Strategies help

[DannyLad252]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to ask a theoretical question. For this application, we are to assume that both teams are completely equal, and that it is only the strategies in play that define the game.

With that in mind, if we were to have several strategies play against each other, which ones would come up out on top? I'm talking attacking, defensive, counter, possession, long ball etc.

Take for example, attacking football vs possession football, long ball vs counter attack etc. What would win against what and why?

[HUNT3R]

8 hours ago, DannyLad252 said:

Take for example, attacking football vs possession football, long ball vs counter attack etc. What would win against what and why?

This is far too a simplistic way of looking at it and no one would be able to tell you. How (in FM terms, formation, mentality, team shape, roles, duties, PIs and TIs) a team sets up its attacking/possession/counter/defensive football will be huge in determining the outcome.

[DannyLad252]

4 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

This is far too a simplistic way of looking at it and no one would be able to tell you. How (in FM terms, formation, mentality, team shape, roles, duties, PIs and TIs) a team sets up its attacking/possession/counter/defensive football will be huge in determining the outcome.

Okay, so lets say that Team A and team B set out the exact same PIs, roles, and formation, and have players of equal playing style and ability in their respective position (e.g. team A's DR is equal to team B's DR). That leaves us with mentality, team shape, and TIs. These are the only influences of play. The weather is normal, the ground is neutral and the pitch is normal etc.

What if team A played high risk and tried to control possession and bring numbers forward (i.e. maybe control/fluid with short passes), and team B played low risk football with an intent to get play upfield (i.e. maybe counter/structured with direct passes).

Which setups are better for which setups?

[HUNT3R]

2 hours ago, DannyLad252 said:

Okay, so lets say that Team A and team B set out the exact same PIs, roles, and formation, and have players of equal playing style and ability in their respective position (e.g. team A's DR is equal to team B's DR). That leaves us with mentality, team shape, and TIs. These are the only influences of play. The weather is normal, the ground is neutral and the pitch is normal etc.

What if team A played high risk and tried to control possession and bring numbers forward (i.e. maybe control/fluid with short passes), and team B played low risk football with an intent to get play upfield (i.e. maybe counter/structured with direct passes).

Which setups are better for which setups?

My answer is still the same. This is far too simplistic a way to look at it. You can lock in certain things, but there will be variables. In this case, I don't see why you'd force the roles (and I'm assuming duties) to be the same because I definitely would be choosing the same roles or duties if I was playing a possession game compared to counter/low risk football.

There are still many different ways of setting up. It seems like you're looking for a "If A then B" sort of answer for every possible set of circumstances, but with the large amount of variables in football, you just can't do this.

[DannyLad252]

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

My answer is still the same. This is far too simplistic a way to look at it. You can lock in certain things, but there will be variables. In this case, I don't see why you'd force the roles (and I'm assuming duties) to be the same because I definitely would be choosing the same roles or duties if I was playing a possession game compared to counter/low risk football.

There are still many different ways of setting up. It seems like you're looking for a "If A then B" sort of answer for every possible set of circumstances, but with the large amount of variables in football, you just can't do this.

That's fair enough. I understand what you mean, but I disagree that you cannot at least do it in a general sense.

In Lines and Diamonds by THOG, he specifically states about pressing:

Quote

The first aim of a pressing style is to force a mistake that leads to a change of possession, though if this isn’t possible, the secondary aim is to force an opponent to play more direct. That being the case, a pressing style is most effective at disrupting the style of a team that tries to hold onto possession, though it can be effective against any team that tries to play a short passing style with players who lack an exceptional level of technical ability, solid decision-making ability or composure on the ball.

I understand that there are many variables in football. Of course there are, it's part of what makes the game beautiful. What I'm looking for is a practical sense of what works against what, similar to how THOG has talked about the benefits of pressing a possession based side. From there, I believe I can factor in variables in order to build a bigger picture.

[herne79]

15 minutes ago, DannyLad252 said:

I understand that there are many variables in football. Of course there are, it's part of what makes the game beautiful. What I'm looking for is a practical sense of what works against what, similar to how THOG has talked about the benefits of pressing a possession based side. From there, I believe I can factor in variables in order to build a bigger picture.

You need to read past the part of THOG's quote you highlighted to give yourself better context:  "though it can be effective against any team that tries to play a short passing style with players who lack an exceptional level of technical ability, solid decision-making ability or composure on the ball."

Try pressing Barcelona or Bayern, where players do have an exceptional level of technical ability.  See how you get on.

@HUNT3R is correct.  There is no "right way" to counteract a style of play.  It's all contextual and what may work against one team may not necessarily work against another that plays in a similar style.

[DannyLad252]

41 minutes ago, herne79 said:

You need to read past the part of THOG's quote you highlighted to give yourself better context:  "though it can be effective against any team that tries to play a short passing style with players who lack an exceptional level of technical ability, solid decision-making ability or composure on the ball."

Try pressing Barcelona or Bayern, where players do have an exceptional level of technical ability.  See how you get on.

@HUNT3R is correct.  There is no "right way" to counteract a style of play.  It's all contextual and what may work against one team may not necessarily work against another that plays in a similar style.

If there isn't a right way to counteract a style of play, does that not mean that there's no point even having a style of play? There has to be a practical solution.

okay, so the theory is too generalistic, so let's apply it to the teams you've mentioned. It's Barcelona Vs Bayern. The managers have set up their sides to play according to the players at hand. How do the managers decide on how to adjust their tactics according to their opponent? There has to be practical guidelines that allow them to know how to deal with specific threats, yet some managers will often come up with different ideas for the same opponent. It doesn't make sense to me. Look at Mourinho, he came from the same Barcelona breed of managers like Guardiola and Van Gaal, yet he comes out of it with completely different ideas of how the game should be played. Yet both sides of the coin are extremely successful. There must be something practical behind it that they all embody.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, DannyLad252 said:

If there isn't a right way to counteract a style of play, does that not mean that there's no point even having a style of play? There has to be a practical solution.

That's not what I meant.  You are talking in terms of there being a single way to defeat or counteract a certain play style.  What we're saying is that simply isn't the case as "it's all contextual and what may work against one team may not necessarily work against another that plays in a similar style."

That's the whole point - it's all contextual.  If you want to use the Bayern v Barcelona example, that's very specific.  But if you then move onto two other sides you need to understand the context of those two sides - and thus your way of playing against them may be different from Bayern or Barcelona, even if those teams use a similar style of play.  Note the use of the word "may" there - equally you may not change, because it's contextual.

You've even said it yourself: "some managers will often come up with different ideas for the same opponent".  Although you also say "it doesn't make sense to me", well why not?  People are different and different managers will of course have different ideas, which is why we see such a variety of play styles.

[DannyLad252]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

That's not what I meant.  You are talking in terms of there being a single way to defeat or counteract a certain play style.  What we're saying is that simply isn't the case as "it's all contextual and what may work against one team may not necessarily work against another that plays in a similar style."

That's the whole point - it's all contextual.  If you want to use the Bayern v Barcelona example, that's very specific.  But if you then move onto two other sides you need to understand the context of those two sides - and thus your way of playing against them may be different from Bayern or Barcelona, even if those teams use a similar style of play.  Note the use of the word "may" there - equally you may not change, because it's contextual.

You've even said it yourself: "some managers will often come up with different ideas for the same opponent".  Although you also say "it doesn't make sense to me", well why not?  People are different and different managers will of course have different ideas, which is why we see such a variety of play styles.

I'm not. I'm asking if there are any recognised best ways to gain an advantage over specific styles. There are obviously going to be several ways to beat a side, but if it didn't matter how you played then managers would throw out any side without instruction. Styles aren't just chosen based in ideals. They're chosen as reactions to ways others play. People come up with potential solutions to problems, and the same applies to football.

You're right, it is contextual. That's why there has to be a practical solution; context also applies to playing styles. if a team goes out with a particular style of play, then that will be in the mind of the manager, and they will know how to react to it, just like they would with regards to specific players and player instructions.

Also, what are journalists and fans even referring to if they call a manager pragmatic if there are no pragmatic ways to play?

There are reasons why some managers are more successful than others. I recognise that they identify variables and respond to them, I never said that I don't. I was asking because I struggle to comprehend how a playing style cannot be in any way practical.

[herne79]

Fair enough .

Are there any recognised best ways?  I'd suggest not, simply because of this contextual thing.  Take the quote you got from THOG - pressing can indeed be a successful counter to a heavy possession opponent, but the quote goes on to give caveats due to technical players.  And then we can also start thinking about where the line is drawn - if very technical players in the possession team are capable of getting of getting around the heavy press, define "very technical".  And worse it also becomes relevant to the level at which you are playing - define "very technical" in league tier 2, or 3, or non-league.

We can also relate it back to FM itself and how the AI managers behave.  AI managers don't change anything based on your tactical set up.  The tactic they start a match with will be based on the AI manager's preferred system, the players available, how the team is performing and how your team have been performing, along with things such as club reputation.  They'll even change things based on how the match starts to play out, so if they start losing (for example) expect an AI manager to start attacking more.

Now ok, there's an argument to say a counter attacking style (for example) is a good foil to an overly aggressive opponent, but even then you'd still need to watch each match to ensure your style is working and be ready to change if it isn't.

It would be very nice if we could simply say "great, the opponent is playing is xyz style therefore I need to adopt style abc to overcome it", but that might make the game become a little too easy for us.