Real life managers and the team shape+mentality they use (discussion)

[Kcinnay]

Hello everybody

By creating this topic, I'd like to raise some discussion about the philosophy of real life managers. Apart from the formation and the player roles, it is the combination of mentality and team shape that defines the recognizable style of a team, and, more precisely, of the manager.

Mentality and team shape are the two team instructions that are the most prone to confusion, misunderstandings and misconception. Thanks to some excellent post and guides on this forum, a lot of this is clarified. I've learned that mentality defines risk, passing style, tempo width etc, while team shape affects the fastness of the transitions, the deviation of the mentality and the depth of a formation.

But that's all very technical. I've been a real life football manager myself, I have coaching licenses, but I still tend to struggle to translate the ideas of real life managers to FM settings. Most especially their mentality/team shape combination.

Years and years ago, in the pre-tactic creator era, there was an expansive guide by wwfan and millie that had a topic about the possible mentality settings (rule of one, rule of two etc.). In that guide, there were real life examples of the different mentality systems. I'm quoting a paraphrase (found it on fm-base.co.uk after googeling it):

Quote

The Nike Defence

Manager Type: José Mourinho

Although this mentality structure is basically an adaption of the Rule of One , it is ideally suited to those that wish to play the Mourinho way. It is exceedingly control-orientated and specifies more individual mentality settings than any other system. It closely mirrors Mourinho's tactics in two ways. Firstly, it employs an athletic covering DC to support a powerful destroyer in the manner of the Carvalho/Terry Chelsea partnership. Secondly, the MCd sits slightly deeper than he would in the Rule of One, which equates to how Mourinho employed Makélélé. Like all Rule of One tactics, it suits the Mourinho-type manager as it can do well without excessive creative freedom.
Credit: Justified

The Libero Defence

Manager Type: Fabio Capello

As with the Nike Defence, the Libero Defence is a reworking of the Rule of One. Like Mourinho, Capello is very specific about how he wishes each of his players to perform and always employs a deep holding midfielder. However, unlike Mourinho he encourages one of his DCs to advance forward with the ball in the manner of a classic Libero, as seen by Rio Ferdinand's performances under Capello for England. Allowing a deeper defensive line than the Nike Defence, the Libero Defence better suits the type of controlled, possession football Capello prefers in contrast to Mourinho's direct, muscular approach.
Credit: Jaswarbrick

Rule of One

Manager Type: Martin O'Neill

The Rule of One plays roughly in the same manner as a Martin O'Neill tactic. Like Mourinho and Capello, O'Neill is very fastidious about tactics and expects each of his players to fulfil a specific function. However, he has had much less chance to work with genuinely world-class players, which has led to him employing a more generic system into which players of lesser quality are able to operate. In applying detailed specific mentality and player instructions, O'Neill can overachieve without the need for highly creative or flair players in his attacking line. Relying on detailed tactical structure enables him to employ lowish levels of creative freedom without a drop in performance.
Credit: wwfan

Bands of Two

Manager Type: Alex Ferguson

Sir Alex is the first manager that deviates from a very tight control methodology. Manchester Utd's system, most especially in the Queiroz years, operates through four bands of play. While the central defenders are predominantly instructed to defend (unlike when playing for Capello, Ferdinand stays back) the full backs and defensive midfielder offer deep support for the front line alongside their defensive duties. The attacking midfielder and wingers have become virtually interchangeable, switching roles in the high support band, and are usually allowed their creative heads. The final band is the spearhead forward, ideally a complete player who is comfortable playing with the ball at his feet or in the air.
Credit: wwfan & Millie

Role Theory

Manager Type: Arsene Wenger

Moving towards the more expressive mentality systems, in which control structure meets individual responsibility, we find Arsene Wenger. Unlike the other systems, here the mentality matches the player role within the team's overall match strategy and thus changes depending on how many players are assigned to specific roles (see pages 18-19). When playing an attacking strategy (see page 32), the five attacking roles are on the same mentality, whereas when playing a defensive system (see page 33), five roles are assigned defensive mentalities. The player's role rather than his individual skills or team system becomes the most important aspect of play. When everything fits into place and all the roles interact perfectly, the football is magical.
Credit: wwfan & Millie

2-6-2 Mentality

Manager Type: Marcelo Lippi

Lippi's teams have traditionally been some of the more expressive in Italian football, partly to do with his charismatic manner generating team spirit, but mainly due to his flexible approach to tactics. The 2-6-2 system allows considerable flexibility in the middle of the park, with six players interlinking as support group for the attack and defence. As with most Italian approaches, this system can frustrate opponents by dominating possession deep on the pitch as the back two interact with the midfield in an eight player passing system prior to instantaneously turning defence into attack as one of the front players is suddenly picked out in space.
Credit: zagallo

5x5 Theory

Manager Type: Rafa Benitez

Although Benitez doesn't come immediately to mind as a Libertarian, his structural approach to tactics is a simple one, relying on five players to defend and five to attack. Although he has transformed Liverpool into a team that is very difficult to break down, criticisms remain with regard to his attacking intentions and lack of width. In typical Spanish manner, Benitez wants his front five to play with creativity and flair, unlocking opposing defences via quick-fire passing interchanges. Without players who have the vision and touch to unlock defences in tight areas this translates into many efficient but dour matches. However, with the right players and creative freedom allowances up front, scintillating attacking play will complement resolute defence.
Credit: Asmodeus

Global Mentality

Manager Type: Kevin Keegan

Global mentality suits a manager who is willing to give players their heads and relies heavily on motivation techniques to get the best out of them. When the team is playing well, the global system is capable of outstanding football. However, its relative lack of defensive cover and a tendency to be compressed means that, when things are going less well, it can be outflanked on the counter and squeezed out when attacking. To combat that it requires heavy levels of creative freedom and players who can make the best use of it alongside excellent team discipline and determination. For a manager confident of his team-talks and media interaction it can be a great system.

When tactics are emulated, you see that there are a lot of different interpretations. That's where I tend to struggle too. Simeone's Atlético for example: they use(d) to be lightning quick in transitions, and play at high speed at all times, so attacking + very fluid would be logical. But then, you see that vintage Atlético most often gets replicated under the 'counter+structured' hood. Guardiola's teams: he likes short passing, patient build up, lots of movement, so 'counter + (very?) fluid'. But then again, he is known to be very strict and rigid, to be very defining in his player roles. Would that make his team shape (very?) structured? And don't his players play with a lot of speed in the other teams half? So 'control' then? And what about vintage Mourinho and recent Mourinho? Or Luis Enrique? Or Wenger? Or Ancelotti? Or Conte?

What I'd find helpful, are some examples of real life managers that mostly use a specific team shape. Who plays very structured, who plays structured, who plays flexible etc.

And then, it would be nice if this topic could be a place where people could name a specific team or manager, and then we could discuss his playing stile and his system, based on the mentality+team shape. Maybe the FourFourTwo list of best managers of the year 2016 could be a good starting point. (http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/fourfourtwos-50-best-football-managers-world-2016-

Hope I made myself clear in English. Thanks for reading this!

[Fosse]

It's difficult because the same manager at different stages of their careers, at different teams, with different players and in different games will 'use' different shape and mentality settings so it's hard to always apply it to FM. In my opinion the team shape setting is a bit contrived and should split up into different settings like creative freedom and compactness in possession.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

^Quite.

 

Plus no one can ever seem to agree on what formation is being played on any given day. Sir Alex is a particularly blatant example. Lots of people pass him off as a 'motivator' that played 4-4-2 and that was that. Yet his formations when analysed were anything from a 4-4-1-1, to a 4-2-3-1 or an asymmetrical 4-3-3, to bugger knows what. 

I can't remember if it was wwfan or someone who caught some people off guard by suggesting that Sir Alex was a good example of a 'structured' playing style manager, not a fluid one. 

[BlueAnderson]

1 minute ago, isignedupfornorealreason said:

I can't remember if it was wwfan or someone who caught some people off guard by suggesting that Sir Alex was a good example of a 'structured' playing style manager, not a fluid one. 

Why were people caught off guard by that? SAF is clearly set out his team in structured ways. 

Sometimes I feel like they should change the names of Structured and Fluid - people seem to think that you can't achieve structured football whilst on a fluid team mentality or fluid football based on a structured team. It is definitely possible.

[yonko]

40 minutes ago, isignedupfornorealreason said:

^Quite.

 

Plus no one can ever seem to agree on what formation is being played on any given day. Sir Alex is a particularly blatant example. Lots of people pass him off as a 'motivator' that played 4-4-2 and that was that. Yet his formations when analysed were anything from a 4-4-1-1, to a 4-2-3-1 or an asymmetrical 4-3-3, to bugger knows what. 

I can't remember if it was wwfan or someone who caught some people off guard by suggesting that Sir Alex was a good example of a 'structured' playing style manager, not a fluid one. 

Structured is the old Band Of Two type quoted in the OP. So those who were surprised probably weren't reading the forums back in those years before the TC.

 

[isignedupfornorealreason]

1 hour ago, BlueAnderson said:

Why were people caught off guard by that? SAF is clearly set out his team in structured ways. 

Sometimes I feel like they should change the names of Structured and Fluid - people seem to think that you can't achieve structured football whilst on a fluid team mentality or fluid football based on a structured team. It is definitely possible.

I think you somewhat answered your own question there.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

This is an absolute can of worms as football is so subjective that my interpretation of a team is likely to be completely different to anybody else's. You can see my opinions in my threads but you'll also see that I always start by outlining my opinion on how a team plays and then how I translate that into FM.

A lot of people translate things differently to me, for example I've seen people classify Jose Mourinho as very fluid as his sides are compact and I've seen people call Guardiola defensive due to risk-averse passes but it's not to say they're "wrong" as such - although, to me, they are  - it's to say that they are observing different things during a match, remembering different characteristics and following a different logic when interpreting in the match engine.

There are also more recent definitions on Team Shape, from THOG:

On 17 November 2015 at 16:48, THOG said:

The mentality of the player still matters, so on the same setting, you should see a difference between a Structured set-up with an attack duty up top and a Structured set-up with a support duty up top. Right now, team shape works like this:

Very Fluid = Most Compact

Fluid = Compact

Flexible = Default

Structured = More Depth

Highly Structured = Much More Depth

However, within that, you also have the effect of duties so the ST's role/duty in particular will have a big influence on how stretched you become in build-up play. So, for example, an F9 is still going to be an F9 on Highly Structured whilst a Poacher will still tend to hang on the last defender on Very Fluid.

The underlying design philosophy seems to be that Role/Duty are primary, at least in terms of build-up play, with everything else being a smaller modification.

The previous definition above which really still applies - in my opinion - is Global Mentality and even then that'd only be if you had everyone on Support, and even then not entirely accurate.

[Kcinnay]

Thanks for your reply, Ö-zil to the Arsenal. I've read the definitions of THOG before. I use those recent definitions when I play FM, but I always keep changing team shape. I tend to struggle with my desire for very precise player instructions ('very structured') and my desire to make my players double up in pressing situations (lots of 1-on-1 defending in structured systems, whereas in fluid, there's more double marking).

My knowledge of team shape is based on posts and threads by THOG, Rashdi and you. It's very subjective for sure (maybe due to the not-so-logical correlation between creative freedom and vertical compactness?), I agree, but I always enjoy it when some people with great insight in the game tend to link in-game settings to real life play. I don't remember in which thread it was, but I found it impressive when you talked about Wenger recently unsuccesfully going from 'fluid' to 'very fluid'. I can't pinpoint the difference between 'fluid' and 'very fluid', for example, not in-game, but certainly not when I try to link real life to FM. That's why I made this topic, so that people like you would share their interpretations. I learned a lot of your thread about Wales, for example, but I can't translate my real life-insight in the game. I've read an article a couple of months ago that compared the German Gegenpressing and the Spanish Gegenpressing, where the German Gegenpressing was labeled as 'structured' in FM terms, and the Spanish Gegenpressing as 'fluid'. I see the differences in real life, but I can't see/understand why what should what precisely in FM terms. Doubting all the time.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

1 hour ago, Kcinnay said:

Thanks for your reply, Ö-zil to the Arsenal. I've read the definitions of THOG before. I use those recent definitions when I play FM, but I always keep changing team shape. I tend to struggle with my desire for very precise player instructions ('very structured') and my desire to make my players double up in pressing situations (lots of 1-on-1 defending in structured systems, whereas in fluid, there's more double marking).

My knowledge of team shape is based on posts and threads by THOG, Rashdi and you. It's very subjective for sure (maybe due to the not-so-logical correlation between creative freedom and vertical compactness?), I agree, but I always enjoy it when some people with great insight in the game tend to link in-game settings to real life play. I don't remember in which thread it was, but I found it impressive when you talked about Wenger recently unsuccesfully going from 'fluid' to 'very fluid'. I can't pinpoint the difference between 'fluid' and 'very fluid', for example, not in-game, but certainly not when I try to link real life to FM. That's why I made this topic, so that people like you would share their interpretations. I learned a lot of your thread about Wales, for example, but I can't translate my real life-insight in the game. I've read an article a couple of months ago that compared the German Gegenpressing and the Spanish Gegenpressing, where the German Gegenpressing was labeled as 'structured' in FM terms, and the Spanish Gegenpressing as 'fluid'. I see the differences in real life, but I can't see/understand why what should what precisely in FM terms. Doubting all the time.

It's a challenge but - to me - it's what keeps the game interesting.

The most important thing is to define your desired particular playing style, and the characteristics you want to implement. As a minimum, it's important to be clear about your defensive strategy, transition and attack.

Then start to consider achieving this using mentality, team shape and structure (formation, roles etc.).

Try thinking of team shape as the distance individual mentalities will differ from your team mentality - I explain more in the Wales Euro 2016 thread. For example, in a Very Fluid shape, your individual mentalities remain close to the team. If you attack, everyone attacks, if you defend, everyone defends, that's why I generally advise being conservative with mentality in a very fluid system. In a Highly Structured system, you can play a defensive or counter mentality and a player in an attacking role will still have an attacking individual mentality. It's more individualist but it works. Bale's performance in my Wales team was probably the best individual performance I've had.

I prefer this to compactness as compactness is a positive trait, everybody wants it and so everybody therefore plays very fluid and we end up with lots of free-flowing defences! 

Team shape is not the only way to achieve compactness - there's also formation and conservative player roles.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

1 hour ago, Kcinnay said:

I've read an article a couple of months ago that compared the German Gegenpressing and the Spanish Gegenpressing, where the German Gegenpressing was labeled as 'structured' in FM terms, and the Spanish Gegenpressing as 'fluid'. I see the differences in real life, but I can't see/understand why what should what precisely in FM terms. Doubting all the time.

Also, Spanish "Gegenpressing"??  Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Pressing in football manager is very effective, but we're reasonably limited in terms of what we can control but in general, very fluid is good for making the team press as a unit.

[Kcinnay]

And there lies the problem. I want everybody to defend and to attack. I want ultra-fast transitions. So that makes me want to use 'defensive - very fluid'. But I also want them to carry out my instructions precisely; very close banks of defence, midfield and attackers who've tracked back, not a 'free flowing defence' indeed. That makes it difficult.

[shaunwwfc]

16 minutes ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

It's a challenge but - to me - it's what keeps the game interesting.

The most important thing is to define your desired particular playing style, and the characteristics you want to implement. As a minimum, it's important to be clear about your defensive strategy, transition and attack.

Then start to consider achieving this using mentality, team shape and structure (formation, roles etc.).

Try thinking of team shape as the distance individual mentalities will differ from your team mentality - I explain more in the Wales Euro 2016 thread. For example, in a Very Fluid shape, your individual mentalities remain close to the team. If you attack, everyone attacks, if you defend, everyone defends, that's why I generally advise being conservative with mentality in a very fluid system. In a Highly Structured system, you can play a defensive or counter mentality and a player in an attacking role will still have an attacking individual mentality. It's more individualist but it works. Bale's performance in my Wales team was probably the best individual performance I've had.

I prefer this to compactness as compactness is a positive trait, everybody wants it and so everybody therefore plays very fluid and we end up with lots of free-flowing defences! 

Team shape is not the only way to achieve compactness - there's also formation and conservative player roles.

Can "counter" and even "defensive" therefore work with Very Fluid? Particularly with say the Sacchi philosophy you once posted?

[shaunwwfc]

1 minute ago, Kcinnay said:

And there lies the problem. I want everybody to defend and to attack. I want ultra-fast transitions. So that makes me want to use 'defensive - very fluid'. But I also want them to carry out my instructions precisely; very close banks of defence, midfield and attackers who've tracked back, not a 'free flowing defence' indeed. That makes it difficult.

Therein also lies my issue too! Guess it is why the Simeone/Leicester system is so hard to crack

[Kcinnay]

1 minute ago, Shauny1990 said:

Therein also lies my issue too! Guess it is why the Simeone/Leicester system is so hard to crack

Indeed. I've studied a lot of their matches. Simeone mostly presses very high, with a swarm of wasps in specific zones, so to speak. But in a structure, with precise overloads, not just with a vague instruction of "press them, all, everywhere." At the moment, it's possible to target players or positions, but not what players that should put pressure one player. (I'm not talking about man marking.) I'm talking about situations wherein on the left byline the DL, ML, MCR, MCL and the ScL would put pressure on one player. Impossible to replicate, even impossible to come close.

But how would we come the closest? Defensive+very fluid+be more disciplined+strikers that sometimes man-mark MCR and MCL. Or DF's, ideally after next patch. Or SS and/r AM in AM-strata, but those players don't behave like strikers in the transition, they always look for the ball first, instead of going deep.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

51 minutes ago, Kcinnay said:

And there lies the problem. I want everybody to defend and to attack. I want ultra-fast transitions. So that makes me want to use 'defensive - very fluid'. But I also want them to carry out my instructions precisely; very close banks of defence, midfield and attackers who've tracked back, not a 'free flowing defence' indeed. That makes it difficult.

So, work that through.

• You want the team working as a unit - so that's either Very Fluid or lots of Support roles.
• How do you want to defend - low-block and counter? aggressive pressing? Somewhere in between?
• You want fast transitions, so you need tempo which you could get from mentality or using the team instructions.

Once you've answered those questions, you've got your playing style. As with most things, there'll be more than one way to do it.

I explain a couple of different examples on how to create compactness in the Wales Euro 2016 thread. This is a compact counter attacking system which had underdogs punching well above their weight.
 

54 minutes ago, Shauny1990 said:

Can "counter" and even "defensive" therefore work with Very Fluid? Particularly with say the Sacchi philosophy you once posted?

I'm sure they can work, but it'd look like van Gaal's Man Utd. Sterile, possession with weak penetration and lots of sideways / backwards passing and slow tempo.

To give an idea - in a Defensive & Very Fluid system a Complete Forward (Support) has a lower mentality than a Defensive Midfielder (Defend) in a Standard mentality.

I'm sure it can work, but it just doesn't interest me. 

[Rashidi]

This is an interesting topic there is a history behind all this that many of you aren't aware of. Back in the pre tc days, there was a lot theory crafting on the forums, we all tried to come up with settings that would replicate different managerial styles. I came up with a whole bunch and so did the rest, wwwfan and millies actually came a lot later. Eventually the three of us were roped into the creation of the tactical creator. Our setups all popped into the TC and Philosophy was born. I can still remember the debates over the term. Now back then, Shape as its now known was simply a way to break down Mentality in sets. This would allow people like me who enjoyed Kevin Keegan kinda football to play expansive end to end action with rigid shapes.  Back then when the only thing kicking shape around was mentality, those guidelines Richard came up with made some sense. It was an oversimplification but it in a broad sense it was logical. If you wanted to play structured you needed more specialists and if you wanted to play more fluid you needed more generalists. It made sense because creative freedom and more roles hadn't entered the domain of the TC yet. Creative freedom at this point was still separate. Since 2015 its been embedded, and this had a huge implication on how tactics would be made.

2015. Big debate happened internally, we wanted more. The long term vision of the game was that Mentality/Shape/Roles and Duties and Team Instructions should have to work together to create a style of football that was unique. So in today's game we need to ask ourselves a lot of questions before we can replicate a system.  And everyone has their own views on how different coaches approach tactics.  Guardiola played one way with Barca, and when he went to Bayern, with the players at his disposal he played a slightly different way. SAF used 442 sometimes and then used a 4231, he even flirted with a false 9 at one point with United. In the real world, managers don't typically sit on one tactical style for every match. They have philosophies on how they want their players to approach a game and that should always be our starting point when we want to replicate a system. This in itself will tell us the mentality.

Mourinho benches inside forwards that don't track back. Klopp benched Moreno when he was found to favour attacking ahead of his defensive duties. Conte loves workhorses. The list goes on.  So whenever I look at any manager, the first question I ask myself is : "Who comes back to defend?", then, "How do they typically score goals, do they hit from deep, or did find themselves having to unlocked a packed defence?".

Mentality is such a badly used term in the game. It affects 6 things in the game. In itself left alone, a team could end up hoofing the ball, but here is where the interaction with shape roles and duties kick in. Now take a low mentality, lets stop calling it defensive and just give it a color( Amber). When you pick Amber and nothing else, your team will strive to make sure that they don't take unnecessary chances. Now if you go to the team instructions and tell them to play it short, they now will look for people close enough to pass to. If they fail to find the person they hoof the ball. If you add the instruction play narrower, when in attack they won't look to the wings to launch the majority of the attacks they now focus a bit more centrally. Now lets add the TI retain possession, the team will now play it short and not take unnecessary chances with through passes. Lets now, pop in a role into the team and tell him to play like a playmaker. He can sit deep. Let's free him from the TIs and give him mixed passing and tell him to play risky passes. Then we tell two forwards to be on attack duty. Lets pick a role that has the possibility of going wide (F9). Lets' then add a advanced forward on attack duty. Without even adding Shape to the mix you have the basis of a system.

Your Amber mentality has just become a possession centred tactic that launches quick direct attacks through a centrally placed midfielder. If you push up the defensive line it brings others into play and you don't play too close to your goal. Let's add shape to the mix of mentality roles and duties.  Now if you pay on very fluid, the gap between the playmaker and the 2 attackers becomes far, this may be good against some teams you want to draw out. You could mess with the defensive line to see how far you want to take this.  Or you could play on structured, here there is going to be more onus on players to make the right runs and passes. In one shape you could bring more players in to support the rest during the 3 transitions, and in another you are depending on the players to exploit the space that happens with a structured shape. If you see any of my videos, I treat mentality/shape and defensive line like a rudder in a game. 

The game has evolved, the simplicity of the past allowed us to exploit the game. Today's game is based on the vision the developers have set out, and my insights of the game come from direct communication with the main people behind the current development of the match engine. 

 

So how do we go and replicate all the styles, we need to start asking ourselves these questions
1. Who comes back to defend - tells you Mentality
2. Where do their attacking transitions usually start from? Which third of the pitch? - Affects where your creators are going to be on the pitch, and what kind of roles you are using
3. Who are the prime creators in the side? - Do they have more than one outlet for goals.
4. Who are the workhorses in the side?- Your shape will depend on the number of players you see in real life closing down and working hard off the ball
5. When they hold the ball how many players are in support and how far are they? This will guide you on shape

I do believe that you can define styles currently by shape. However I have also seen in game changes where they go from fluid to structured. When Brendan Rodgers managed Liverpool for example. Sometimes you'd see the side string 30 passes before a goal, other times you would see them string 3. In one case you would see them moving as a pack in another you'd see the players exploit the space. I'd like to think that the game likes me to adapt not only by changing roles, but by encouraging me to take chances with the number of people I throw into attack and how I do so.

[mikcheck]

Rashidi, so do you agree that to accomplish a counter pressing style it's better to play on fluid/very fluid (team it's more compact)  coupled with a lower mentality?

[Rashidi]

40 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

Rashidi, so do you agree that to accomplish a counter pressing style it's better to play on fluid/very fluid (team it's more compact)  coupled with a lower mentality?

I do believe that will help, but its the roles and the way you have set up your system to play against the other system that will ultimately dictate how successful your counter pressing is. Counter pressing is simply winning the ball back after you have lost it in the opponents half. Its the act of pressing and then countering with a move of your own. To get that done effectively you would need players in close support, and you will also need the right roles and duties in your team. To make a truly successful counter pressing system in FM, you need to balance Mentality/Shape Roles/Duties and Instructions. Its' so all encompassing that for once, the game is actually looking quite interesting. From FM12-15, I was the biggest critic of Shape, only Cleon knows how I battled behind the scenes to improve Shape. THOG was also in the discussion as well, we all felt that Shape wasn't playing nearly as important a role as its place in the TC would have people assume. 

You can have a counter pressing style playing structured as well, and on fluid and very fluid settings. It really depends on your formation and what you are facing. Whenever I face an AI playing a 4231 or any overloaded system, it's like the AI has given me the "Win" button.  Most times the AI uses a fluid setup with the 4231 if they are a good side, and that's when they get caught with diagonals and my counter pressing style which shifts to just a high block. I have made counter pressing systems which work on structured shapes and on fluid shapes. In fact my current Chelsea replication of Contes 343 flirts with Structured and Fluid, depending on how I want my transitions to kick in.

To say that there is one style is oversimplifying the game. I am happy to see that the engine has shifted in this direction, the biggest challenge facing SI now are making roles and duties work better. 

 

[the--dud]

I agree with Rashidi, the problem is that we (and journalists too for that matter) don't speak the same "language" as coaches and managers. They approach football in a completely different way.

For instance if you look at slide 22 to 35 of this presentation by one of Belgium's top youth coaches: 

You'll see that his entire way of thinking and the language he uses is completely different from what we do in FM.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

4 hours ago, Rashidi said:

The long term vision of the game was that Mentality/Shape/Roles and Duties and Team Instructions should have to work together to create a style of football that was unique. So in today's game we need to ask ourselves a lot of questions before we can replicate a system.  And everyone has their own views on how different coaches approach tactics. 

Spot on. In my opinion, this has actually really worked well.

[mikcheck]

Thanks for your reply Rashidi. And of course player attributes, if a player has low work rate and teamwork, he doesn't fit for that job.

[Kcinnay]

15 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

So, work that through.

• You want the team working as a unit - so that's either Very Fluid or lots of Support roles.
• How do you want to defend - low-block and counter? aggressive pressing? Somewhere in between?
• You want fast transitions, so you need tempo which you could get from mentality or using the team instructions.

Once you've answered those questions, you've got your playing style. As with most things, there'll be more than one way to do it.

I explain a couple of different examples on how to create compactness in the Wales Euro 2016 thread. This is a compact counter attacking system which had underdogs punching well above their weight.

Thanks for your feedback, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! The playing style I want to achieve, is quite clear for me (of course I tend to change my plan according to the opponent). But the basic identity I want is:

• A firm block, no player is bigger than the team. (So, very fluid or lots of supporting players)
• When we don't have the ball: a low, passive, horizontally en vertically compact, zonal block, until the opponent reaches the critical zone of the pitch (ca. 20 à 25 meters in front of our goal). There should be firm and agressive closing down (which shouldn't leave gaps, because almost my whole team is in cover there) (So, structured or more structured then, as in fluid systems, I see that players tend to rush out too soon?)
• When we do have the ball: try to be quick in the passing. Get the ball forward as fast as possible, without making 'blind clearances'. (Attacking, control, counter?) Also, lots of people who should get involved in the attack, dynamic movement, lots of penetration (so a couple of attacking roles). Also: I don't want to have too much possession, as it makes us prone to get caught in the break. I prefer to force the opponent into mistakes.
• Transition from attack to defense: Player who loses the ball, should try to correct his fault by pressing the opponent who has the ball, two or three players in cover should press agressively too (counterpressing, so very fluid?) If they don't succeed: fall back into the low block
• Transition from defense to attack: quick counter, but that's balanced by the under the hood counter trigger of FM.

But I struggle to make that a FM tactic. It's quite vintage Simeone-like, what I want. They're very dynamic/fluid in offense and defense, but all in a firm structure. How to achieve that? I struggle.

The essence of the topic is: last year, 4-4-2 was very popular. Simeone's Atlético, Ranieri's Leicester, Marcelino's Villareal. Three different 4-4-2's, in shape and movement. I see the differences on tv, but don't know how to pinpoint their differences in FM terms.

[Rashidi]

26 minutes ago, Kcinnay said:

Thanks for your feedback, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! The playing style I want to achieve, is quite clear for me (of course I tend to change my plan according to the opponent). But the basic identity I want is:

• A firm block, no player is bigger than the team. (So, very fluid or lots of supporting players)
• When we don't have the ball: a low, passive, horizontally en vertically compact, zonal block, until the opponent reaches the critical zone of the pitch (ca. 20 à 25 meters in front of our goal). There should be firm and agressive closing down (which shouldn't leave gaps, because almost my whole team is in cover there) (So, structured or more structured then, as in fluid systems, I see that players tend to rush out too soon?)
• When we do have the ball: try to be quick in the passing. Get the ball forward as fast as possible, without making 'blind clearances'. (Attacking, control, counter?) Also, lots of people who should get involved in the attack, dynamic movement, lots of penetration (so a couple of attacking roles). Also: I don't want to have too much possession, as it makes us prone to get caught in the break. I prefer to force the opponent into mistakes.
• Transition from attack to defense: Player who loses the ball, should try to correct his fault by pressing the opponent who has the ball, two or three players in cover should press agressively too (counterpressing, so very fluid?) If they don't succeed: fall back into the low block
• Transition from defense to attack: quick counter, but that's balanced by the under the hood counter trigger of FM.

But I struggle to make that a FM tactic. It's quite vintage Simeone-like, what I want. They're very dynamic/fluid in offense and defense, but all in a firm structure. How to achieve that? I struggle.

The essence of the topic is: last year, 4-4-2 was very popular. Simeone's Atlético, Ranieri's Leicester, Marcelino's Villareal. Three different 4-4-2's, in shape and movement. I see the differences on tv, but don't know how to pinpoint their differences in FM terms.

Where is the Block? Where does it start? Which zones do you want blocks on?

Point 2 achieved by adjusting your defensive line. Decide where you want your players to start their work. The lower the defensive line, the deeper they retreat before they begin work.

Point 3 covered by passing instructions to key players + Tempo settings. Blind clearances happen when they don't have passing options. If lots of players are involved in transitions, then it really depends on how high up the pitch you are. This too is independent of mentality, but more a function of roles and duties, if you are structured you will see that players are more prone to attack space.

Point 4, this depends where your defensive line is and what your shape is. If your shape is structured they will fall back. Counter pressing does not always happen, and it doesn't always happen in real life too, conditions need to be present. If your players are already in an attacking shape when they are in the final third, and that player you designated as a "High Block" player has been given either the role or the PIs then if there are enough players close to him, he could High Block. Once again this is contingent to your formation.

Point 5 can still be affected by roles you set out, the deeper your PM the more your direct attacks can start from deep if you once again employ the right roles.

 

[bababooey]

15 hours ago, Rashidi said:

This is an interesting topic there is a history behind all this that many of you aren't aware of. Back in the pre tc days, there was a lot theory crafting on the forums, we all tried to come up with settings that would replicate different managerial styles. I came up with a whole bunch and so did the rest, wwwfan and millies actually came a lot later. Eventually the three of us were roped into the creation of the tactical creator. Our setups all popped into the TC and Philosophy was born. I can still remember the debates over the term. Now back then, Shape as its now known was simply a way to break down Mentality in sets. This would allow people like me who enjoyed Kevin Keegan kinda football to play expansive end to end action with rigid shapes.  Back then when the only thing kicking shape around was mentality, those guidelines Richard came up with made some sense. It was an oversimplification but it in a broad sense it was logical. If you wanted to play structured you needed more specialists and if you wanted to play more fluid you needed more generalists. It made sense because creative freedom and more roles hadn't entered the domain of the TC yet. Creative freedom at this point was still separate. Since 2015 its been embedded, and this had a huge implication on how tactics would be made.

2015. Big debate happened internally, we wanted more. The long term vision of the game was that Mentality/Shape/Roles and Duties and Team Instructions should have to work together to create a style of football that was unique. So in today's game we need to ask ourselves a lot of questions before we can replicate a system.  And everyone has their own views on how different coaches approach tactics.  Guardiola played one way with Barca, and when he went to Bayern, with the players at his disposal he played a slightly different way. SAF used 442 sometimes and then used a 4231, he even flirted with a false 9 at one point with United. In the real world, managers don't typically sit on one tactical style for every match. They have philosophies on how they want their players to approach a game and that should always be our starting point when we want to replicate a system. This in itself will tell us the mentality.

Mourinho benches inside forwards that don't track back. Klopp benched Moreno when he was found to favour attacking ahead of his defensive duties. Conte loves workhorses. The list goes on.  So whenever I look at any manager, the first question I ask myself is : "Who comes back to defend?", then, "How do they typically score goals, do they hit from deep, or did find themselves having to unlocked a packed defence?".

Mentality is such a badly used term in the game. It affects 6 things in the game. In itself left alone, a team could end up hoofing the ball, but here is where the interaction with shape roles and duties kick in. Now take a low mentality, lets stop calling it defensive and just give it a color( Amber). When you pick Amber and nothing else, your team will strive to make sure that they don't take unnecessary chances. Now if you go to the team instructions and tell them to play it short, they now will look for people close enough to pass to. If they fail to find the person they hoof the ball. If you add the instruction play narrower, when in attack they won't look to the wings to launch the majority of the attacks they now focus a bit more centrally. Now lets add the TI retain possession, the team will now play it short and not take unnecessary chances with through passes. Lets now, pop in a role into the team and tell him to play like a playmaker. He can sit deep. Let's free him from the TIs and give him mixed passing and tell him to play risky passes. Then we tell two forwards to be on attack duty. Lets pick a role that has the possibility of going wide (F9). Lets' then add a advanced forward on attack duty. Without even adding Shape to the mix you have the basis of a system.

Your Amber mentality has just become a possession centred tactic that launches quick direct attacks through a centrally placed midfielder. If you push up the defensive line it brings others into play and you don't play too close to your goal. Let's add shape to the mix of mentality roles and duties.  Now if you pay on very fluid, the gap between the playmaker and the 2 attackers becomes far, this may be good against some teams you want to draw out. You could mess with the defensive line to see how far you want to take this.  Or you could play on structured, here there is going to be more onus on players to make the right runs and passes. In one shape you could bring more players in to support the rest during the 3 transitions, and in another you are depending on the players to exploit the space that happens with a structured shape. If you see any of my videos, I treat mentality/shape and defensive line like a rudder in a game. 

The game has evolved, the simplicity of the past allowed us to exploit the game. Today's game is based on the vision the developers have set out, and my insights of the game come from direct communication with the main people behind the current development of the match engine. 

 

So how do we go and replicate all the styles, we need to start asking ourselves these questions
1. Who comes back to defend - tells you Mentality
2. Where do their attacking transitions usually start from? Which third of the pitch? - Affects where your creators are going to be on the pitch, and what kind of roles you are using
3. Who are the prime creators in the side? - Do they have more than one outlet for goals.
4. Who are the workhorses in the side?- Your shape will depend on the number of players you see in real life closing down and working hard off the ball
5. When they hold the ball how many players are in support and how far are they? This will guide you on shape

I do believe that you can define styles currently by shape. However I have also seen in game changes where they go from fluid to structured. When Brendan Rodgers managed Liverpool for example. Sometimes you'd see the side string 30 passes before a goal, other times you would see them string 3. In one case you would see them moving as a pack in another you'd see the players exploit the space. I'd like to think that the game likes me to adapt not only by changing roles, but by encouraging me to take chances with the number of people I throw into attack and how I do so.

If there is a way to take this information and present in a user-friendly way as an in-game guide for tactics I bet it would clear up no less than 75% of the questions asked on this forum. Absolutely brilliant. 

[Cleon]

23 hours ago, Rashidi said:

I do believe that will help, but its the roles and the way you have set up your system to play against the other system that will ultimately dictate how successful your counter pressing is. Counter pressing is simply winning the ball back after you have lost it in the opponents half. Its the act of pressing and then countering with a move of your own. To get that done effectively you would need players in close support, and you will also need the right roles and duties in your team. To make a truly successful counter pressing system in FM, you need to balance Mentality/Shape Roles/Duties and Instructions. Its' so all encompassing that for once, the game is actually looking quite interesting. From FM12-15, I was the biggest critic of Shape, only Cleon knows how I battled behind the scenes to improve Shape. THOG was also in the discussion as well, we all felt that Shape wasn't playing nearly as important a role as its place in the TC would have people assume. 

You can have a counter pressing style playing structured as well, and on fluid and very fluid settings. It really depends on your formation and what you are facing. Whenever I face an AI playing a 4231 or any overloaded system, it's like the AI has given me the "Win" button.  Most times the AI uses a fluid setup with the 4231 if they are a good side, and that's when they get caught with diagonals and my counter pressing style which shifts to just a high block. I have made counter pressing systems which work on structured shapes and on fluid shapes. In fact my current Chelsea replication of Contes 343 flirts with Structured and Fluid, depending on how I want my transitions to kick in.

To say that there is one style is oversimplifying the game. I am happy to see that the engine has shifted in this direction, the biggest challenge facing SI now are making roles and duties work better. 

 

Funny you should mention that because 5 hours before you posted this I was writing my next instalment of the Sheffield FC series and wrote this;

Quote

If you wanted you could approach your issues by altering team shape if you fully understand what team shape actually is. If not then I suggest reading my very good friend Rashidi’s stuff, you can find him on Twitter https://twitter.com/BusttheNet or his YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWUCWx5HNWSuzwGxwVczGPQ or his website https://www.addictedtofm.com/

I’ll not be going into the discussion about team shape as I believe people over complicate it when it's not really needed. I think of it in more simplistic terms and have covered it in depth before. However if you want to learn about it in greater detail to get your head around just how complicated and complex it is, then definitely check out Rashidi’s stuff he explains it better than anyone else. He is also one of about four people who actually know all the ins and out of the tactical side of Football Manager and was one of the people who really pushed for the recent team shape changes over the past five years or so, so that it was more intricate and had a bigger impact on the tactical side of things. So please check him out if you want to deal with factual stuff and not myths

 

[difran8]

On 15/12/2016 at 09:11, Rashidi said:

In one shape you could bring more players in to support the rest during the 3 transitions, and in another you are depending on the players to exploit the space that happens with a structured shape

I'm curious about why you prioritize this  (transitions) when talking about  shape. Do you find this is the most important effect shape has?

[Rashidi]

13 minutes ago, difran8 said:

I'm curious about why you prioritize this  (transitions) when talking about  shape. Do you find this is the most important effect shape has?

Without a shadow of a doubt

[yonko]

FM, just like IRL, football is about transitions and what happens in that phase of the game. What do you do when your team loses the ball? What do you do when your team wins the ball? Quickness, precision and execution. The struggle sometimes is how you replicate RL football or your vision/idea into FM.

Posts by Rashidi, Cleon and lately O-zil have helped a lot. Btw, I was a lurker back in the pre-TC days and witnessed the in-depth tactical discussions of which the TC was born. I just want to say thank you to those who are still sticking around like Rashidi and Cleon (sorry if I'm missing someone else) to help everyone.

I would love to hear more, especially from you Rashidi about transitions in FM and how different set ups illustrate different ideas. I don't know if you have time or want to do that, but I'm sure lots of people would find it eye opening.

[Kcinnay]

1 hour ago, yonko said:

Posts by Rashidi, Cleon and lately O-zil have helped a lot. Btw, I was a lurker back in the pre-TC days and witnessed the in-depth tactical discussions of which the TC was born. I just want to say thank you to those who are still sticking around like Rashidi and Cleon (sorry if I'm missing someone else) to help everyone.

I would love to hear more, especially from you Rashidi about transitions in FM and how different set ups illustrate different ideas. I don't know if you have time or want to do that, but I'm sure lots of people would find it eye opening.

Absolutely second that.

[MBarbaric]

fm went a long way and TC is important part of that journey. the best thing TC did was to bring more football language to the game while pushing the under the hood mechanics (sliders) where they belong - under the hood.

ironically, while best part of the TC was promoting more football like environment in creating tactics, at the same time, it suffered same problems sliders suffer. TC left the inner workings of the game on the surface by leaving "mentality" and "philosophy" in there. while both terms might be found in football tactics vocabulary, they aren't really what they represent in the game. Nobody in football world would have it easy with mentalities and philosophies in the game. they are just simple labels for complicate workings of the game that should be under the hood as much as sliders.

TC did a great leap forward at the time but it didn't cure the old disease. what we need in tactics creator is more football concepts.

The team should first be split in two main phases (i'll leave out the transitions for simplicity): in possession - without possession

It should also be split according to thirds; defensive-middle-attacking, and possibly sides (left and right flank)

From these very basics you should assign:

- team shape (in possession and without possession),

- player roles (in possession and without possession),

- pressing triggers in attacking third (on opposition backpass to their defensive third), or high counterpressing or both, middle third or near the touch lines (if there is split by flanks)

- D-Line height in possession and without possession 

this is just a brief organization of team that happens in real and is nowhere near what FM offers. I realize that translating this into the game mechanics is completely different thing, but it has to be done if the game wants to be more life like just as sliders had to go.

things shouldn't be based on guess work, at least not the kind of guess work we have currently where guardiola or conte couldn't tell what is mentality. that stuff should be hidden deep beneath the surface and tuned by team and player instructions.

[Rashidi]

20 hours ago, Kcinnay said:

Absolutely second that.

TBH that's a super long thread which includes a lot of elements. I started one but found that it needs to be in a book, I plan to release close to Xmas. 

There will be information on my blog and YT Channel when they book is out. I keep writing and writing. It's a lot less unwieldy than doing a post on the forums which I keep repeating every year.