Does anyone successfully use "attacking" mentality?

[jujigatame]

I frequently try to use "attacking" mentality when I'm down in a match because it seems like the logical thing to do.  But in fact it feels like this more or less amounts to "lose more quickly".  You see greatly increased frequency of long passes that go nowhere near their target, awful shooting from everywhere on the field, and of course you're vulnerable to counter-attacks because your defensive line is high and you're coughing up possession a lot.

Have other people had similar results with attacking mentality?  Has anyone had success, and if so, how did you temper the issues that come along with it?

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Yes, a lot of people will have had success using the Attacking mentality.

In my opinion, the secret is balance.

Attacking mentality gives your players a high individual mentality as well as your overall team an aggressive defensive strategy and an aggressive build-up strategy.

In real-football terms Attacking mentality will cause your team to aggressively go after the ball when they don't have it - high-block defence and pressing high up the field - and then attack quickly when they do. Think Jugen Klopp's heavy metal football, less so at Liverpool (yet) but certainly at dortmund.

You can use TIs to taper the defensive strategy - defensive line or closing down - or build-up strategy - passing directness, tempo, width etc. - but that's not always necessary.

The first potential weakness is that the press breaks down if your formation does not effectively cover every opposition player effectively. For example, narrow formations miss the opposition fullbacks. 4-3-3, 4-1-4-1, 4-2-1-3, 3-4-3 variants are all examples of formations which will press effectively.

You also need to have the 'tools' - aka players - to attack quickly. Look at your formation and identify who is breaking immediately, when the ball is won? Perhaps a quick wide player or a attacker? But remember to balance, if you're going for lots of attacking players, what happens when you lose the ball?

Team Shape is also useful as it acts as a modifier, determining an individual's priority between their Team Mentality and individual duty. For example, in an Attacking mentality, is a Defensive (duty) player attacking, defensive or somewhere in between? The answer depends on Shape. Fluid shapes will focus more on the Team mentality so they'll be more attacking whilst Structured shapes focus more on their own duty so they'll be more defensive and Flexible is 50-50 so somewhere in between.

The use of Team Shape could be to counter-balance your attacking tendencies with a solid defensive foundation if your players aren't capable of playing such a high intensity game as everyone attacking as a unit, all the time.

In my opinion, Attacking is one of the more versatile mentalities. Play around, watch some games and you'll see that you can do an awful lot with it.

[Rashidi]

Its not hard, you just need to think carefully of the distribution of roles and duties in your team and the selective use of PIs. I have used attacking and overload mentalities for 90 minutes in quite a few games, and you can do both with high possession numbers too. Since its higher risk players will be more likely to do more dangerous things as well, so what you want to do is isolate those in your team who shouldn't be taking risk and giving them the "play less risky pass" PI and thats basically it. Its that easy.

[difran8]

On a slightly similar note, has anyone successfully used 'strange' mentality-structure combinations?

Like fluid + defensive, or structured + attacking. Do these work?

[Rashidi]

43 minutes ago, difran8 said:

On a slightly similar note, has anyone successfully used 'strange' mentality-structure combinations?

Like fluid + defensive, or structured + attacking. Do these work?

Why are they strange? there is nothing strange about them. Its just how the shape redistributes risk. If you've watched any of my videos, I have successfully used all the combinations to produce different styles of football.

I have used Defensive/Very fluid to produce a very compact unit that is hard to break down, and I have produced swashbuckling football with Attacking structured.  I've even seamlessly changed mentalities and shape within a game to achieve different kinds of styles. For instance, I can lock up the house or I can throw everything into attack. They all work, the issue most people have with the game isn't anything but choosing the right combination of roles and duties in the game, and more fundamentally understanding what kind of attributes are important. And the notion that certain sides are more equipped to play certain shapes is the ultimate myth that has been going on in the forums.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

There are examples of Fluid shape and Defensive mentality working but it's difficult to balance.

A Fluid mentality instructs all of your players to prioritise the Team Mentality, over their own individual duty. Setting a Defensive mentality is - obviously - setting that team mentality to be pretty risk averse, conservative, reserved or however you prefer to think about it.

As @Rashidi points out it will produce a very compact defensive unit, very difficult to break down but the downside of that is that nobody is responsible for going forward because an individual with an Attacking duty in a Defensive system will end up neutral.

Attacking and structured is not a strange combination at all.

Attacking tells the team to Attack whilst Structured balances this by telling individuals to prioritise their own duty so defensive players still defend, support players are balanced and attack duty players attack whilst the whole team plays an expansive - high pressing, width, tempo - game plan.

My interpretation would be a typical Alex Ferguson Man Utd - overall an attacking team, but centre backs still defend, midfield is balanced and the attackers attack.

You can see all of this broken down visually on the Player Instructions screen or numerically here:

 

 

[difran8]

Well, my hesitation with these is that

a. defensive + fluid: will be very negative and our side will be pinned down in our half

b. attacking + structured: little space for our pushed-up attackers to use

But, depending on the occasions you mention, they can be useful indeed

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

1 minute ago, difran8 said:

Well, my hesitation with these is that

a. defensive + fluid: will be very negative and our side will be pinned down in our half

b. attacking + structured: little space for our pushed-up attackers to use

But, depending on the occasions you mention, they can be useful indeed

Both valid. That's where Formations, Player Roles, Duties and Instructions come in.

It's always a balancing act. 

[Rashidi]

8 minutes ago, difran8 said:

Well, my hesitation with these is that

a. defensive + fluid: will be very negative and our side will be pinned down in our half

b. attacking + structured: little space for our pushed-up attackers to use

But, depending on the occasions you mention, they can be useful indeed

Here I will disagree... how will your side be pinned in your own half, once again it will depend largely on the situation you're in and the roles and duties you have chosen.  If I were to play defensive very fluid, your furthest forward player will have a normal mentality. How you set your team up to pass the ball is entirely up to you.  With the right formation and roles and duties you could be defensively hard to break down, but offensively imagine the space you get against a team that has played with a high defensive line. The number of times I have ripped into top sides using this strategy has been obscene.

You need to use it consistently and try it out. before you know what I mean  When you say attacking structured will offer up too little space thats even more ridiculous and couldn't be further from the truth. Attacking structured offers so much space, that the shout "pass into space" becomes a superweapon with the right roles and duties. @difran8  I am more than happy to use any shape/mentality within a game because I am very comfortable with my choices. 

 

[mikcheck]

What about using an attacking mentality, with structured shape and drop deeper TI?  Will the defensive line be deep enough to invite them to come and hit them with counter attacks? I just like to play attacking because i like my players to take risks, but also invite the other team to come more so i can hit them.

[Rashidi]

This is a match I just played on Defensive very fluid. We are Gloucester average attributes for our side is a laughing joke. We are up against Spurs, one of the top 4 sides in our league. We went there with the intention of being hard to break down, but very calculative with our transitional attacks. And we had a 75%SOT on top of that we scored 2 goals. Spurs who were playing control flexible at the start and then attacking fluid till the end had a poor SOT in comparison even though they had more shots. The key thing here is the heat map which clearly shows that we spent most of the game in Spurs half controlling their golden zone.

 

My performances playing Defensive/Very fluid are very consistent, we dominate sides, we do spend time in our own half, but we never give them control of the important areas. What's even more interesting here is that spurs played a 4231 vs our 4312 which should have taken advantage of the fact that we don't have a DM, nor are we even playing with a static defence. Instead Spurs struggled with their midfield to attack transitions, their pass completion numbers in midfield clearly showing that the side who were doing a lot better just happened to be the busboys who are only good enough for L1. 

If you look at the heat map for Gloucester the domination is clear. Does this look like we were pinned in own half.? if you look at it carefully we even controlled the flanks.

Spurs on the other hand need find a better manager

 

So the notion that defensive/very fluid keeps you pinned back only happens if you don't understand the impact of Mentality/Shape/Roles and Duties. There is a myth on the forums that poor sides shouldn't use Very Fluid shapes, I haven't even bothered correcting that. Between 2012 and 2015 I was always correcting people, now I am just too tired of repeating myself. You can play on any mentality/shape and achieve good football with either. Just because we had less shots on goal didn't make us bad, we just happened to be a lot more clinical than Spurs, and sometimes that's a lot more important than 20 shots from range.

[JNOUnited]

4 hours ago, Rashidi said:

This is a match I just played on Defensive very fluid. We are Gloucester average attributes for our side is a laughing joke. We are up against Spurs, one of the top 4 sides in our league. We went there with the intention of being hard to break down, but very calculative with our transitional attacks. And we had a 75%SOT on top of that we scored 2 goals. Spurs who were playing control flexible at the start and then attacking fluid till the end had a poor SOT in comparison even though they had more shots. The key thing here is the heat map which clearly shows that we spent most of the game in Spurs half controlling their golden zone.

 

My performances playing Defensive/Very fluid are very consistent, we dominate sides, we do spend time in our own half, but we never give them control of the important areas. What's even more interesting here is that spurs played a 4231 vs our 4312 which should have taken advantage of the fact that we don't have a DM, nor are we even playing with a static defence. Instead Spurs struggled with their midfield to attack transitions, their pass completion numbers in midfield clearly showing that the side who were doing a lot better just happened to be the busboys who are only good enough for L1. 

If you look at the heat map for Gloucester the domination is clear. Does this look like we were pinned in own half.? if you look at it carefully we even controlled the flanks.

Spurs on the other hand need find a better manager

 

So the notion that defensive/very fluid keeps you pinned back only happens if you don't understand the impact of Mentality/Shape/Roles and Duties. There is a myth on the forums that poor sides shouldn't use Very Fluid shapes, I haven't even bothered correcting that. Between 2012 and 2015 I was always correcting people, now I am just too tired of repeating myself. You can play on any mentality/shape and achieve good football with either. Just because we had less shots on goal didn't make us bad, we just happened to be a lot more clinical than Spurs, and sometimes that's a lot more important than 20 shots from range.

Any chance of your Team Instructions and Formation, just for me to try and understand what you did against this Tottenham side?

[Armistice]

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

Yes, a lot of people will have had success using the Attacking mentality.

In my opinion, the secret is balance.

Attacking mentality gives your players a high individual mentality as well as your overall team an aggressive defensive strategy and an aggressive build-up strategy.

In real-football terms Attacking mentality will cause your team to aggressively go after the ball when they don't have it - high-block defence and pressing high up the field - and then attack quickly when they do. Think Jugen Klopp's heavy metal football, less so at Liverpool (yet) but certainly at dortmund.

You can use TIs to taper the defensive strategy - defensive line or closing down - or build-up strategy - passing directness, tempo, width etc. - but that's not always necessary.

The first potential weakness is that the press breaks down if your formation does not effectively cover every opposition player effectively. For example, narrow formations miss the opposition fullbacks. 4-3-3, 4-1-4-1, 4-2-1-3, 3-4-3 variants are all examples of formations which will press effectively.

You also need to have the 'tools' - aka players - to attack quickly. Look at your formation and identify who is breaking immediately, when the ball is won? Perhaps a quick wide player or a attacker? But remember to balance, if you're going for lots of attacking players, what happens when you lose the ball?

Team Shape is also useful as it acts as a modifier, determining an individual's priority between their Team Mentality and individual duty. For example, in an Attacking mentality, is a Defensive (duty) player attacking, defensive or somewhere in between? The answer depends on Shape. Fluid shapes will focus more on the Team mentality so they'll be more attacking whilst Structured shapes focus more on their own duty so they'll be more defensive and Flexible is 50-50 so somewhere in between.

The use of Team Shape could be to counter-balance your attacking tendencies with a solid defensive foundation if your players aren't capable of playing such a high intensity game as everyone attacking as a unit, all the time.

In my opinion, Attacking is one of the more versatile mentalities. Play around, watch some games and you'll see that you can do an awful lot with it.

So individual mentality has nothing to do with Team mentality? 

I thought that Mentality sets the base for general individual mentality and duties and team shape modifies it...

[difran8]

22 hours ago, Rashidi said:

You need to use it consistently and try it out. before you know what I mean  When you say attacking structured will offer up too little space thats even more ridiculous and couldn't be further from the truth@difran8

 

That's harsh. Are we even allowed to post here with a limited/flawed knowledge about how ME/tactics work? If not, we could rename this forum section to "Rashidi's blog'' and have only one authoritative voice. You are a pretty kind mod generally though

On the topic, can we agree on what can be the drawbacks of these  2 combinations? Are there any? I guess  with Structured-Attacking we won't be able to apply the  all-over pressure of the fluid mentalities, and, if the ball is lost up front, we won't manage to regain it quickly

[mikcheck]

18 minutes ago, difran8 said:

That's harsh. Are we even allowed to post here with a limited/flawed knowledge about how ME/tactics work? If not, we could rename this forum section to "Rashidi's blog'' and have only one authoritative voice. You are a pretty kind mod generally though

On the topic, can we agree on what can be the drawbacks of these  2 combinations? Are there any? I guess  with Structured-Attacking we won't be able to apply the  all-over pressure of the fluid mentalities, and, if the ball is lost up front, we won't manage to regain it quickly

I think that is also depends on your formation, if you have a top heavy formation your team have more chances to regain it quickly, as opposed to a 5-3-2 or a 4-1-4-1 for example. But i may be wrong.

[Rashidi]

3 hours ago, difran8 said:

That's harsh. Are we even allowed to post here with a limited/flawed knowledge about how ME/tactics work? If not, we could rename this forum section to "Rashidi's blog'' and have only one authoritative voice. You are a pretty kind mod generally though

On the topic, can we agree on what can be the drawbacks of these  2 combinations? Are there any? I guess  with Structured-Attacking we won't be able to apply the  all-over pressure of the fluid mentalities, and, if the ball is lost up front, we won't manage to regain it quickly

You made a statement asserting a fact, and I simply said you were wrong, and that you needed to try it out consistently before stating something that sounds like a fact on the forums, it can be misleading. And this isn't my blog, the stickies up top are littered with threads that explain elements of the game. Attacking structured creates more space for your strikers to use compared to attacking fluid, which is why people find it easier to create counter attacking systems playing on structured and highly structured shapes.

[difran8]

2 hours ago, Rashidi said:

You made a statement asserting a fact, and I simply said you were wrong, and that you needed to try it out consistently before stating something that sounds like a fact on the forums, it can be misleading. And this isn't my blog, the stickies up top are littered with threads that explain elements of the game. Attacking structured creates more space for your strikers to use compared to attacking fluid, which is why people find it easier to create counter attacking systems playing on structured and highly structured shapes.

Oh you were harsh and hurt my feelings. Dont go all Cleon on me, you are pretty cool overall. I can throw a disclaimer with every post "not an expert ™ " if that makes you comfortable

[Rashidi]

11 minutes ago, difran8 said:

Oh you were harsh and hurt my feelings. Dont go all Cleon on me, you are pretty cool overall. I can throw a disclaimer with every post "not an expert ™ " if that makes you comfortable

Oh lord, I am about to keel over and die of laughter. You haven't seen the worst side of me, I am pretty mellow now, I just wanted to make sure people don't get the wrong impression

[Torskus77]

Please don't stop posting  Rashidi, be as harsh as you like with me.  I have improved at the game at least fourfold just from reading your posts and watching the odd video of yours (don't have time to play and watch videos all the time sadly) 

Cleon did used to sometimes seem harsh, a few times I said a few things he took exception too and told me straight, but I learned more from his advice in the past than anyone elses, and that is what I am on here for in the end. 

I do get what the other guy is saying in a sense, that a lot of FM players think about the game in the wrong way (myself included prob) because  you have to hunt out information,   you might know what you want to do, setting up in the game is open to interpretation, and there is all kind of advice flying around the forums, which is one of the main reasons mods step in and say when they see it. I have just learned to listen to certain people on the forum. 

[Deego619]

I'm not very versed with the intricacies of Team Shape and it's relation to the overall Team Mentality. Like most things in my life I like to dumb things down.

 

Let's say for arguments sake you use a Control mentality. What's the difference between Fluid and Structured here?

 

Am I playing a possession game where I want my players to prioritize keeping hold of the ball above all? In this case I want to use a structured system so my players will listen to my TIs and specific instructions for them, combining this with Control/Standard mentality will see me also press the opposition and remain high enough up the pitch to make the most of this possession. I use Structured when I want to play God and micromanage what my players do with and without the ball. Think Mourinho at Inter.

 

Have I been gifted with a lot of incredible players with bundles of flair and vision? Am I a top team that struggles to break the stubborn sides down? Do I know my player's PPMs inside and out and what they'll do on the pitch? Let them loose with a fluid system so they can utilize their powers. Using a control mentality in this instance will see a lot of high paced football with your little technicians using their flair and vision to pull off incredible one touch passes or backheel through balls. That's what they'll try to do anyway.

 

TL;DR

God Modding -> Structured.

Autonomy for your players -> Fluid.

 

Can Attacking/Fluid Work?

Yes. You just need to ensure that your players, especially your more attacking ones, are incredibly intelligent and full of flair and technique to pull off incredible one touch aggressive football.

[howard moon]

On 15/04/2017 at 13:24, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

My interpretation would be a typical Alex Ferguson Man Utd - overall an attacking team, but centre backs still defend, midfield is balanced and the attackers attack.

I'm interested in this thought @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!. I'm trying (and failing) to build something akin to Fergie's 2007-09 side. He used a variety of formations (4-4-2, 4-1-4-1, 4-2-3-1, strikerless and all sorts of assymetrical shapes) but there seemed to be an underlying 'philosophy' underpinning it, and I can't work out whether it should be:

1. Control/attacking - with a more structured shape to temper the mentality in more defensive players

2. Standard - with a flexible shape and use of shape, TIs and PIs to modify style game to game

3. Counter - with a more structured shape to get the attacking players to be more aggressive.

I've always thought of this side as being best described by 'fluid' with the team separated into a defensive and an attacking unit (essentially the front 3 or 4 given license to attack), but you've given me pause for thought...

[Rashidi]

2 hours ago, JDeeguain said:

I'm not very versed with the intricacies of Team Shape and it's relation to the overall Team Mentality. Like most things in my life I like to dumb things down.

 

Let's say for arguments sake you use a Control mentality. What's the difference between Fluid and Structured here?

 

Am I playing a possession game where I want my players to prioritize keeping hold of the ball above all? In this case I want to use a structured system so my players will listen to my TIs and specific instructions for them, combining this with Control/Standard mentality will see me also press the opposition and remain high enough up the pitch to make the most of this possession. I use Structured when I want to play God and micromanage what my players do with and without the ball. Think Mourinho at Inter.

 

Have I been gifted with a lot of incredible players with bundles of flair and vision? Am I a top team that struggles to break the stubborn sides down? Do I know my player's PPMs inside and out and what they'll do on the pitch? Let them loose with a fluid system so they can utilize their powers. Using a control mentality in this instance will see a lot of high paced football with your little technicians using their flair and vision to pull off incredible one touch passes or backheel through balls. That's what they'll try to do anyway.

 

TL;DR

God Modding -> Structured.

Autonomy for your players -> Fluid.

 

Can Attacking/Fluid Work?

Yes. You just need to ensure that your players, especially your more attacking ones, are incredibly intelligent and full of flair and technique to pull off incredible one touch aggressive football.

I did a whole video shape for FM16 which is still relevant for it today, its called the Dark Arts of Attacking football, the audio is a bit crappy I think, its back in the day when I had few resources to edit videos, its still relevant for today, and you can find out on my channel, just google Bustthenet on youtube

 

[difran8]

On 16/4/2017 at 20:38, Rashidi said:

Oh lord, I am about to keel over and die of laughter. You haven't seen the worst side of me, I am pretty mellow now, I just wanted to make sure people don't get the wrong impression

It's a-ok

 

10 hours ago, howard moon said:

I'm interested in this thought @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!. I'm trying (and failing) to build something akin to Fergie's 2007-09 side. He used a variety of formations

I'd say a control-balanced strategy. But, sometimes you may have to change things a little depending on the opposition. A very deep opponent, unwilling to push the flanks up, may be hard to break with balanced. I think going a bit more fluid helps on these occasions

[Rashidi]

5 hours ago, difran8 said:

But, sometimes you may have to change things a little depending on the opposition

Absolutely spot on when you want to replicate Fergies systems, he used a variety of styles in those days. I still remember days when United used a 4231, a 424 and strikerless systems. So it will be a good idea to know what roles and duties you want and adapt based on the opposition. Ultimately knowledge of the right roles and duties will define how well you do.

[PonjaConRulos]

On 15/4/2017 at 10:10, Rashidi said:

Spurs who were playing control flexible at the start and then attacking fluid till the end had a poor SOT in comparison even though they had more shots.

How can you tell the shape of the rival? I know you can see if they are defensive or offensive, but I don't know how to guess their shape.

[Rashidi]

Comes with practice looking at their transitions

[howard moon]

8 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Absolutely spot on when you want to replicate Fergies systems, he used a variety of styles in those days. I still remember days when United used a 4231, a 424 and strikerless systems. So it will be a good idea to know what roles and duties you want and adapt based on the opposition. Ultimately knowledge of the right roles and duties will define how well you do.

So are you saying that, to create something close to the 2008 side, that formation and player roles are more important than 'team shape' and 'mentality'?

For example, the difference between a routine home game against weaker opponents, with Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez and Giggs/Nani/Park in a front four vs the same players defending their box and breaking at speed vs Barcelona in the CL semi is more to do with the formation and roles I choose for each player? Or do I also need to be thinking about changing mentality and team shape too?

[summatsupeer]

1. The roles and duties you pick will define how the players combine.
2. The formation is how your players position without the ball before they close down or mark etc.
3. The mentality will adjust the risks they take as a whole, but the combinations should stay very similar.
4. The team instructions including Team Shape affect more the style of play and transitions.

With these 4 things in mind, if your roles, duties and formation are balanced you should be able to adjust mentality as required.  If its a balance tactic then you should also be able to change instructions/shape as needed.  If its a highly specialized tactic focused on creating a specific style of play through its roles, duties and instructions then you'll have less flexibility.

[Armistice]

27 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

1. The roles and duties you pick will define how the players combine.
2. The formation is how your players position without the ball before they close down or mark etc.
3. The mentality will adjust the risks they take as a whole, but the combinations should stay very similar.
4. The team instructions including Team Shape affect more the style of play and transitions.

With these 4 things in mind, if your roles, duties and formation are balanced you should be able to adjust mentality as required.  If its a balance tactic then you should also be able to change instructions/shape as needed.  If its a highly specialized tactic focused on creating a specific style of play through its roles, duties and instructions then you'll have less flexibility.

What is 'balance' in your opinion?

[summatsupeer]

12 minutes ago, nightwalker22 said:

What is 'balance' in your opinion?

The simplest way I can put it is "a mix of cover, creators and runners".

The more extreme you go i'd say you end up with a more specialized tactic and lose the flexibility to change parts of it.  For example if your creating a possession style of play and have a lot of support duties with multiple playmakers you'll probably have team instructions to add depth to add patience and create space with so many players dropping and few players looking to get in behind the defence.

[Armistice]

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

The simplest way I can put it is "a mix of cover, creators and runners".

The more extreme you go i'd say you end up with a more specialized tactic and lose the flexibility to change parts of it.  For example if your creating a possession style of play and have a lot of support duties with multiple playmakers you'll probably have team instructions to add depth to add patience and create space with so many players dropping and few players looking to get in behind the defence.

Hmm why would you need (multiple) playmakers in possession tactics?

[Craigus89]

3 minutes ago, nightwalker22 said:

Hmm why would you need (multiple) playmakers in possession tactics?

It's a hypothetical situation, no need to read into it.

Also, why not? If your one playmaker is having a bad day or being marked out the game you may lack penetration.

[Armistice]

13 minutes ago, Craigus89 said:

It's a hypothetical situation, no need to read into it.

Also, why not? If your one playmaker is having a bad day or being marked out the game you may lack penetration.

Yeah but you can do that (possession tactic) with generalist roles imo. That's what, at least, I tend to choose nowadays when creating a tactic. My playmaker has to be a very good player to be employed as one of that role.

[Craigus89]

You can do lot's of things in different ways, so what's your point? @summatsupeer's point is still relevant.

[Armistice]

9 minutes ago, Craigus89 said:

You can do lot's of things in different ways, so what's your point? @summatsupeer's point is still relevant.

I didn't say I had a point, I was just asking if there's a must have when it came to playmakers in a possession tactic.

[summatsupeer]

32 minutes ago, nightwalker22 said:

Hmm why would you need (multiple) playmakers in possession tactics?

You don't need them, just an example as i've seen numerous topics posted here by people asking for help making a possession tactic that had >2 playmakers.  I remember a few times where all the midfielders were a playmaker of some sort.

[PonjaConRulos]

@Rashidi Ok, I'll need some more practice

I'm very interested in some videos about that match v Tottenham. Defensive + Fluid is something I've been wondering about. Are you going to show that match in your youtube channel?

[beverage1982]

Quick question. 

Would the structured approach work on the 41221? I'm thinking of a direct transition game where we quickly get it up to the front 3? Kind of like Villa when they were good under Lambert? (very briefly)

So perhaps Standard, Structured, with more direct passing and drop deeper? Or would the players being so high up then mean they didn't have space to move into? 

[Rashidi]

On 18/04/2017 at 23:39, nightwalker22 said:

Yeah but you can do that (possession tactic) with generalist roles imo. That's what, at least, I tend to choose nowadays when creating a tactic. My playmaker has to be a very good player to be employed as one of that role.

As long as you think in terms of generalist and specialist roles, you will continue to struggle, I have given up trying to dispel that notion, SI never introduced it and its not even relevant anymore. I've even been on forums where they have the anal notion that there are specific roles that can be used for specific shapes. Thats even more ********. I have tactics with 4 playmakers played on structured and very fluid and it DOES NOT matter. I have a match where I played defensive very fluid, then went defensive structured and switched it up to attacking I think.. I think it was PS35 of the Gloucester City Diaries @PonjaConRulos In fact nearly every match I played with GCFC in the champions league featured me going from either a defensive posture to an attacking posture by throwing players into attack at different times. In one match I even went overload for 90 mins.

Structured and Fluid works within the same tactic what matters is how you distribute the duties in your team. Basically Shape just tells more players to deviate from the team mentality. The lower your shape the greater the deviation, this deviation happens more with support and attack duties. Its not hard to see, just go to their individual mentalities and look at the bar. Now I know the bar doesn't tell you exactly what their mentality is, but break that bar down to 6 parts, with either end being Contain and the other extreme being Overload.  Then split the rest of the mentalities evenly.  Mentality affects transitions, so on structured shapes those duties I spoke about earlier..they may bomb off a bit earlier and end up isolated.  I have made systems without playmakers, and I have systems with up to 4 playmakers in one team. It DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is how you thought your tactic through and distributed your duties. You can make very good attacking systems with NO attacking duties in your team too. How your team attacks is a function of mentality. If you can't visualise how your goals are going to be scored chances are you don't know  how roles and duties work with attributes as well as you think This isn't directly meant for @nightwalker22, it is just a general comment for anyone reading this and wondering about the need for specific kinds of roles in their team.

I have also done videos on creative passing, so go through your team. Ask yourself simple questions for eg.

 Will this players duties be so attacking that he will bomb up early? Where is his closest support coming from? Hmm maybe we need to find him with passes into space or more accurate balls to feet.

 

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

5 hours ago, Rashidi said:

What matters is how you thought your tactic through and distributed your duties.

This is an absolutely key point. Duties are often overlooked but the combination of Team Mentality, Individual Duty and Shape are - in my opinion - the foundation of how a team plays..

[Svenc]

The problem is that very little what is in the TC is actually at the core off SI's own doing. SI/the coders previously gave you micro-tweaking tools in the form of [oft somewhat] ambiguous sliders. It was the community that translated those into football concepts as far as possible given that there is limitations to it all. Specifically, the mentality theorems forming half the backbone of the philsophies/fluidities, the roles and duties, the strategies (as mentality was called then to acknowledge for that this wasn't simply picking a "mentality", as each of it did and still does assign passing patterns, closing down patterns, and d-line settings across the squad which can be increasingly tweaked by now, but still come with a base default for each of those). Saying that picking a mentality simply is a "risk modifier" is thus as misleading as arguing specialist/generalist roles weren't a thing, because for one of the more influential co-authors of this thing, it absolutely was.

That's one of the reasons I was (slighyl) worried upon contacting wwfan whether he is still at all much involved, and Millie isn't either anymore apparently. The generalist/specialist role thing may or may not show much in the match play anymore, but was in concept still something that was coming from the original co-authors of the Tactics Creator. wwfan specifically stated multiple times this was in large parts directly influenced by Jonathan Wilson's theories as outlined in his articles / Inverting The Pyramid et all. There is/was a mechanical link too, in the way that whilst somewhat tweakable, rigid would lower the amount of creative freedom across the team, whilst the more fluid ends vice versa, this was all in right in the first inceptions. Mechanically, under the hood, Paul had confirmed that creative freedom is a flair boost (attribute), which makes players either more prone to adventurous decisions or less so. Whether this translated well into the play is up for debate, but given that the more "specialist" roles by default come with very specific instructions you may expect the players to adhere to their jobs without fapping about, still that was the link. If none of this is acknowledged anymore or understood by whoever is involved, a couple years down the line this may be quite a messy affair, in particular as the concepts themselves still are all in even if given slightly different names/being somewhat tweaked.

That said, you could have ignored this specialist/generalist thing before outright. None of it every made or broke a tactics as such and now with wwfan et all apparently out, it likely won't further develop in that direction either. The concept as such is still in. There is roles that are purely about a position (central midfielder), which at least by default without further tweaking don't have half as many specific instructions set as more specific roles tailored to carrying out very specific tasks, such as, say, an anchor man, play maker or poacher. One day there'll likely be something more intuitive anyway.

[Rashidi]

@Svenc There were several people involved in the TC, I can't go into details because I signed an NDA. All I can say is this : as far as SI match engine developers are concerned, there is no correlation between generalists/specialists.  At no point in my involvement was this even suggested. Even when this was done, and I was central to it, such a concept wasn't even mooted when discussions were done behind the scenes.  It was never a messy affair because SI never designed the TC with a view of making a correlation. 

Today the TC has evolved even further from our original contribution. There is nothing stopping a person from using the tactical creator to make a decent tactic. You don't even need to fine tune individual PIs, however if you want to overachieve consistently then this requires you to take some chances with the shouts and the PIs. At no point in the tactical wizard is it even mentioned that you need generalists/specialists. In fact any advice you get is about the number of duties in your system before you face a specific team.

The problem with the whole community was they took the Tactical Theorems as gospel truth when they were just the opinion of a couple of players who sought to simplify the game within a framework that they hoped would translate into the game. That was all it ever was. Incidentally I've been hollering since the TC was introduced that we don't need to distinguish between generalists/specialists. The game was always simpler than that.

I agree  that calling  Mentality a risk  modifier is simplistic, since it affects as many as 6 main functions on the TC not to mention the range of decision making that happens on the pitch.  That again is just a way to simplify and dumb down the TC for everyone. That's all we can do. 

One other thing I play with LLM sides on very fluid shapes and structured shapes all the time. I have systems that employ as many as 4 so called creative player within a very fluid system and they have a cracker. Been doing this since 2012 long  may it continue.

[Svenc]

16 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

The problem with the whole community was they took the Tactical Theorems as gospel truth when they were just the opinion of a couple of players who sought to simplify the game within a framework that they hoped would translate into the game. That was all it ever was.

That wasn't just opinion though, that was all backed by SI and Paul directly. That said, I think it never much further developed past it and took it to the next level, as for those concepts to truly shine, the coders needed to embrace and understand it all. Tactical Theorems 10 et all were directly endorsed by Paul and SI, and the aforementioned was completely in there. Of course if the game/code itself doesn't draw much distinctions, then it won't matter much anyhow. The only issue then is, that the ideas or hints of them as such are still in as there is still roles that simply outline a position on the pitch vs. those who by default assign very specific jobs to players. The latter of which suggesting management/play with a clear plan on what should go on, the former giving the players a bit more heads: "Go out there and play your football". It could naturally be argued that there's precisely a bit of a difference how real life managers approach things right here, and that such could be taken into account by the game, but that's another debate completely.

[Rashidi]

They said it was a good guide, they did not at any point say that they were going to incorporate it into the game. Anyway that's my last word on the matter, the next time anyone raises this again, I will just ignore it and let this myth blow into a fact.

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, Rashidi said:

They said it was a good guide, they did not at any point say that they were going to incorporate it into the game. Anyway that's my last word on the matter, the next time anyone raises this again, I will just ignore it and let this myth blow into a fact.

Talking about myth, that creative freedom and shape/philosophy weren't linked before 2015 would be -- against all odds -- a myth too. wwfan's talking about a collective effort when researching the specialist/generalist dichotomy in the FM 13 ME thread, which is somewhat ambiguous. I think that's the issue in general, so much at heart still seems TC 1.05, so naturally people link this back to prior editions, even when they shouldn't, or when half of the stuff was interpretation never fully translating into the ME due to the coders never embracing it. But then you'd needed to come up with something improved at the core. Considering that SI couldn't do it back then probably being too close to the code to see it from a different angle but a purely technical/mechanical one, and half that stuff was inspired by community, who should? It's one way knowing exactly how each setting under the hood links, it's another translating all of that into a holistic whole which is a) football and b) somewhat accessible/intuitive, the latter of which not to be confused with dumbed down. Even if you embraced the sliders prior to the TC, the most basic of in-match dynamic decision making was a nightmare if you didn't have a thousand individual slider settings/tactics saved. Bloody awful.

Anyway, just tried to outline why that generalist/specialist thing is still going around. Wasn't a hard rule you needed to follow for success before, probably shouldn't be followed by much anymore either (in particular considering that all the guys writing such guides aren't much involved anymore). Anyway, back on topic, sorry.

[PonjaConRulos]

13 hours ago, Rashidi said:

I have a match where I played defensive very fluid, then went defensive structured and switched it up to attacking I think.. I think it was PS35 of the Gloucester City Diaries @PonjaConRulos In fact nearly every match I played with GCFC in the champions league featured me going from either a defensive posture to an attacking posture by throwing players into attack at different times. In one match I even went overload for 90 mins.

Yes, I've been watching your UCL games and it's very interesting. I'll just need some time to try out some things myself to fully understand it. Thanks!