £20 million. In your Wenger Invincible what role would you give him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to put words in Ozil's mouth and say he would buy players to fit the roles in his tactic. I guess he would fit best as the CM-D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Ozil I have added Granit Xhaka to my Arsenal side he cost me about £20 million. In your Wenger Invincible what role would you give him.

Without meaning to sign harsh, why didn't you look at his attributes and the attributes Ozil lists beside each role in his OP to see what role Xhaka would best fit? You maybe could have found he wasn't a great fit anywhere and possibly found a better fit. Not on the game currently so unsure exactly of his attributes but would most likely say CMd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Ozil, out of curiosity, how would you do Jupp Heynckes's treble winning bayern's playing style?They were extremely flexible, so I ended up with a stunted 4-4-2(a mirror image of yours)with Vidal and Alonso/Thiago in midfield with Prevent GK distribution(something they surely did), Play out of defense and Pass into space.Everything else can be changed manually(D-line, offside trap, pressing etc).Another thing I did was give the team OIs to never tightly mark any opposition player(this should help us stop players getting dragged out of position and helps us keep our shape)do you think this will work?

I'd have to say that I don't know them as well. I watched the major games but didn't see them week in week out.

What are the main traits you're looking for your team to demonstrate?

From what I saw, I'd go with Attacking mentality and Fluid (possibly Flexible) shape with a high-block.

Hey Ozil I have added Granit Xhaka to my Arsenal side he cost me about £20 million. In your Wenger Invincible what role would you give him.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't give him a role in the Invincible team. That's not to say I don't rate the guy. I do. I'm excited to see him. But to me, Xhaka is very much a post-Fabregas Wenger player.

Strength, anticipation, concentration and positioning are no way good enough for the holding role. He's best suited to the MC(S) role but there are lots of better options for this style of play.

To me, Xhaka is a very modern midfielder. He'd be better for the deeplying playmaker role in the Sacchi system or any controlling, midfield heavy system. In Football Manager, I'm really not blown away by him but I'm interested to see how he looks once this season's performance is taken into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to comment and say your three threads have been nothing but amazing mate, absolutely fantastic reads and I love your posting style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ozil...

Im a little bit scared about training..Your players develop normaly with only team cohesion on general training and with the rest before and after match ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Plus individual training.

As I have mentioned a couple of times, I am no expert in training. For me, it seems to be that players develop as long as they're getting adequate game time at the correct level. Individual training 'shapes' the attributes.

My interpretation is that game time increases current ability and then each current ability 'point' is work x-many attribute points which are weighted differently based on different positions. You allocate those points using training. That's just my observation though.

For example, if I was to train ball control I have never noticed my players technical ability and creativity shoot up. If it did, I'd probably use that instead. If fitness training improved work rate, I'd 100% use it.

As things stand, I seem to get the most benefit from having team cohesion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Ozil, out of curiosity, how would you do Jupp Heynckes's treble winning bayern's playing style?They were extremely flexible, so I ended up with a stunted 4-4-2(a mirror image of yours)with Vidal and Alonso/Thiago in midfield with Prevent GK distribution(something they surely did), Play out of defense and Pass into space.Everything else can be changed manually(D-line, offside trap, pressing etc).Another thing I did was give the team OIs to never tightly mark any opposition player(this should help us stop players getting dragged out of position and helps us keep our shape)do you think this will work?

Ö-zil, sorry to hijack your thread, but this is quite an interesting topic.

I'd start with 4-4-1-1, Control mentality and Fluid team shape. This way you get 4-4-2 when defending and pressing, but AMC starts a bit deeper when . Double pivot in midfield is impossible to implement, even with two DMs on Support (tried it, didn't go as planned), so you'd probably have to go with CM(S)+CM(D) combo. I woudn't go for a DLP, although Bastian was a DLP/RP, because CM's movement in attack resembles Bastian/Gustavo in Heynckes' Bayern more. Ribery as a WP(A), Robben WM(A) with Cut inside, Sit narrower and Dribble more. Up front AM(A) and DLF(S), for a start. However, there are a "few" tweaks:

  • If Müller plays AMC and Mandzukic up front, Mandzukic would be more DF(S/D), depending on the opposition. Against Barcelona, he was a clear DF(D).
  • If Kroos is an AMC, he is more AM(S) than AM(A). In that case, depending on the opposition, forward could be DLF(S/A) (Gomez/Pizzarro), or DF(S) (Mandzukic).
  • Müller on the right is a Raumdeuter, so just try and copy Raudeuter's instructions
  • If Shaqiri played with Robben (two left-footed players, probably same would go for two right-footed), wing combo would be W(A) - WM(A). See
    .

Also, TIs and even mentality changes were noticable.

  • Against weaker teams, they maybe even started with Attacking mentality. When they gained solid lead, they moved to Control even with Retain possession in later stages of the match
  • Against stronger teams, they had two approaches:
    1. Start with strong, aggressive, high press, attack until they score, and then pull back and play on the counter.
    2. Play on the counter from the start, with strong pressing only from AMC and ST.

If you want to emulate them, you should open a new thread, so we don't spoil Ö-zil's masterpiece here. They were far more complex than this short post could explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ö-zil, sorry to hijack your thread, but this is quite an interesting topic.

I'd start with 4-4-1-1, Control mentality and Fluid team shape. This way you get 4-4-2 when defending and pressing, but AMC starts a bit deeper when . Double pivot in midfield is impossible to implement, even with two DMs on Support (tried it, didn't go as planned), so you'd probably have to go with CM(S)+CM(D) combo. I woudn't go for a DLP, although Bastian was a DLP/RP, because CM's movement in attack resembles Bastian/Gustavo in Heynckes' Bayern more. Ribery as a WP(A), Robben WM(A) with Cut inside, Sit narrower and Dribble more. Up front AM(A) and DLF(S), for a start. However, there are a "few" tweaks:

  • If Müller plays AMC and Mandzukic up front, Mandzukic would be more DF(S/D), depending on the opposition. Against Barcelona, he was a clear DF(D).
  • If Kroos is an AMC, he is more AM(S) than AM(A). In that case, depending on the opposition, forward could be DLF(S/A) (Gomez/Pizzarro), or DF(S) (Mandzukic).
  • Müller on the right is a Raumdeuter, so just try and copy Raudeuter's instructions
  • If Shaqiri played with Robben (two left-footed players, probably same would go for two right-footed), wing combo would be W(A) - WM(A). See
    .

Also, TIs and even mentality changes were noticable.

  • Against weaker teams, they maybe even started with Attacking mentality. When they gained solid lead, they moved to Control even with Retain possession in later stages of the match
  • Against stronger teams, they had two approaches:
    1. Start with strong, aggressive, high press, attack until they score, and then pull back and play on the counter.
    2. Play on the counter from the start, with strong pressing only from AMC and ST.

If you want to emulate them, you should open a new thread, so we don't spoil Ö-zil's masterpiece here. They were far more complex than this short post could explain.

Yea, that is the problem they were extremely flexible, so we'd have to make 2-3 tactics.I'd focus on the one with Muller as 10 though, since that one was most successful(or successful at the most difficult time).I'll open up a thread in a bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ö-zil, sorry to hijack your thread, but this is quite an interesting topic.

I'd start with 4-4-1-1, Control mentality and Fluid team shape. This way you get 4-4-2 when defending and pressing, but AMC starts a bit deeper when . Double pivot in midfield is impossible to implement, even with two DMs on Support (tried it, didn't go as planned), so you'd probably have to go with CM(S)+CM(D) combo. I woudn't go for a DLP, although Bastian was a DLP/RP, because CM's movement in attack resembles Bastian/Gustavo in Heynckes' Bayern more. Ribery as a WP(A), Robben WM(A) with Cut inside, Sit narrower and Dribble more. Up front AM(A) and DLF(S), for a start. However, there are a "few" tweaks:

  • If Müller plays AMC and Mandzukic up front, Mandzukic would be more DF(S/D), depending on the opposition. Against Barcelona, he was a clear DF(D).
  • If Kroos is an AMC, he is more AM(S) than AM(A). In that case, depending on the opposition, forward could be DLF(S/A) (Gomez/Pizzarro), or DF(S) (Mandzukic).
  • Müller on the right is a Raumdeuter, so just try and copy Raudeuter's instructions
  • If Shaqiri played with Robben (two left-footed players, probably same would go for two right-footed), wing combo would be W(A) - WM(A). See
    .

Also, TIs and even mentality changes were noticable.

  • Against weaker teams, they maybe even started with Attacking mentality. When they gained solid lead, they moved to Control even with Retain possession in later stages of the match
  • Against stronger teams, they had two approaches:
    1. Start with strong, aggressive, high press, attack until they score, and then pull back and play on the counter.
    2. Play on the counter from the start, with strong pressing only from AMC and ST.

If you want to emulate them, you should open a new thread, so we don't spoil Ö-zil's masterpiece here. They were far more complex than this short post could explain.

Excellent post. This is exactly the sort of discussion I hoping for when starting these threads.

I think that your playing style (combination of mentality, shape and team instructions) is spot on. As I have mentioned, I didn't see too much of the team but I certainly remember one counter style and one crushing attacking / control style. Your formation is fine. Most of the changes you mention can be handled either with player specific player roles, or simply that different players attributes / PIs will make them act differently.

Regarding the difference between playing big / small matches, I'd recommend separate tactics using the same shape but different playing styles. For example, one 4-4-1-1 with Fluid / Control and aggressive pressing and a separate 4-4-1-1 with Rigid or Flexible / Counter with a lower block and higher tempo.

I'd certainly be a keen follower if you were to give this a shot! :thup:

Yea, that is the problem they were extremely flexible, so we'd have to make 2-3 tactics.I'd focus on the one with Muller as 10 though, since that one was most successful(or successful at the most difficult time).I'll open up a thread in a bit

Yes. More modern managers certainly have different approaches to different games. It does get more confusing to create the tactics. My advice is to do one at a time, rather than swing back and forth between both, or to try and do too much with one tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ozil, when you mention "player specific player roles" does that mean when you swap a player it will automatically change their role in the tactic to one that you have previously assigned to that player? If so, how do I do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the tactics screen, click on the "player" tab. In the top left corner of that screen you have a miniature picture of the pitch with all player positions on it. Click on a position of your choice. On the bottom of that column you have "Add player(s)". Add a player of your choice for that position. Proceed to give that player whatever role, duty and player instructions you want, so that whenever you pick that particular player for that particular position, the "normal" role, duty and instructions will change to whatever you have chosen for him. This will also happen during a match if you sub players, or swap their positions.

I find this function particularly useful if you're in the habit of swapping players' positions during a match, e.g. wide players from side to side; you may for instance want to give a player that's given a winger role when he plays on the left, change to a inside forward role when he plays on the right. This saves you having to manually change roles/duties/instructions during a match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to try and build a long term squad around this, btw I just noticed you don't have the GK distributing to defenders I can't remember if Lehmann actually did that regularly but short pass/roll it out instruction for GK should help possession?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, this is a great thread, im actually a liverpool fan but hold Wengers invincibles in high regards.

I replicated this systems using Cleons thread and base. Tweaking it and imo pefecting it for MY Schalke team.

however, i set Veira to RPM, and the Bergkamp role to DLF, however i found he scored too many haha. I also used Calleri in my offset striker role, and Di Santo in my Bergkamp role. Both scored over 20 each and assisted quite a bit. What was really good was that they could both swap roles.

Thanks for the good read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, this is a great thread, im actually a liverpool fan but hold Wengers invincibles in high regards.

I replicated this systems using Cleons thread and base. Tweaking it and imo pefecting it for my Schalke team.

however, i set Veira to RPM, and the Bergkamp role to DLF, however i found he scored too many haha. I also used Calleri in my offset striker role, and Di Santo in my Bergkamp role. Both scored over 20 each and assisted quite a bit. What was really good was that they could both swap roles.

Thanks for the good read!

Fantastic - glad to hear you've enjoyed it!

Want to try and build a long term squad around this, btw I just noticed you don't have the GK distributing to defenders I can't remember if Lehmann actually did that regularly but short pass/roll it out instruction for GK should help possession?

Distribute quickly does the trick for me. Most of the time that's to a defender but - if it's on - I've got no problem going longer to midfield or attack.

I'm more interested in the counter attack than the possession, but it's a very minor difference. A smart goalkeeper will generally make the best choice, regardless of your instruction.

Good luck with the squad building :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome thread, really.

I plugged this tactic in and also made an inverted version, to have Wilshere play the wide playmaker on the right, with Alexis and Ox being able to play wide midfielder on both sides when needed. With those two tactics, i'll be able to keep everyone in the squad happy and chnge things up mid- or inbetween games. In theory that is, will see how it works out (not sure i'll be able to micromanage all PPMs and player development as you do...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't been posting (or really reading) in sometime. But saw this and got caught up in it. Great thread. Making me get the itch again.

Going to read the other two now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two questions . Your left side is the most attacking one. Wouldn't it bebetter to put the mcl on the defend role?

Second question: Ml cazorla is cutting inside, isn't he interfering in the same space as mcl support?

I really love reading this, gives me energy and new thoughts .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How'd you go about making a bit more controlling evolution to this tactics? I sometimes struggle to break down smaller teams at home, would like to be a bit more aggressive and possession oriented. I'm thinking: Playing high block (slightly higher + close down more) and switching mentality to Control for shorter, more patient passing without losing too much of offensive power. maybe even add work ball into box?

Or, making a very fluid + standard version?

Don't get me wrong, i love this counter attacking monster tactic, just thinking it could be more proactive at home vs. lesser opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2016 at 14:29, Time_Consumer said:

How'd you go about making a bit more controlling evolution to this tactics? I sometimes struggle to break down smaller teams at home, would like to be a bit more aggressive and possession oriented. I'm thinking: Playing high block (slightly higher + close down more) and switching mentality to Control for shorter, more patient passing without losing too much of offensive power. maybe even add work ball into box?

Or, making a very fluid + standard version?

Don't get me wrong, i love this counter attacking monster tactic, just thinking it could be more proactive at home vs. lesser opponents.

Apologies for the delayed response. Currently working in Ecuador with very limited internet access.

Yes, over time as you become more dominant the Sacchi-esq very fluid / standard system may be more effective should the opposition sit back.

I actually have an idea in mind for another pretty interesting variant so, time permitting, watch this space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Apologies for the delayed response. Currently working in Ecuador with very limited internet access.

Yes, over time as you become more dominant the Sacchi-esq very fluid / standard system may be more effective should the opposition sit back.

I actually have an idea in mind for another pretty interesting variant so, time permitting, watch this space.

Ozil glad to have you back. I think something was missing from the forum when you are not around. I am waiting to see what variant you will come up with next  for the Arsenal Invincible's. I really enjoyed reading and using your post for a guideline when developing my Arsenal Team. 

 

Welcome Back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you emulate Özil's current role? He's not so much of a playmaker more, a lot of the time he plays like a SS (A) but he still drops really deep at times too. My idea was AM (A) with a lot of instructions and it's got him scoring quite a bit so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chroniclesofal said:

How would you emulate Özil's current role? He's not so much of a playmaker more, a lot of the time he plays like a SS (A) but he still drops really deep at times too. My idea was AM (A) with a lot of instructions and it's got him scoring quite a bit so far.

very interesting i was thinking that Ozil role has changed this season from a playmaker to more of AM (A) or SS (A). What instructions did you give him to get to score more. I would also use a F9 or DLF (S) to drop deep and allow ozil to get in the box

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking real life here, I doubt that Özil's role/instructions (from Wenger) have changed much at all - but he seems to be more confident in his goal-scoring abilities now, and possibly added a bit of physical strength too, and therefore making more runs into the box and putting himself more into goal-scoring positions. If trying to emulate that in FM, I would keep him as a AP, but maybe add "get forward" PI ... if goals are really needed, that is. AM with the right combo of PI's would probably work too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started a save with ManUnited and created my favorite 433DM and 4141 formations and then I came across this thread so I decided to try this out. I must say it is great system and it works quite well for now. I don't use the "exploit the left flank" TI, although I do play Shaw on FB/A and MAta as WP/A.

My question is, do you use this against very good teams (ManCity,L'pool,Tottenham,Chelsea and continental heavyweights) and how is it working? Because I started the game against City at home with this and it wasn't really good. Like I didn't create anything and they didn't create anything too. They scored some stupid goal because of Bailly blackout and we scored through an own goal. So 1-1 in first half. Then I switched to my 433 and looked much better, eventually won 2-1 through Pogba wondergoal.

Against L'pool at Anfield, I started again with this but used "slightly deeper def.line"TI..I got completely overwhwlmwd and battered. It was 3-0 in 25 minutes for Liverpool. They had like 15 shots in the first 45mins. My team did played a horror show of a game with 6.4's all over the place. Second half was damage control with 433 again..it ended 3-0.

Against Tottenham I used 433 from the start and won 4-0 because I didn't have confidence in this system again. 

But against weaker opposition I use it and the team plays very well and win. Although I'm having problems with my striker (CF/S) ..they don't score but to be honest even when they have a good chance they hit the post or miss, so I don't know if it's the tactic or just bad form atm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5 November 2016 at 22:31, thomit said:

If we're talking real life here, I doubt that Özil's role/instructions (from Wenger) have changed much at all - but he seems to be more confident in his goal-scoring abilities now, and possibly added a bit of physical strength too, and therefore making more runs into the box and putting himself more into goal-scoring positions. If trying to emulate that in FM, I would keep him as a AP, but maybe add "get forward" PI ... if goals are really needed, that is. AM with the right combo of PI's would probably work too.

I agree with Thomit. For me, he'd still be an AP(A) but maybe Gets into Opposition Area or a similar PPM.

I'd also say that the change in the team around him - namely Sanchez up front, creating space - means Ozil has more opportunity to score. Playing as Ajax last year, I noticed a major change in the goalscoring records of all of my attacking midfielders when I swapped Zivkovic - at the time a consisted 30-goal a season striker, but fairly selfish - for a striker with excellent teamwork and movement. No tactical changes but 2 or 3 players from midfield doubled their goalscoring records from one season to the next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ozil,

Great thread this, as are your other threads/series. This in particular appeals to me as I have such good memories of that Arsenal team (I'm no Arsenal fan), they were superb to watch. I think the way I want my teams to play in FM always echoes their style to some degree, maybe not exactly in player roles but in terms of pace, transitions etc. I want fast, attacking teams who play with pace!

I've taken some ideas from this thread and transferred it to the different tactics I use for my Athletic Bilbao save, in a 4-4-1-1 similar to what you have and also a strikerless, fluid 4-1-2-3. Your Arsenal recreation doesn't fit my players, so I've done some juggling with player roles, but basically created a similar effect, or at least overall pattern of fast transitions, runners and options with a super effective Bergkamp type as the pivot. 

Your posts are very much appreciated so wanted to give you two thumbs up!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch this video,very good for making tactic :

 

 

i build a counter attack from this manutd video:

the video cut the football tactic to 2 side,how to defend 1st,then how they attack.
i copy the idea "how they defend",but not copy 100% for attacking side.Because i didn't have C.Ronaldo,Tevez.
So far so good,its look like bus parking counter.

Edited by kpsia518

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5 December 2016 at 18:50, bowieinspace said:

Hey Ozil,

Great thread this, as are your other threads/series. This in particular appeals to me as I have such good memories of that Arsenal team (I'm no Arsenal fan), they were superb to watch. I think the way I want my teams to play in FM always echoes their style to some degree, maybe not exactly in player roles but in terms of pace, transitions etc. I want fast, attacking teams who play with pace!

I've taken some ideas from this thread and transferred it to the different tactics I use for my Athletic Bilbao save, in a 4-4-1-1 similar to what you have and also a strikerless, fluid 4-1-2-3. Your Arsenal recreation doesn't fit my players, so I've done some juggling with player roles, but basically created a similar effect, or at least overall pattern of fast transitions, runners and options with a super effective Bergkamp type as the pivot. 

Your posts are very much appreciated so wanted to give you two thumbs up!
 

Great, thank you for the feedback. That's exactly what these threads are for. It's very interesting to see people take their own interpretation of a style and then apply it to their own squads. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Özil,

Great, very inspirational reading. It actually inspired me to start a new game where I will try to introduce some "Invincibles concepts".

1. However, I will start in FM11 (my favourite version till this day).

2. As usual, I will start in South America. Specifically with Santa Fe (Bogotá based team that adopted club colours from Arsenal :)).

3. I will focus on my youth team (need to upgrade facilities, networking first).

4. Will send my scouts to Senegal/Ivory Coast to look for the new P. Vieira/K. Touré

5. Hopefully after a few seasons I will create the "Invincible" team (will be mega hard as there are simply soooo many matches to be played in Colombia during the season :))

and btw. huge thanks :thup: for the video with player attributes from CM03/04. Sweet memories :cool:.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting to compare and contrast this thread with Cleon's Project Invincible thread.  I'm less interested in the question of who's right or wrong and more interested in looking at the ways in which we analyze real life tactics and interpret them in FM.

Team Summary

Cleon summarized the team as follows:

  1. Played a 4-4-2 system or a lopsided 4-2-3-1
  2. Was quite fluid and players moved around a lot and morphed into different shapes as they played
  3. The players also roamed from positions and were allowed to be more creative in their thinking
  4. Wenger’s system is often translated as “Flexible” in FM. He likes players to express themselves, but also sees it as a team game
  5. Tended to sit deep at times before launching devastating Counter Attacks
  6. Could keep the ball and move it around in the final third with attacking moves, but the Counter was their most potent weapon
  7. Played a high tempo game even though they used to sit deep waiting for counter attacks.
  8. Were quite direct at times and moved the ball around with urgency,
  9. Not such a high pressing side either, they traditionally tended to drop off and became compact when they needed to
  10. Whipped crosses across the box with real pace for Ljungberg, Henry & Pires to get on the end of

Ozil summarized the team as follows:

  1. Could describe the team as a flat 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1 or a variant 4-2-3-1
  2. Lined up in a fluid 4-4-2 shape with Bergkamp in a slightly withdrawn role
  3. High creativity, free-flowing football but the main attacking weapon is attacking - or counter attacking - at speed
  4. Without the ball, operated a medium-block
  5. Would invite the opposition forward
  6. Organized into an attacking unit and a defensive unit, with everyone contributing towards transition play

Those are pretty similar!

The one thing that jumps out at me is Cleon asserted they could move the ball around in the final third (which implies patient build up?) while Ozil asserted that they attacked at speed (though Ozil, you may have been focused on the counter attack when you wrote that?).  The reason this jumps out at me becomes more obvious when we look at Mentality and Team Instruction differences.

Team Shape

The Arsenal Rewind Article has a nice section that provides visual references for what the "Starting Formation" (Without the Ball?) looked like and what the "Attacking" formation (With the Ball?) looked like, which helps me think about Team Shape (and Individual Roles and individual instructions like whether to encourage forward runs).

Cleon asserted that the team shape should be Flexible while Ozil concluded the team shape should be Fluid.  Its interesting to me when I compare the analysis of style to what I understand about the two mentalities.  Here's what I mean:

Flexible is described as:

  1. Players are expected to contribute to more than one phase of play
  2. Defenders and more defensive midfielders are responsible for both defensive and transition phases
  3. More attacking midfielders and forwards are responsible for both transition and attack phases
  4. The team will aim to find a balance between the movement of players and keeping its shape

Now from The Hand of God's amazing writeup of the mentality ladder, we have a lot of information about what flexible shape results in (remember that it used to be called balanced).  

There's a lot to digest there, but for me the key part is this:

On 1/23/2014 at 05:36, THOG said:

Balanced mentality structures divide the team into three units based on the duties assigned to individual players. As with fluid structures, a more cautious defensive unit provides a stable, structural core that frees a more adventurous attacking unit to get forward aggressively, though this is further balanced by a "supporting" unit that serves to provide a more consistent link between the two. However, since a player's respective unit is defined by his duty rather than position, this gives the manager greater flexibility in refining his defensive and attacking shape to fit the personnel at his disposal. Consequently, Balanced mentality structures can accommodate a high degree of either duty-based specialization or general versatility.

Cleon's point #3 is what seems to stand out as leading him to choose Flexible.  Although its interesting that Ozil's point #6 might be interpreted to support arriving at Flexible.

However, Cleon's point #2 and Ozil's point #2 and #6 could be interpreted in a way that steers us away from Flexible and maybe to Fluid?

Fluid is described as:

  1. Players are expected to contribute to more phases of play than the balanced philosophy (this is a bug in the description as balanced became standard and philosophy
  2. The team is split into broad attacking and defensive units
  3. More creative players are responsible for the attacking phase and more defensively disciplined players are responsible for the defensive phase
  4. However, players from each unit are expected to move into the transition phase when the right opportunity arises
  5. The team will be encouraged to play more flowing soccer with players allowed more creative freedom

Here's what THOG said about Fluid.

It is a bit too long to quote, but what is interesting to me in there is what he writes about the two groups that have narrow and distinct duties.  However, his points regarding the controller affect only applying when using lower mentalities (Contain, Defend, Counter) makes me wonder if Fluid (with Attacking mentality) makes sense or not.

For me the questions that come to mind are:

  1. Do we want Flexible or Fluid in order to create the right amount of vertical separation between Attack, Midfield and Defensive lines both regarding where players close down and also so that the CF and AM roles are staying up high enough to break quickly without getting too isolated?
  2. Do we need Flexible or Fluid In order for get the LWB to aggressively get forward in attack while the RWB stays deeper to support and defend due to using Attack and Support for their respective roles?
  3. Likewise, do we need Flexible or Fluid in order to get the LCM to support the attack and make runs into the box (like that great clip of Vieira) while the RCM stays back and shields the CDs due to using Support and Defend for their respective roles?
  4. Do we need Flexible or Fluid In order to set the proper distribution of responsibilities among the individual roles?
  5. Do we need Flexible or Fluid In order to get the desired amount of creative freedom?

What sources of evidence might help us decide between these two choices?

Positioning and Movement Questions (#1-3)

The Zonal Marking article's diagram help us determine that the LWB needs to make runs further up the field than the RWB.  It also seems to suggest that we need the average position of the LCM to be slightly higher than the average position of the RCM.  LIkewise, it appears to suggest that we need the average position of the LM to be slightly higher than the RM.  And of course, it reinforced what Ozil and Cleon concluded regarding the AM being deeper than the CF.

The Football Performance Analysis graphs that display location (albeit location when scoring and assisting vs. true average position) helps us understand where the ST and AM players should position themselves relative to one another.  For example, we can tell that Bergkamp spent very little time on the right side of the pitch and was both on the left side and central while also staying quite a bit deeper than Henry.

Likewise, part 4 helps us understand where Cole and Pires spent their time (when assisting at least).

I can't find sources of information for the other roles and I can't find average position.  But If I play two versions of the tactic (one on Fluid and one on Flexible) and look at the average position under the team section of analysis, I get this:

Flexible with the ball

Flexible_With_Ball.png

Fluid with the ball

Fluid_With_Ball.png

Flexible without the ball

Flexible_Without_Ball.png

Fluid without the ball

Fluid_Without_Ball.png

So which of these two looks more like what we're going for?
 

Distribution of Responsibility Question (#4)

I'm unsure how to approach that question and would like to hear what others think.

What I guess I need to do is look each position's statistics?  For example, taking analysis from the Fluid version of the tactic:

Does this look like where the LWB should be completing crosses from?

LWB_Crosses.png
 

Does this look like where the LM should be completing passes from?

LM_Passes_Completed.png
 

Does this look like where the LCM should be touching the ball?

LCM_Touches.png
 

Does this look like where the CF should be taking shots from?

CF_Shots.png

 

Degree of Creative Freedom Question (#5)

I'm unsure how to approach that question and would like to hear what others think.

What would I look at to help me determine whether the amount of Creative Freedom Flexible vs. Fluid allows is more appropriate?

 

So that's what I came up with for Team Shape analysis - have I left anything out worth considering with regards to reaching a conclusion about Team Shape?

 

Mentality and Team Instructions

Cleon asserted that the Mentality should be Counter while Ozil concluded the Mentality should be Attack.  That's a big difference!

However, I don't think the whole picture is clear until we look at the team instructions that went along with that.  Here's what I mean:

Cleon's Team Instructions were as follows:

  1. Higher Tempo
  2. Pass Into Space
  3. Be More Expressive
  4. Whipped Crosses
  5. Roam from Positions

Ozil's Team Instructions were as follows:

  1. Exploit the Left Flank
  2. Play out of Defense
  3. Pass Into Space
  4. Low Crosses

So when we take the Mentality and Team Instructions together, how do they compare?

  1. Tempo is similar.  Cleon gets it by raising the base tempo of the Counter Mentality.  Ozil gets the fast tempo from the Attack Mentality.
  2. Both pass into space.  Watching the video clips tells us this makes a lot of sense and its clear why they both landed on that. (But are there other sources of evidence that reinforce?)
  3. Creative Freedom is similar.  Cleon gets it by raising the base Creative Freedom of the Flexible Team Shape.  Ozil gets the high Creative Freedom from the Fluid Team Shape. (Does Mentality also affect Creative Freedom?  If yes, then the same point would apply).
  4. Roaming is similar (I think).  Cleon gets it by raising the base Roaming of the Flexible Team Shape.  Ozil gets the increased Roaming from the Fluid Team Shape. (Does Mentality also affect Roaming?  If yes, then the same point would apply).
  5. Crosses are similar but different.  Cleon goes with Whipped Crosses, which implies crosses in the air but low and fast (so near post but to head?).  Ozil goes with Low Crosses, which implies on the ground and fast (so near post but to feet?).  What source of evidence help us understand which was more common?

So in summary, a lot is similar.  But why is Cleon going with Counter and Ozil going with Attack?  I think it has to do with their different interpretations of:

  1. The defensive line and how high/low the block should set itself
  2. The degree of risk the team is willing to take
  3. How the teams should pass the ball.

Defensive Line

The Arsenal Rewind Article has a nice section that provides visual references for what the "Starting Formation" (Without the Ball?) looked like and what the "Attacking" formation (With the Ball?) looked like.  Information like this helps me think about Mentality and Roles.  But I wonder if this kind of information can also help evaluate Defensive Line?  Or is there an alternative source that is better referenced?

Attack Mentality results in a higher defensive line and Counter results in a lower defensive line.   Cleon references this when he writes:

On 1/7/2016 at 23:55, Cleon said:

The mentality that I’ll end up using long-term is likely to be something higher than counter attack. The reason behind that thinking is, last year I found that counter was far too deep at times. But for now, counter attacking is ideal and I’ll use that to see how it goes.

So it seems like he believes it might need to be set higher than the Counter Mentality default.

Here's how the average positioning look in a few different variations of the tactic:

Counter / Flexible / Normal Defensive Line With The Ball

Normal_Defensive_Line_With_The_Ball.png
 

Attack / Fluid / Normal Defensive Line With The Ball

Fluid_With_Ball.png
 

Counter / Flexible / Much Higher Defensive Line With The Ball

Much_Higher_Defensive_Line_With_The_Ball
 

Counter / Flexible / Normal Defensive Line Without The Ball

Normal_Defensive_Line_Without_The_Ball.p
 

Attack / Fluid / Normal Defensive Line Without The Ball

Fluid_Without_Ball.png
 

Counter / Flexible / Much Higher Defensive Line Without The Ball

Much_Higher_Defensive_Line_Without_The_B
 

Degree of Risk

I'm unsure how to approach that question and would like to hear what others think.

Reading again through the The Arsenal Rewind Article , I see the following description:

Quote

Few teams kept possession as well as Arsenal did, they would be patient and draw the defenders out of their comfort zone, then with a sudden acceleration of pace and an inch perfect through ball would open up the defense and they would score.

But what stats would I look at to help me determine the degree of risk they took?

I guess one would look at statistics like:

  1. Pass Completion % (how safe did they play their passing?)
  2. % of Passed received by other roles for a given role (how often did they make a safe pass - either something short and horizontal / backwards or a hoof way down the field vs. how often did they try to make a direct and incisive pass / through ball?)
  3. Dribbles Lost (How often did they try to take on the defender?)
  4. Missed Interceptions (How often did they step and risk the passed ball going past them?)
  5. Missed Tackles (How often did they step and risk the opponent skinning them?)

 

Passing

For me, an Attack mentality implies:

  1. Less direct passing in the back (shorter, more sideways passing to build up the attack)
  2. More direct passing in the front (aggressive, vertical balls moving toward the opponent's goal).  

Counter Mentality implies the opposite

  1. More direct passing in the back (to catch an opponent that has overcommitted or to get the ball to safety)
  2. Shorter passing in the front (careful movement to not waste possession and patiently try to hold on to the ball until a good opportunity presents itself).

I guess in order to figure this out, I'd need to see graphics or statistics that showed me where each role tended to pass the ball.  I'm not sure if that exists.  Here's what the two variations of the tactic look like with respect to passing:

CD Passing on Counter

CD_Passing_on_Counter.png

CD Passing on Attack

CD_Passing_on_Attack.png
 

LM Passing on Counter

LM_Passing_on_Counter.png

LM Passing on Attack

LM_Passing_on_Attack.png
 

AM Passing on Counter

AM_Passing_on_Counter.png

AM Passing on Attack

AM_Passing_on_Attack.png
 

CF Passing on Counter

CF_Passing_on_Counter.png

CF Passing on Attack

CF_Passing_on_Attack.png

 

It is a bit hard to tell, but I believe in general my descriptions of the two mentalities WRT types of passes are evident in the analysis.  The question becomes, did the CD pass short more often or direct more often?  And likewise for the other positions.

I couldn't find the information to help answer that unfortunately.

 

Player Role Differences

There are differences but I'll have to save that analysis for another day.  I recognize that Ozil was quite clear that only through a combination of the Mentality, Team Shape, Team Instructions and Player Role Instructions was he able to define his desired re-creation.  Likewise, Cleon had a series of specific points regarding Player Role Instructions and PPMs.


Conclusion

It is really interesting to me to look at two examples of interpretation of the same team's playing style.  I hope I'm on the right track regarding how to look for inputs and what information in the game I can use to determine if my interprettion is faithful or not.

Edited by Columnarius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Don't speak english so much, but i try.

In FM im managing in Scotland (Forfar), i played 2 seansons, im in the 3rd. In the first i must keep the club in LL1 and i keep it in the 8 of 10.

2nd season i want to play a 1-4-4-2 or 1-4-4-1-1 and i just read your Arsenal interpretation.

I made my interpretation with player i have !! All of them are semi-pro...

I start with this :

Gk/D : Quick play

RB : Full Back /S : More Tackle, go forward and centre more.

2 CD/D : less pressing

LB : Full Back / A : More Tackle, crosse from line and run wide.

2 winger/S : i don't have wide playmaker or wide midfielder, only wingers.

Right Midfielder : Midfielder /S : Hold and less press

Left Midfielder : Midfielder /A

Amc : Advanced playmaker/A : Go forward and hold the ball

Striker : Deeplying forward/S : More pressing / Move into channel

Im on Fluid / Attack and i use Give ball in space / Play out / Low crosses
 

During 2nd season i win the league and im now in Championship but it's too hard.

Any advice to tweak my tactics to try to get some points to stay in championship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread.

Been trying to implement a similar approach (Fluid - Attack) with Man United as they've got the potential to pull off something similar with their current squad, though my player roles are different and I'm not offsetting the front two. I've got pace out wide, power and running in midfield and a beast of a CF in Ibrahimovic. I want to play quick transitions, like in this thread (and also like some of Ferguson's best United teams)

I find that my team just gives the ball away continually, especially the defenders and goalkeeper (despite TIs and PIs - though I wonder if the GK distribution might be a bug??). These players, and sometimes the midfielders are getting under 70% pass success, sometimes near to 50%. I know this is not a possession focused tactic, but those do seem low. I am getting frustrated with the mindless hoofs upfield.

Did you encounter this @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!? How did you stop it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/05/2016 at 14:57, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Thank you for reading and contributing to some interesting discussions. I have really enjoyed writing these and hopefully people are finding them useful.

This is likely to be the last one I write for a while - possibly the last one for FM16 - as I'm going to be working rather remotely in Ecuador for a couple of months. But, as soon as I have the time & inspiration, I'll certainly be writing some more.

Thanks, everyone :applause:

Really enjoyed this one pal, nostalgia creeping in with the old CM screens :p

Im a liverpool fan (15 minutes from anfield) but i absolutely LOVED watching that Arsenal side play football, they where an absolute joy to watch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2016 at 09:36, Columnarius said:

I find it interesting to compare and contrast this thread with Cleon's Project Invincible thread.  I'm less interested in the question of who's right or wrong and more interested in looking at the ways in which we analyze real life tactics and interpret them in FM.

Team Summary

Cleon summarized the team as follows:

  1. Played a 4-4-2 system or a lopsided 4-2-3-1
  2. Was quite fluid and players moved around a lot and morphed into different shapes as they played
  3. The players also roamed from positions and were allowed to be more creative in their thinking
  4. Wenger’s system is often translated as “Flexible” in FM. He likes players to express themselves, but also sees it as a team game
  5. Tended to sit deep at times before launching devastating Counter Attacks
  6. Could keep the ball and move it around in the final third with attacking moves, but the Counter was their most potent weapon
  7. Played a high tempo game even though they used to sit deep waiting for counter attacks.
  8. Were quite direct at times and moved the ball around with urgency,
  9. Not such a high pressing side either, they traditionally tended to drop off and became compact when they needed to
  10. Whipped crosses across the box with real pace for Ljungberg, Henry & Pires to get on the end of

Ozil summarized the team as follows:

  1. Could describe the team as a flat 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1 or a variant 4-2-3-1
  2. Lined up in a fluid 4-4-2 shape with Bergkamp in a slightly withdrawn role
  3. High creativity, free-flowing football but the main attacking weapon is attacking - or counter attacking - at speed
  4. Without the ball, operated a medium-block
  5. Would invite the opposition forward
  6. Organized into an attacking unit and a defensive unit, with everyone contributing towards transition play

Those are pretty similar!

The one thing that jumps out at me is Cleon asserted they could move the ball around in the final third (which implies patient build up?) while Ozil asserted that they attacked at speed (though Ozil, you may have been focused on the counter attack when you wrote that?).  The reason this jumps out at me becomes more obvious when we look at Mentality and Team Instruction differences.

Team Shape

The Arsenal Rewind Article has a nice section that provides visual references for what the "Starting Formation" (Without the Ball?) looked like and what the "Attacking" formation (With the Ball?) looked like, which helps me think about Team Shape (and Individual Roles and individual instructions like whether to encourage forward runs).

Cleon asserted that the team shape should be Flexible while Ozil concluded the team shape should be Fluid.  Its interesting to me when I compare the analysis of style to what I understand about the two mentalities.  Here's what I mean:

Flexible is described as:

  1. Players are expected to contribute to more than one phase of play
  2. Defenders and more defensive midfielders are responsible for both defensive and transition phases
  3. More attacking midfielders and forwards are responsible for both transition and attack phases
  4. The team will aim to find a balance between the movement of players and keeping its shape

Now from The Hand of God's amazing writeup of the mentality ladder, we have a lot of information about what flexible shape results in (remember that it used to be called balanced).  

There's a lot to digest there, but for me the key part is this:

Cleon's point #3 is what seems to stand out as leading him to choose Flexible.  Although its interesting that Ozil's point #6 might be interpreted to support arriving at Flexible.

However, Cleon's point #2 and Ozil's point #2 and #6 could be interpreted in a way that steers us away from Flexible and maybe to Fluid?

Fluid is described as:

  1. Players are expected to contribute to more phases of play than the balanced philosophy (this is a bug in the description as balanced became standard and philosophy
  2. The team is split into broad attacking and defensive units
  3. More creative players are responsible for the attacking phase and more defensively disciplined players are responsible for the defensive phase
  4. However, players from each unit are expected to move into the transition phase when the right opportunity arises
  5. The team will be encouraged to play more flowing soccer with players allowed more creative freedom

Here's what THOG said about Fluid.

It is a bit too long to quote, but what is interesting to me in there is what he writes about the two groups that have narrow and distinct duties.  However, his points regarding the controller affect only applying when using lower mentalities (Contain, Defend, Counter) makes me wonder if Fluid (with Attacking mentality) makes sense or not.

For me the questions that come to mind are:

  1. Do we want Flexible or Fluid in order to create the right amount of vertical separation between Attack, Midfield and Defensive lines both regarding where players close down and also so that the CF and AM roles are staying up high enough to break quickly without getting too isolated?
  2. Do we need Flexible or Fluid In order for get the LWB to aggressively get forward in attack while the RWB stays deeper to support and defend due to using Attack and Support for their respective roles?
  3. Likewise, do we need Flexible or Fluid in order to get the LCM to support the attack and make runs into the box (like that great clip of Vieira) while the RCM stays back and shields the CDs due to using Support and Defend for their respective roles?
  4. Do we need Flexible or Fluid In order to set the proper distribution of responsibilities among the individual roles?
  5. Do we need Flexible or Fluid In order to get the desired amount of creative freedom?

What sources of evidence might help us decide between these two choices?

Positioning and Movement Questions (#1-3)

The Zonal Marking article's diagram help us determine that the LWB needs to make runs further up the field than the RWB.  It also seems to suggest that we need the average position of the LCM to be slightly higher than the average position of the RCM.  LIkewise, it appears to suggest that we need the average position of the LM to be slightly higher than the RM.  And of course, it reinforced what Ozil and Cleon concluded regarding the AM being deeper than the CF.

The Football Performance Analysis graphs that display location (albeit location when scoring and assisting vs. true average position) helps us understand where the ST and AM players should position themselves relative to one another.  For example, we can tell that Bergkamp spent very little time on the right side of the pitch and was both on the left side and central while also staying quite a bit deeper than Henry.

Likewise, part 4 helps us understand where Cole and Pires spent their time (when assisting at least).

I can't find sources of information for the other roles and I can't find average position.  But If I play two versions of the tactic (one on Fluid and one on Flexible) and look at the average position under the team section of analysis, I get this:

Flexible with the ball

Flexible_With_Ball.png

Fluid with the ball

Fluid_With_Ball.png

Flexible without the ball

Flexible_Without_Ball.png

Fluid without the ball

Fluid_Without_Ball.png

So which of these two looks more like what we're going for?
 

Distribution of Responsibility Question (#4)

I'm unsure how to approach that question and would like to hear what others think.

What I guess I need to do is look each position's statistics?  For example, taking analysis from the Fluid version of the tactic:

Does this look like where the LWB should be completing crosses from?

LWB_Crosses.png
 

Does this look like where the LM should be completing passes from?

LM_Passes_Completed.png
 

Does this look like where the LCM should be touching the ball?

LCM_Touches.png
 

Does this look like where the CF should be taking shots from?

CF_Shots.png

 

Degree of Creative Freedom Question (#5)

I'm unsure how to approach that question and would like to hear what others think.

What would I look at to help me determine whether the amount of Creative Freedom Flexible vs. Fluid allows is more appropriate?

 

So that's what I came up with for Team Shape analysis - have I left anything out worth considering with regards to reaching a conclusion about Team Shape?

 

Mentality and Team Instructions

Cleon asserted that the Mentality should be Counter while Ozil concluded the Mentality should be Attack.  That's a big difference!

However, I don't think the whole picture is clear until we look at the team instructions that went along with that.  Here's what I mean:

Cleon's Team Instructions were as follows:

  1. Higher Tempo
  2. Pass Into Space
  3. Be More Expressive
  4. Whipped Crosses
  5. Roam from Positions

Ozil's Team Instructions were as follows:

  1. Exploit the Left Flank
  2. Play out of Defense
  3. Pass Into Space
  4. Low Crosses

So when we take the Mentality and Team Instructions together, how do they compare?

  1. Tempo is similar.  Cleon gets it by raising the base tempo of the Counter Mentality.  Ozil gets the fast tempo from the Attack Mentality.
  2. Both pass into space.  Watching the video clips tells us this makes a lot of sense and its clear why they both landed on that. (But are there other sources of evidence that reinforce?)
  3. Creative Freedom is similar.  Cleon gets it by raising the base Creative Freedom of the Flexible Team Shape.  Ozil gets the high Creative Freedom from the Fluid Team Shape. (Does Mentality also affect Creative Freedom?  If yes, then the same point would apply).
  4. Roaming is similar (I think).  Cleon gets it by raising the base Roaming of the Flexible Team Shape.  Ozil gets the increased Roaming from the Fluid Team Shape. (Does Mentality also affect Roaming?  If yes, then the same point would apply).
  5. Crosses are similar but different.  Cleon goes with Whipped Crosses, which implies crosses in the air but low and fast (so near post but to head?).  Ozil goes with Low Crosses, which implies on the ground and fast (so near post but to feet?).  What source of evidence help us understand which was more common?

So in summary, a lot is similar.  But why is Cleon going with Counter and Ozil going with Attack?  I think it has to do with their different interpretations of:

  1. The defensive line and how high/low the block should set itself
  2. The degree of risk the team is willing to take
  3. How the teams should pass the ball.

Defensive Line

The Arsenal Rewind Article has a nice section that provides visual references for what the "Starting Formation" (Without the Ball?) looked like and what the "Attacking" formation (With the Ball?) looked like.  Information like this helps me think about Mentality and Roles.  But I wonder if this kind of information can also help evaluate Defensive Line?  Or is there an alternative source that is better referenced?

Attack Mentality results in a higher defensive line and Counter results in a lower defensive line.   Cleon references this when he writes:

So it seems like he believes it might need to be set higher than the Counter Mentality default.

Here's how the average positioning look in a few different variations of the tactic:

Counter / Flexible / Normal Defensive Line With The Ball

Normal_Defensive_Line_With_The_Ball.png
 

Attack / Fluid / Normal Defensive Line With The Ball

Fluid_With_Ball.png
 

Counter / Flexible / Much Higher Defensive Line With The Ball

Much_Higher_Defensive_Line_With_The_Ball
 

Counter / Flexible / Normal Defensive Line Without The Ball

Normal_Defensive_Line_Without_The_Ball.p
 

Attack / Fluid / Normal Defensive Line Without The Ball

Fluid_Without_Ball.png
 

Counter / Flexible / Much Higher Defensive Line Without The Ball

Much_Higher_Defensive_Line_Without_The_B
 

Degree of Risk

I'm unsure how to approach that question and would like to hear what others think.

Reading again through the The Arsenal Rewind Article , I see the following description:

But what stats would I look at to help me determine the degree of risk they took?

I guess one would look at statistics like:

  1. Pass Completion % (how safe did they play their passing?)
  2. % of Passed received by other roles for a given role (how often did they make a safe pass - either something short and horizontal / backwards or a hoof way down the field vs. how often did they try to make a direct and incisive pass / through ball?)
  3. Dribbles Lost (How often did they try to take on the defender?)
  4. Missed Interceptions (How often did they step and risk the passed ball going past them?)
  5. Missed Tackles (How often did they step and risk the opponent skinning them?)

 

Passing

For me, an Attack mentality implies:

  1. Less direct passing in the back (shorter, more sideways passing to build up the attack)
  2. More direct passing in the front (aggressive, vertical balls moving toward the opponent's goal).  

Counter Mentality implies the opposite

  1. More direct passing in the back (to catch an opponent that has overcommitted or to get the ball to safety)
  2. Shorter passing in the front (careful movement to not waste possession and patiently try to hold on to the ball until a good opportunity presents itself).

I guess in order to figure this out, I'd need to see graphics or statistics that showed me where each role tended to pass the ball.  I'm not sure if that exists.  Here's what the two variations of the tactic look like with respect to passing:

CD Passing on Counter

CD_Passing_on_Counter.png

CD Passing on Attack

CD_Passing_on_Attack.png
 

LM Passing on Counter

LM_Passing_on_Counter.png

LM Passing on Attack

LM_Passing_on_Attack.png
 

AM Passing on Counter

AM_Passing_on_Counter.png

AM Passing on Attack

AM_Passing_on_Attack.png
 

CF Passing on Counter

CF_Passing_on_Counter.png

CF Passing on Attack

CF_Passing_on_Attack.png

 

It is a bit hard to tell, but I believe in general my descriptions of the two mentalities WRT types of passes are evident in the analysis.  The question becomes, did the CD pass short more often or direct more often?  And likewise for the other positions.

I couldn't find the information to help answer that unfortunately.

 

Player Role Differences

There are differences but I'll have to save that analysis for another day.  I recognize that Ozil was quite clear that only through a combination of the Mentality, Team Shape, Team Instructions and Player Role Instructions was he able to define his desired re-creation.  Likewise, Cleon had a series of specific points regarding Player Role Instructions and PPMs.


Conclusion

It is really interesting to me to look at two examples of interpretation of the same team's playing style.  I hope I'm on the right track regarding how to look for inputs and what information in the game I can use to determine if my interprettion is faithful or not.

This is a really good read through actually, you have taken your time to compare the two threads properly!

They almost end up at the same point dont they via different methods pretty much - clean using team instructions to arrive there and O-zil using mentality and shape, obviously Cleons is going to have the "counter-attack" plug-in active via use of that mentality where as O-zils will counter naturally by being attack minded and fluid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/06/2016 at 15:05, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Actually, a slight issue I observed was that even as a CF(S) my striker went quite a lot further forward than my midfield so I was concerned about isolation. In the early transition - you can see it a couple of times in the counter-attacks - he's out there on his own. Fortunately Martial is a very good player and can dribble / beat players and create a solo effort or find support. For this reason, I'd be very wary of a CF(A).

In addition - Henry actually assisted a lot of goals too. I had Martial assist quite a few but could be more. A CF(A) role would reduce the creative element.

You can see the attributes for Henry, Vieira, Bergkamp, Campbell, Pires, Ljungberg in the video posted in

For comparison, here is Martial.

 

DX0b0s4.png

 

 

It'd be nice to improve Flair and Teamwork.

Actually frightening to see how close they are in the STATS make-up of the players, sure Henry is miles better but you can see where Martials strengths lie and why he gets compared to Henry!

Absolutely loved those old CM skins they where awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respect buddy, this is remarkable work. Great stuff really

 

One question though, I installed the FM17 and when I try to add the PI to cm(d) close down much less, it's not possible. Am I doing something wrong or is there another way to solve that? Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How I would love to be able to play a normal MCd in FM17. For some reason they're hard wired to close down more though. Anyone any idea why? I'm sick of having to use playmakers and mess up my passing just to get round the various closing down and hard tackling restrictions on central midfielders. Particularly annoying when your DM gets a yellow card and you can't tell him to ease off 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having great success in FM 17 using this tactic as inspiration. Playing as Aston Villa, I'm 1st in the Championship after 28 matches. We've scored 52 (3rd in championship) and conceded 22 (1st). We just beat Southampton to advance in the FA cup and lost in the EFL cup semifinals vs Man Utd. Highlights of the season so far are a 3-2 win vs Southampton in the FA cup, a 1-0 win vs Tottenham in the EFL cup and a 0-0 away draw to Man Utd. 

The changes I've made are:

- Control instead of Attacking. I started with Attacking but found we gave the ball away too easily. I think to play this tactic on Attacking you really need the right players, which Villa certainly do not have. With Control we are averaging about 51% possession but are still quite aggressive going forward. 

- Changed "Bergkamp" to AM(S). I added Get Further Forward, More Risky Passes and Shoot Less Often to mimic the AP role without the added dribbling/playmaker designation. I found the AP(A) recklessly dribbled into the teeth of the defense too often, probably because I don't have the right player for this role. I've found the AM(S) still makes a lot of forward runs but sits back a little more to pick out passes. The support role also has the added benefit of dropping back more to help defend. I find we often defend in a 4-1-4-1 with the AM(S) dropping into midfield while the CM(D) drops deeper.

- Added Close Down More to "Henry" and "Bergkamp". This was inspired by the video @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! posted above. A minor change but I've found pressing the CB's leads to a lot of easy turnovers. I usually disable this against tougher competition.

- Changed "Ashley Cole" to a FB(A) with Run Wide With Ball and Dribble More PI's. This is a minor change and probably makes no difference but I've gotten more assists without the Cross From Byline PI that comes hardcoded with a WB(A). 

- Added an alternate tactic that drops "Vieira" and "Gilberto" into the DM strata as a RPM(S) and A(D). This was to address the issue @ceefax the cat posted re: the CM(D) being hard coded to close down more. I usually only use this tactic when we are heavy underdogs or if I'm worried about an opposing threat from AMC. The RPM still gets forward to support the attack but the Anchorman does a better job of shielding the back line. 

- They key to this tactic for me has been Scott Hogan. I started the season with Kodjia as "Henry" but he has the Likes to Beat Offside Trap PPM which I find to be a deal breaker in FM 17. Things really clicked when I started using Hogan instead. For anyone trying this tactic I'd suggest somebody with the Comes Deep To Get Ball PPM for this role. Hogan leads the Championship with 19 goals in 21 starts for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so bad about liking to beat the offside trap?

FWIW I'm working on a 3-3-4 at the moment (DCx-DCc-DCx : BWMs-DLPd-BWMs : WPMa-SS-Ws : DFs) and I'm having to set my defensive grunt to a Deep Lying Playmaker with short passing just to get around the closing down thing. The type of midfielder I most often wish I had access to is a central midfielder who just sits without also spraying long passes about or trying to clobber everyone, and it's weird that the option doesn't exist.

Similarly, I need the two midfielders on either side to close down like hell, more than anyone else, but I also need them to be very aggressive with their passing. The only role available to close down as much as I'd like is BWM, which comes hard coded with hard tackling, so if they get booked I have the choice of using a different role that covers less ground or waiting for them to get themselves sent off with a rash tackle.

Edited by ceefax the cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×