Wide Player Defensive Positioning Discussion

[shirajzl]

It's interesting that 442 (especially deep variant) is deemed useless on the current ME because of the underlined issues above and yet this plug and play tactic from the Internet works exceptionally well.

It uses Counter-Structured and keeps the ball away from the opposition without much hassle. Then it's only a matter of time a gap opens for a through ball or the inevitable wide overlap and a cross no one tries to defend in the box.

At the same time, it keeps clean sheets on a fairly regular basis.

[Svenc]

44 minutes ago, shirajzl said:

It's interesting that 442 (especially deep variant) is deemed useless on the current ME because of the underlined issues above and yet this plug and play tactic from the Internet works exceptionally well.

It uses Counter-Structured and keeps the ball away from the opposition without much hassle. Then it's only a matter of time a gap opens for a through ball or the inevitable wide overlap and a cross no one tries to defend in the box.

At the same time, it keeps clean sheets on a fairly regular basis.

I agree it that is interesting. Depending on what kind of effectiveness levels we're talking, unfortunately AI opponents don't go looking for  TI / PI combinations to utilize formations as parts of a creative exploiting tool, though. Or may be fortunately, as else we'd have all quit playing! The 4-4-2 deep is oftenly an AI manager's favored defensive formation, for instance, looking through the editor. As such it may typically not be combined with others settings that aren't set out to much massively retain the ball, or quite aggressive role combinations, such as here.

Would be interesting to watch, though naturally if the aim overall is to keep the ball from opponents, he wouldn't have as much time on the ball, which might make the "two central midfielders easily overloaded" less severe. Not sure what things look like overall, naturally. There's been a couple of guys who claimed to have exploited the current wide midfielder thing specifically, but whether that is true I haven't taken a look yet.

For the record, I consider what I'd be doing against AI playing two central midfielders to be technically an actual exploit as well. It's just such an obvious one due to the oft lack of support those guys now get. It's easy to have a lot of central guys that oft aren't much challenged, and if you tick a few buttons and a fitting mentality additionally that may make players a bit more prone to letting the ball run rather than immediately going forward, they'll be able to just outplay them with pretty ease. It's partly what makes this so pronounced in the sequence of that AI match I had recorded and put up on the tube: Millwall AI is the masssively underdog going with a quite non-aggressive set-up as underdog AI typically does, which makes for additional backwards and safety passes, and their backs aren't much pushing up in advanced wide areas likewise, which channels the play through that central area where their man advantage is in a very natural way. Which makes this look so comically pronounced in combination -- the match is full of sequences such as that where the ball goes back and forth and the wide guys never go inside to help despite the opposition full backs never even being much of a threat. Again, I would like to ask: Is this intentional or is this not.
 

[Cougar2010]

2 hours ago, Barside said:

What formations were you up against in that & the previus match?  

To me it apears to be that the opponents are using a narrow system that only uses fullbacks out wide which if that is the case could explain the positioning making of your ML & MR, would be interesting to see them up against a formatons that has two players on each flank to compare their posititioning when the ball is in the middle or on oppositie flank.

I said in my post that in that match the opposition were using a 433 (3 MCs & 3 STs).

If the opposition used a formation that had two players on each flank then the mis-match would be somewhere else on the pitch and dealt with in a different way. 

There are 11 players on each team and if both teams have two players on each flank then they should be marking each other leaving other players to deal with any mis-match there is elsewhere.

A couple of other shapes I face are 451 & 4411 which are fairly similar.  In those examples its up to my two MCs & my two DCs to deal with the four central players (either 3*MC + ST or 2*MC, AMC & ST).  If I get time I'll try to find a match where the opposition has used that formation and I'll take a couple of pics.

[Sapa]

Someone help me.... has the 'tactic creator' disappeared?  I can't for the life of my find it.....

[shirajzl]

30 minutes ago, Svenc said:

I agree it is interesting. Depending on what kind of effectiveness levels we're talking, unfortunately AI opponents don't go looking for  TI / PI combinations to utilize formations as parts of a creative exploiting tool, though. Or may be fortunately, as else we'd have all quit playing! The 4-4-2 deep is oftenly an AI manager's favored defensive formation, for instance, looking through the editor. As such it may typically not be combined with others settings that aren't set out to much massively retain the ball, or quite aggressive role combinations, such as here.

Would be interesting to watch, though naturally if the aim overall is to keep the ball from opponents, he wouldn't have as much time on the ball, which might make the "two central midfielders easily overloaded" less severe. Not sure what things look like overall, naturally. There's been a couple of guys who claimed to have exploited the current wide midfielder thing specifically, but whether that is true I haven't taken a look yet.

 

That tactic is actually a recreation of the same from FM 16, which was one of the best downloadable tactics out there. It works on more or less the same principles. Deep and congested at the back and going forward just to exploit the crosses plus the lack of real closing down in the ME which makes keeping the ball too easy. If you add dodgy defending as we have it in FM 17, you get bonus through balls seemingly out of nothing.

On top of all that, the '17 version of the tactic uses extensive OI; closing down on all players bar the defensive midfielders and central midfielders. It takes the ball quickly and then retains it again, waiting for the aforementioned cross or through ball.

[Cougar2010]

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

There are times when the wide guys do come inside, in this case likely fueled by the central three forwards as that needs an additional full back to shift inside to mark them

Of course its fuelled by the opposition using 3*MCs & 3*STs, it would be illogical if it wasn't

 

 

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

though I question that is down to any sensible instructions you picked, if it isn't man to man marking outright, and if which, what they may be.

Thats borderline calling me a liar Sven which I will take issue with.

Dismissing my examples because it doesn't suit your points is really poor form and not the basis for a constructive discussion.

 

 

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

If there is combinations, it should be picked by the AI, too.

I would presume so, I don't watch AI vs AI matches but I do see the way AI teams defend against mine and it seems the same which it should be.

 

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

Anything relating to width etc. has always been mainly "on the ball" instructions. This would affect the defensive side of things mainly insofar as when the ball is dropped, it took longer for players to narrow their position to their defensive again. Whatever happened defensively here was largely based on what the opposition were doing, be it their attacking width, their formation, their everything.

Yes width as a TI is mainly  an attacking/"On the ball" instruction and as you say a wider player would take longer to recover his defensive zone/position.

What happened defensively in my pics is partly down to the team mentality (lower mentality = narrower in defence), team shape (Structured meaning they hold the shape more) & the TIs, PIs & OIs that I didn't give that would have broken that shape to some degree.  The other part was the opposition shape and how the players reacted given the instructions to cover the mismatch in the centre.

 

 

 

The bottom line is I doubt you will ever be happy with any defensive coding TBH Sven because you want it to be perfect.  IRL defending isn't perfect, if it was you would never see another goal scored.  Every goal that goes in is the result of either/both an individual mistake or a tactical error caused by an overload/mismatch.

Thats not to say I don't think defending could be improved and maybe it is time for SI to look at incorporating different styles of defending.  To aid users maybe defensive instructions need to be separated out and more made available although I appreciate its not easy as there is overlap.

 

[Svenc]

52 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

What happened defensively in my pics is partly down to the team mentality (lower mentality = narrower in defence), team shape (Structured meaning they hold the shape more) & the TIs, PIs & OIs that I didn't give that would have broken that shape to some degree.  The other part was the opposition shape and how the players reacted given the instructions to cover the mismatch in the centre.

 

 

 

The bottom line is I doubt you will ever be happy with any defensive coding TBH Sven because you want it to be perfect.  IRL defending isn't perfect, if it was you would never see another goal scored.  Every goal that goes in is the result of either/both an individual mistake or a tactical error caused by an overload/mismatch.

 

This is the first I'm actually severely questioning the defending in itself. I have recorded why, which is what happens regularly, not on rare occurances. It massively weakens much more vulnerable areas than the flanks. I was arguing  that what you pointed out to be the exception rather the rule, only triggered by certain combinations apparently. Wasn't my intention to call you a liar really, that's my genuinelly experience. Also from playing against such AI. My key question is whether this is intentional, arguing that there may be combinations that this were triggered perhaps where it shouldn't be, i.e. why would the guys sit out wide when the flanks aren't overloaded, whilst the central areas of the pitch would be to the point of collapse? This is full backs not even joining in! Is there a possible bug or is this done on purpose. Does it only happen against certain formations, role and duty combos? Are SI aware of that? Do they see it as an issue or is it something that's just the way it's meant to be. The game never had perfect defending, and I was fine with that. I also was fine with a lot of stuff being hard-coded. But this seems much more severe to me than previous. That's sides getting toyed with by the virtue of their formational picks on occasion [no matter if they have better players or worse ones].

Team shape and mentality unfortunately influence this very little. There has never been a defensive width instruction as such, how wide players would sit in defending largely depends on the opposition. It's just that defensive mentalities keep players narrower in possession by default [by default a narrower width setting if not tweaked] mainly as that is a more cautious thing to do, it is easier to not lose the ball if players keep together, it also takes less time to narrow again when you lose the ball. Going wider is risk. [There has been a particular obnoxious player of the game arguing he were rigged on these forums also, as he would always dominate possession and shots and never get much results. What he did in effect was always going narrow by default, which makes it much easier to keep the possession stat high, which he clearly thought to be a good thing in itself. However whilst he had actually his full backs pushing up, he manually tweaked them to sit narrow via player instructions on top, having players narrow = easy to spam possession. Which meant the AI defenders never had an area to cover, never be caused to be stretched all over the shop and always get a foot in, and all of his many shots were mostly massively poor as a result despite him arguing otherwise. He's still doing this thing to this day, by the way, arguing the game were rigged against his and banned on many sites due to spreading it plus several conspiracy, sigh. Naturally he would always pick up an audience, as there is many poor players of the game who never learned to break down packed defenses likewise and always look at the game first and ask questions later if at all (even the worst AI manager decision, own assistants included, in the game surely would never do something this illogical). But that's another topic for another day, and better not wake the dogs ].

 

[HUNT3R]

2 minutes ago, Äktsjon Männ said:

I would really like to hear what arguments there would be in support of this being an acceptable defensive shape.

Not that I'm saying it's correct at all, but look at the fullback positioning of the team in yellow. That's a possible reason for the wide defensive positions - to cover marauding fullbacks.

As Svenc pointed out though, it leaves the middle weak.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Just now, HUNT3R said:

Not that I'm saying it's correct at all, but look at the fullback positioning of the team in yellow. That's a possible reason for the wide defensive positions - to cover marauding fullbacks.

As Svenc pointed out though, it leaves the middle weak.

The marauding full backs are on FB(s) and WB(d) respectively. The right back in particular never shows any intention of joining the attack which is why the left winger's positioning is even more staggering - the distance between him, the full back and the closest player to cover infield is more than ten yards. He's in complete no mans land and basically not participating in the defensive phase.

[HUNT3R]

2 minutes ago, Äktsjon Männ said:

The marauding full backs are on FB(s) and WB(d) respectively. The right back in particular never shows any intention of joining the attack which is why the left winger's positioning is even more staggering - the distance between him, the full back and the closest player to cover infield is more than ten yards. He's in complete no mans land and basically not participating in the defensive phase.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about those 2 specifically, but more in general. I do agree that they shouldn't be wide in that situation. It's clear they don't have aggressive roles and duties, but imagine if they did come forward. They'd be in acres of space, with everyone narrow.

[Cougar2010]

2 minutes ago, Äktsjon Männ said:

I wouldn't go into arguments about what we as players can do to make our own teams set up differently. What this is is a shape that is unprecedented in real football. The obvious shortcomings being the two strikers not participating in the defensive phase as well as the wingers out wide marking thin air.

I don't have any real issue with the above.

You have the white MR moving infield with the opposition yellow ML/MCL.  The white ML whilst looking out on a limb a bit is more or less in the right area depending on what happens with the ball.  The striker with the ball is dropping off with the DL & DCL behind him looking like they are holding their line rather than keep tight to him.  There is no point in the ML coming infield to Howell as he is already being covered by the other white MCs so he is marking his "zone" and keeping an eye on the opposition DR which is effectively "his man".  He could be slightly further infield but its marginal and you have to remember thats just a snapshot taken at a second in time.  Depending on what happens with the ball and the runs the opposition players make will define where he moves and which player he engages.

Strikers do participate in the defensive phase although they are a little slow to do so.  A typical support striker will track back and engage the deepest opposition midfielder given time.  Is this down to the coding of the ME/role/duty or down to the player's attributes/instructions/mood I'm not sure.

 

[westy8chimp]

9 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Not that I'm saying it's correct at all, but look at the fullback positioning of the team in yellow. That's a possible reason for the wide defensive positions - to cover marauding fullbacks.

As Svenc pointed out though, it leaves the middle weak.

as an isolated incident it looks ok.. agree the wingers are actually in good position to cover full backs, and the back 4 and cms are narrow enough to create a 6 man defence. The attackers are creating a counter threat and possibly have attack duties. And the team mentality is unknown ... is it attacking?

we really need to see how the play transitions. do the attacking full backs move beyond the wingers unchallenged? Or do the wingers follow them? when the pass goes back to the cms, do the defending strikers then move back at all? the defensive RW is actually angling more central and the pass is coming to that side of the pitch so then the attacking FBL will be in space

 

but it is not isolated... it is every time, and little options we have to tell our team to not play that way

 

[Cougar2010]

3 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

there is really no reasonable explanation to such poor positioning on defence. if it was one off, or one of two wingers, it could be down to a player. however, there are examples that suggest this being a default positioning probably as a workaround of last years full backs.

Exactly, last year loads of people complained about the space given to fullbacks.

SI have clearly adjusted the positioning of the wingers to leave less space for the fullbacks and yet people are still complaining.

You can't have it both ways as I explained in my post last night.

 

EDIT

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in all of this is the size of the pitch which can be different from league to league & club to club.  Wider pitches naturally means more space and bigger gaps between players.

[martplfc1]

Well, you could have it both ways. SI just have to work out how to strike a better balance.

[westy8chimp]

1 minute ago, martplfc1 said:

Well, you could have it both ways. SI just have to work out how to strike a better balance.

or let us choose which of the two ways we want by allowing us more tactical settings  

[Äktsjon Männ]

Just now, Cougar2010 said:

Exactly, last year loads of people complained about the space given to fullbacks.

SI have clearly adjusted the positioning of the wingers to leave less space for the fullbacks and yet people are still complaining.

You can't have it both ways as I explained in my post last night.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Defending in reality is done as a single unit. In a 442 there are two banks of four generally narrow and compact that both shift over to wherever the ball is on the field. In FM16 the narrow width was represented but not the compact lines and more importantly there was no shifting over so you had both flanks wide open to aggressive overlap. In FM17 the defensive line plays narrow as well as the central players (two separate units as opposed to being tied) and the wingers are completely on their own doing whatever it is they're supposed to be doing regardless of how the opposition are set up in attack.

[Cougar2010]

Just now, Äktsjon Männ said:

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Defending in reality is done as a single unit. In a 442 there are two banks of four generally narrow and compact that both shift over to wherever the ball is on the field. In FM16 the narrow width was represented but not the compact lines and more importantly there was no shifting over so you had both flanks wide open to aggressive overlap. In FM17 the defensive line plays narrow as well as the central players (two separate units as opposed to being tied) and the wingers are completely on their own doing whatever it is they're supposed to be doing regardless of how the opposition are set up in attack.

But thats only "Your" opinion.  Other people have different opinions.

Anyway, I don't have the time to have an indepth discussion so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[themadsheep2001]

9 minutes ago, martplfc1 said:

Well, you could have it both ways. SI just have to work out how to strike a better balance.

it''s another debate, but agree we do need more defensive instructions

[MBarbaric]

28 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

I don't have any real issue with the above.

You have the white MR moving infield with the opposition yellow ML/MCL.  The white ML whilst looking out on a limb a bit is more or less in the right area depending on what happens with the ball.  The striker with the ball is dropping off with the DL & DCL behind him looking like they are holding their line rather than keep tight to him.  There is no point in the ML coming infield to Howell as he is already being covered by the other white MCs so he is marking his "zone" and keeping an eye on the opposition DR which is effectively "his man". 

 

regarding the white LM, jsut ask yourself this:

at that moment, who is more dangerous? player with the ball outside the area or full back 30 yards away on the flank?

by the way this is how that particular situation should have looked really.

 

 

 

[westy8chimp]

6 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

regarding the white LM, jsut ask yourself this:

at that moment, who is more dangerous? player with the ball outside the area or full back 30 yards away on the flank?

by the way this is how that particular situation should have looked really.

 

Howell then has so much time and space with lots of options .. he could pick out either full back and when they cross there would be 5-6 attacking players in the box. I think a balance between the two IRL. Howell wouldn't have that much free space for shot or head up and pass... I think the full backs would be narrower (creating 4 cbs) and the wingers would drop further back to make a back 6. the two cms would still press Howell and co. with one of the CFs coming back to press Howell from behind, and preventing the easy pass from Howell to the DM.

for instance I would want the white right sided forward placed almost exactly where the referee is ... preventing that easy passing triangle of the yellow central midfield.

[MBarbaric]

 

3 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

Howell then has so much time and space with lots of options .. he could pick out either full back and when they cross there would be 5-6 attacking players in the box. I think a balance between the two IRL. Howell wouldn't have that much free space for shot or head up and pass... I think the full backs would be narrower (creating 4 cbs) and the wingers would drop further back to make a back 6. the two cms would still press Howell and co. with one of the CFs coming back to press Howell from behind, and preventing the easy pass from Howell to the DM.

you are right there. one of the attackers should be dropping deeper, my mistake. however, howell doesn't have the ball, does he? and it would be difficult to get it to hi as well considering 3 players around the ball carrier. even if all that happened, a player with the ball near the center line and on the flank is far less dangerous to defending team than the one with the ball outside the area (althought he is turned with back to the goal)

[westy8chimp]

like below

[themadsheep2001]

You wouldn't drop into a back 6, as your putting a winger in a defensive situation they are not used to, one on one against an attacking player.

Its a 3 on 6 there, defensively there shouldn't be a huge threat, I'd want my winger ready to cut off a later out ball to a free marauding full back

[MBarbaric]

4 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

like below

no, that wouldn't work at all. too much shifting that would create only confusion. 

[Cougar2010]

8 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

regarding the white LM, jsut ask yourself this:

at that moment, who is more dangerous? player with the ball outside the area or full back 30 yards away on the flank?

by the way this is how that particular situation should have looked really.

 

You are making the mistake of passing off your opinion as fact.

Different managers and coaches look at positions in different ways, just in the EPL Mourinho, Guardiola & Klopp all ask slightly different things of their players when defending.

How you deal with the first pic can vary:

A) You could ask the DL to stick with the ST on the ball while asking the ML to cover if the DL ventures too far forwards.

B) You could ask the DL to hold position and ask the ML to come infield and engage the ST on the ball.

C) You could ask the DL to pass the ST off to the MCL.

D) You could ask the DCL to instead of the DL to go with the ST with the DL moving infield to cover.

 

What you have done with your second pic is have three different positions close down the man on the ball but the flipside to that is that you have given acres of space to other opposition players.  Even on a defend duty the opposition DR should be out wide in that space looking to provide an wide option in the attacking third, Howell and the other MC to his left are completely unmarked and an easy passing option which would then result in your defence being dragged further out of shape, space opening up and an opportunity created for the attacking side to have a shot.

In fact I would go as far as saying your second pic is really terrible defending and schoolboy stuff where you see all the players chasing the ball.

[westy8chimp]

6 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

no, that wouldn't work at all. too much shifting that would create only confusion. 

wouldn't be shifting if they started off pressing the right zones... I would like to instruct my team;

when ball is in our final third... back 4 stay in a narrow line [blocking the strikers and ready to drop back and defend a cross] ... my wingers to defend the wide space [preventing either the wingers or full backs an easy crossing opportunities, if they overload me and get a cross in ... so be it i'll have 4 defenders in the box to clear it and they have committed overload out wide so less players attacking the cross] my central midfielders to press their AMC and nearest CM [stopping midfield triangles and pressing the ball carrier], one striker to prevent the triangle of CM-CM-DM or AMC-CM-CM etc and my other striker offering counter attack

[HUNT3R]

For me, that altered screenshot has the winger far too narrow. There are 2 players already dealing with the threat.

It does show, seeing as we have many different opinions, that any 'fix' isn't straightforward.

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

For me, that altered screenshot has the winger far too narrow. There are 2 players already dealing with the threat.

It does show, seeing as we have many different opinions, that any 'fix' isn't straightforward.

If anything has come from this, is that we need more defensive instructions.

There's no way in hell I would want my Winger that narrow.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

If anything has come from this, is that we need more defensive instructions.

I agree. I don't see this easily done though. The AI is only just starting to be somewhat competent in making tactical decisions. I wonder how it will be able to decide between wanting wingers wide, 'normal' or narrow. Fortunately for me that's SI's headache for the future, but yes, the defensive side can be improved a lot, tactically.

[martplfc1]

In the altered pic, the CM(r) could deal with Howell, leaving the lone striker for the DCs.

The RB is so far away there, if the ball is played backwards he could be closed down quite easily.

[MBarbaric]

30 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

You are making the mistake of passing off your opinion as fact.

 

i'll just cut the nonsense and give you what you want. mourinho, guardiola and klopp.

mourinho

two banks of 4 plus CF's deep in their half. ball is on man utd left flank so the defence (whole team, not just d-line) shifts to right up to length of 5 yard box. they also shift poorly as Bailey isn't in position.

 

klopp

two banks of four plus a dm, ball is in the middle so the width of D.line is about the length of the box - 30m the vertical 5-10

and guess what, Guardiola does the same.

 

you are right they might have different approaches as they might mark in different way the zones/players, whatever (more on that you can find here http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/06/01/zonal-marking-zonal-coverage/ ) however, there is a strict principle here behind all these teams that is fundamentally the same. if you want to see it.

[Svenc]

28 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

I agree. I don't see this easily done though. The AI is only just starting to be somewhat competent in making tactical decisions. I wonder how it will be able to decide between wanting wingers wide, 'normal' or narrow. Fortunately for me that's SI's headache for the future, but yes, the defensive side can be improved a lot, tactically.

 

Speaking about which, AI managers on occasion still isolating lone forwards -- true or no (from my experience it might). [Same as the research's imo slightly worrysome schtick of giving every single wide player in some teams gets further forward PPMs, whilst others are luckily much more cautious on this for years, e.g. Bundesliga research, but that's another thing )

Without going into all that detail, does anybody disagree that this is off in some ways really. We are talking about what the wide players should be doing, and everybody has got an outlook for that, same as that on occasion forwards actually put a foot in. But here they are both wide and forward arguably doing zero. Does anybody fundamentally disagree with that. Is there anybody who doesn't want to scream at his monitor of how absurdly easy the opposition have it to control the entire pitch.

More importantly, is this being acknowledged as a possible issue by SI, or the way it is meant to be. This is a feedback thread, but that is the only thing pretty much what would interest me. Not if this fully compares to actual football, or whether you should be able to tweak this to you heart's content. But the dynamics this causes in the matches FM creates on occasion. Is that seen as a possible issue, or is it meant to be that way (for the time being). I don't want to come off as one of the moaners (typically I'm actually labeled a fanboy else most of the time, presumably defending everything in the game out of spite), just wondering.

 

[Seb Wassell]

The detailed discussion on various aspects of the ME is both interesting and appreciated, but this feedback thread may not be the best place for it, especially when the discussion advances beyond initial impressions.

If you have an issue with the ME please do raise it, with examples, in the ME issues forum. This is the best way to ensure that the proper people are able to review and provide feedback on it.
If you would like to suggest future improvements to the game please do use the Feature Request section. If you would like to discuss tactics please do open up/contribute to a thread in either the Tactics & Training Discussion forum or the General Discussion forum.

Thank you,
Seb.

[Cougar2010]

@MBarbaric

Posting snapshot pics adds very little to the discussion due to the lack of context in terms of what was happening at that moment & what had gone on in the seconds before, nevermind considering the shapes both teams were using, how far into the match it was etc.

I also know you could say the same about the pics I posted last night of FM and without context its difficult to get my point across as well as I would like.  Ideally you would need to be looking at videos of a passage of play and how it develops.

But just taking the last pic of the Man City match if you look at the position of the MR it isn't a million miles away from the position of the ML in your earlier FM pic.

 

As Seb has asked for the discussion to be moved away from this thread I won't reply on the issue again in here but if someone wants to open another somewhere I'll happily continue it when I have the time.

[MBarbaric]

1 hour ago, Cougar2010 said:

@MBarbaric

Posting snapshot pics adds very little to the discussion due to the lack of context in terms of what was happening at that moment & what had gone on in the seconds before, nevermind considering the shapes both teams were using, how far into the match it was etc.

ah, you want video? two pages back i've posted video that explained the principle behind the zonal defending and how it should be executed. Then i was told " There is no universal school of defending, even at fundamental levels. " by a mod. 

then again you chipped in with " Different managers and coaches look at positions in different ways, just in the EPL Mourinho, Guardiola & Klopp all ask slightly different things of their players when defending. " however, when you have the picture of their teams (all different shape in attack) you see they all fall back in basically the same defending shape. I know there are differences between coaches and their preferences regarding reference points for marking (space/ball/ opposition/ team mate) and I've given you the link to understand it better. but that is beside the point.

fundamentally there is basic understanding when it comes to defending in modern football and that is that teams defend as single unit. not as four (CB's, FB+W, CM's) separate departments that are currently in the game.

however, all that is not enough for you to even consider there might be some basic principle behind it.  you want video as still images don't provide context. Now, wait, there was that video... 

now, the real question is what @Svenc asked. Is that intentional behaviour to mitigate problems with full back from last year or a bug? I seriously doubt someone from SI involved with the game isn't aware of fundamentals of football. It just must be very difficult to implement it properly. however, closing our eyes to something so obvious is really only damageing the development of the game. 

 

 

[westy8chimp]

3 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

You wouldn't drop into a back 6, as your putting a winger in a defensive situation they are not used to, one on one against an attacking player.

Its a 3 on 6 there, defensively there shouldn't be a huge threat, I'd want my winger ready to cut off a later out ball to a free marauding full back

rashford and young coped vs utd making the back 6 (disgusting park the bus tactics)...this is overkill but shows that managers do do it ... and backs up the need for more tactical options TIs/ PIs ... formations for attack and defence .. options to behave differently depending on which zone the ball is in.

[Äktsjon Männ]

These are two follow up screenshots from the bug thread (the pkm is also available to SI)

 

 

Both show the same continuous issues. No, the strikers are not just 'a bit slow to participate in the defensive phase', they are ignoring the defensive phase allowing the DM to sit in space. Just look at the distance between Bangura and the closest opposition player to him. In the first picture the defensive four is so ridiculously narrow that the distance from the full back to the winger is about as wide as the space covered by all the defenders (check out the channel the AML is about to move into). In the second picture two attacking players are between the central defenders whilst two midfielders are unmarked in the centre and a third one is available for a one two pass. How are they intending to contain the threat a simple overload is creting in the most vulnerable part of the field? 

 

The one constant in all this in addition to the strikers is the white ML being in no mans land whilst the yellow right back is showing no intention to move beyond the half way line. If one of the strikers dropped off to hassle the DM and the ML moved inside to cover then you would have something resebling of a defensive unit. Now when the RB actually makes a run and the ball is moved towards him the unit would shift over as a whole starting from the white left back (not from the winger as there isn't a double threat down either side). That does open up the other flank, but this is what you give up because the attacking player has to make a crossfield pass to exploit it.

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

rashford and young coped vs utd making the back 6 (disgusting park the bus tactics)...this is overkill but shows that managers do do it ... and backs up the need for more tactical options TIs/ PIs ... formations for attack and defence .. options to behave differently depending on which zone the ball is in.

They havent been isolated here, and there is no wide threat that could isolate ( in fact it's not even needed here as opposition have been undermanned). In fact they could easily be further up the field and cutting off the runner for the counter. It's an overly defensive reaction, would need to see more of the pitch to see why so deep

[westy8chimp]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

They havent been isolated here, and there is no wide threat that could isolate ( in fact it's not even needed here as opposition have been undermanned). In fact they could easily be further up the field and cutting off the runner for the counter. It's an overly defensive reaction, would need to see more of the pitch to see why so deep

no you don't need to see more.. there is no reason other than that Mourinho was desperate for a 0-0. I'm not using this as an example of what I believe to be good defending.. but just a real life example of a managers choice.. which I cant replicate in FM (whether id like to or not). to get this formation I would need to play a flat back 6 .. if that's even possible. WM on (d) or Wingers on (D) would not be that far back in line with defence. But also then they wouldn't act as Rashford and Young do with the ball.. as winger/inside forward.

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, westy8chimp said:

no you don't need to see more.. there is no reason other than that Mourinho was desperate for a 0-0. I'm not using this as an example of what I believe to be good defending.. but just a real life example of a managers choice.. which I cant replicate in FM (whether id like to or not). to get this formation I would need to play a flat back 6 .. if that's even possible. WM on (d) or Wingers on (D) would not be that far back in line with defence. But also then they wouldn't act as Rashford and Young do with the ball.. as winger/inside forward.

That's a different discussion to winger defensive positioning, its different to the point being originally made (where wide mids should stand). No one is disputing whether we need more defensive instructions

[westy8chimp]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

That's a different discussion to winger defensive positioning, its different to the point being originally made (where wide mids should stand). No one is disputing whether we need more defensive instructions

one and the same discussion... if we just focus on where they should stand that would mean there was one answer, and everyone just argues back and forth narrow vs wide. (narrow & deep) or (wide and deep) etc .. there isn't one answer... there are hundreds of answers all taking into account managers choice/preference. I'm showing that actually some managers do like midfielders to create a back 6 opposed to the common belief that every manager plays two narrow banks of four. So the only genuine solution is to give us the proper power to setup either way. Not to change the ME to be narrow one year [resulting in too many crosses-goals] then wide the next year [resulting in this debate 'wide players too wide']  

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, westy8chimp said:

one and the same discussion... if we just focus on where they should stand that would mean there was one answer, and everyone just argues back and forth narrow vs wide. (narrow & deep) or (wide and deep) etc .. there isn't one answer... there are hundreds of answers all taking into account managers choice/preference. I'm showing that actually some managers do like midfielders to create a back 6 opposed to the common belief that every manager plays two narrow banks of four. So the only genuine solution is to give us the proper power to setup either way. Not to change the ME to be narrow one year [resulting in too many crosses-goals] then wide the next year [resulting in this debate 'wide players too wide']  

Right now we are talking about whether the movement in the current ME is right.

New TI/PI would come with different movements and actions in future ME's

[westy8chimp]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Right now we are talking about whether the movement in the current ME is right.

New TI/PI would come with different movements and actions in future ME's

so when I said id have them as a back 6 and you said "you wouldn't drop into a back 6" ... you are disagreeing with the special one and jose mourinho who got a clean sheet vs a rampant Liverpool team  

the current ME is wrong, but cannot be right whilst limited to 'one or the other'

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

so when I said id have them as a back 6 and you said "you wouldn't drop into a back 6" ... you are disagreeing with the special one and jose mourinho who got a clean sheet vs a rampant Liverpool team  

the current ME is wrong, but cannot be right whilst limited to 'one or the other'

I was talking about that original scenario, and you wouldn't need to, and in fact they didn't need to in the second example either.

[westy8chimp]

another flat back 6. you never need to until its too late ... the back 6 I drew would make a good defensive line. you don't wait for the full backs to overload then chase them. you stop them from wanting to overload by blocking the space and in the end they try a long shot or knock it back to the defence to allow you to push out

[Cougar2010]

11 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Right now we are talking about whether the movement in the current ME is right.

New TI/PI would come with different movements and actions in future ME's

westy has it right tbh.

What the discussion shows is that different people have different opinions as to how teams should defend.

Currently SI code the ME to defend in one style with limited controlling instructions.  For me this isn't as much of an issue as I tend to take a pragmatic approach and work with the tools available but for others when the way the ME defends goes against what they personally feel it should it causes these type of threads.

Much like attributes though there is no right or wrong its simply differing opinions.  As long as SI code the ME to function in that limited fashion you'll always have this issue.  The next step is for the ME to allow for different styles of defending but I appreciate thats not easy.  It would involve more defensive instructions which then have to be balanced and the AI teams would also need to be able to use them effectively.

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

westy has it right tbh.

What the discussion shows is that different people have different opinions as to how teams should defend.

Currently SI code the ME to defend in one style with limited controlling instructions.  For me this isn't as much of an issue as I tend to take a pragmatic approach and work with the tools available but for others when the way the ME defends goes against what they personally feel it should it causes these type of threads.

Much like attributes though there is no right or wrong its simply differing opinions.  As long as SI code the ME to function in that limited fashion you'll always have this issue.  The next step is for the ME to allow for different styles of defending but I appreciate thats not easy.  It would involve more defensive instructions which then have to be balanced and the AI teams would also need to be able to use them effectively.

Again, no one is disputing opening up more movement in future ME's. it's exactly what I said to Mbarbaric originally about banks of 4/pressing/ and the universality of defensing (or rather, lack of it). I'm currently only talking about this ME and whether changes to need to be made to this ME, Not any future ME's

[westy8chimp]

if Sunderland defend this way I must be onto something... (again I do not believe a back 6 to be correct but I'd like the option, and I'm providing these examples just to show that there are many teams that don't just use two banks of four and as such there is no right answer for how the ME should behave). its easy to look through the previous screen shots of Liverpool, At Madrid, Arsenal defend that way and suddenly think "oh yeah everyone uses narrow 4 why cant SI get the ME to do that.."

 

[westy8chimp]

6 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Again, no one is disputing opening up more movement in future ME's. it's exactly what I said to Mbarbaric originally about banks of 4/pressing/ and the universality of defensing (or rather, lack of it). I'm currently only talking about this ME and whether changes to need to be made to this ME, Not any future ME's

I don't understand if we change this ME it becomes a new ME!! im just saying we cant change this ME based on one set of rules because it just opens the same argument. If we take the original picture and all agreed 100% that they are too wide... _> change the ME so they go narrower... -> I can post all of these back 6s and say the ME is buggy the wide players are too narrow.

So leave the ME as it is until they can actually give us power to choose our defensive strategy. I'm not saying its an easy overnight change.

I don't really get where you stand on the current ME if you are telling me "I wouldn't want a back 6" and telling babic "not everyone plays a narrow 4"... and then saying "but I don't want to talk about an ME in which you have the ability to choose"... what do you think about the current ME and how would you change it without opening yourself up to the counter argument of whatever you suggest?

[Äktsjon Männ]

43 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

westy has it right tbh.

What the discussion shows is that different people have different opinions as to how teams should defend.

Currently SI code the ME to defend in one style with limited controlling instructions.  For me this isn't as much of an issue as I tend to take a pragmatic approach and work with the tools available but for others when the way the ME defends goes against what they personally feel it should it causes these type of threads.

Much like attributes though there is no right or wrong its simply differing opinions.  As long as SI code the ME to function in that limited fashion you'll always have this issue.  The next step is for the ME to allow for different styles of defending but I appreciate thats not easy.  It would involve more defensive instructions which then have to be balanced and the AI teams would also need to be able to use them effectively.

Except the style in FM isn't one or the other. It's not a back 6 (which, btw in a 442 and two strikers who don't drop below half way line would be more than suicidal) and it isn't two banks of four (which is how 442's actually defend). It's narrow defensive line that doesn't shift enough, narrow midfield that closes down the same areas and then it's the wingers man marking the full backs + strikers doing nothing. The problem with this is that the AI playing 442 against the user is absolutely helpless, as shown in various screenshots and pkm examples. It's better than full backs topping the assist charts season after season and Hector Bellerin sweeping the Ballon D'or awards but it's still quite a problem.

If you want a more universal shape that works in various situations without giving us (and the AI) the tools to specifically fine tune the defensive shape then there has to be proper covering through one wide player moving inside to cover in case of an overload and the support duty striker dropping down to pressure the deep midfielder. It may not be easy to code but it fixes both extremes (wide overload/central overload).