Workaround For Wide Midfielder Defensive Positioning?

[Michael Zorc]

Not sure if this is the right forum for such a query, but...

Does anyone know of any workarounds to achieve more tight and compact defensive positioning for wide midfielders? I realise SI have said this issue is under review but just wondering if there's anything we can do on our end to minimise this tactical frustration?

Have tried employing wide playmakers on support duty which have sit narrower as a player instruction but no luck, nor have I had any success in getting the desired behaviour by adapting the team width/mentality/shape instructions (I was trying to target instructions that may affect width/compactness but don't know if I'm missing anything, or even doing it right in the first place).

Any ideas? I'm really stuck and not sure what to do (apart from revert to FM16).

Relevant thread with users' examples, screenshots, PKM's can be found here:

Thanks!

[herne79]

I'm going to ask at this point how big of an issue is this for you?  ie., how many goals are you actually conceding because of your "winger" being in a poor defensive position that is directly related to this issue?  How many matches are you losing because of this?  And I don't include your winger being caught up field by a counter attack.

Yes there is an issue which you correctly mention SI have acknowledged and are working on, but from experience I'm not finding any significant issue with conceding or losing, so I haven't felt the need to find a "work around".  In that thread there are several examples of poor positioning, which have been very useful for SI to log and work on, but hardly anything in terms of quantifying the extent of the issue in relation to losing matches and conceding goals.  As SI themselves mention, it's far from game breaking.

Analyse your matches and see how big the "problem" is.  Let us know and then post your detailed system to see if anyone can suggest ideas.  When you analyse at that level you may find you have different issues that are more readily fixed.

[Rashidi]

This is one of those topics that deal with isolating one facet of the game and believing that it is the issue. The game is a blend of many instructions and attributes, if your wide players are not supporting the backline, then its an issue with your overall setup and how you have chosen players to fulfil that role. Poor positioning comes from:
 

1. The wrong shape

2. The wrong role

3. The wrong duties

4. The wrong formation

5. The wrong player chosen

 

Granted this is an oversimplification, but without more information that's the kind of responses I can think of...in terms of generalising it.  How would one defend with a 4231? They would employ a high block and ensure the 2 men in midfield are battle hardened ball winners. They would also play with a reasonable line that brings the defensive line closer to the midfield, however this opens them up to balls over the top, which they should mitigate with players with good concentration, anticipation and positioning. 

How would a 4411 become weak, this system should never ever be flank weak. The only way that would happen would be by choosing the wrong roles, duties and players. 

The flanks are even easier to defend on FM17 than on FM16

[JWVG]

This is a screenshot from a game, red plays 4-4-2 with 2x WM(a) and much narrower, against the blue team with a 4-1-4-1.

It looks horrible, a huge hole in central midfield. The ball just came from blue No. 13 to No. 4. Red No. 22 is in no-mans land.

I mean it may look worse than it actually plays out in the ME but this makes me not want to use 442 any more. In this case it resulted in a CCC for blue.

SI fixed wide defending by making WMs stay wider in the defensive third it seems. For me this looks just incredible unrealistic.

(Not to talk about the strikers defensive positioning but I can live with that)

[baggi0]

Did you ever wonder why no. 21 is pressing blue no. 13 and why no. 28 is behind no. 10?

Your wide midfielders not narrowing the space isn't the only (or the) issue.

In my opinion a players role influences the behaviour of the other players and their roles.

[herne79]

That screenshot posted above is a very good example of something that has at best very little to do with wide midfielder defensive positioning (and at worst nothing at all), and why I posted above that people need to properly analyse and quantify the actual issue.

Above is nothing more than a classic case of your midfield facing a 3v2 overload by the opposition.  The 442 is facing a 4141, so they have a man over which has sucked in your midfield to leave Drinkwater free.  If the wide midfielder came into central midfield to challenge, that would have a knock on effect to your flank and leave your fullback facing a 2v1 overload.  Your winger is actually positioned well as he's covering the fullback.  Even worse, you aren't giving us any context around the play, let alone your tactical set up.  Read Rashidi's post above.

Now, there is an issue - SI have acknowledged and logged it for change - but I must ask anyone who contributes here to first read both mine and Rashidi's posts above before doing so.  I apologise if that may seem harsh, but this type of thread becomes very easy to cloud with unrelated issues which is how myths are born and perpetuated.  It's a snowball effect and so I'll simply remove any such posts now (I did the same in the thread raised in the Bugs forum).

Of course feel free to create your own thread if you need to discuss your own tactical problems, just please don't assume you are falling foul of this "winger" defensive positioning issue.  The 442, 4411, 541, whatever, are all perfectly playable.

[EuanDewar]

This seems to be ignoring the OP's issue. Yes the midfield is facing a 3v2, but that problem wouldn't be there if the wide players (and the block as a whole) were positioned narrower. I'm sure OP is well aware of the problem here but doesn't want to combat it with adding another player in midfield. If Red's two wide players (8 and 22) were narrower, around in the half spaces, or if the strikers were deeper (which is really, *really* hard to achieve on FM) then the team could very easily to deal with the 3v2. There are numerous real life examples of teams mostly conceding the flanks to better deal with midfield penetration.

I'd assume this is not the whole of the OP's issue because it wouldn't be a 100% fix, but he/she has a valid question. If nothing else it would be nice to have an answer to their question, regardless of whatever issues you may see in their system.

[noikeee]

Example of an (extremely successful) 4-4-2 in FM17, which could be an option if you want to stick to a 4-4-2. Doesn't have narrow wide midfielders, seems to rely on a combo of very high pressing (which minimizes the space for the opposition to unleash their routine advantage of having extra central midfielders), and a duo of DMs instead of CMs which means they'll keep a tighter shape, and will probably be less keen to be dragged out of position ahead of the players they're marking as in @JWVG's screenshot above.

[themadsheep2001]

38 minutes ago, EuanDewar said:

This seems to be ignoring the OP's issue. Yes the midfield is facing a 3v2, but that problem wouldn't be there if the wide players (and the block as a whole) were positioned narrower. I'm sure OP is well aware of the problem here but doesn't want to combat it with adding another player in midfield. If Red's two wide players (8 and 22) were narrower, around in the half spaces, or if the strikers were deeper (which is really, *really* hard to achieve on FM) then the team could very easily to deal with the 3v2. There are numerous real life examples of teams mostly conceding the flanks to better deal with midfield penetration.

I'd assume this is not the whole of the OP's issue because it wouldn't be a 100% fix, but he/she has a valid question. If nothing else it would be nice to have an answer to their question, regardless of whatever issues you may see in their system.

On the contrary it's directly answering it. Still have no idea how OP is playing, and the (static) screenshot below from someone else is showing something that's not even the wingers problem to deal with. That's a straight block by a CM, except he isnt anywhere near his position. In fact, if the CM is in position, there is no threat of an overlap. As Herne and Rashidi said, there is a need to properly analyse shape.

[themadsheep2001]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

That screenshot posted above is a very good example of something that has at best very little to do with wide midfielder defensive positioning (and at worst nothing at all), and why I posted above that people need to properly analyse and quantify the actual issue.

Above is nothing more than a classic case of your midfield facing a 3v2 overload by the opposition.  The 442 is facing a 4141, so they have a man over which has sucked in your midfield to leave Drinkwater free.  If the wide midfielder came into central midfield to challenge, that would have a knock on effect to your flank and leave your fullback facing a 2v1 overload.  Your winger is actually positioned well as he's covering the fullback.  Even worse, you aren't giving us any context around the play, let alone your tactical set up.  Read Rashidi's post above.

Now, there is an issue - SI have acknowledged and logged it for change - but I must ask anyone who contributes here to first read both mine and Rashidi's posts above before doing so.  I apologise if that may seem harsh, but this type of thread becomes very easy to cloud with unrelated issues which is how myths are born and perpetuated.  It's a snowball effect and so I'll simply remove any such posts now (I did the same in the thread raised in the Bugs forum).

Of course feel free to create your own thread if you need to discuss your own tactical problems, just please don't assume you are falling foul of this "winger" defensive positioning issue.  The 442, 4411, 541, whatever, are all perfectly playable.

Going to requote this as I'm not sure it's been taken on board

[herne79]

If anyone wants to directly discuss the OP's question, please do so.  Although I don't know how anyone can until the OP posts more detail.  The screenshot above wasn't posted by the OP.

If anyone wants to discuss the broader aspects of this issue that has been raised with and acknowledged by SI, please start a new thread.  Again, be prepared to discuss your tactical set up - being specific is much better than discussing generalisations.

I really don't want to be heavy handed here, however we need to be aware of who reads these threads and posts.  Too much in the way of generalisations and misconceptions can give readers a false impression of how issues actually manifest themselves.  Very rapidly issues such as these snowball into "omg the 442 is unplayable", and that is the type of thing that I and the other mods want to avoid.  It's not defending SI, it's simply keeping things in perspective and asking people to a) stay on topic; b) be constructive (including criticism); and c) be specific.

So please, stay on topic.

[EuanDewar]

It seems to me that it's answerable without knowing anything about their setup. I understand that the screenshot is from a different user, but surely the two problems are one and the same. If the problem is "my wingers are too wide" then there's only going to be so many ways to resolve that, and you'd probably end up writing the same thing regardless of how much you know about their system.

Also I still don't understand how the winger being tighter is irrelevant. If the wingers are tighter then the CM wouldn't have to leave his position, or at least would be in less danger if he did so.

[herne79]

Yup understood, but again - we know nothing about their set up.

For example, what if the midfield is being played with a BWM(s)?  You think having a winger tighter would stop such a player moving like that?  Perhaps it's got nothing to do with the role, but the player's attributes.  Or perhaps TIs and/or PIs are playing a part.  Or mentality.  Or team shape.  Or all of the above.

This is why we can't just generalise and say "yeh you've got a bug there but here's how you can work around it".  Neither the OP nor the person who posted that screenie have provided any detail or context so we have no idea whether what is being seen is part of the issue acknowledged by SI or something else entirely.

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Yup understood, but again - we know nothing about their set up.

For example, what if the midfield is being played with a BWM(s)?  You think having a winger tighter would stop such a player moving like that?  Perhaps it's got nothing to do with the role, but the player's attributes.  Or perhaps TIs and/or PIs are playing a part.  Or mentality.  Or team shape.  Or all of the above.

This is why we can't just generalise and say "yeh you've got a bug there but here's how you can work around it".  Neither the OP nor the person who posted that screenie have provided any detail or context so we have no idea whether what is being seen is part of the issue acknowledged by SI or something else entirely.

Exactly, context is key and that's precisely what we don't have right now.

[Cap'nRad]

10 hours ago, Michael Zorc said:

Does anyone know of any workarounds to achieve more tight and compact defensive positioning for wide midfielders?

 

This doesn't really improve defensive positioning for WM's (as it's a ME thing which apparently won't be fixed till FM18), but my idea is to play a 451 which morphs into a 4411 or 4231 depending on your preference. That way you still have 3 CM's securing the center in defence. I've also found that with WM's with moderate to high levels of aggression, instructing them to close down much more makes them more actively involved in the midfield battle, especially when being overloaded. They'll still stay wide, but will recognize overload situations at times and close down the ball carrier. Not an ideal fix, especially if you want to play a very compact defensive system... but at least it's something.

[visca020]

12 hours ago, herne79 said:

 

I'm going to ask at this point how big of an issue is this for you?  ie., how many goals are you actually conceding because of your "winger" being in a poor defensive position that is directly related to this issue?  How many matches are you losing because of this?  And I don't include your winger being caught up field by a counter attack.

This problem is not the only problem of weakness (I do not know if it is weak).

Positioning is strange as football.

I often see full match, and I often see this positioning problem.

This is a football game, isn't it?

[Michael Zorc]

11 hours ago, EuanDewar said:

This seems to be ignoring the OP's issue. Yes the midfield is facing a 3v2, but that problem wouldn't be there if the wide players (and the block as a whole) were positioned narrower. I'm sure OP is well aware of the problem here but doesn't want to combat it with adding another player in midfield. If Red's two wide players (8 and 22) were narrower, around in the half spaces, or if the strikers were deeper (which is really, *really* hard to achieve on FM) then the team could very easily to deal with the 3v2. There are numerous real life examples of teams mostly conceding the flanks to better deal with midfield penetration.

I'd assume this is not the whole of the OP's issue because it wouldn't be a 100% fix, but he/she has a valid question. If nothing else it would be nice to have an answer to their question, regardless of whatever issues you may see in their system.

100% spot on.

I will post my settings and 2 PKM's of the same game (Dortmund vs Koln) to help with analysis - 1 PKM with wide midfield players on attack duty and 1 PKM with the same wide midfielders and roles but both using a support duty instead.

Formation, Players Selected, Roles and Duties:

1st Game vs Koln with Attack Duty ML/MR

2nd Game vs Koln with Support Duty ML/R

Wide midfielders on support duty here (for the 2nd time I played through the same game vs Koln) to see if it made any difference.

Only other changes: I used a complete forward instead of target man in game 2 because my wide midfielders were deeper so I didn't want to be quite as direct in playing straight to the man up top. However, I upped the sweeper keeper from defend duty to support (meaning more risky passes from him) to still allow for the quick counter over the top, if the situation merited it, while removing his "distribute to centre backs" player instruction.

All other team/player instructions remained the same.

Individual Instructions - MCR:

Individual Instructions - GK:

Wide Midfielder Settings - ML:

Wide Midfielder Settings - MR:

Wide Midfielder PPM's - ML:

Wide Midfielder PPM's - MR:

Opponent Formation and Players:

Team Instructions:

1st Game - Result and Match Stats:

2nd Game - Result and Match Stats:

By the way, I have no problem at all with the way my team played when we had possession of the ball. I was really happy with that aspect.

1st Game - Dortmund Average Positioning With The Ball:

1st Game - Dortmund Average Positioning Without The Ball:

1st Game - Dortmund Average Positioning Overall:

1st Game - Koln Average Positioning With The Ball:

1st Game - Koln Average Positioning Without The Ball:

1st Game - Koln Average Positioning Overall:

Note: 1st game average position screenshots were taken just before I substituted Weigl and moved Castro into the centre of midfield. This was done to avoid capturing a screen where the substitution and re-arranging of players would have distorted and misrepresented the actual shape.

2nd Game - Dortmund Average Positioning With The Ball:

2nd Game - Dortmund Average Positioning Without The Ball:

2nd Game - Dortmund Average Positioning Overall:

2nd Game - Koln Average Positioning With The Ball:

2nd Game - Koln Average Positioning Without The Ball:

2nd Game - Koln Average Positioning Overall:

Example of Poor Wide Midfielder Positioning and Bunched Up Central Midfielders:

I'm not aware of any top division team that plays 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 and defends in such an extreme manner in real life. It's not just about personal preference, it's about realism too (and surely that's the most important thing).

1st Game PKM (wide midfielders on attack duty):

Dortmund v Köln 1.pkm

2nd Game PKM (wide midfielders on support duty):

Dortmund v Köln 2.pkm

Would appreciate any advice from anyone who can help reduce or eliminate this issue - thank you.

[Michael Zorc]

10 hours ago, Cap'nRad said:

 

This doesn't really improve defensive positioning for WM's (as it's a ME thing which apparently won't be fixed till FM18), but my idea is to play a 451 which morphs into a 4411 or 4231 depending on your preference. That way you still have 3 CM's securing the center in defence. I've also found that with WM's with moderate to high levels of aggression, instructing them to close down much more makes them more actively involved in the midfield battle, especially when being overloaded. They'll still stay wide, but will recognize overload situations at times and close down the ball carrier. Not an ideal fix, especially if you want to play a very compact defensive system... but at least it's something.

Thank you for posting some constructive feedback. This is the sort of thing I'm looking for. Appreciate your thoughts on this.

[EuanDewar]

I've been experimenting with a 4-2-2-2 (2 DMs, 2 CMs, and then whatever you want after that. Two strikers, two AMs, an AM & a striker, up to you) and it sort of works like a narrow 4-4-2, oddly. Especially helps if you give the CMs some generous closing down/marking, that way they really get out to press in the halfspaces.

Of course doing this makes the possession game harder to translate, but I think it's doable with some fiddling.

[kpsia518]

3 hours ago, Michael Zorc said:

100% spot on.

I will post my settings and 2 PKM's of the same game (Dortmund vs Koln) to help with analysis - 1 PKM with wide midfield players on attack duty and 1 PKM with the same wide midfielders and roles but both using a support duty instead.

Formation, Players Selected, Roles and Duties:

1st Game vs Koln with Attack Duty ML/MR

2nd Game vs Koln with Support Duty ML/R

 

Team Instructions:

 

 

i think "structured" shape is where your problem coming from.

structured = SC or W,don't help the defend,they are "NOT allowed to help" the backline.

you should use very fluid,so this mean SC or W have to help the midfield.

 

[kpsia518]

My WM always move to narrow position in my tactic,& i'm unhappy about it.
Because i want to play wing cross fast counter-attack with a Poacher up front.
If WM sit too deep or too narrow,i can't play Beckham sytle long ball.

So what i do in this case is change team shape to structure,that mean WM or W "NOT ALLOWED" to help the defend.
& yes again,i get what i want to see:

Quote

Non their business even i leaking goal.Just sit up front & wait.& i got long ball passing option to winger,when i get the ball back.

 

 

[herne79]

I'm sorry if I come across as pedantic here, but I'm confused about the issue now.

In the OP you talk about an issue that is bothering you so much you are considering going back to FM16.

In my very first reply I ask you to try to quantify the issue - how many goals are you conceding / losing matches that are a direct result of this poor positioning, and the two examples now given are both matches you have won without conceding a goal?

So is this an actual gameplay issue here, or is it more one of realism/aesthetics (ie., it just looks weird on the pitch and not very realistic)?

 

[westy8chimp]

This discussion has already been done into the ground. I know you've been pointed to the Bug forum thread... but @Michael Zorc and others... should take time to browse through this thread.

Even if you just skim through you will see many screen shots of teams that do use the narrow banks of four ... allowing space out wide. And other teams that do not defend that way.

Thus can you stop referring to it as a bug. It is not a bug. If it were a bug; in simple terms you could say ... move them more centrally and it is not a bug. But then I could send SI a bug saying my midfielders are too narrow as I want to defend the way Scotland do, or Sunderland... and have my wingers make a back 6 with a striker dropping into the CM strata to aid my overloaded two CMS.

Lets think of it as a limitation not a bug ... and the fix isn't saying it should be A or B ...the fix is to give each manager more flexibility to choose how he defends/attacks. Which won't come for some time because it would mean drastic change to the Tactic Creator. Many of us have pointed to needing more generic roles with additional PI. More TI... split the pitch into half space zones... allow a defence tactic and attack tactic ... But these are major changes.

To call the wide wingers game breaking is madness... because you must agree FM17 is more playable than FM16 ... where full backs could exploit the wide space and get 40+ assists per season.

 

[Thengil]

The attitude that this is not a big problem because it doesn't lead to a lot of goals against is to my mind flawed as at least myself I look at this as a simulation more than a game. A simulation is supposed to immerse you and suspend your disbelief and the only way of doing this is by staying as true to reality as possible. If it is impossible to recreate that most basic of defensive tactics, two banks of four in a zonal system then to me suspension of disbelief is shattered. The game then becomes a hunt not for what would work tactically in real life but what will work in the match engine, realism be damned. 

So in conclusion, the OPs question of whether there IS a way of getting closer to the typical 442 is what matters, not whether the "default behavior" of wingers in the game actually leads to goals conceded. 

[westy8chimp]

the thread ought not be 'wingers too wide' more... "I cannot create a tactic where my midfield defend as a bank of four which shift side to side based on where the ball is"

because as illustrated... if they just take in isolation the wingers being wide and make them more narrow... anyone could then say "hold on a minute this is a bug my wingers are too narrow"

what we all want is ability to implement our preference.

And what would be even better if we could do it on a zone by zone basis... i.e. if the opponents have the ball in their defensive third ... id like a 451 strategy no press just marking their mids and attack so they have freedom in their own third. If they progress to half way ... Id like a 460 strategy with my midfielders and strikers pressing like mad. if they have the ball in the attacking third (my defensive third) id like a 631 strategy where my wingers make a back 6, my back 4 go narrow, a striker drops into cm strata so I have three players pressing in the centre.

I'd also suggest that Herne is asking for more evidence of how it affects your matches... it's easy to take a snapshot without context to show them out wide. but likewise I can show you a screen shot of my 4411 where the wingers have come inside.

See below, all from the same match. A screen shot where I'm reasonably happy that my wingers have become more narrow. A screen shot where they have stayed wide where I'm not so happy with one of them... and the average attack and defend position over the 90 mins ... which shows defensively my wingers are narrower than offensively.

what does this prove... that there must be triggers whereby my wingers do come narrow and triggers whereby they do stay wide. so a successful 442/4411 is achievable

[EuanDewar]

The average position of the wingers without the ball there is not very narrow.

The idea of "how many goals are you actually conceding from this anyway" is slightly missing the point that crosses are a very low% form of chance creation. It's hard to pinpoint exactly the effect it is having because a) it's a long term thing and b) it's hard to show the benefits of something you cant get to work.

[westy8chimp]

Just now, EuanDewar said:

The average position of the wingers without the ball there is not very narrow.

The idea of "how many goals are you actually conceding from this anyway" is slightly missing the point that crosses are a very low% form of chance creation. It's hard to pinpoint exactly the effect it is having because a) it's a long term thing and b) it's hard to show the benefits of something you cant get to work.

not very narrow... but more narrow than their attack position. so they don't stay wide. 

If you can show wingers hugging the touchline as their average defensive position over 90 mins... then it would add credibility to it being 'game breaking', even then there can be tactical influence by the human or AI that make it happen ...

so far there are just some screen shots of a moment in time where the wingers appear wider than some individuals would want them. In almost every case they are covering space or an opposition full back/winger ... where others would be happy to not concede that ground.

[herne79]

Exactly.

This is why I've been trying all along to get to the bottom of quantifying the issue.

Two match examples have been provided so far, both were wins with no goals conceded.  If we start trying to give advice about tactical settings to change player behaviour in a tactic that on the face of it is successful, we could give advice that breaks the tactic and (worst case) the OP gets sacked.

As @westy8chimp above points out, sometimes wingers do indeed tuck in.  Sometimes they don't.  Is there a workaround for this "intermittent" behaviour (the OP's question)?  No, SI are working on it.  Are there tactical settings that can be changed if your system is unsuccessful?  Yes I imagine there would be, but we are yet to see an unsuccessful system posted here.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this issue resolved and even further have the ability to set up different (and realistic) defensive systems without having to faff around with awkward workarounds.  Until then I'm afraid there really isn't much (any?) tactical advice to give that may help with realism and immersion without running a massive risk of breaking something in the OPs system.

As RTH always used to say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[EuanDewar]

It isn't narrow enough to achieve what people want from it.

In that first picture, for example, the positioning all across the midfield line is wonky. The yellow no.10 has ample room, and any movements he made would in turn give the 8 more room for a shot. The positioning of the opposition full backs is overly-conservative too, and would be giving you nightmares if they were any higher. There's three defenders covering one Yellow player and four midfield players covering... I'm not even sure what.

If this sort of positioning isn't providing a problem then I would question the effectiveness of the opposition AI in this case or as a whole. I realise it's difficult to reach sweeping conclusions without masses and masses of evidence, but I think to assume that this isn't a problem ignores several nuances. 

Also I'm now realising that this is pointless because the community just isn't big enough for the requisite amount of people to come forward. 

[Cougar2010]

24 minutes ago, EuanDewar said:

The average position of the wingers without the ball there is not very narrow.

The idea of "how many goals are you actually conceding from this anyway" is slightly missing the point that crosses are a very low% form of chance creation. It's hard to pinpoint exactly the effect it is having because a) it's a long term thing and b) it's hard to show the benefits of something you cant get to work.

All the statistics I've seen suggest crosses are the most common way of creating chances & scoring goals IRL.

[EuanDewar]

10 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

All the statistics I've seen suggest crosses are the most common way of creating chances & scoring goals IRL.

I would point to https://2plus2equals11.com/category/crossing/ and http://statsbomb.com/2014/10/how-low-can-you-go-assorted-thoughts-about-crosses/. 

Crossing isn't pointless, would never suggest it. But every defensive scheme has to concede something, and it is far more valuable long term for that to be the wide areas. 

[themadsheep2001]

Static screenshots are largely useless as they provide no context, so I'm going to watch the Pkms later, but even that screenshot, talking about wide players is irrelevant when his 2 CMs are standing 2 yards apart. You could tuck those wingers to the same like as the full backs, and thats still a mess. 

First things first about compact defending: it starts with the midfield spine being rock solid. Too much here is being talked about in isolation to everything else.

[Michael Zorc]

1 hour ago, Thengil said:

The attitude that this is not a big problem because it doesn't lead to a lot of goals against is to my mind flawed as at least myself I look at this as a simulation more than a game. A simulation is supposed to immerse you and suspend your disbelief and the only way of doing this is by staying as true to reality as possible. If it is impossible to recreate that most basic of defensive tactics, two banks of four in a zonal system then to me suspension of disbelief is shattered. The game then becomes a hunt not for what would work tactically in real life but what will work in the match engine, realism be damned. 

So in conclusion, the OPs question of whether there IS a way of getting closer to the typical 442 is what matters, not whether the "default behavior" of wingers in the game actually leads to goals conceded. 

Exactly. 100% spot on.

Feel like I am fighting a losing battle here. 

I posted 2 PKM's which will show "context" to anyone who views them and watches the matches in full. There was no point in posting additional screenshots as they are just "still images" that would all show the same thing; that's why the full game PKM's were posted. I encourage people to have a good detailed look at them.

Yes, I won both games 4-0 and 1-0 respectively, but remember that this wide midfielder positioning issue affects BOTH teams, human and opposition AI. Notice in the first game the great match that my ML - Wide Playermaker (Attack) had. He was super effective and tore the opposition to threads by exploiting the very half space that excessively wide ML/R's leave completely open.

So yes, Herne79, this wide midfielder positioning did lead to goals - for me - and a loss - for the opposition. It's an issue that affects both human and AI managers so in that scenario, you'd expect a significantly stronger team to come out on top (Dortmund) at home vs a weaker opponent (Koln) that was set up to defend and soak up pressure with 1 forward and no attacking midfielders. I feel your dismissal of this being a big issue is both flawed and extremely demoralising because SI are basically getting feedback from respected mods that it's not a big deal, and may therefore be less like to fix what is a really obvious problem to a lot of people.

I don't mean to come across in an aggressive way at all - just frustrated with an issue that didn't exist in FM16 that is now seriously affecting both realism and the ability to win the ball back quicker and more efficiently while leaving fewer exploitable gaps (something which is not necessarily quantifiable by goal and loss statistics).

[EuanDewar]

22 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Static screenshots are largely useless as they provide no context, so I'm going to watch the Pkms later, but even that screenshot, talking about wide players is irrelevant when his 2 CMs are standing 2 yards apart. You could tuck those wingers to the same like as the full backs, and thats still a mess. 

First things first about compact defending: it starts with the midfield spine being rock solid. Too much here is being talked about in isolation to everything else.

If you tuck the wingers in then those 2 CMs would be physically unable to have as poor positioning as that due to the restrictions of the actual space. If the right sided winger were standing more around where the RCM is and that RCM were still standing acres out of position then he might actually be dead. Genuinely dead.

The narrowness of wide players affects the positioning of central players much more than vice versa. They reduce the amount of central space the CM has to think about. 

[Michael Zorc]

19 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Static screenshots are largely useless as they provide no context, so I'm going to watch the Pkms later, but even that screenshot, talking about wide players is irrelevant when his 2 CMs are standing 2 yards apart. You could tuck those wingers to the same like as the full backs, and thats still a mess. 

First things first about compact defending: it starts with the midfield spine being rock solid. Too much here is being talked about in isolation to everything else.

That's exactly the point I was making about screenshots and PKM's so thank you for that. Would really appreciate your feedback.

I also think the CM's being too bunched up is an issue - not sure if it's related to instructions or the match engine itself so would be interested in your thoughts on this as I have seen it recurring in various tactics with rather different settings.

Thanks.

[themadsheep2001]

6 minutes ago, EuanDewar said:

If you tuck the wingers in then those 2 CMs would be physically unable to have as poor positioning as that due to the restrictions of the actual space. If the right sided winger were standing more around where the RCM and that RCM were still standing acres out of position then he might actually be dead. Genuinely dead.

The narrowness of wide players affects the positioning of central players much more than vice versa. They reduce the amount of central space the CM has to think about. 

No they wouldn't, as they would both still be out of position in centre midfield. How far in are they supposed to tuck? If he is has tucked that far in he is a centre mid. and if he has to tuck that far in to be a centre mid in order to cover the centre mids standing next to each other, something is wrong with the centre mids.

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, Michael Zorc said:

That's exactly the point I was making about screenshots and PKM's so thank you for that. Would really appreciate your feedback.

I also think the CM's being too bunched up is an issue - not sure if it's related to instructions or the match engine itself so would be interested in your thoughts on this as I have seen it recurring in various tactics with rather different settings.

Thanks.

I'll let you know my thoughts.

based on that shot, I'm certainly far more concerned by the CMs than I am by the wide players, as any threat there has come purely from their lack of positioning, and again i would have to watch the PKM to be sure, but there is no reason for them to take up said positions.

[Michael Zorc]

14 minutes ago, EuanDewar said:

If you tuck the wingers in then those 2 CMs would be physically unable to have as poor positioning as that due to the restrictions of the actual space. If the right sided winger were standing more around where the RCM and that RCM were still standing acres out of position then he might actually be dead. Genuinely dead.

The narrowness of wide players affects the positioning of central players much more than vice versa. They reduce the amount of central space the CM has to think about. 

That's what I've been thinking.

It's a lot easier for opponents to pass around your midfield when there's just 2 in the middle with no wide support. It allows them to maintain possession with simple sideways passes that don't attract immediate pressure in those key half-space passing lanes between ML/MR and MC. More compact positioning forces the same opposition players to play more penetrative passes that split your defenders rather than just passing to the side of them and then having an attacker walk into the space in front uninterrupted. I think this point has been missed by a lot of people.

I'm not even arguing about what the "default positioning" should be - as we can all have different opinions on that - I'm just saying we should have the OPTION to tell our ML/MR to tuck inside defensively. I really think this is something else that has been overlooked by those that don't think it's a big issue. In prior versions of the game, such as FM16, this was doable via the "sit narrower" player instruction for ML/MR's. Unfortunately, this no longer seems possible so that's what my biggest complaint here is.

[themadsheep2001]

5 minutes ago, Michael Zorc said:

That's what I've been thinking.

It's a lot easier for opponents to pass around your midfield when there's just 2 in the middle with no wide support. It allows them to maintain possession with simple sideways passes that don't attract immediate pressure in those key half-space passing lanes between ML/MR and MC. More compact positioning forces the same opposition players to play more penetrative passes that split your defenders rather than just passing to the side of them and then having an attacker walk into the space in front uninterrupted. I think this point has been missed by a lot of people.

I'm not even arguing about what the "default positioning" should be - as we can all have different opinions on that - I'm just saying we should have the OPTION to tell our ML/MR to tuck inside defensively. I really think this is something else tat has been overlooked by those that don't think it's a big issue. In prior versions of the game, such as FM16, this was doable via the "sit narrower" player instruction for ML/MR's. Unfortunately, this no longer seems possible so that's what my biggest complaint here is.

Having the option is a completely different argument, it's not being missed, it's just not relevant to the initial point at the time as you went from talking about the current ME to a feature that isnt in the game

Sit narrower is still exists, but it's only ever been an offensive option, not a defensive one.

[Michael Zorc]

8 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I'll let you know my thoughts.

based on that shot, I'm certainly far more concerned by the CMs than I am by the wide players, as any threat there has come purely from their lack of positioning, and again i would have to watch the PKM to be sure, but there is no reason for them to take up said positions.

Thank you - I'm concerned about both as I'm looking to improve all aspects of my defending but would appreciate any and all feedback on how I can operate more effectively without the ball. 

[Michael Zorc]

21 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Having the option is a completely different argument., it's not being missed, it's just not relevant to the initial point.

Sit narrower is still exists, but it's only ever been an offensive option, not a defensive one.

That's the only argument I've ever been making as I wouldn't expect the "winger" role with "stays wider" to act in the same manner. It's the ability to customise and allow different managers to coach and implement their own tactical preferences, rather than having one locked-in default option that simply prevents another alternate style from being achieved. I'm glad this is not being missed.

It's interesting regarding the "sit narrower" instruction as you describe it - in FM16 I noticed a marked difference in defensive positioning between a "wide playmaker" with "sits narrower", a "wide midfielder" with no width settings, and a "winger" with "stays wider", with each incremental change in width PI affecting how narrow and compact they operated in defence. In FM17 there appears to be no difference so maybe SI need to look into adding another specific player instruction that actually does allow this to be customised to manager preferences, given that this is something that is coached in real life and would add to the realism of the game?

The initial question I had was whether or not there was a workaround to achieve something (narrower width ML/MR's) that didn't appear to be doable in the current engine but that had been achievable in the past.

I do think the default positioning is excessively wide (and that CM's are excessively bunched up in certain scenarios, although less sure if that is down to the ME or TI/PI, despite having tinkered with various settings) but accept that this is my opinion and can be argued both ways - but I wouldn't see it as a big issue if I was able to change the default positioning by using different instructions to customise this to my own preferences. That's all I've ever wanted - and it's all I continue to seek.

[EuanDewar]

36 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

No they wouldn't, as they would both still be out of position in centre midfield. How far in are they supposed to tuck? If he is has tucked that far in he is a centre mid. and if he has to tuck that far in to be a centre mid in order to cover the centre mids standing next to each otehr, something is wrong with the centre mids.

Move the RW to where the RCM is and the LW to vertically in line with the left FB. Now both central midfielders would be forced to position themselves more centrally, and just have much less space around them in general to worry about. They would then be able to step out of the midfield line without much harm at all.

Along the lines of this (imperfect example, just showing a real world scenario for context):

Spoiler

 

[themadsheep2001]

7 minutes ago, EuanDewar said:

Move the RW to where the RCM is and the LW to vertically in line with the left FB. Now both central midfielders would be forced to position themselves more centrally, and just have much less space around them in general to worry about. They would then be able to step out of the midfield line without much harm at all.

Along the lines of this (imperfect example, just showing a real world scenario for context):

  Reveal hidden contents

 

You're looking at that the wrong way, the CMS are in the wrong place in the first place, irrespective of the wide players.

1) If we are going to talk about midfield theory in a 4-4-2, the whole thing is built on the CMs not stepping out of line

2) They havent stepped up to meet the threat, or cover anything, they have drifted next to each other, both away form the man on the ball, and the central passing option.

You can talk about the wide players all day long in that shot, but it's the CMs that are the issue.

[EuanDewar]

I think everyone in that shot is positioned oddly.

[JWVG]

This is an example how you defend in a 442:

 

[themadsheep2001]

1 hour ago, Michael Zorc said:

That's exactly the point I was making about screenshots and PKM's so thank you for that. Would really appreciate your feedback.

I also think the CM's being too bunched up is an issue - not sure if it's related to instructions or the match engine itself so would be interested in your thoughts on this as I have seen it recurring in various tactics with rather different settings.

Thanks.

Just watching this. Not at all concerned with the wide mids on your side,however CMs seem to be bunching up, and over chasing. Worth a new report on that. It's creating needless holes

[herne79]

On ‎15‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 04:48, Michael Zorc said:

Does anyone know of any workarounds to achieve more tight and compact defensive positioning for wide midfielders?

 

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

As westy8chimp above points out, sometimes wingers do indeed tuck in.  Sometimes they don't.  Is there a workaround for this "intermittent" behaviour (the OP's question)?  No, SI are working on it.

Seems to have been missed.

As TMS has been saying, there appears to be more of an issue with the central midfield than the wingers.

On ‎15‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 09:45, herne79 said:

Analyse your matches and see how big the "problem" is.  Let us know and then post your detailed system to see if anyone can suggest ideas.  When you analyse at that level you may find you have different issues that are more readily fixed.

Note the last sentence from my very first post here.  Hopefully people can now see why I've been asking for analysis rather than just responding with generalised statements.

@ the OP - with the Control mentality you are asking your players to go about their business in a relatively high risk fashion.  This includes plenty of closing down by default.  Further, the CM role has additional closing down set.  I'd also check the Aggression attribute on the players you use in central midfield.  High Aggression + lots of closing down can lead to players sometimes moving out of position.  Do you also use any Opposition Instructions, especially in relation to closing down?

May or may not be an answer, but something to at least check on.

[s1111]

On 16/12/2016 at 12:17, westy8chimp said:

 

 

 

The key broken behaviour is actually shown clearly in this screenshot, when the defence is set and stable in position the red wingers should always be on the inside of their opposition (more or less level with their own full backs) to block easy passes to them from the centre. At the moment they hug the touchline too much.

I'm confident this particular issue could be fixed without going back to the FM16 situation where Nathaniel Clyne could win the Ballon D'Or. Wide midfielders clearly defend wider by default in 17 to block opposition full backs, which is fine for now if that is what it takes to balance the game. But there's a buggy behaviour beyond that which is shown in the screenshot and is frustrating to watch. And there should still be an option to have them defend narrower if we want, even if it means we risk making opposition full backs god like again.

[Cap'nRad]

I think there are 2 main points to this whole discussion:

1) Regardless of whether or not defending with narrow WM's is 'realistic', the fact is it is an option we currently lack on FM17, one which other top level managers do have access to. That alone should be enough cause for SI to review the issue, at least for the next FM if they can't fix it right away. Regardless of whether or not my tactic is better as a result of such an addition, the option should be there in the first place. 

2) Fine, the narrow defensive option for WM's isn't there currently. For some of us who like to defend narrow it is quite a big deal, however, i for one would not like it to be a completely game-breaking one. So I think for this thread specifically, suggesting ways to enable us to get desired narrow positioning from WM's would be a lot more helpful than debating on whether or not said positioning is "correct."

Besides, SI have already said the issue is under review for FM18, so i trust them to get it fixed..

[IndyManager]

Reading through this thread reminds me of a school team I coached in real life several years ago. I had an assistant coach who as it turns out has some unrealistic expectations about the human body and normal physical capability. She would applaud a person contributing something on one end of the pitch and in a moment express unhappiness that the same player wasn't in another position rather far from the first one.

When I watch games in real life, I see positioning and team function to be so dependent both on conditioning and intelligence. The amount of effort one desires and is able to put into transitioning roles between attack and defence is considerable, and I wonder if the ME perhaps depicts that more realistically than we think. Maybe it's an overly-utopian concept we have (while playing a game) about how many places a player can be within a certain amount of time (especially as said player grows fatigued). Just a thought.

 

The old click and drag lines for player instructions may have made the game more like one with a joystick and thus satisfying from a control viewpoint, but were totally unrealistic regarding the actual management of players.