can someone simplify team shape for me?

[dannyrefc]

i have read alot of things regarding team shape but i still cant understand it.

1) i dont understand really what each team shape does and the benefits to them

2) i dont understand for example what would be the benefits to using say fluid over very fluid or vice versa 

3) i dont understand what team shape would be best for the style i want to play

4) general other factors that come into thinking when picking team shape

[looping]

36 minutes ago, dannyrefc said:

i have read alot of things regarding team shape but i still cant understand it.

1) i dont understand really what each team shape does and the benefits to them

2) i dont understand for example what would be the benefits to using say fluid over very fluid or vice versa 

3) i dont understand what team shape would be best for the style i want to play

4) general other factors that come into thinking when picking team shape

 

[dannyrefc]

thanks looping pal 

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

It's not too complicated.
 

33 minutes ago, dannyrefc said:

1) i dont understand really what each team shape does and the benefits to them

Team Shape defines the extend which a player balances their individual duty, vs the team mentality.

For example, you've got a Defensive mentality and at right midfield you have a Winger with Attack duty. Does that winger attack or defend?

• More Structured team shapes mean the individual will prioritise his own duty.
  -> In the example above, this means more attacking.
• Flexible team shape will balance the two equally.
  -> Going back to the example above cancelling each other out and hitting neutral.
• More Fluid team shapes give priority to the team.
  -> Finally in this case, giving the defensive team mentality priority making the player more pragmatic.

41 minutes ago, dannyrefc said:

2) i dont understand for example what would be the benefits to using say fluid over very fluid or vice versa 

Fluid vs Very Fluid would be a minor difference. Both would prioritise the Team Mentality, but the Very Fluid shape would be to a larger extent.

Again, using my previous example Very Fluid would make your winger more defensive as they prioritise the Defensive Team Mentality to a larger extent.

 

44 minutes ago, dannyrefc said:

3) i dont understand what team shape would be best for the style i want to play

Do you want your players to focus on the Team Mentality or their own individual roles?

Think about your overall strategy and then how you want individuals to fit in to that. Don't worry too much about those who have a similar duty to the overall Team Mentality, look at the outliers such as Defensive players in Attacking systems or Attacking players in Defensive systems..

 

46 minutes ago, dannyrefc said:

4) general other factors that come into thinking when picking team shape

Team Shape also gives creative freedom. More fluid shapes having more creative freedom.

The application of this is to consider Playmakers. In more fluid shapes they are more redundant but they are an important part of Flexible or Structured shapes.

[dannyrefc]

okay thanks very much ozil great advice as usual understand it a little better now ! 

[dannyrefc]

scrap that still dont understand it its just too confusing ? so say i had 2 strikers  team mentality control - one deep lying forward support ( i want him to drop deeper into half spaces) and either a complete fwd attack or advanced fwd ( i want him to play along the front line finding space opened up by dlf) so more structured would be better ? but then i want them to have the creative freedom to occasionally do there thing (so go more fluid) 

i want the strikers to press more and help out with transitions ( so more fluid ? ) 

i have 3 cms one cm attack i want him to get up and support the strikers and get into the area on control (more structured but will he stay too far forward as i want him to get back and defend also so more fluid?) i have a bbm support i want to arrive late into the area and help support the attacks and also get back into position on defensive transitions(flexible?)  i have a dlp on defend who i want to sit deeper more infront of the back four and spray passes forward (so structured?) in a control mentality i want him to if needed and no one to really sit back with push on and support the cms (so fluid) 

i have 2 wb a who i want to support attacks and provide the width (flexible/structured) and i have 3 cbs one bpd cover others standard cbs defend who i want to stay in position but also push up if needed to help build the play from the back (so more fluid?) 

overall i want the team to move forward a compress space as a team (fluid mabe?) and i want the team to overall have a creative freedom element but also stick to what i want them to do (fluid/flexible/stuctured) 

can you see why im confused, i want the team to play together and transition together more which if im understanding properly would be more fluid? 

but i want certain players in the control system to be more defensive and for example the deep lying fwd to drop a little deeper so im thinking more structured so he does what i want him to more? 

basically i want each player to do certain jobs but i also want them at times playing off the same page so im still struggling to decide wether going more fluid or structured would be better so im still at square 1 so to say. 

SO FRUSTRATING, SO CONFUSING

[dannyrefc]

1 hour ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

It's not too complicated.
 

Team Shape defines the extend which a player balances their individual duty, vs the team mentality.

For example, you've got a Defensive mentality and at right midfield you have a Winger with Attack duty. Does that winger attack or defend?

• More Structured team shapes mean the individual will prioritise his own duty.
  -> In the example above, this means more attacking.
• Flexible team shape will balance the two equally.
  -> Going back to the example above cancelling each other out and hitting neutral.
• More Fluid team shapes give priority to the team.
  -> Finally in this case, giving the defensive team mentality priority making the player more pragmatic.

Fluid vs Very Fluid would be a minor difference. Both would prioritise the Team Mentality, but the Very Fluid shape would be to a larger extent.

Again, using my previous example Very Fluid would make your winger more defensive as they prioritise the Defensive Team Mentality to a larger extent.

 

Do you want your players to focus on the Team Mentality or their own individual roles?

Think about your overall strategy and then how you want individuals to fit in to that. Don't worry too much about those who have a similar duty to the overall Team Mentality, look at the outliers such as Defensive players in Attacking systems or Attacking players in Defensive systems..

 

Team Shape also gives creative freedom. More fluid shapes having more creative freedom.

The application of this is to consider Playmakers. In more fluid shapes they are more redundant but they are an important part of Flexible or Structured shapes.

read the above ozil ^^ im still confused in my mind i want them to play all 3 shapes tbh ? 

[westy8chimp]

think of shape purely in isolation for now - ignore any team instructions, player instructions, roles and duties...

Shape in it's raw meaning is how compact your team will play. By this, I mean, how close will your defence be to your midfield, and how close will your midfield be to your attack - in any phase of the game (defend, transition, attack).

If you want a compact team, you want fluid/very fluid.

If you prefer more space and segregation of duties, you want structured/highly structured

Flexible is the middle ground which allows more for the players decision making and duty to dictate.

 Crude picture to illustrate compact vs space.

Once you understand the very basic principle, you can start to imagine then the impact of team instructions, a players role & duty - to emphasise or curtail the effect of shape. Or, rather, understand how shape can enhance or impair the rest of your tactical choices

[Rashidi]

I am going to try and do a video to help answer each of your questions.

[Marc.Foster050]

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

Again, using my previous example Very Fluid would make your winger more defensive as they prioritise the Defensive Team Mentality to a larger extent.

I've played the game for over a decade now and never knew this. For some reason I always assumed structured would be the one that the team worked together, stayed in position and defended as a unit so have always used it for my defensive/counter formations and attacking ones where I want individuals to shine I have use fluid as I thought it would produce more 'fluid' football, No wonder they never seemed to do what I wanted! massive eye opener!

[herne79]

Select the "Players" tab on the Tactics screen, then click on a position from the pitch graphic, then hit "Edit" to open up the Player Instructions screen.

In there you'll see a blue bar labelled "Mentality".  That's the mentality which that selected player's role and duty will play matches with and it alters as you change tactical settings.

Have a play with it.  Note it's position for different player positions and roles as you change team Mentality or Team Shape.  It can be a bit of an eye opener.

And it would be very nice to have that included on the main Tactics screen (@ö-zil, did you ever raise that as a feature request?)

[fmFutbolManager]

I built a model to replicate mentality settings per position and duty in line with team mentality and shape settings. It helps illustrate what happens, purely from a mentality perspective, so takes away any PPMs or specific team and individual instructions. At the very least this might help, but I hope it doesn't confuse.

There are six examples I'll show, at wild ends of the spectrum. Remember this is just the mentality shift of each player. Assuming a basic 4-4-2 with the following positions and duties.

GK - Su
DL - Su | DC - De | DC - De | DR - Su
ML - Su | MC - Su | MC - Su | MR - Su
ST - Su | ST - At

Contain and Highly Structured vs. Contain and Very Fluid

Standard and Highly Structured vs. Standard and Very Fluid

Overload and Highly Structured vs. Overload and Very Fluid

As you can see as the mentality increases from contain to overload the players' mentality increases (illustrated by them moving up the pitch), which I think is fairly obvious. As the shape changes from highly structured to very fluid within each mentality, the individual mentalities behave differently. With a more fluid shape, the players are more inclined to play in accordance with the team mentality. With a more structured shape, the players will play in accordance with their own mentality. So a striker on attack will be more attack focused within a contain mentality when you set the shape to highly structured as opposed to being more defensive, i.e., lower mentality, when you play a very fluid shape. This is illustrated by his dot being so much further up the pitch on highly structured than very fluid.

Hope this hasn't added to the confusion.

[dannyrefc]

3 hours ago, Rashidi said:

I am going to try and do a video to help answer each of your questions.

I look forwards to it watched lots of your videos last night on bustthenet youtube including shape but as you can see it still confuses me more so now how each one will affect the team and say why i would chose one over the other , alls i understand which i may be wrong fluid = team work towards the overall team mentality structured = players prioritise there own duty over the mentality 

 

[dannyrefc]

lots of good advice in here thanks alot im starting to understand more, and i looked in the player instructions mentality also , structured attack roles increased and defense decreased, support players tended to increased/ decrease the further up and down the mentalitys (risks i understand it as). very fluid attacking players depending on mentality either stayed fairly attacking, but in cases slightly less, support players were more balanced and defenders were increased (is this where the idea of compactness comes from).

so am i getting closer with this logic, 

highly structured contain = defenders will prioritise defending , support will look to support transition cautiously, attackers will focus on attacking (this is where the idea of spread out comes into play) 

highly structured overload = defenders will prioritise defending , support will still be more cautious but will have alot higher mentality due to overload, attackers will be hell bent on attacking

very fluid contain = defenders will still be very defensive due to contain but possibly more riskier due to creative element of fluid, support will be supporting but will focus on team mentality, attackers will focus more on team mentality and be more cautious in how they attack.

very fluid overload = defenders will be very risky in how they defend and push up more, support will be higher mentality and risky supporting with transitions , attackers will be very attacking, but when more fluid/very fluid players will focus more on what the team mentality is then their own. ?? 

 

[westy8chimp]

Pretty much  

Very fluid on contain is as defensive as you can possibly be (midfield and attack will drop deeper and play with less risk, reduced attacking mentality), very fluid on overload is as aggressive as you can possibly be (defenders will take a more attacking mentality and join the attack)- assuming all other conditions are the same.

This will be helpful knowledge now if you reverse engineer a tactic. i.e. think of the answer (the way you want to play) first... then piece together each instruction, formation, role, duty, shape and mentality to achieve it. Making sure every decision enhances the tactic, rather than contradicts it.

[dannyrefc]

yes thats what im still struggling with, the deciding what shape would be best fit for my style and team, i have a very creative team, i want my defence to be pushing up more and helping out with the building up making there own decisions i have a 3 cm two i want to get up and support attacks as early as possible one to sit deeper, wingbacks who i want to sensibly transition into high areas on attacks but get back well , the strikers to have the freedom but also help out defensively, so a more fluid shape sounds logical to me, but then i have a few players like the cm-a (2) the dlf s  who i want to do what i tell them too, for example id like the dlf s on control mentality to drop deeper into spaces, the cm'as to bomb forward in support early while the dlp d and cbs build play up and generally sit further back , so then structured sounds better to me as then i have players doing more what i want them too so thats my problem i have different players in my team who i want to do different things but then overall i want everyone to be a part of defending and attacking so im stuck haha 

[dannyrefc]

yes i probably am and thats another thread altogether for me ''what each ti affects what', 

but to make sense of what im going for its more i dont want them to hold there position more and not rush out the defensive line when in transitions but to have the freedom to build the play up ( i play a 3 man defence so stretch out and build the play up with the dlp d if that makes any sense mabe i am over thinking and can acheive this another way)

[dannyrefc]

4 hours ago, fmFutbolManager said:

I built a model to replicate mentality settings per position and duty in line with team mentality and shape settings. It helps illustrate what happens, purely from a mentality perspective, so takes away any PPMs or specific team and individual instructions. At the very least this might help, but I hope it doesn't confuse.

There are six examples I'll show, at wild ends of the spectrum. Remember this is just the mentality shift of each player. Assuming a basic 4-4-2 with the following positions and duties.

GK - Su
DL - Su | DC - De | DC - De | DR - Su
ML - Su | MC - Su | MC - Su | MR - Su
ST - Su | ST - At

Contain and Highly Structured vs. Contain and Very Fluid

Standard and Highly Structured vs. Standard and Very Fluid

Overload and Highly Structured vs. Overload and Very Fluid

As you can see as the mentality increases from contain to overload the players' mentality increases (illustrated by them moving up the pitch), which I think is fairly obvious. As the shape changes from highly structured to very fluid within each mentality, the individual mentalities behave differently. With a more fluid shape, the players are more inclined to play in accordance with the team mentality. With a more structured shape, the players will play in accordance with their own mentality. So a striker on attack will be more attack focused within a contain mentality when you set the shape to highly structured as opposed to being more defensive, i.e., lower mentality, when you play a very fluid shape. This is illustrated by his dot being so much further up the pitch on highly structured than very fluid.

Hope this hasn't added to the confusion.

thanks alot that helps me simplify it alot better

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

@dannyrefc, this:

4 hours ago, herne79 said:

Select the "Players" tab on the Tactics screen, then click on a position from the pitch graphic, then hit "Edit" to open up the Player Instructions screen.

In there you'll see a blue bar labelled "Mentality".  That's the mentality which that selected player's role and duty will play matches with and it alters as you change tactical settings.

Have a play with it.  Note it's position for different player positions and roles as you change team Mentality or Team Shape.  It can be a bit of an eye opener.

And it would be very nice to have that included on the main Tactics screen (@ö-zil, did you ever raise that as a feature request?)

..and this:

4 hours ago, fmFutbolManager said:

I built a model to replicate mentality settings per position and duty in line with team mentality and shape settings. It helps illustrate what happens, purely from a mentality perspective, so takes away any PPMs or specific team and individual instructions. At the very least this might help, but I hope it doesn't confuse.

There are six examples I'll show, at wild ends of the spectrum. Remember this is just the mentality shift of each player. Assuming a basic 4-4-2 with the following positions and duties.

GK - Su
DL - Su | DC - De | DC - De | DR - Su
ML - Su | MC - Su | MC - Su | MR - Su
ST - Su | ST - At

Contain and Highly Structured vs. Contain and Very Fluid

Standard and Highly Structured vs. Standard and Very Fluid

Overload and Highly Structured vs. Overload and Very Fluid

As you can see as the mentality increases from contain to overload the players' mentality increases (illustrated by them moving up the pitch), which I think is fairly obvious. As the shape changes from highly structured to very fluid within each mentality, the individual mentalities behave differently. With a more fluid shape, the players are more inclined to play in accordance with the team mentality. With a more structured shape, the players will play in accordance with their own mentality. So a striker on attack will be more attack focused within a contain mentality when you set the shape to highly structured as opposed to being more defensive, i.e., lower mentality, when you play a very fluid shape. This is illustrated by his dot being so much further up the pitch on highly structured than very fluid.

Hope this hasn't added to the confusion.

..are both absolutely fantastic pieces of advice.

@fmFutbolManager I did not realise you had done this. Those visual representations are excellent. I hope the SI user interface guys / girls (/chimp?) takes notice! 

Back to @dannyrefc I am a bit behind reading all of the responses and a bit pushed for time so cannot see if you have now got what you are after.

If you're still struggling, let's talk through an example. The way I learned was being specific with one style of play at a time, observing how they work in the match engine and then comparing different styles as I got more experienced.

Step 1:

Very simply.. how do you want your team to play in two key areas - on the ball and off the ball?

Ideas for on the ball strategy:

• Route 1. Long ball.
• Quick, high tempo attacking.
• Possession focused build-up play.
• Balanced.
• Reserved play, only going forward when safe.
• Possession averse. Happy with 0-0.

Ideas for off the ball strategy:

• Low-block, sitting deep, well organised defence.
• Medium-block, control the midfield area.
• High-block, pressing the opposition high to win back possession early.

You need to take into account both how you want your team to play and how your team are able to play.

Next step.. with this we are going to determine your overall Team Mentality.

[dannyrefc]

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

@dannyrefc, this:

..and this:

..are both absolutely fantastic pieces of advice.

@fmFutbolManager I did not realise you had done this. Those visual representations are excellent. I hope the SI user interface guys / girls (/chimp?) takes notice! 

Back to @dannyrefc I am a bit behind reading all of the responses and a bit pushed for time so cannot see if you have now got what you are after.

If you're still struggling, let's talk through an example. The way I learned was being specific with one style of play at a time, observing how they work in the match engine and then comparing different styles as I got more experienced.

Step 1:

Very simply.. how do you want your team to play in two key areas - on the ball and off the ball?

Ideas for on the ball strategy:

• Route 1. Long ball.
• Quick, high tempo attacking.
• Possession focused build-up play.
• Balanced.
• Reserved play, only going forward when safe.
• Possession averse. Happy with 0-0.

Ideas for off the ball strategy:

• Low-block, sitting deep, well organised defence.
• Medium-block, control the midfield area.
• High-block, pressing the opposition high to win back possession early.

You need to take into account both how you want your team to play and how your team are able to play.

Next step.. with this we are going to determine your overall Team Mentality.

id say im going for a quick possesion based build up (teams sit back against me alot so moving them around and working spaces is my idea here)

then defensive a high block, pressing the opposition into rushed play and long balls to mop up or win back fairly high.

so mabe a control mentality ? , as for shape, this is where im still struggling to work out what would work better for me , fluid from what i understand will help me in terms of the defenders will be a bit more riskier on this mentality, support players will be a bit more riskier, and attackers will be doing there attacking (as the mentality would be fairly attacking as is) so this will help the compression and aid my high line ? and all will work more towards the control mentality. 

if i was to go more structured then my defence would look to hold position and sit more, how does structured affect support players? do they behave more cautious or to a more standard approach depending on overall mentality ? and attackers will look to focus even more on attacking, so this would give the illusion of more spread out as there is more of a gap in mentalities ? 

what would benefit the moving round of players and working the spaces to get past a defence sitting back, fluid for the more free flow all singing the same control song and the creative freedom, or structured for the individual mentalities are more spaced out ? 

so i sort of understand it now, its still just the whole what would be better for what situation thing the application of it as someone mentioned

[dannyrefc]

just to add as a little rant surely there is someone from si who reads these forums must of seen this thread 100's of times, why cant they just pop over to the desk of the description writer and say ''alright mate, them in game descriptions kind of dont make sense and confuses alot of people just simple it down for everyone and write more about what these actually do'' not hard to change i imagine. 

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

1 hour ago, dannyrefc said:

id say im going for a quick possesion based build up (teams sit back against me alot so moving them around and working spaces is my idea here)

then defensive a high block, pressing the opposition into rushed play and long balls to mop up or win back fairly high.

so mabe a control mentality ?

Ok, so I have cut out the rest as that's jumping ahead which is making things more complicated for you.

So you want:

• Quick possession-focused build-up.
• High defensive block.

In this case, you're correct. Control would be a good option for you.

Step 2:

Now - considering how you are going to play - choose a Formation which suits that.

Remember:

• In order to control possession you're going to want something that offers you passing options - particularly - in midfield.
• In order to press effectively, you're going to want your formation to cover the entire field.

Note: it's impossible to cover the entire field in every opposition formation so let's go for a general shape first and you can add 1-2 backup options later.

At this stage, I am only concerned with the basic formation - i.e 4-3-3, 3-5-2 etc - not player roles or duties yet.

[dannyrefc]

1 hour ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Ok, so I have cut out the rest as that's jumping ahead which is making things more complicated for you.

So you want:

• Quick possession-focused build-up.
• High defensive block.

In this case, you're correct. Control would be a good option for you.

Step 2:

Now - considering how you are going to play - choose a Formation which suits that.

Remember:

• In order to control possession you're going to want something that offers you passing options - particularly - in midfield.
• In order to press effectively, you're going to want your formation to cover the entire field.

Note: it's impossible to cover the entire field in every opposition formation so let's go for a general shape first and you can add 1-2 backup options later.

At this stage, I am only concerned with the basic formation - i.e 4-3-3, 3-5-2 etc - not player roles or duties yet.

my system is a 3-5-2 i already have my roles and such set up as i want them to operate with respective duties i have started out control / fluid , mabe standard,counter fluid/flexible if im struggling to break teams down (im a big club just to get used to building tactics that work against teams who sit back as more often than not my team ends up strong so this would be most helpful for me)

 

[fmFutbolManager]

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

 

@fmFutbolManager I did not realise you had done this. Those visual representations are excellent. I hope the SI user interface guys / girls (/chimp?) takes notice! 

1

The spreadsheet has moved on a lot since the original version. I have the mentality value on one pitch to the left that I discussed with you and the positional dots the other. Helps to easily spot gaps for inadvertently popping attacking players on the wrong side. It could do with some shifting about a bit. I don't use it as much these days, but every now and again I'll bring it out again just to validate some assumptions.

Included an example of my current system as it is for control/fluid against a control highly structured version so you can see how this works now.

 

 

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

22 minutes ago, fmFutbolManager said:

The spreadsheet has moved on a lot since the original version. I have the mentality value on one pitch to the left that I discussed with you and the positional dots the other. Helps to easily spot gaps for inadvertently popping attacking players on the wrong side. It could do with some shifting about a bit. I don't use it as much these days, but every now and again I'll bring it out again just to validate some assumptions.

Included an example of my current system as it is for control/fluid against a control highly structured version so you can see how this works now.

 

 

[craiigman]

7 hours ago, fmFutbolManager said:

The spreadsheet has moved on a lot since the original version. I have the mentality value on one pitch to the left that I discussed with you and the positional dots the other. Helps to easily spot gaps for inadvertently popping attacking players on the wrong side. It could do with some shifting about a bit. I don't use it as much these days, but every now and again I'll bring it out again just to validate some assumptions.

Included an example of my current system as it is for control/fluid against a control highly structured version so you can see how this works now.

 

 

Where can one access this spreadsheet?

[legskeattch]

I need this!

[Swindon69]

Just found this thread - thank you it was very helpful.

[Armistice]

Btw if someone ca explain what does practically means more players involved in transitions? I mean, in a Fluid setup, the attaccking/defensive duties also step up and get themselves involved in moving the ball forward or dropping deep to defend with the rest of the team?

[westy8chimp]

On ‎04‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 23:13, fmFutbolManager said:

 

Sorry FMFut ... seems I am the only one who thinks this is slightly wrong/misleading in the context of the thread.

Everything represented in your diagram is correct RE mentality change.

But - actually in a match we cannot just focus on the theoretical average position of a player over 90 mins. We have to consider the difference between a CB on 7 or 3 and ... the difference isn't a few feet average standing position. The difference is, on occasion the defender will maraud forward and be involved in an attacking phase. Or other times, dependant on build up play, the whole back line will push that much higher to be closer to the midfield.

Same with your striker on 17 or 19 .. it doesn't equate to them standing a yard closer to goal, in my opinion, but rather they will take more risky runs or shots - as well as spend more time attacking than defending (which as a consequence might see a higher average position)

For instance in a standard flexible solution... the difference between a CM on support and attack... is the number of forward runs they make, the number of attacks they get involved in, the number of through balls they attempt. As a consequence they may then have a higher average position ... but that isn't what I consider first and foremost when deciding whether to use attack or support duty.  

[westy8chimp]

What I would be interested to know is if there is invisible (under the hood) effects. Other than the tangible mentality change. i.e. Nic or Neil confirmed last week that whilst we can represent the visual PI or a BBM using a customised CM support ... the two roles will still act differently.

So is there similar with fluid vs structured... does the engine know to make the lines more compact? Or does it only affect player mentality?

 

@Nic Madden Hi Nic, in the 'PI vs Role' discussion you were able to confirm there is some under the hood functionality attached to specialist player roles. Are you able to confirm if the same can be said of team shape - or does it only affect the player mentality bar (which we can view)? Thanks  

 

[dannyrefc]

im still a bit confused as to, why would one pick very fluid over fluid, or structured over highly structured for example

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, dannyrefc said:

im still a bit confused as to, why would one pick very fluid over fluid, or structured over highly structured for example

If I'm Barcelona I'd play very fluid in a control or attacking mentality. The effect of this is to make my defensive and support players more attacking.

(see the map above we can consider this in terms of a mentality score out of 20... a CB on defend in highly structured and contain is a 1/20 ... a CB on defend in a very fluid overload might be 15/20)

Why would I want my defender to have a slightly higher mentality?

• I'm Barcelona, their defensive players (Pique, Mascherano, Alba, Roberto) are good enough to be involved in the attacking phase
• I'm likely to frequently face deep defences so I don't want my midfielders or attackers dropping too deep to start off my attacks... I want my defenders to bring the ball up
• I'm playing a short, slow passing game so I need lots of passing options as I progress up the field. If the defenders stayed back or had a low risk mentality they may result to hoofing the ball, and certainly wont progress up the field for short pass options

When would I not want a fluid team?

• If I'm playing direct football... I don't want my strikers tracking back to far, as when the defence or DM plays direct, I want my strikers up-field to receive
• if my defenders aren't technically capable of joining an attack (they would be more detrimental if involved)
• Likewise, if my attackers weren't physically/mentally capable of aiding the defence

There are more pros and cons of course, but these are a few of the considerations to make.

I can't stress enough though, you have to tie it in to the overall tactical philosophy you are trying to adopt.

[dannyrefc]

okay thanks westy

[fmFutbolManager]

On 07/08/2017 at 10:16, westy8chimp said:

Sorry FMFut ... seems I am the only one who thinks this is slightly wrong/misleading in the context of the thread.

Everything represented in your diagram is correct RE mentality change.

But - actually in a match we cannot just focus on the theoretical average position of a player over 90 mins. We have to consider the difference between a CB on 7 or 3 and ... the difference isn't a few feet average standing position. The difference is, on occasion the defender will maraud forward and be involved in an attacking phase. Or other times, dependant on build up play, the whole back line will push that much higher to be closer to the midfield.

Same with your striker on 17 or 19 .. it doesn't equate to them standing a yard closer to goal, in my opinion, but rather they will take more risky runs or shots - as well as spend more time attacking than defending (which as a consequence might see a higher average position)

For instance in a standard flexible solution... the difference between a CM on support and attack... is the number of forward runs they make, the number of attacks they get involved in, the number of through balls they attempt. As a consequence they may then have a higher average position ... but that isn't what I consider first and foremost when deciding whether to use attack or support duty.  

I don't recal saying that this is the be all and end all of mentality and shape definition. On the contrary, I even said: "Remember this is just the mentality shift of each player." — highliting that my calculator is just a replication of the under the hood algorithm for defining the player mentality value. Irrespective of any other team or player instructions it's a mentality calculator.

Moreover, this is exactly the reason I don't share it. As I don't want to give people the wrong impression and just look at mentality and shape as a number on screen where there's so much more to it than that. 

[dannyrefc]

22 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

If I'm Barcelona I'd play very fluid in a control or attacking mentality. The effect of this is to make my defensive and support players more attacking.

(see the map above we can consider this in terms of a mentality score out of 20... a CB on defend in highly structured and contain is a 1/20 ... a CB on defend in a very fluid overload might be 15/20)

Why would I want my defender to have a slightly higher mentality?

• I'm Barcelona, their defensive players (Pique, Mascherano, Alba, Roberto) are good enough to be involved in the attacking phase
• I'm likely to frequently face deep defences so I don't want my midfielders or attackers dropping too deep to start off my attacks... I want my defenders to bring the ball up
• I'm playing a short, slow passing game so I need lots of passing options as I progress up the field. If the defenders stayed back or had a low risk mentality they may result to hoofing the ball, and certainly wont progress up the field for short pass options

When would I not want a fluid team?

• If I'm playing direct football... I don't want my strikers tracking back to far, as when the defence or DM plays direct, I want my strikers up-field to receive
• if my defenders aren't technically capable of joining an attack (they would be more detrimental if involved)
• Likewise, if my attackers weren't physically/mentally capable of aiding the defence

There are more pros and cons of course, but these are a few of the considerations to make.

I can't stress enough though, you have to tie it in to the overall tactical philosophy you are trying to adopt.

What would be other tactical philosophies westy , say i want a pressing game but technically not the best defenders , id think fluid would help a pressing/countering style im thinking as the midfield and wingbacks would start there runs earlier would they not? Structured would keep everyone held off these fwd runs? Using standard/counter for example 

[westy8chimp]

1 minute ago, dannyrefc said:

What would be other tactical philosophies westy , say i want a pressing game but technically not the best defenders , id think fluid would help a pressing/countering style im thinking as the midfield and wingbacks would start there runs earlier would they not? Structured would keep everyone held off these fwd runs? Using standard/counter for example 

In general terms - yes fluid would aid the team press as a whole. It would encourage forward players to be deeper when the opposition push forward and your defenders to push up if the ball is in the opponents half.

It's better to hunt in packs though. If the whole team is pressing you lose all shape and spend a lot of time ball chasing. If you have attackers with high work rate and stamina it can be good to press their defenders and force them into a long clearance, where your CBs can win the ball back. If you have a lazy poacher upfront with low team work and work rate... are they going to help press? If not, let him 'goal-hang' keep it structured and set your full backs and CMs to do the pressing (for example). If the opposition has 2 or 3 attacking midfielders.. do you want your centre backs charging out to press them? Probably not.

When it comes to pressing... decide where you are best able and where you most want to win the ball back. You can then use PI on certain players in your team to mark tighter and close down more... or you can use OI to set pressing instructions on specific opposition players.

Whilst fluid vs structured will have an effect... I'd say the impact is minimal and the decision making has other priority.

[dannyrefc]

im understanding shape alot more now, 

still a few things but its this more in line in general terms, 

more structured, defend duties will be more defensive, support will be more cautious in transitions, attack duties will be more attacking , then scaled based on mentality so defensive, defenders will be more defensive, support be more cautious again will attack players mentality drop a little or stay more attacking? 

fluid- defend duties will be a bit more riskier and higher mentality , support will look to transition sooner, attackers will be more in line with the mentality set ?