Possible ME issue?: Giant Half-Spaces in a Highly Structured, Defensive 4-4-2

[herne79]

15 minutes ago, looping said:

I don't want to derail the discussion but I think is really important to clarify this.

Anyway, you can be narrower in width and with the PI. It doesn't change defensive width, you're right, but it does affect their starting position when you lose the ball. If you lose the ball and your fb was hugging the touchline, he now needs to get back and also has to come in quite a bit, where if he was staying narrower, he'd be in a better starting position to defend.

This sentence includes that width is an offensive shout but can also affect defensive positioning to some extent. Is that right?

No.  Width is an offensive TI only.  It does not affect defensive positioning.

You may get a bit of an effect during transitions - if players are narrower during the offensive phase they don't have quite so far to run back into their defensive shape for example - but it does not affect their positioning once they are in their defensive shape.

Width only affects players actual positioning when the team is in possession.

[looping]

6 hours ago, NabsKebabs said:

if you are an attacking mentality but play narrow your players should get into the defensive shape quicker

 

6 hours ago, Rashidi said:

? Nope.

@herne79 if players are narrower during the offensive phase they don't have quite so far to run back into their defensive shape.

I have my head spinning.

[herne79]

@looping

21 minutes ago, herne79 said:

You may get a bit of an effect during transitions

Note the word "may".

But lets be perfectly clear.  We're not talking huge distances here.  It's marginal to the extent that you probably won't notice it.

Either way, Width has got nothing to do with the positions players actually take up when defending.

[Svenc]

There's an overlap. It depends how much width there is to stretch too (pitches vary on FM). Going narrow is -- to generalize -- a risk minimizer, which goes two ways. Play is less likely to break down, as players sit closer to each other. However when the ball is dropped, they also take less time to narrow again to defend. However it also decreases the chance to stretch / to score a defense packing it and sitting deep in particular, and vice versa. Holland stuff 1970ish. Make the pitches big when trying to score, make it small when defending (the latter happens automatically on FM, eventually, no instruction for that as such which is the point).

On topic, there's been a few threads... Rash brought up a good point on this (don't complain if you struggle to score again), and he may not even realize the extents of it if. When SI address this, the mods will have a lot of additional work to do again. Notorious frustration dumps are at a historically low atm, and for me that's for reasons MBarbaric outlined (any bad player runs rings around your average AI this iteration, as it has zero concept of getting overloaded centrally to begin with, nor gotten the message from SI towers about the actual topic of this thread, those half spaces opening up...). However I think everything's been posted on this, so out.

[MBarbaric]

16 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Like i have said, this thread is about people complaining that they can't defend the wide areas, my point is that I can defend the wide areas whether or not I use overloads or not.   When I talk about overloads I have a bigger picture in mind, not jsut the offensive phase, but how my players control possession of the ball and then counter press to score. Thats how I defend in different situations. And you are right, this game is too easy.  If you have an issue with the AI defending, like i said before, I am more than happy to see it get tightened up. And when that happens in FM18, please don't come complaining you can't score.

no need to get snappy, we are all on the same side. Indeed the topic is about Ozil not being able to defend, however, not the wings but the central area. What I am trying to say is that the ME forces wide players wide to defend wings when there is no need for that. As a result of this, the central area gets overloaded and a team on the ball can dominate the zone when there is no football logic for it. Second goal in video you have posted is really good example.

It shows the problem doesn't only occur with a human player but with the AI as well. It also shows it isn't only the 4-4-2 formation that is affected but basically any formation that has less than three central players in the midfield. It also shows how clueless the AI is as the right winger in blue team stays wide although your whole left flank cuts inside.

So, while Ozil has problems defending, he has those problems not because he made poor choices, but because the defending AI is poorly coded (in relation to real world tactics). This isn't only affecting the defensive phase but attacking as well since you win/lose games without merit but due to poor defensive AI.

[Rashidi]

The challenge in defending the middle is manifold. 

Firstly when he chose 2 defend duties they tend to hold position, drop back. And with his defensive mentality, the team only narrows when it transitions into defence. By then the two FBs will be tucked in. 

For me here the real issue is the choice of roles in the middle and the fact that he didn't reduce  the playable space. Playing on structured, while this encourages coherence of tactical shape to some extent, it also places a burden on individual players to do a good job.

In my 442s I actually play with a support defend combo with the support duty being told to be further forward. Choosing the right roles here is important because it affects their starting position when closing down. And there are mentality differences even between a BWM on support and a DLP on support.

Then we have the other issue, the 442 historically struggles to control the middle, even Michael Cox in his book the "Mixer" described the quandary Leicester had early in their title winning season. To try and keep clean sheets they tried to play 2 strikers who would drop  deep into midfield. They never stayed on the shoulder of any defender. It was only later when Kante was moved to the middle did they start playing with a 4411 where Vardy played off the shoulder of the last man.

Naturally there will be different views amongst people, but it does make sense.  Now 442s struggle against systems that deploy  a player in either the DM or AM strata, the numerical disadvantage they have forces them to adjust their systems. They can become compressed or sometimes play with a high line. It's also typified by high tackling and interceptions.

So how do we get that?

High work rate, players need to be able to tackle 2 world class central mids who are willing to cover miles. 

Use OI to apply hard tackling to flank players and close down always all midfield and defend stratas.

Now do we need overloads? Against sides that use a DM or an AM either your side needs to apply enough pressure that the AI gets isolated or you need to think about how you can get an extra man in there.

I will write it up in more detail soon including explaining how you look at transitional width. I do  agree that the 2 in the middl have the potential to hold hands, I break them up using roles/duties and inserting one PI.

[MBarbaric]

choosing roles and duties (in FM sense) to achieve compactness is not how the defensive unit is organized in real football. there's no doubt one can have solid defence in FM even within 4-4-2.

The problem is that the, by default, the game has certain triggers that override whatever you do and push that wide player wide instead of tucking him inside. It isn't only a problem with 4-4-2 it is an overall behaviour of the ME. Have you seen your second goal in that video? blue team plays 3-4-3, the ball is in the center and the right wide man in blue team is triggered to stay wide although whole your left side is tuck inside. that is completely wrong behaviour. And the same thing applies to your first goal. A wide man stays wide allowing an overload in the halfspace that results in goal.

you keep saying you need certain type of players, certain instructions and i do agree completely. but before all that, you need sound defensive logic. Could you share your view what contributed to those two goals?

[Rashidi]

The AI is playing with two attack duties and is playing aggressively, he doesn't track back as he is on attack duty and they are on Attacking Mentality at that point. 

They are on attacking mentality hence their width, we aren't on Attacking mentality and my WP on the left has license to roam. 

The oppo have two players with low attributes for work rate and have zero skill in tackling. Their only player who can tackle are the two backs. I just isolated their attack from defence using an aggressive press with the use of OIs.

In a nutshell the two attacking flank players were hardly going to cover their flanks defensively if the AI was off on an attacking mentality.

[Mitja]

Rashidi

both goals you scored clearly show completly strange AI defensive behaviour, which would never happen in real football. it's a much bigger problem for AI than human manager and it defenetly makes the game really buggy and unchalanging. and it's simply not how a PL team would ever try to ''defend''. these are basic ME mechanisms which are flawed and need improvements. I've never seen such poor defending on fm16. I'm not even sure what is the point you are trying to make?

[Rashidi]

People reckon that Ozil can't defend because the AI is not properly coded. My point is that he chose the wrong roles and duties plus he did not use the tools that are in the game to do that effectively.

The overall assertion I gather is that at its very default level the AI should identify threats and defend the flanks because its common sense and "real" footballing logic.

i have been able to play defensively solid even without the use of Overloading, but you guys are more fixated at how I ripped the AI apart after observing that the AI was going all out and sacrificing defensive rigdity. Maybe I should have just shown you how I do it with regular fullbacks. I reckon even if I did that, you wouldn't be looking at transitional width but would focus on average positioning which is basically useless when it comes to showing defensive width. And my only point here is that even with orthodox fullbacks I can't hold the middle, but it requires some thought and it's not automatic. 

 

 

[Los_Culés]

@Rashidi I reckon that we can not emulate real life defending logic/principles because the FM simply lacks tools to do so and 4-4-2 flat is just a perfect example how underdeveloped is FM in this aspect. No sane real life manager would defend/position his players in 4-4-2 like we see in the game. Maybe 25-30 years ago when 4-4-2 (classic old 4-4-2 with two wingers) was popular but now is different era. Nowadays we see a "reborn" of 4-4-2 on top level (Atlético, Villarreal, Sevilla, Leicester, Paraguay...) and all these teams apply quite complex defensive  principles that can not be replicated in the game. For example how Atlético defends as 4-4-2 is totally diferrent and incomparable with what we see in the game. I do not expect from FM to be able to emulate all tactical nuances but as a simulator we should be at least able to get the basic positioning right or allow players to have tools to get it right.. Even if Özil spends 500 hours in FM trying to defend with 4-4-2 like real life teams do he will not achieve that.

[MBarbaric]

3 hours ago, Rashidi said:

They are on attacking mentality hence their width,

right, but we don't have control over horizontal compactness of the team in defensive phase as somebody explained earlier. This means players are as wide as they are coded. We didn't discuss vertical compactness but I guess that is somewhat regulated by duty. So, during the defensive phase, players on attacking duty will be higher up the pitch than players on support duty.

Now, if you look at the screenshot above, the "clueless" player isn't really high up the pitch, he is in blue defensive third so hardly on attacking duty. Both yellow players on his side drift inside but he stays wide, and if you look at the video, you will see he actually moves even wider. This seems to me like hard coded behaviour as it has zero sense from real football tactics perspective.

 

3 hours ago, Rashidi said:

In a nutshell the two attacking flank players were hardly going to cover their flanks defensively if the AI was off on an attacking mentality.

Here's the first goal in 13th minute. I doubt blue team is on attacking mentality away from home so early in the match and they are still in their original 4-2-3-1 formation. Yellow team does what they did whole game, they move wide players centrally and overload the middle. Look the distance between the blue right winger and two central midfielders. There's a huge gap used by yellow team to create 3v2 overload. 

There are two problems here;

1) The blue winger is completely out of position, on the outside of his man, mind you

2) Two central midfielders on the blue team are so narrow and deep they can't control the middle even with the help of AM. Normally, this wouldn't be such problem within the ME. However, as both players on the yellow team left side are instructed to cut inside, the AI defensive logic can't cope and allows an overload in half space which results with a goal.

If all you want to see is good judgement on your part fine, but to me, it seems the defensive AI doesn't live up to "simulation" label FM likes to pride itself with.

1 hour ago, Rashidi said:

My point is that he chose the wrong roles and duties plus he did not use the tools that are in the game to do that effectively.

the problem is the AI suffers same problem as Ozil since some things are hard coded in the ME. It isn't about you and how you can destroy the AI but about AI being poorly coded to unpredicted situations it comes up from a human player. That is why I took your examples. They show the basic AI logic doesn't work against human. It doesn't work because the offensive AI follows real football tactics (to an extent) while the defensive AI doesn't.

 

1 hour ago, Rashidi said:

The overall assertion I gather is that at its very default level the AI should identify threats and defend the flanks because its common sense and "real" footballing logic.

indeed, you can't defend whole pitch but you can defend most dangerous zones. but flanks aren't those while according to ME, they are.

[enigmatic]

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse people of "devaluing people's efforts" simply because they continue to refute denials that there is any problem with how wide midfielders defend by default, denials mostly based on missing the points other users have been making. The implications of the argument are certainly tactical, which are that playing short and narrow and having an extra man in midfield in FM17 are Kryptonite to most AI midfield fours, even when your players' movement and passing isn't particularly good and the AI side has the edge in player quality.

Specifically

(1) AI wide midfielders often stay outside their man (if they even have a man to mark) even when deep in defence, something which both makes it significantly easier to exploit space inside them than most/all real-life defensive setups and slightly harder to get the full benefit out of wide-play based tactical systems (the latter can still work; but formations which cram the centre with players and/or direct most passing or movement through it fare far better than they should against most opponents)

(2) Default central midfield positioning often places a midfield two far too close together in defence, which greatly benefits short passing, ball-retaining tactics against them as you can usually find a teammate in a central midfield position in space even if you also only have two central midfielders and neither of them are especially talented. 

 

With regard to FM18 I think Svenc makes the most interesting point, which is that SI can and almost certainly will take steps to make wide players defend narrower, which as he said will almost certainly result in an influx complaints about it being "hard" from people whose previous tactics have relying heavily on midfield overloads even if SI get the balance perfect. Nobody says making a football simulation is easy.

Tangent: If I was a betting man, I'd put money on FM18's most effective tactical systems being the opposite to FM17: placing an almost irrational emphasis on width. After all, the whole reason we're having this debate is that SI tried to compensate for attacking fullback play being a bit too effective in FM16, and amongst the good changes SI appear to have made to reduce this (fullbacks less attacking on support duties, deep loopy crosses more inaccurate, keepers more likely to claim crosses) they also appear to have made wide midfielders far too interested in zonally marking a wide channel an opponent might be able to exploit, irrespective of more imminent threats or even whether the opponent even has anyone on that side of the pitch.

 

 

 

[herne79]

@D_LO_ I've been hovering over the lock thread button, but while rashidi's been fielding questions and making observations I've been happy to let it continue.

For my part, there is an issue with wide and central midfielder positioning, SI have acknowledged this and I don't see anybody denying this.  However, the part that is often overlooked is the 4-4-2 (and derivatives) can indeed remain as being perfectly playable (SI have also stated that).  You need look no further than AI managers that use very effective 4-4-2s to demonstrate that.  Personally I just won La Liga with Sevilla using the exact same 4-4-2 as I used in FM16 without issue or feeling the need to do something about the midfield positioning.  It simply didn't cause me defensive problems.

But having said that I also understand that for some the 4-4-2 has become unusable.  Seeing such gaps appear put people off using the formation and don't like how (in some instances) their own or AI positioning manifests itself.  Some of that could perhaps be fixed with tactical changes, but that may in turn lead those people further away from the style in which they want to play, and thus becomes unacceptable for them.  I have no problem with that at all and can sympathise with those sentiments.  Hopefully FM18 will change that for them.

Where I draw the line is people making wide sweeping statements such as "4-4-2 is broken and unplayable" or "you're in denial and defending the ME" or people coming into the discussion just to have a moan.

[Los_Culés]

I do not think the debate should be where the wingers should be positioned by default when defending. The debate should be what tools to introduce for FM players so that we ourselves can decide where our players should be positioned when defending. Eg. Atlético has narrow midfield but this is compensated elsewhere (wider positioning of wingbacks, horizontal compactness with strikers coming very deep etc.)). What I want to say is that real life defensive concepts are quite complex and  having one universal 4-4-2 with hard coded default positions of players will not satisfy FMers that enjoy emulation of real life concepts.

[EuanDewar]

Wondered for a while now whether the bizarre vagaries of the ME are actually fixable, or if they just haven't been prioritised in the design process. Seems very obvious that building a complex simulation of football like this would be an endless labyrinth of bugs and oddities that would drive a developer crazy. From the outside looking in though, making big changes to the ME doesn't seem to have been the focus of the devs for some time. 

This isn't a complaint or anything. I'm just wondering aloud. It's tricky, as a consumer, to figure out how valid my criticisms are. Seems likely that it's just exceptionally difficult to make even a small ME change without the whole thing crashing down and I'm expecting too much. Yet it also seems they aren't giving it the level of attention I personally would like. Maybe a bit of both.  If someone at SI kept a development diary I think those insights would help alleviate whatever tension exists between devs and the community. Of course though I also understand that it is hard to work on a game and keep a diary simultaneously. Maybe a post-mortem.

[enigmatic]

Well, I sort of tried to steer it in the direction of what specifically could be taken advantage of and how: the close-together central midfielders and big channels are obviously both solved in defence and threatened in attack with extra players in the centre, but less obviously the gaps in AI midfield 4s and tendency for MCs to sit on top of each other encourages a short, narrow passing games funnelled through central midfield even if you don't outnumber them there (which is great news if you like extra players further forward or in defence). Of course the channels are lovely for inside forwards, raumdeuters and inverted wingbacks (or even run-of-the-mill wingbacks with "play narrow" selected too) and this is a cracking thread on tactics to exploit those half spaces in attack that actually uses WMs (as well as cramming the middle). But I guess part of the problem is it's almost too easy to beat an AI 4-4-2, so how to beat it is not a question that really gets asked.

As for mitigating the issues, I do think Rashidi makes a good observation that the easiest way to resolve the "MCs often too close together" is a big separation of roles and duties (though putting the MR/ML in a different strata seems to be a more efficient way of getting the MCs to stay further apart horizontally). But I still haven't seen a solution that gets the wide midfielders in a flat 4 to consistently tuck in to congest the zone that narrow opposition midfields operate in, which is the biggest problem if you're facing one (and want to use your wide players in that way in defence, obviously). I don't know if anyone's had much success with man-marking MCR or AMCRs or even DMCRs with their WMRs and how big that tradeoff is?

Personally, I think it devalues the tactics forum more to not challenge the view that the real problem with the half spaces was because O-zil's "wrong" roles duty selection  particularly when that view is expressed by somebody who undoubtedly is very knowledgeable and influential. Can't really think of a more naturally-narrow balanced flat four tactical setup than wide playmakers on support duty in a defend/structured setup)

[Rashidi]

11 hours ago, enigmatic said:

But I guess part of the problem is it's almost too easy to beat an AI 4-4-2, so how to beat it is not a question that really gets asked.

I agree, its easy to beat. And the reason why I like this thread. It's all about how to control the halfspaces both offensively and defensively

I just played a game against the AI that was using this against my 442, I call this the halfspace exploiter. This tactic is brutal at drawing players around the halfspaces because it compresses as many as 5 into a narrow area when attacking, which makes it hard to win the ball during the midfield phase in transition, which is where the 442 is at its weakest. I am not here to debate the merits of the engine but to try and understand how it works so that I can beat tactics using the 442.

To understand how defensive width works, we need to accept that defensive width is affected by mentality, your choice of roles and duties and the formation you are playing against. Your formation will need to play against another formation, so players are likely to take up positions defensively with respect to that. 

Now we need to break up the 3 main phases of play Defense/Midfield and Attack. In each phase your system has a different width setting. When you are without the ball, your team will look different in all 3 phases. If the AI has the ball in their half, you will look wide, this is where most people have an issue with wide area positoning. Players sometimes look too wide or the 2 central players are too narrow. To fix this,  check roles and duties for the central players. For the wider players the issue is whether they are standing inside or outside. ie. Which side are they showing the opposing player? Sometimes you will see them showing the inside and sometimes the opposing player is tucked inside.

When the ball enters the midfield phase here, roles and duties kick in to affect closing down and narrowness. If you are using a winger on attack, he probably won't track nearly as well as a WM on support. If he has low attributes then these will kick in too.

Finally the ball enters your half, this is where it gets interesting. On lower mentalities your team will be narrower on higher mentalities it will be wider. On flexible or very fluid they will appear more condensed. With an offside trap and a high defensive line you can also achieve compression. 

On a lower mentality, the FBs are more likely to tuck inside on a higher mentality those FBs are more likely to close down the flanks and half spaces. This is where i work hard to spot how my halfspaces are being exploited. 

The halfspace exploiter I linked earlier is notorious against my 442. So what are my defensive options to keep narrow and condensed?

1. I use the offside trap to get vertical compression

2. I use OIs to put pressure on their backline

3. I set hard tackling on opposing FBs because I don't want them to have an easy time

This will encourage my frontliners to help out in defense. If I want them to help out even more I may tackle hard and close down the central mids only, and this is where it gets dangerous. Here I have to be aware of their attributes as I don't want my central mids to get yellow carded

So I have sorted out my defensive third. I still have the issue of trying to win the ball in midfield and not allowing them to gain easy inroads to my defensive third. This is where it gets a bit more challenging. The 442 really only has 2 players in midfield vs their 5. So its easy to understand why we won't win the ball as it is. So I either give up the midfield and then hope to God we can defend well with deep diagonal counter attacks. Or I use a different set of roles and duties to allow me to keep the ball more effectively. Here I could use the IWBs instead and give up defending the flank area during the midfield transition so that I can keep the ball a bit more effectively, when we lose the ball, there is a chance that my crowding of midfield could match theirs.

Another option that someone has rightly pointed out which can be used is specific man marking, which is a level of micro-management that can get quite annoying, it can still work.

So both options are viable but they require me to crack my noggin. 

While I can  understand this may not be the way many people want to play and they just want the 442 to default into defending half spaces effectively. The fact is historically that was its weakness. I still do think Si can improve it by making the engine realise that we are playing a 442, and that with certain roles they should just automatically tuck in a bit more during the midfield phase. The challenge as always is balance. Its that phase between midfield to attack transition where the ball moves from midfield into our half that causes most people issues with the 442.

[Svenc]

17 hours ago, enigmatic said:

With regard to FM18 I think Svenc makes the most interesting point, which is that SI can and almost certainly will take steps to make wide players defend narrower, which as he said will almost certainly result in an influx complaints about it being "hard" from people whose previous tactics have relying heavily on midfield overloads even if SI get the balance perfect. Nobody says making a football simulation is easy.

Rashidi did bring up first, who's also talking experience! I think this is a bit of an understatement, probably not since the glory days of Diablo were there tactics possible that gifted this huge overachievements to sub par teams with no further input whatsoever (including refusing to sub players). It's the ultimate FM irony in a sense, as it can turn the game into a game of totally tactics, even though that is oft a frustration you see leveled at the game ("players don't matter, you have to be some tactical genius to even win a game!"). It's not only the AI 4-4-2, it's any AI formation that doesn't plug some of the defensive gaps opened in central spaces, which are more vulnerable than anything out on the flanks (centrally is where the pitch is controlled, shortest distance to goal, plus if overloaded, a CB of with most AI formations 2 steps up for no cover). The ME is always an understandably balancing act between "realism" and playability, balanced post by Herne, and btw, I know somebody who despite all still has a suspicious AI playing 4-4-2 on this were "completely OP". In a sense, it is a great thing, everybody's enjoying themselves. The problem is this is blatantly not intentional, and unlikely to stay for long, even if for SI trying to keep players from doing such isn't their main concern, which is then the mods' problem all over. (Or anybody tired of any FM forum drowned in nonsense, infractions, and rage quits).

[Jean0987654321]

This thread has been fun. You guys reminded me of my Allegri-inspired 4-1-3-2 formation that cuts defenses like butter when I played it for United. Half-spaces are a bit too easy to exploit in this game.

[MichaelBrown]

On 01/08/2017 at 16:59, herne79 said:

@D_LO_ I've been hovering over the lock thread button, but while rashidi's been fielding questions and making observations I've been happy to let it continue.

For my part, there is an issue with wide and central midfielder positioning, SI have acknowledged this and I don't see anybody denying this.  However, the part that is often overlooked is the 4-4-2 (and derivatives) can indeed remain as being perfectly playable (SI have also stated that).  You need look no further than AI managers that use very effective 4-4-2s to demonstrate that.  Personally I just won La Liga with Sevilla using the exact same 4-4-2 as I used in FM16 without issue or feeling the need to do something about the midfield positioning.  It simply didn't cause me defensive problems.

But having said that I also understand that for some the 4-4-2 has become unusable.  Seeing such gaps appear put people off using the formation and don't like how (in some instances) their own or AI positioning manifests itself.  Some of that could perhaps be fixed with tactical changes, but that may in turn lead those people further away from the style in which they want to play, and thus becomes unacceptable for them.  I have no problem with that at all and can sympathise with those sentiments.  Hopefully FM18 will change that for them.

Where I draw the line is people making wide sweeping statements such as "4-4-2 is broken and unplayable" or "you're in denial and defending the ME" or people coming into the discussion just to have a moan.

And people wonder why this part of the forum is especially quiet. 

Ozil is one of the, if not the best tactical contributor around on the forums and he's raised a legitimate issue (with evidence) which has allowed people to discuss these issues. 

If people think the 4-4-2 is unplayable, let them discuss that. If people want to discuss tactics to beat the system, let them do that. 

Don't go around locking threads because A: you disagree with their point of view or B: it doesn't suit the attitude of posters who think the ME is great.

[herne79]

5 hours ago, MichaelBrown said:

And people wonder why this part of the forum is especially quiet. 

Ozil is one of the, if not the best tactical contributor around on the forums and he's raised a legitimate issue (with evidence) which has allowed people to discuss these issues. 

If people think the 4-4-2 is unplayable, let them discuss that. If people want to discuss tactics to beat the system, let them do that. 

Don't go around locking threads because A: you disagree with their point of view or B: it doesn't suit the attitude of posters who think the ME is great.

Thanks for the insight.  I'm perfectly aware who Ozil is and the purpose of this thread thanks.

If you think I'd considered locking the thread because I disagree with other opinions or some notion about attitude, you're sadly mistaken and being borderline offensive.  Perhaps you should read the rest of my post rather than focus on one sentence taken out of context.

If you have something constructive to add to the topic, please do so.  But if this is your level you can expect further posts to simply be removed.

[Rashidi]

5 hours ago, MichaelBrown said:

Don't go around locking threads because A: you disagree with their point of view or B: it doesn't suit the attitude of posters who think the ME is great.

There is a distinction between a discussion and a rant.  What Herne is trying to do is to ensure that the thread doesn't descend into a rant thread to protect healthy discussion, and moderators will always stop in to warn people to keep it a healthy discussion otherwise these threads get closed. 

This part of the forum has become quiet, not because threads get locked, but because of other reasons, like continual rants that make healthy debate difficult. And like we have said a million times before. If there is an issue with the engine, go to the bugs forum and raise it. This is not the bugs forum.

 

[NabsKebabs]

22 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

There is a distinction between a discussion and a rant.  What Herne is trying to do is to ensure that the thread doesn't descend into a rant thread to protect healthy discussion, and moderators will always stop in to warn people to keep it a healthy discussion otherwise these threads get closed. 

This part of the forum has become quiet, not because threads get locked, but because of other reasons, like continual rants that make healthy debate difficult. And like we have said a million times before. If there is an issue with the engine, go to the bugs forum and raise it. This is not the bugs forum.

 

the thread in the bugs forum on the same issue is locked..

[themadsheep2001]

14 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

the thread in the bugs forum on the same issue is locked..

If it's thread SI had already made their comments known, and then the thread degenerated 

The irony here is that Browns comments have only made it more likely it'd be closed. 

Now perhaps people can get back to the topic at hand before it gets closed?

[themadsheep2001]

48 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

If it's the thread I'm thinking of, SI had already made their comments known, and then the thread degenerated 

The irony here is that Browns comments have only made it more likely it'd be closed. 

Now perhaps people can get back to the topic at hand before it gets closed?

 

[Svenc]

This is going to be off- and on-topic at the same time:
I don't want this to be locked and disappear from where it's actually be found, not only due to Rashidis's quality contributions, but also MBarbaric and others. It's also useful in several other ways, as it also highlights how stuff can be slipped in testing, or not being picked up as a possible issue, even if you care about tactics a bit more than somebody more casually committed, which isn't surprising (everybody plays the game a tad differently, plus has his own personal peeves perhaps so much that he won't see anything else due to that perception). Please simply delete anything off-topic and rubbish, and deal with it via PMs. I've personally experienced this with other from my end useful threads before, some of which I had spent significant amount of time in posting myself, sometimes getting the message the thread was locked upon having finished all that typing and hitting "submit" (hopefully won't happen this time around). (Btw, that bug thread was 2 pages long and had just started with guys uploading pkms with some more detailed, second to second subjective match analysis when it was locked, but then technically this never was and isn't really a bug to begin with, but any possible fiddling here would understandably produce HUGE knock-ons on everything).

Currently on my FM sabbatical months enjoying the better stuff on these boards, and this is, though it's also a bit of repeat. Just as a friendly reminder from somebody who hopefully has a more positive reputations around these parts.  I too, dislike the typically rubbish and misinformation posted in particular on fan sites barely moderated (from my stance, FMBase and similar are to be avoided ***at all cost*** if you ever try to get anything much useful about this game long-term -- not due to a completely lack of decent posters, but because them being drowned out by anything else), this remains the only source of useful information and good discussion as of FM for me. It's the only site with people in numbers that actually know how the game works some, and where the blatantly rubbish is exposed for what it is, and the rants don't take over anything else (that is, if there is something much to rant about...) Thanks.

 

edit: You can hide/delete this too if you wish, probably more suited to a PM anyways!
 

[westy8chimp]

What have you done Ozil! I thought we had put this to bed 9 months ago, then again 6 months ago... and a third time 4 months ago ... every section of the forum has covered it  

Revelation - if you play 442 wingers stay wide and cms clamour on top of each other and you can get exploited. If wingers came too central wing backs would be getting 50 assists a season again and winning ballon d'or every year.

As I'm sure Barbic has covered in depth, again, we'd love them to shift across as a unit as the ball is moved from one side to the other ... or we would all like the option to split the tactic creator into zones, or phases etc to give us more power of choice in how we defend/attack.

10 months without playing a 442! I thought you'd be straight in their with your affinity to the invincibles etc  

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

@westy8chimp haha, opened a real can of worms!

It's a shame. I've moved on for now and will re-visit next year. Fingers crossed.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

..ok, so playing Devil's Advocate here and trying to get this discussion back on track.

As mentioned above I have moved on from trying to defend deep and gone back to what I know, a high-intensity pressing game. One of the systems we are using is a very simple 4-2-3-1.

 

Here is a screenshot of the defensive shape.

Much happier with the defensive positioning from the two holding midfielders. Please note, both are - once again - holding midfielders (I fail to see why one must be Support just for the sake of it).

Here's another screenshot, this time pressing higher.

Highly aggressive 4-2-4 shape pressing the opposition but look at the solid midfield cover.

Here, we press wide.

The double pivot has shifted across nicely and the AM has dropped back to cover the opposition holding midfielder.

Finally, even a borderline nuts "full-court press" (don't ask how Alaves ended up in that position! :D).

 

How has my very fluid, attacking 4-2-3-1 got a significantly more solid defensive set-up than my highly structured, defensive 4-4-2.

My thoughts:

• I do believe it is a ME flaw. Logically, a deep 4-4-2 should work.
  ..so should and - I believe - does a defensively minded double-pivot in midfield.
• Could it be individual mentality of the midfield pivot?
  -> Defensive, Highly Structured + MC(D) is a bloody defensive mentality.
  -> Attacking, Very Fluid + MC(D) is neutral.
  Are they so risk averse they literally need to hold hands when the opposition run at them??
• Could it be - similar to the DCs w/ Half-Back - we need to push the wide players forward to get correct positioning?
  -> I would again question the tactical logic of a Defensive, Highly Structured 4-2-2-2 with 4 players in the AM/ST strata but it may be worth a test.

[themadsheep2001]

A lot of what you ask is answered in @Rashidi posts

[westy8chimp]

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

I believe - does a defensively minded double-pivot in midfield

It does. Sensationally well if using a mid to low table team with freedom to counter.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

18 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

A lot of what you ask is answered in @Rashidi posts

Thank you for your valuable contribution!! 

Come back soon 

 

[themadsheep2001]

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

Thank you for your valuable contribution!! 

Come back soon 

 

Are you that childish?

 

Congratulations thread locked.