Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Ö-zil to the Arsenal!

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

Recommended Posts

What I find interesting is that I can manage to keep my 2 CMs wide enough to cover the right parts of the pitch. The challenge I face now is interestingly enough, the AI is beginning to avoid my midfield press and my high press, by always playing balls over the top. So the AI now plays tactics that are very interesting and logical, its avoiding my midfield by launching balls over the top to the 2 strikers which actually makes it a pain to play the 442 the way I am. We are the team in yellow and notice in one passage of play how the CM on the right drifts to the right to lend support., The AI however decides to avoid the press by going over the top. Beginning to hate this, my 442 nearly always needs to adapt slightly.

597efae4394c8_DefensivePositioningofWM.thumb.jpg.fd4961782c39b30d51bf38a5b06692e8.jpg597efadab7e9b_DefensivePositioning2.thumb.jpg.c718fec72b492800362db617e82c9005.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the issue most people have with 442 is deciding how to defend the areas that the 442 is the weakest at. If you try and defend the flanks you open up the middle, if you overcommit to the middle you open up the flanks. And this has been the problem with the 442, and also the reasons why many English managers opted to use either a holding mid or a deeper lying creator behind the strikers in Europe. Managers like SAF even went strikerless. So the issue we have is using the tools at our disposal to make a system we like. 

Now the way I like playing my 442s may not be everyone's cup of tea. For me, I want to overcome the inherent weakness of the system which also result in low possession numbers. Now I don' mind having low poss numbers if we win the game or are controlling areas of the pitch. My issue usually lies in the fact that I don't want the AI or any team to out manoeuvre me in the middle. The fact is the 442 will let that happen whether you like it or not. If you get one MC to step up and go more attacking you leave only 1 defending and that's the reason why a lot of sides have found this system difficult to play with in Europe. 

Some sides opt to get a working class midfield along with 2 strikers who really aren't out and out strikers but play more like shadow strikers. They hardly stay on the shoulder of the last man, instead vigorously joining their team in defence. I didn't want to play like Leicester of old. So I opted for my own style. The goal here is to ensure we control the pitch in the middle get width, drag the team around and then score with high quality chances. The challenge becomes getting the control in midfield. There are roles in the game that allow us to do this without having to add too many PIs.

597f05983d65e_MatchStats.thumb.jpg.6344c64365761bbe01cb10f112d3821d.jpg

In our match against Everton, we achieved just that, its taking us a bit of time fiddling with the system since each formation I play against has unique requirements. In this particular one, they played fairly deep at the start and we had to drag the team lying in 5th on the table around. What's interesting is my emphasis on NOT WORRYING about tackling numbers. In fact even with the use of our OIs and the aggressive offside trap, we didn't really have to tackle hard as the numbers show, instead we were brutal at interceptions, which is something I wanted with the high press. The green dots show the interception areas by the wide players    

.Interceptions.thumb.jpg.8015ff56552889945405c5525fac127a.jpgInterceptions.thumb.jpg.8015ff56552889945405c5525fac127a.jpg

KPIs.thumb.jpg.b307e847633981b88606a918f9ff9ad9.jpg

For us the key lay in generating enough control of the pitch that we ended up looking like a 244, yes a 244. My 442 attacks like a 244 as these Key pass combinations will show. We play a fairly aggressive 442 where I depend on my flanking playmakers to tuck inside, support and create chances. Now here all I am doing is using the default roles in the game with minimal TIs to achieve this effect. The TIs I use for the aggressive offside trap is a slightly high defensive line and the offside trap. This game was played on standard/flexible. I have also done the same with teams playing counter highly structured. These teams are usually a lot inferior than us if I want to go to HS as a shape.

I have also linked a snippet that I edited to show you what the goals can look like. 

I apologise if people are expecting to see detailed instructions. The reason why I am not giving detailed instructions is that it will be unique to your players. I had to find the perfect mix of players to get this kind of football played. Its not 100% there yet, but I like how my version of the 442 works. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but its mine. One thing though, in order for my system to work the two wide players had to help defending. It was mandatory for us to use players who tracked back. 

Is the engine perfect, no.  I do want to thank all of you to force me into a 442 for a while :-) It was fun.

 

 

 

 

 

Tackles.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Blarry said:

"Match Engine's fine, must be yer tactics, mate."

I've wanted to do this for ages.

I usually hate this kind of comment.

But then I see Michael Zorc's comment and how he's basically ignored what Rashidi has said. While its not perfect, and there is certainly room for improvement, its certainly a more than viable formation. What's even more bizare is how his comment gets reps? Do people actually read threads, or simply pick out what they agree with and ignore the rest? Frustrating to say the least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand people saying it's usable, but I still think it's pretty ridiculous that a concept as basic as a narrow, compact 4-4-2 is hard to replicate without knowledge of the inner-workings of the game. And the fact that this has been flagged for the lifespan of the game, and we're most likely going to have to wait until another instalment of the game for it to be rectified is beyond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I usually hate this kind of comment.

But then I see Michael Zorc's comment and how he's basically ignored what Rashidi has said. While its not perfect, and there is certainly room for improvement, its certainly a more than viable formation. What's even more bizare is how his comment gets reps? Do people actually read threads, or simply pick out what they agree with and ignore the rest? Frustrating to say the least

All he did was state that he uninstalled the game because of the match engine issue. Sounds fair enough to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, DerKopite said:

I understand people saying it's usable, but I still think it's pretty ridiculous that a concept as basic as a narrow, compact 4-4-2 is hard to replicate without knowledge of the inner-workings of the game. And the fact that this has been flagged for the lifespan of the game, and we're most likely going to have to wait until another instalment of the game for it to be rectified is beyond. 

This. It's a massive issue and I'm not sure why people go to such lengths to defend the game. It's a big issue that needs to be fixed. Simple as. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the 442 positioning without the ball that Nic Madden from SI had on Rashidi's youtube channel at HT in a match (changed systems after HT).

nm.thumb.PNG.f937dfbc8d7d5fe6a22964e0c4ae387d.PNG

 

Just look at how wide the wingers are - left one is WP(s) and right one is WM(auto) (standard mentality). Believe it or not but Nic Madden actually described his defensive positioning as compact...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rashidi said:

@Mitja I would either play it on flexible or on very fluid. In one I can expect a bit more adherence to my overall tactical shape in the other, well, its a bit more risky, but you can still get the same effect.  The point you raise is interesting. How much do you want the WMs to come in to support the 2 central mids?  If they step in too early or too much, you run the risk of opening up space too easily. So I rather use a combination of defensive line, and OIs to specifically target players on the pitch.

The issue I think most people have currently is working a way to get the 2 central mids to be wide enough that they cover the area defending, which is possible. The challenge i feel is finding the two right CMs, then there is the other problem of finding wide players who can also put in a challenge.  In days past when the 442 was effective, you would hardly ever find wingers who tackled well.  So if you choose a WM who can't really tackle or doesnt even want to put in a challenge, then its fair to expect the central mids to come and support them, and that is what I usually aim to do.

I'm defenetly in 'this is the ME bug' camp, defending looks horrible in 17 compared to 16, not just zhe defending of wingers. and I meen really terrible, what kind of defending is AI using in clip you posted? it is defenetly not zonal nor it looks like man marking of any proffesional team. it looks clear to me SI tried to fix the 'wing back bug' from fm16. the problem is there was no bug in positioning of wide areas as long as you didn't use crazy wing back combinations and played with full backs  instead. problem was a little more evident when using very narrow formations, congesting the centre and leaving flanks open for attacking wing backs. it was defenetly a little too easy to switch flanks in Xabi Alsonso manner but even that wasn't too much of the problem when a bit more width was used. as for 442 and more structured shape I agree, it's against FM and real life logics, if you want to play like that you need to use some other formation with three midfielders instead..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

This. It's a massive issue and I'm not sure why people go to such lengths to defend the game. It's a big issue that needs to be fixed. Simple as. 

If you think its a case of defending the game, then you've quite frankly missed the point. Again it just echoes my point about what Rashidi posts and how its largely ignored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

If you think its a case of defending the game, then you've quite frankly missed the point. Again it just echoes my point about what Rashidi posts and how its largely ignored

Well I've read what he has posted...

In his initial post he wasn't actually using a proper 442. He had dropped his CM's to the DM strata so it was actually a variant of the 442. And while his left mid had a good position, his right mid had poor positioning. I saw this on his YT channel.

His other post didn't really cover much on defensive positioning.

This is a clear ME issue and I can understand if it completely ruins the game for some people. 

Edited by NabsKebabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rashidi said:

For me the issue most people have with 442 is deciding how to defend the areas that the 442 is the weakest at. If you try and defend the flanks you open up the middle, if you overcommit to the middle you open up the flanks. And this has been the problem with the 442, and also the reasons why many English managers opted to use either a holding mid or a deeper lying creator behind the strikers in Europe. Managers like SAF even went strikerless. So the issue we have is using the tools at our disposal to make a system we like. 

Now the way I like playing my 442s may not be everyone's cup of tea. For me, I want to overcome the inherent weakness of the system which also result in low possession numbers. Now I don' mind having low poss numbers if we win the game or are controlling areas of the pitch. My issue usually lies in the fact that I don't want the AI or any team to out manoeuvre me in the middle. The fact is the 442 will let that happen whether you like it or not. If you get one MC to step up and go more attacking you leave only 1 defending and that's the reason why a lot of sides have found this system difficult to play with in Europe. 

Some sides opt to get a working class midfield along with 2 strikers who really aren't out and out strikers but play more like shadow strikers. They hardly stay on the shoulder of the last man, instead vigorously joining their team in defence. I didn't want to play like Leicester of old. So I opted for my own style. The goal here is to ensure we control the pitch in the middle get width, drag the team around and then score with high quality chances. The challenge becomes getting the control in midfield. There are roles in the game that allow us to do this without having to add too many PIs.

597f05983d65e_MatchStats.thumb.jpg.6344c64365761bbe01cb10f112d3821d.jpg

In our match against Everton, we achieved just that, its taking us a bit of time fiddling with the system since each formation I play against has unique requirements. In this particular one, they played fairly deep at the start and we had to drag the team lying in 5th on the table around. What's interesting is my emphasis on NOT WORRYING about tackling numbers. In fact even with the use of our OIs and the aggressive offside trap, we didn't really have to tackle hard as the numbers show, instead we were brutal at interceptions, which is something I wanted with the high press. The green dots show the interception areas by the wide players    

.Interceptions.thumb.jpg.8015ff56552889945405c5525fac127a.jpgInterceptions.thumb.jpg.8015ff56552889945405c5525fac127a.jpg

KPIs.thumb.jpg.b307e847633981b88606a918f9ff9ad9.jpg

For us the key lay in generating enough control of the pitch that we ended up looking like a 244, yes a 244. My 442 attacks like a 244 as these Key pass combinations will show. We play a fairly aggressive 442 where I depend on my flanking playmakers to tuck inside, support and create chances. Now here all I am doing is using the default roles in the game with minimal TIs to achieve this effect. The TIs I use for the aggressive offside trap is a slightly high defensive line and the offside trap. This game was played on standard/flexible. I have also done the same with teams playing counter highly structured. These teams are usually a lot inferior than us if I want to go to HS as a shape.

I have also linked a snippet that I edited to show you what the goals can look like. 

I apologise if people are expecting to see detailed instructions. The reason why I am not giving detailed instructions is that it will be unique to your players. I had to find the perfect mix of players to get this kind of football played. Its not 100% there yet, but I like how my version of the 442 works. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but its mine. One thing though, in order for my system to work the two wide players had to help defending. It was mandatory for us to use players who tracked back. 

Is the engine perfect, no.  I do want to thank all of you to force me into a 442 for a while :-) It was fun.

 

 

 

 

 

Tackles.jpg

Hey Rashidi,

I just watched your latest video on YT. 

Now I understand the idea of using IWB to take control of midfield. However, that doesn't solve the problem of defensive positioning. Here is your without the ball position against Manchester United in your video:

 

rashidi.thumb.PNG.b023f754fb28f8539a81c9585a9c0a8c.PNG

 

Once again the issue is present. Look at the massive gaps between the wingers and midfielders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, D_LO_ said:

I used full-backs almost exclusively last year, either FBs or FBa and their figures were crazy, particularly assists. A right-footed left-back scored for fun too, cutting in from the byline with disturbing regularity and scoring. This was within a 4-2-3-1 with wide instructions so the problem you describe with last year's edition can be expanded far beyond wing-backs within narrow systems. 

interesting. in three seasons in EPL, no FB was leading assists, av. ratings or POM on my save. far from it. all my FBs had between 10-15 assists together per season.

I don't think positioning of the (wide) players was a problem on fm16, unlike on fm17.  poor defending mechanism in ME, too many shots and hockey scorelines, yes, maybe there were issues with crossing and GKs staying on line or switching flanks passes but defenisve positioning was ok compared to 17. 

   

Edited by Mitja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give up. You guys are only focused on average positioning for 90 mins, as if that was the holy grail. I am not saying there aren't any issues , but if I can use a 442 and still defend narrow and go wide to attack and the AI can put out fairly good 442s then perhaps someone else should be helping you guys out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I give up. You guys are only focused on average positioning for 90 mins, as if that was the holy grail. I am not saying there aren't any issues , but if I can use a 442 and still defend narrow and go wide to attack and the AI can put out fairly good 442s then perhaps someone else should be helping you guys out.

Except you didn't defend narrow. As shown by the average positions. And while I have focused heavily on average positions, it is the best indicator to see the defensive shape, now isn't it? I mean just look at the last 2 screenshots I posted, one of the developers and then the best FM player I know have absolutely terrible defensive positions in the middle 4 of the 442.

Not all of us are asking for help. I have had some great success with 442 such as getting Wolves promoted to EPL playing a 442 flat and counter attacking football which makes it even trickier with the ME issue as I was defending all the time. We're just highlighting the issue (not the overall viability of 442 as you seem to be focusing on but the specific defensive positioning issue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average position doesn't tell you your defensive shape, as formations will warp in transition to attack. If you are wide in attack, it will change the shape of your average position

The best way to see defensive shape is to watch it on the defensive transitions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Average position doesn't tell you your defensive shape, as formations will warp in transition to attack. If you are wide in attack, it will change the shape of your average position

The best way to see defensive shape is to watch it on the defensive transitions

I said it's the best indicator. I know it won't be perfect. Your method may be a bit subjective for this discussion....

At the end of the day, all we are trying to say is that you should be able to defend in two narrow banks of 4 as the likes of Monaco, Atletico and Leicester do IRL. That is not possible in the ME. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

Except you didn't defend narrow

Narrow.thumb.jpg.834ccb94d0a593fb3d61bfc92a72e184.jpg

Sit narrow like this? I don't know how more narrow I can get my fullbacks to get, but I reckon my left sided fullback, if he got any more narrower we'd have to be calling him a central defender. I want to protect my flanks somewhat so I don't want my sidemids to be too narrow. I don't mind my right mid to be a bit wider cos he is a winger so he needs to stretch and get away. We are after all playing aginst Bayern here, which we won with a 442. 

The point I am trying to make, is this : defending narrow was done without any major tweaks, all i did was choose the right combo of shouts. We played counter.structured. ANd the best indicator to see if your system is narrow is looking at transitions. I can't be arsed with how my average positions look. I am more keen to look at how we reshape ourselves, and we are really narrow. And you have to understand I have enough players in midfield I don't need my midfield to be any more narrow than it is. I do want to score goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NabsKebabs said:

I said it's the best indicator. I know it won't be perfect. Your method may be a bit subjective for this discussion....

At the end of the day, all we are trying to say is that you should be able to defend in two narrow banks of 4 as the likes of Monaco, Atletico and Leicester do IRL. That is not possible in the ME. 

 

 

He's got his entire side within the width of the 18 yard box, as above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Narrow.thumb.jpg.834ccb94d0a593fb3d61bfc92a72e184.jpg

Sit narrow like this? I don't know how more narrow I can get my fullbacks to get, but I reckon my left sided fullback, if he got any more narrower we'd have to be calling him a central defender. I want to protect my flanks somewhat so I don't want my sidemids to be too narrow. I don't my right mid to be a bit wider cos he is a winger so he needs to stretch and get away. We are after all playing aginst Bayern here, which we won with a 442. 

The point I am trying to make, is this defending narrow, was done without any major tweaks, all i did was choose the right combo of shouts. We played counter.structured.

It's the middle 4 that are main the problem. No one is really complaining about the back 4. And I would say the wide players are still too wide (especially the right winger) if you want to replicate the teams IRL. And then again, Rashidi, you are better than most (all) people in this game. What combo of shouts did you use? I'm guessing play much narrower so your players get into defensive shape quicker is one. But the problem with that is, it restricts your width with the ball aswell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may argue it's subjective, but the only way to properly assess your defensive shape is watching your defensive transitions. Average position is not a substitute for that.

That's goes for every type of formation you play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Narrow.thumb.jpg.834ccb94d0a593fb3d61bfc92a72e184.jpg

Sit narrow like this? I don't know how more narrow I can get my fullbacks to get, but I reckon my left sided fullback, if he got any more narrower we'd have to be calling him a central defender. I want to protect my flanks somewhat so I don't want my sidemids to be too narrow. I don't my right mid to be a bit wider cos he is a winger so he needs to stretch and get away. We are after all playing aginst Bayern here, which we won with a 442. 

The point I am trying to make, is this defending narrow, was done without any major tweaks, all i did was choose the right combo of shouts. We played counter.structured.

It's the middle 4 that are main the problem. No one is really complaining about the back 4. And I would say the wide players are still too wide (especially the right winger) if you want to replicate the teams IRL. And then again, Rashidi, you are better than most (all) people in this game. What combo of shouts did you use? I'm guessing play much narrower so your players get into defensive shape quicker is one. But the problem with that is, it restricts your width with the ball aswell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

Play narrower isn't a defensive shout.

I believe it can be. For example if you are an attacking mentality but play narrow your players should get into the defensive shape quicker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

It's the middle 4 that are main the problem. No one is really complaining about the back 4. And I would say the wide players are still too wide (especially the right winger) if you want to replicate the teams IRL. And then again, Rashidi, you are better than most (all) people in this game. What combo of shouts did you use? I'm guessing play much narrower so your players get into defensive shape quicker is one. But the problem with that is, it restricts your width with the ball aswell. 

The middle 4 were not the main problem for me cos they made the most of interceptions to break up play.  I wanted them to play like that. We are on a 10 game winning streak playing a 442 and I don't want to stop now, because i want my side mids to be super narrow. That would be suicidal for the way I play. I already have enough numbers in midfield. If I wanted them to be any more narrower I would have gone for different roles. Like I said before I chose the right roles. The W(S) is intentionally out there for me to break away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

I believe it can be. For example if you are an attacking mentality but play narrow your players should get into the defensive shape quicker. 

? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

I believe it can be. For example if you are an attacking mentality but play narrow your players should get into the defensive shape quicker. 

Nope, play narrower (or wider) does not affect your defensive shape. We don't technically have any defensive width shouts (whether we should is another debate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Nope, play narrower (or wider) does not affect your defensive shape. We don't technically have any defensive width shouts (whether we should is another debate)

I know that the width directly effects with the ball shape. But I thought by playing narrow your players would be closer to the defensive position and so they would get into position quicker when they lose the ball.

 

Edited by NabsKebabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that that the tactical side of FM is a bit archaic, negected and does not reflect modern tactical trends. Instead of improvement we see every year pointless features being introduced by SI that do not add much to the "game core".

Well, specifically the 4-4-2 that is played by Atlético is a totally different beast that what we can create in FM.

1) In FM selecting 4-4-2 means playing 4-4-2 all the time but Atlético do not play like that. They start defending more as 4-2-2-2 and morph into 4-4-2 (two flat banks) gradually closer to their goal. Not possible to recreate in FM at all as the defending formation is static. Bring back wibble/wobble!!

2) The positioning of Atlético players when defending is quite different than the positioning of players in FM. In Atlético the wingbacks defend wider whereas the midfield is very narrow (sometimes it looks like 4 central midfielders). Again, impossible to recreate.

Below is roughly how Atlético defends.

and we can continue like this...

Atlético.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rashidi said:

me the issue most people have with 442 is deciding how to defend the areas that the 442 is the weakest at. If you try and defend the flanks you open up the middle, if you overcommit to the middle you open up the flanks.

 
1

Don't really know why you keep posting your 4-4-2 in offensive shape. Nobody argues that doesn't work. However, the game has a problem with the defensive organization due to overloading central area. Your video is actually useful as it shows it isn't only the 4-4-2 that has this issue but the ME itself. The second goal in your video the blue team changes their formation from 4-2-3-1 to 3-4-3. Guess it is late in the game and they want to equalize desperately. But look how they react in the defensive phase. It is enough for a human player to use an inverted wing back (wide midfielder cutting inside and an overlapping FB make the same effect) to completely throw the defensive unit off balance. Just cramming the central zone with players puts defensive AI into problems that make the game too easy and zero challenge. Not to mention that both goals scored in this match are a direct result of the flawed positioning of wide players in a narrow sense and a direct result of lack of proper defensive organization if you take a look how teams defend as a unit.

Picture_62.thumb.jpg.5329f5d28efca92f4ccf6dfdfc740fef.jpg

Picture_232.thumb.jpg.b74aa6e0c4a885d46121bf836161fe93.jpg

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

However, the game has a problem with the defensive organization due to overloading central area.

The game of football itself has an issue with teams that overload, not all teams pull this off well, and those that sometimes commit too many resources to it, frequently find themselves exposed to balls over the top. Are you suggesting that the AI become better? Cos I am totally in for that. Making the game harder, I am all for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

The game of football itself has an issue with teams that overload, not all teams pull this off well, and those that sometimes commit too many resources to it, frequently find themselves exposed to balls over the top. Are you suggesting that the AI become better? Cos I am totally in this game. Making the game harder, I am all for it. 

I am suggesting the game doesn't use common sense to defend the central zone and it is obvious with example of the AI in video you've shared.

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even when I am not seeking to overload its possible to get the wider players to defend well. Here we played against a wide 4123 system. So naturally I would expect a lot of pressure down my flanks. We played counter structured and defensive structured towards the last third of the match.

597f60c6195c3_DefendingNarrow.thumb.jpg.6d53b4b9089c83805cefbe56f5ae9569.jpg

In terms of interceptions and tackles I was once again pleased that my wide players were able to put in a shift, including my playmaker on the left. This overlay shows all interceptions and tackles made by the wide players. I am not saying its perfect, but it took me a while to get this right by finding the right players for my system. I wanted to have the option of either playing a really basic 442 without overloads created by IWBs like this one, or with.  

I am all in favour of making the AI harder to beat, by making it stronger defensively.  Overloading central areas still runs a risk, but getting players to defend the wide areas is still possible. We managed to do this via winning interceptions there, and the occasional tackle. In fact the player that surprised me in this game was actually my playmaker.  The point I am trying to make is that I can defend wide areas either by using an overload strategy or without an overload strategy. And both systems were played on structured shapes. And this thread wasn't about making the AI better at defending, my responses are in part meant to show people that there are various ways in which you can defend the flanks. 

1. Choose the right players with the right roles/duty combination in conjunction with nearby players
2. Use the right combination of TIs to create the right pressure traps
3. Finally use OIs if necessary.

 

BTW got to thank you guys too, haven't had this much fun with a 442 in ages.

Tackles interceptions wide players2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Even when I am not seeking to overload its possible to get the wider players to defend well. Here we played against a wide 4123 system. So naturally I would expect a lot of pressure down my flanks. We played counter structured and defensive structured towards the last third of the match.

597f60c6195c3_DefendingNarrow.thumb.jpg.6d53b4b9089c83805cefbe56f5ae9569.jpg

In terms of interceptions and tackles I was once again pleased that my wide players were able to put in a shift, including my playmaker on the left. This overlay shows all interceptions and tackles made by the wide players. I am not saying its perfect, but it took me a while to get this right by finding the right players for my system. I wanted to have the option of either playing a really basic 442 without overloads created by IWBs like this one, or with.  

I am all in favour of making the AI harder to beat, by making it stronger defensively.  Overloading central areas still runs a risk, but getting players to defend the wide areas is still possible. We managed to do this via winning interceptions there, and the occasional tackle. In fact the player that surprised me in this game was actually my playmaker.  The point I am trying to make is that I can defend wide areas either by using an overload strategy or without an overload strategy. And both systems were played on structured shapes. And this thread wasn't about making the AI better at defending, my responses are in part meant to show people that there are various ways in which you can defend the flanks. 

1. Choose the right players with the right roles/duty combination in conjunction with nearby players
2. Use the right combination of TIs to create the right pressure traps
3. Finally use OIs if necessary.

 

BTW got to thank you guys too, haven't had this much fun with a 442 in ages.

Tackles interceptions wide players2.jpg

Ok now that is what we are after! Nice work. Would you mind sharing roles, duties and TI's please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Even when I am not seeking to overload its possible to get the wider players to defend well.

I think we have some problems communicating here ;D  when I say overload, I mean it in offensive phase. Don't know what that has to do with how you defend.

 

23 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Overloading central areas still runs a risk, but getting players to defend the wide areas is still possible.

Same with this.

 

23 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

The point I am trying to make is that I can defend wide areas either by using an overload strategy or without an overload strategy.

and the above. 

 

23 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

And this thread wasn't about making the AI better at defending, my responses are in part meant to show people that there are various ways in which you can defend the flanks.

 

of course, there are various ways to defend flanks. The problem is the default way in the game is not what is default in football. Two goals you've posted above shows lack of defensive coverage of central area especially if player overloads it. It simply doesn't know how to position wide players in relation to the ball. This, coupled with poor tracking back from forwards creates issues in the ME. And it isn't even an issue with human as one can do things to mitigate these problems. It is AI that is completely clueless how to defend the central zone.

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

I think we have some problems communicating here ;D  when I say overload, I mean it in offensive phase. Don't know what that has to do with how you defend.

 

Same with this.

 

and the above. 

 

of course, there are various ways to defend flanks. The problem is the default way in the game is not what is default in football. Two goals you've posted above shows lack of defensive coverage of central area especially if player overloads it. It simply doesn't know how to position wide players in relation to the ball. This, coupled with poor tracking back from forwards creates issues in the ME. And it isn't even an issue with human as one can do things to mitigate these problems. It is AI that is completely clueless how to defend the central zone.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NabsKebabs said:

I believe it can be. For example if you are an attacking mentality but play narrow your players should get into the defensive shape quicker. 

1 hour ago, Rashidi said:

? Nope.

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.

Not my words. A mod here said it, not me.

This is only for the PI? Narrower TI doesn't produce the same effect?

I'm really interested because I consider this an axiom.

 

Edited by looping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, looping said:

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.

Not my words. A mod here said it, not me.

This is only for the PI? Narrower TI doesn't produce the same effect?

I'm really interested because I consider this an axiom.

 

among some other instructions, Width does influence defensive width, especially when playing high d-line and pressing game you can achieve such effect. anyone watching their games in full will tell you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mitja said:

among some other instructions, Width does influence defensive width, especially when playing high d-line and pressing game you can achieve such effect. anyone watching their games in full will tell you that.

 

2 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Nope, play narrower (or wider) does not affect your defensive shape. We don't technically have any defensive width shouts (whether we should is another debate)

Does width affect defensive positioning or not?

Edited by looping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the subject of this thread, anecdotically, Atlético IRL focus on defending these half spaces with their "Interiores" (Wide mids) and always forcing the opposition wide to press them in wide areas. Atlético (with arguably the best defence in European football in recent years) dispel the myth that 4-4-2 is vulnerable to formations like eg. 4-5-1 because of the central midfield numbers superiority. Villarreal use similar concept in their 4-4-2.  Unlike in FM defensive positioning IRL is not about choosing some static formation but it is more about specific positioning of players  depending on where the ball is. FM totally lacks this aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Los_Culés said:

Regarding the subject of this thread, anecdotically, Atlético IRL focus on defending these half spaces with their "Interiores" (Wide mids) and always forcing the opposition wide to press them in wide areas. Atlético (with arguably the best defence in European football in recent years) dispel the myth that 4-4-2 is vulnerable to formations like eg. 4-5-1 because of the central midfield numbers superiority. Villarreal use similar concept in their 4-4-2.  Unlike in FM defensive positioning IRL is not about choosing some static formation but it is more about specific positioning of players  depending on where the ball is. FM totally lacks this aspect.

Exactly. And this is the type of football I would love to recreate on FM but I've found it not possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Los_Culés said:

Regarding the subject of this thread, anecdotically, Atlético IRL focus on defending these half spaces with their "Interiores" (Wide mids) and always forcing the opposition wide to press them in wide areas. Atlético (with arguably the best defence in European football in recent years) dispel the myth that 4-4-2 is vulnerable to formations like eg. 4-5-1 because of the central midfield numbers superiority. Villarreal use similar concept in their 4-4-2.  Unlike in FM defensive positioning IRL is not about choosing some static formation but it is more about specific positioning of players  depending on where the ball is. FM totally lacks this aspect.

no it doesn't, Tight Marking, mixed marking, OIs all try to replicate different defending (of course not in great detail) but the problem with FM is that basic concepts of defending are not implemented really well, like positioning. AI cannot cope with current very basic strategies of defending, adding complex stuff like different types of pressing before sorting out the basics wouldn't  add nothing good to the game, on contrary.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, D_LO_ said:

Whilst you're entitled to your opinion I think the issues with FM16's ME and full-backs are more than well documented on these forums already so doesn't need me to argue the case. A quick search will show everything which can be said has been. 

My sole intention was to divert from any 're-writing of history' however as IMO FM17's match engine is much superior, in no small part to how flanks have been combated (although of course not perfect but it was never going to be in 2017)

 

 

no, there were two groups, one that experienced 'FB issue' and the other who didn't or at least not in such a great manner as the first group. which meens the issue was also tactical. I don't have 17 but so I cannot judge the overall ME but from what I've seen here, player positioning looks horrible, people not playing the game because of this, just look at the clip Rashidi posted I don't think I've seen such poor defending on 16 ever, basic concepts are flawed which they weren't..

Edited by Mitja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, not only Atletico plays this way but my local team NYRB plays in a similar way. A compact 4-4-2ish shape with Sasha behind BWP. In attack, it becomes a 4-2-2-2. In defense, the wingers tuck in with the center mids and press side to side. So, concepts like this is not exclusive to Atleti/Villarreal/Leicesters of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jean0987654321 said:

Heck, not only Atletico plays this way but my local team NYRB plays in a similar way. A compact 4-4-2ish shape with Sasha behind BWP. In attack, it becomes a 4-2-2-2. In defense, the wingers tuck in with the center mids and press side to side. So, concepts like this is not exclusive to Atleti/Villarreal/Leicesters of the world.

Metro :cool:

Agree, quite a few teams apply similar concepts (I call it "modern" 4-4-2). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we count 4231 as variant of old school 442 then majority of teams play that way or very similar. bad positioning afects all formations in FM, it only becomes really obvious in 442 against 5 man midfield formations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, looping said:

 

Does width affect defensive positioning or not?

To clear things up 

Play wider and play narrower are offensive shouts only. 

We do not have specific shouts for defensive width 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even FIFA gives you the option to alter width off the ball ffs.

Some ''simulation'' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, iMan said:

Even FIFA gives you the option to alter width off the ball ffs.

Some ''simulation'' 

If you wish to contribute constructively to the discussion, please do so.

But you're in the wrong forum if all you want to do is moan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, herne79 said:

If you wish to contribute constructively to the discussion, please do so.

But you're in the wrong forum if all you want to do is moan.

Just to add to this, we are much stricter in here than we are in GD, so keep it constructive

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

To clear things up 

Play wider and play narrower are offensive shouts only. 

We do not have specific shouts for defensive width 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...