Fix the game, please!! (I can no longer enjoy it, and it makes me sad)

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Muja said:

With a lone striker?

Yes, you can do that too and I have done that before. Again, the idea is always, always the same  -  create space for the scorer. Create the space, cause havoc and send the scorers in.

As Herne said, there's always the tactics forum if you want to learn or ask advice about anything tactical/strategical.

[Muja]

9 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Yes, you can do that too and I have done that before. Again, the idea is always, always the same  -  create space for the scorer. Create the space, cause havoc and send the scorers in.

As Herne said, there's always the tactics forum if you want to learn or ask advice about anything tactical/strategical.

Already done that, and not just in this forum. Many users have claimed that beating a deep lying defense with through balls "it's possible", or that "it's very easy" even. With no proof, of course.

Many have given me their opinions, and although I thank them for the time they put to answer me, none of their suggestions solved the problem.
I've failed again and again, and it wasn't for lack of trying. And I wouldn't have if I could tweak the rigid roles a little, but that's impossible for no other reason than "it's a videogame".

In the end I had to play like the game wanted me to. Make my striker come deep, create space for the IFs, score.
Easy and boring. When I think about that all my will to play at it again fades away.

Thanks anyway.

[themadsheep2001]

9 minutes ago, Muja said:

Already done that, and not just in this forum. Many users have claimed that beating a deep lying defense with through balls "it's possible", or that "it's very easy" even. With no proof, of course.

Many have given me their opinions, and although I thank them for the time they put to answer me, none of their suggestions solved the problem.
I've failed again and again, and it wasn't for lack of trying. And I wouldn't have if I could tweak the rigid roles a little, but that's impossible for no other reason than "it's a videogame".

In the end I had to play like the game wanted me to. Make my striker come deep, create space for the IFs, score.
Easy and boring. When I think about that all my will to play at it again fades away.

Thanks anyway.

To beat a deep lying defence with through balls requires to create space. That's never been different to real life. You cannot play through balls into space for a forward if there is no space for him to run into behind the defence. If you do not do this you will always fail with that kind of approach, again that's no different to real life. The game doesn't make you play any certain way. 

[HUNT3R]

14 minutes ago, Muja said:

Already done that, and not just in this forum. Many users have claimed that beating a deep lying defense with through balls "it's possible", or that "it's very easy" even. With no proof, of course.

Many have given me their opinions, and although I thank them for the time they put to answer me, none of their suggestions solved the problem.
I've failed again and again, and it wasn't for lack of trying. And I wouldn't have if I could tweak the rigid roles a little, but that's impossible for no other reason than "it's a videogame".

In the end I had to play like the game wanted me to. Make my striker come deep, create space for the IFs, score.
Easy and boring. When I think about that all my will to play at it again fades away.

Thanks anyway.

What TMS said. And considering you posted in a foreign language on an English speaking forum, you're going to severely limit the amount of responses you get.

[Muja]

31 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

To beat a deep lying defence with through balls requires to create space. That's never been different to real life. You cannot play through balls into space for a forward if there is no space for him to run into behind the defence. If you do not do this you will always fail with that kind of approach, again that's no different to real life. The game doesn't make you play any certain way. 

I know you would suggest me to come deeper to lure them out, create space and play direct passes, and in FM it would work, but in reality that's an antiquated way to play that any decent defense can counter.

In real life, when you force the opponents inside their box for the most part of the game, unless you're playing against world-class defenders like Thiago Silva and Sergio Ramos (or Nesta and Cannavaro for the nostalgics like me) eventually they'll make a mistake. Or the creative player will break the defense with a killer through pass. That's what happens in reality in 80% of matches, and there's plenty of proof in TV every Sunday in every country.

That's how Conte won three Serie As in a row with Juve. And he didn't have Allegri's world class players, the two forwards were Vucinic and Matri..

Every now and then the dominating team will hit the posts a lot, then the opponents find the chance to counter and score on the first occasion they had. It can happen. But it's the exception, not the norm. 

At least that's what I think, but I think it strongly
 

[Muja]

25 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

What TMS said. And considering you posted in a foreign language on an English speaking forum, you're going to severely limit the amount of responses you get.

That was a silly mistake, I know

But I wrote everywhere, especially on reddit, and my experience has been like I've told.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Muja said:

That was a silly mistake, I know

But I wrote everywhere, especially on reddit, and my experience has been like I've told.

Tbh, you're far better off asking about tactical advice on this forum.

[themadsheep2001]

7 minutes ago, Muja said:

I know you would suggest me to come deeper to lure them out, create space and play direct passes, and in FM it would work, but in reality that's an antiquated way to play that any decent defense can counter.

In real life, when you force the opponents inside their box for the most part of the game, unless you're playing against world-class defenders like Thiago Silva and Sergio Ramos (or Nesta and Cannavaro for the nostalgics like me) eventually they'll make a mistake. Or the creative player will break the defense with a killer through pass. That's what happens in reality in 80% of matches, and there's plenty of proof in TV every Sunday in every country.

That's how Conte won three Serie As in a row with Juve. And he didn't have Allegri's world class players, the two forwards were Vucinic and Matri..

Every now and then the dominating team will hit the posts a lot, then the opponents find the chance to counter and score on the first occasion they had. It can happen. But it's the exception, not the norm. 

At least that's what I think, but I think it strongly
 

That really doesn't happen anywhere near as often as you think. The number of successful through balls per game is actually pretty low

[Muja]

31 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

That really doesn't happen anywhere near as often as you think. The number of successful through balls per game is actually pretty low

In the first two minutes only, you can see that more than half of Juve's goals come from a short through ball, with almost every player of the opponent team guarding the area in the classic "catenaccio".
Following the game's logic there shouldn't be any space there, but in reality there is. You need very little space for a through ball.
That usually happens after a forcing, when the opponents are forced inside their box. And you do that with heavy possession football and with many one-twos, without ever wasting balls on long, predictable passes.

(I've read in this forums that many consider a possession soccer to be defensive, and I cringe every time)

Eventually, they'll concede. And again, that Juve didn't have Dybala and Higuain. Except for Pirlo, who played as a very deep playmaker anyway, there was no world class creative player.

That was Conte's Juve, and that's why Conte has been so succesfull, That's what Guardiola has thought everybody in the world: that simple football is the best football. 

But I'm digressing. Anyway, this is modern football. And it doesn't work in FM.

[themadsheep2001]

41 minutes ago, Muja said:

In the first two minutes only, you can see that more than half of Juve's goals come from a short through ball, with almost every player of the opponent team guarding the area in the classic "catenaccio".
Following the game's logic there shouldn't be any space there, but in reality there is. You need very little space for a through ball.
That usually happens after a forcing, when the opponents are forced inside their box. And you do that with heavy possession football and with many one-twos, without ever wasting balls on long, predictable passes.

(I've read in this forums that many consider a possession soccer to be defensive, and I cringe every time)

Eventually, they'll concede. And again, that Juve didn't have Dybala and Higuain. Except for Pirlo, who played as a very deep playmaker anyway, there was no world class creative player.

That was Conte's Juve, and that's why Conte has been so succesfull, That's what Guardiola has thought everybody in the world: that simple football is the best football. 

But I'm digressing. Anyway, this is modern football. And it doesn't work in FM.

You've picked out a 2 minutes reel of an entire season. I'm talking a full 90 minutes, every game. Have a look at statistics for matches and leagues.

It's statistical fact there arent that many successful through balls per game

Possession football is inherently defensive. Spain at their best used as as means of not conceding under Del Bosque, who literally said "they can't score if they don't have the ball.

Just to make the point: That season Juve played 7 through balls per game (total, not just completed), conversely they made 28 crosses per game

[Muja]

3 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

You've picked out a 2 minutes reel of an entire season. I'm talking a full 90 minutes, every game. Have a look at statistics for matches and leagues.

Actually it's an 8 minute long video showing ALL the goals of Conte's Juve in 2011, when he won the first Scudetto. I was talking about the first two minutes because I didn't want to force you to watch the whole video. But that Juve scored prevalently with through passes, playing like I'm saying.

And even if that doesn't prove that this is the best strategy there is, it certainly proves that it is indeed very possible and it works.

Quote

It's statistical fact there arent that many successful through balls per game

 Of course, if you include the teams that don't even try to score like that, like the long passing lower teams, the stats change.

But if you only consider the teams that play like that, then it's statistical fact that they score prevalently with through passes - and they do that a lot!

Quote

Possession football is inherently defensive. Spain at their best used as as means of not conceding under Del Bosque, who literally said "they can't score if they don't have the ball.

I think you misunderstand Del Bosque's quote. When you have the ball the others can't score, true, but that's just another advantage.
They weren't waiting inside their half, they were circulating the ball in the opponent's half! They completely controlled each game! That isn't a very defensive approach, in my opinion, and its very high defense was actually open to a counter ... which never happened because they never failed a pass. And they never failed a pass because, despite having great players like Iniesta, they only ever tried short, easy passes until they reached the final third.

If the only fact of not conceding goals makes a strategy defensive, then is every strong team defensive by default?

Anyway, this thread has gone very off-track. Think I'll open a similar one in the tactics session, and then another one in the suggestions subforum... without the rant this time

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, Muja said:

Actually it's an 8 minute long video showing ALL the goals of Conte's Juve in 2011, when he won the first Scudetto. I was talking about the first two minutes because I didn't want to force you to watch the whole video. But that Juve scored prevalently with through passes, playing like I'm saying.

And even if that doesn't prove that this is the best strategy there is, it certainly proves that it is indeed very possible and it works.

 Of course, if you include the teams that don't even try to score like that, like the long passing lower teams, the stats change.

But if you only consider the teams that play like that, then it's statistical fact that they score prevalently with through passes - and they do that a lot!

I think you misunderstand Del Bosque's quote. When you have the ball the others can't score, true, but that's just another advantage.
They weren't waiting inside their half, they were circulating the ball in the opponent's half! They completely controlled each game! That isn't a very defensive approach, in my opinion, and its very high defense was actually open to a counter ... which never happened because they never failed a pass. And they never failed a pass because, despite having great players like Iniesta, they only ever tried short, easy passes until they reached the final third.

If the only fact of not conceding goals makes a strategy defensive, then is every strong team defensive by default?

Anyway, this thread has gone very off-track. Think I'll open a similar one in the tactics session, and then another one in the suggestions subforum... without the rant this time

Juventus  did not score most of their goals through such passes, most of those end up into feet. None of what Juventus do is impossible in the game

And again its also not true most sides score like that. Barcelona under Guardiola averaged 8 through balls per game, most goals were passes into feet in the penalty area

The bold is interesting, because what you describe there is a low risk football played high up the pitch. That is quite literally lower FM mentality football (using Spain as an example here, that would be Counter, short passing, retain possession, more closing down, high defensive line, front 4 with risk passes)

You have a rigid view of footballing descriptions, when in fact they are quite plastic and flexible

[Andrew_Goats_Gruff]

Although ther could be improvements, the game is epic, the work s.i do is class

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Muja said:

I know you would suggest me to come deeper to lure them out, create space and play direct passes, and in FM it would work, but in reality that's an antiquated way to play that any decent defense can counter.

Give me an attack minded forward to keep central defenders busy and create room for my fantasista behind him to play incisive passes, bring runners into play or perform his tricks and score goals himself any day of the week.  I want my forward up in the face of central defenders, pressuring them, being a handful and hard to mark, not dropping deep and allowing defenders the breathing space to stay in their nice secure structured defensive shape.

Of course you can play with your striker dropping off if you so wish (and in certain formations is arguably preferable) but that's not how I like to set things up and it is very far from being the only way to play FM.

[mrgreenze]

On the thread started by Muja in the tactical forum, the last post made a good point in that all 4 players in the attacking strata all have an attack duty, which means they could lack support from midfield to supply the right pass from back to front, especially in transitions.  Even if one if the attacking midfielders receives the ball, they're going to be right up against the opposition defence with little room to manoeuvre. Also unless it's the Italian translation the AM's all have the Trequartista role which I'm not sure any Italian team I've watched has ever employed.

If I was playing this team IRL the obvious tactic would be to defend deep with 2 DM's and play on the break. One pass and you could take out the 4 players in attack.

To make this tactic work you'd probably need a beast of a centre forward a la Drogba to terrorise the centre halves in the hope of creating space for the 3 Trequartista's, if they're not all encroaching in each other's space.

 

[Rashidi]

17 hours ago, Muja said:

But you ARE confirming that SI already changed the match engine from scratch, so I'm not a looney for proposing it, thank you for proving it for me.

How is that a confirmation?  a UI change does not mean that the match engine was completely built from scratch. The UI was just laid over the match engine to make tactical changes easier for people. I for one prefer doing it like that instead of having to go to different players and telling them to change their mentality from 5 to 8 then go to another player and tell him to raise his Creative freedom from 5 to 15.  I don't want my tactical changes to take me 15 mins. I want them to take me 5 secs.

[Ji-Sung Park]

Fair share of mods participating In this thread. 

[Guest]

That's because outside of SI the tactics forum the community mods have the most in-depth knowledge of the game & direct access to key personal at SI who can fill any gaps in that knowledge,, makes sense that many will be contributing in a thread like this one.

[Ji-Sung Park]

Just now, Barside said:

That's because outside of SI the tactics forum the community mods have the most in-depth knowledge of the game & direct access to key personal at SI who can fill any gaps in that knowledge,, makes sense that many will be contributing in a thread like this one.

Yes, of course.

[Muja]

Frankly, I'm very happy that I've started this discussion, as that was my goal anyway. 
I'm sorry if I was giving the impression that I came here simply to complain.
 

12 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Juventus  did not score most of their goals through such passes, most of those end up into feet. None of what Juventus do is impossible in the game

You have a rigid view of footballing descriptions, when in fact they are quite plastic and flexible

I agree, I think I have a problem with terminology. That might be because I don't know how to translate many football terms in english.
Look at 01:16 of the video I posted:

Torino's back four are inside their own area. Such a defense seems very hard to break, because they're very deep. 
And yet, look: one-two, one-two, through ball to the free player, score. There shouldn't be space behind their defense, but there is.

Or isn't that a through ball? It's a short pass in the space in front of the player, where he has to run to reach the ball. Isn't that the definition of a through ball? A short pass and inside the area, sure, but that isn't on the player's feet.

How do you translate that in FM? Are "risky passes" only intended as long passes behind the defense?

 

Quote

using Spain as an example here, that would be Counter, short passing, retain possession, more closing down, high defensive line, front 4 with risk passes

"Counter" is when your team stays deep, defend, and suddenly everybody makes a run forward when you get the ball.
That's not like Del Bosque Spain's at all, they were always inside the opponent's half of the pitch.

A "counter" is usually played with high speed, too, because your goal is to surprise the opponents with quick ball movement as soon as you win the ball. 
And that's another thing that is counter-intuitive in FM, because in the game "counter" means to play safe... which is completely false in real life terms.

I remember there was an option, in older versions of FM, where you could "select" if you wanted to make a counter or not (in its real meaning of "fast break"), regardless of your tactics.. And that actually made much more sense, rather than to slap the name on an entire "mentality". 

I think such an option is still active in FM17, but secretly, and it's ON when you use a counter or offensive mentality, and it's OFF otherwise. And I don't really like that, and it's not even explained. I can only imagine this because I've played all of the older versions. How can a newcomer understand that?

 

11 hours ago, herne79 said:

Give me an attack minded forward to keep central defenders busy and create room for my fantasista behind him to play incisive passes, bring runners into play or perform his tricks and score goals himself any day of the week.  I want my forward up in the face of central defenders, pressuring them, being a handful and hard to mark, not dropping deep and allowing defenders the breathing space to stay in their nice secure structured defensive shape.

What happens in FM, is that the attack minded forward is isolated as a lone striker and rarely gets the ball. The AMC gets the ball right outside of the area, but then he doesn't make any decisive pass because, in FM logic, there's no space behind the deep lying defense, so he would simply pass the ball behind or to the wingers. Midfielders making a run usually receive the ball, but they're rarely in good position and they try long shots, even if I instructed them not to, because they have no other option.
Fantasista and the Striker get a low rating of 6.4 and below, unless they luckly score with a deviation.

THAT'S what happens as soon as you win a few games and your opponents fear you and play deep. I've seen it happen countless times, you can't say it's not true... At that point you have to make the forward come deeper to create space, or to change your tactics altogether

2 hours ago, Rashidi said:

How is that a confirmation?  a UI change does not mean that the match engine was completely built from scratch. The UI was just laid over the match engine to make tactical changes easier for people. I for one prefer doing it like that instead of having to go to different players and telling them to change their mentality from 5 to 8 then go to another player and tell him to raise his Creative freedom from 5 to 15.  I don't want my tactical changes to take me 15 mins. I want them to take me 5 secs.

Santy explicitly said at a certain point SI rebuilt the game engine from scratch. That's what I was talking about.

And anyway, you didn't like the slide bars? Fine, we don't need them. I'm totally fine with an interface with descriptive words instead of numbers.
But the sliding bars are still THERE inside the game, just so you know it. They're simply hidden.

And how is this "making tactical changes easier for people", if now I can't change the creative freedom of one single player without changing everything else?
If you change team mentality you're changing everyone's mentality, and that's fine, but you're also changing everyone's pass range (why?), everyone's creativity (why?) the team's width (why?) and the defense line, too, at this point why not?

Why can't I change all this things individually? How is NOT doing that easier?

Am I being more clear?


 

[themadsheep2001]

Muja, I honestly think you need to open your views somewhat. You're very rigid on terminology that is flexible. Counter is far more flexible than you think.

And you absolutely don't have to make a forward come deeper, herne's set up has been my go to style since 2009. My line is always lead by a complete forward attack 

[Muja]

6 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Muja, I honestly think you need to open your views somewhat. You're very rigid on terminology that is flexible. Counter is far more flexible than you think.

And you absolutely don't have to make a forward come deeper, herne's set up has been my go to style since 2009. My line is always lead by a complete forward attack 

And I honestly think we're all mixing up real-life football terms with the meaning they have inside a videogame.

The REASON it's called a "counter" is because it happens when you interrupt the opponent's attack and find them unprepared and unbalanced with a fast break. You counter-attack.

How can't we even agree on that..?

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, Muja said:

And I honestly think we're all mixing up real-life football terms with the meaning they have inside a videogame.

The REASON it's called a "counter" is because it happens when you interrupt the opponent's attack and find them unprepared and unbalanced with a fast break. You counter-attack.

How can't we even agree on that..?

You've missed a key point. When you cannot counter attack what are you doing for the rest of the attacking style

1) what do you do when the counter fails

2) what do you do when there is no attack

A "Counter" as you describe isn't one style. A counter attack csn happen at any point, whether you play high risk or low risk football. Liverpool and Watford play very different styles and levels off aggressiveness, yet they both launched counter attacks at times at each other 

I'm not mixing up football terms at all tbh . It's because I'm clear on what they are that I don't have this issue. 

[Muja]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

You've missed a key point. When you cannot counter attack what are you doing for the rest of the attacking style

1) what do you do when the counter fails

2) what do you do when there is no attack

A "Counter" as you describe isn't one style. A counter attack csn happen at any point, whether you play high risk or low risk football. Liverpool and Watford play very different styles and levels off aggressiveness, yet they both launched counter attacks at times at each other 

You see, there IS a problem with terminology. 
To make myself clear, we need to make a clear distinction, if we're using the word "counter" as:

- a certain way to attack, as in to quickly exploit the space that the opponents are leaving with a "fast break" (quick tempo movement of the ball to catch the opponents out of guard

or

- a "mentality", meaning a set up which has the goal to create more chances to use fast breaks or "counter" attacks. To do that, you need to stay deep, play defensive and concede possession, lure the opponents out, gain the ball and use fast breaks.

In such a mentality, there are like three or four players that are devoted to fast breaks.
Whenever you get the ball, you pass it to them and the fast break starts.
So,

2) you try to start a fast break anyway; if you fail, you concede possession, but who cares because possession of the ball is never the goal in a counter mentality; so there's never NO attack, you always risk it; of course that means you rarely have the ball and you're always defending, and that's why it's a defensive mentality.
and
1) devoting no more than 4 players to fast break should assure that even if the fast break fails you're not over-committed. That's also another reason why this mentality is considered as defensive.

This is in real-life football terms. Your coach will teach you that when you're twelve.

A slow tempo, possession football cannot be considered a "counter" mentality because it's really not the best way to create chances for fast breaks, meaning "counter" attacks.
It's simply counterintuitive. And it can't be considered a defensive mentality, because...

"if you have the ball, you DON'T HAVE to defend"
THAT's the meaning of Del Bosque's quote.

Does that make sense?

 

[HUNT3R]

55 minutes ago, Muja said:

Santy explicitly said at a certain point SI rebuilt the game engine from scratch. That's what I was talking about

Santy never said this. There was quite a big re-write of a part of the engine after FM12, but it definitely wasn't done from scratch. 

[lemeuresnew]

27 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

A "Counter" as you describe isn't one style. A counter attack csn happen at any point, whether you play high risk or low risk football. Liverpool and Watford play very different styles and levels off aggressiveness, yet they both launched counter attacks at times at each other 

 

i would probably describe Watford as more of the traditional style of counter that would make sense to muja

Liverpool just do it seemingly because they can  . they will attack when they can, and step that up any chance they can get. but if you looked at our style of play, and especially our goals on the break, saying it was a counter football would confuse a lot of people that didnt watch them play regularly

[HUNT3R]

59 minutes ago, Muja said:

What happens in FM, is that the attack minded forward is isolated as a lone striker and rarely gets the ball. The AMC gets the ball right outside of the area, but then he doesn't make any decisive pass because, in FM logic, there's no space behind the deep lying defense, so he would simply pass the ball behind or to the wingers. Midfielders making a run usually receive the ball, but they're rarely in good position and they try long shots, even if I instructed them not to, because they have no other option.
Fantasista and the Striker get a low rating of 6.4 and below, unless they luckly score with a deviation.

This happens to YOU in FM, not to everyone. A lone forward on Attack Duty doesn't have to be isolated. Obviously, don't play it to him too early, ie before space is created.

Speaking in terms of a 4231 as an example, you have 2 holders who controls play and draws their midfield out. On the other hand, you have a striker keeping the D-line on their toes and pushing/keeping them back. That stretches the lines open for the AMC to create absolute chaos. Once he gets the ball, someone needs to engage him and that's where the gaps start appearing where the ST or wide players can be played in.

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, lemeuresnew said:

i would probably describe Watford as more of the traditional style of counter that would make sense to muja

Liverpool just do it seemingly because they can  . they will attack when they can, and step that up any chance they can get. but if you looked at our style of play, and especially our goals on the break, saying it was a counter football would confuse a lot of people that didnt watch them play regularly

Exactly. Because a counter attack is a moment, rather than a definitive playing style. Between 2006-2009, Man United were described as "counter-attack" side and yet averaged 56% possession and played a relatively high line, and the majority of goals were not on the counter. 

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

This happens to YOU in FM, not to everyone. A lone forward on Attack Duty doesn't have to be isolated. Obviously, don't play it to him too early, ie before space is created.

Speaking in terms of a 4231 as an example, you have 2 holders who controls play and draws their midfield out. On the other hand, you have a striker keeping the D-line on their toes and pushing/keeping them back. That stretches the lines open for the AMC to create absolute chaos. Once he gets the ball, someone needs to engage him and that's where the gaps start appearing where the ST or wide players can be played in.

Interesting, my second Cm is box to box rather than a holder, Attacking the space created by the CF stretching the line, looking to shoot from range or also feel the CF and players ahead of him. 

[HUNT3R]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

Interesting, my second Cm is box to box rather than a holder, Attacking the space created by the CF stretching the line, looking to shoot from range or also feel the CF and players ahead of him. 

Many ways to skin a cat  

 

I found in the past that the way I set up, the CM takes up too much of the AMCs space, compressing things too much, but it's obviously different in different setups.

[themadsheep2001]

9 minutes ago, Muja said:

You see, there IS a problem with terminology. 
To make myself clear, we need to make a clear distinction, if we're using the word "counter" as:

- a certain way to attack, as in to quickly exploit the space that the opponents are leaving with a "fast break" (quick tempo movement of the ball to catch the opponents out of guard

or

- a "mentality", meaning a set up which has the goal to create more chances to use fast breaks or "counter" attacks. To do that, you need to stay deep, play defensive and concede possession, lure the opponents out, gain the ball and use fast breaks.

In such a mentality, there are like three or four players that are devoted to fast breaks.
Whenever you get the ball, you pass it to them and the fast break starts.
So,

2) you try to start a fast break anyway; if you fail, you concede possession, but who cares because possession of the ball is never the goal in a counter mentality; so there's never NO attack, you always risk it; of course that means you rarely have the ball and you're always defending, and that's why it's a defensive mentality.
and
1) devoting no more than 4 players to fast break should assure that even if the fast break fails you're not over-committed. That's also another reason why this mentality is considered as defensive.

This is in real-life football terms. Your coach will teach you that when you're twelve.

A slow tempo, possession football cannot be considered a "counter" mentality because it's really not the best way to create chances for fast breaks, meaning "counter" attacks.
It's simply counterintuitive. And it can't be considered a defensive mentality, because...

"if you have the ball, you DON'T HAVE to defend"
THAT's the meaning of Del Bosque's quote.

Does that make sense?

 

I've already defined mentality. It's levels of risk. Thats it. Nothing more than that. You've applied all these rules that do not need to exist. 

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Many ways to skin a cat  

 

I found in the past that the way I set up, the CM takes up too much of the AMCs space, compressing things too much, but it's obviously different in different setups.

I tend to have a winger on the box to box side. Keeps the space open. Last time I did this with a top side, Pogba scored 25 goals from CM 👌 

[Muja]

6 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

Liverpool just do it seemingly because they can  . they will attack when they can, and step that up any chance they can get. but if you looked at our style of play, and especially our goals on the break, saying it was a counter football would confuse a lot of people that didnt watch them play regularly

Liverpool can do it because they have fast player, but it still doesn't change the fact that a possession, low risk football is not the best way to create chances for a fast break.

 

4 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Exactly. Because a counter attack is a moment, rather than a definitive playing style. Between 2006-2009, Man United were described as "counter-attack" side and yet averaged 56% possession and played a relatively high line, and the majority of goals were not on the counter. 

A counter "attack" is a moment, we agree as I've explained.
A counter mentality is a set up to create chances for a counter attack, the name itself says it all! And if you want to create more chances for that, you concede possession and defend most of the time, and that's why it's defensive!

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I've already defined mentality. It's levels of risk. Thats it. Nothing more than that. You've applied all these rules that do not need to exist. 

Those "rules" are simply explanations of how a counter mentality works in real life football. 
In real life football, as I've explained a "counter mentality" will have an high level of risk, because you don't care if you lose the ball. it's not about possession.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

I tend to have a winger on the box to box side. Keeps the space open. Last time I did this with a top side, Pogba scored 25 goals from CM 👌 

That's quite a tally! Last time I set up a 4231, it was with a CM/S on Hold Position (a DLP/S drifted too much laterally) but both fullbacks being fairly aggressive, so I also needed stability from somewhere. He partnered a CM/D.

[Muja]

12 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

This happens to YOU in FM, not to everyone. A lone forward on Attack Duty doesn't have to be isolated. Obviously, don't play it to him too early, ie before space is created.

Speaking in terms of a 4231 as an example, you have 2 holders who controls play and draws their midfield out. On the other hand, you have a striker keeping the D-line on their toes and pushing/keeping them back. That stretches the lines open for the AMC to create absolute chaos. Once he gets the ball, someone needs to engage him and that's where the gaps start appearing where the ST or wide players can be played in.

When you say "holders", you mean they should hold the ball, right? Not the position?
This could be the best suggestion I've received this whole time. 

I was thinking just how I could ask my players to play slow at the beginning and up the pace in the final third. But with "hold the ball" in lower position and a general higher tempo that could give me the effect I want.

Didn't think of that, is that what you meant?

[herne79]

52 minutes ago, Muja said:

What happens in FM, is that the attack minded forward is isolated as a lone striker and rarely gets the ball.

Only if the rest of your set up is poor.  An Advanced Forward in a 4-1-4-1 formation may indeed become isolated, but an Advanced Forward in a 4-2-3-1 is unlikely to be.  Just 2 examples.

54 minutes ago, Muja said:

The AMC gets the ball right outside of the area, but then he doesn't make any decisive pass because, in FM logic, there's no space behind the deep lying defense, so he would simply pass the ball behind or to the wingers.

Again, this depends on your set up and the movement your players are able to make in order to create space.  Well over 50% of my goal assists are from through balls even though I play a highly successful team which regularly comes up against teams who sit deep.

58 minutes ago, Muja said:

THAT'S what happens as soon as you win a few games and your opponents fear you and play deep. I've seen it happen countless times, you can't say it's not true... At that point you have to make the forward come deeper to create space, or to change your tactics altogether

That's what happens to you as soon as you win a few games, so from that perspective yes of course it's true.  But you're equating your experience to be "that's just how the match engine is" and it therefore must affect all of us.  It doesn't.  And you say nobody can back up their claims, but then you can't have read some of the great threads over in the Tactics forum.

 

Muja you're clearly a passionate guy who is having some issues with the game.  Some of those issues are well founded and relevant.  Others show some flawed thinking in the mechanics of the game. 

For example, you're discussing Counter Attacking above.  Purely in FM terms, a counter attack (ie., a fast break forward from deep with the ball in order to quickly overwhelm the opposition) will be initiated automatically by the Match Engine when certain criteria are met - that criteria being when less than a certain number of opposition players are between their goal and their player with the ball when your team win the ball back.  At that point and regardless of your chosen tactical settings, the ME takes control and makes your team ultra attack minded for the duration of the counter.  So you don't have to set weird and wonderful tactical settings to try to make your team play on the counter because the ME does it for you.

If, as managers, we want to encourage this behaviour because (for example) we want to play "counter attacking football", then all we have to do is set our teams up accordingly.  Arguably the biggest single thing you can do to encourage this behaviour is to use a complimentary formation.  From this perspective the 4231 (such as your formation you posted above) is a bad choice for counter attacking football because you have so many players in advanced positions.  The more players you have in advanced positions, the less likely the opposition are to overcommit their players in attack (because they have to keep more players back marking your advanced players), thus the likelihood of the criteria for a counter attack in the ME diminishes.  A 4141 on the other hand (for example) could be a very good choice for a counter attacking formation because the opposition don't need to leave so many players back to mark your lone striker.

Mentality is not what drives this.  It may have an impact, but it's not the driving force.  Mentality is about nothing more than how much risk you want your team overall to play with.  This is why Team Instructions for all of your players change when you change Mentality - you are telling your team overall to collectively play with a certain level of risk.  Individually you can of course change this for specific players if you so wish via role and duty selection and individual Player Instructions.

All of this (and much more) can be found in the pinned guides at the top of the Tactics forum.

[HUNT3R]

12 minutes ago, Muja said:

When you say "holders", you mean they should hold the ball, right? Not the position?
This could be the best suggestion I've received this whole time. 

I was thinking just how I could ask my players to play slow at the beginning and up the pace in the final third. But with "hold the ball" in lower position and a general higher tempo that could give me the effect I want.

Didn't think of that, is that what you meant?

Holding midfielders usually do both (and themadsheep can correct me if I'm wrong) although the holding onto the ball depends. Sometimes playing a quick ball is more dangerous.

The way I set them up in what I see as the "classic" 4231 is like that. Even better if I have one of those midfielders with Dictates Tempo.

 

Anyway, as soon as you start thinking about space, who uses it and when etc, things really start to click.

[Muja]

2 minutes ago, herne79 said:

For example, you're discussing Counter Attacking above.  Purely in FM terms, a counter attack (ie., a fast break forward from deep with the ball in order to quickly overwhelm the opposition) will be initiated automatically by the Match Engine when certain criteria are met - that criteria being when less than a certain number of opposition players are between their goal and their player with the ball when your team win the ball back.  At that point and regardless of your chosen tactical settings, the ME takes control and makes your team ultra attack minded for the duration of the counter.  So you don't have to set weird and wonderful tactical settings to try to make your team play on the counter because the ME does it for you.

No, I know this perfectly, I even wrote it somewhere before. I remember that in older version of FM you could choose if you wanted to initiate a counter or not, regardelss of all the other settings, included mentality.

And I know that happens automatically now, when you're using the counter mentality... and even the attacking mentality I think, from what I've seen at least.

And I know that precisely because I've been playing this game for A LONG time. But how are newcomers supposed to know that?

 

Quote

From this perspective the 4231 (such as your formation you posted above) is a bad choice for counter attacking football

No, no, I totally agree, I know that. The thread went waay off-track when I and TheMadSheep started talking about possession football being defensive or not, wich is a totally different topic.

 

Quote

Mentality is about nothing more than how much risk you want your team overall to play with.  This is why Team Instructions for all of your players change when you change Mentality - you are telling your team overall to collectively play with a certain level of risk.

Ok, mentality is one thing. But passing range is another. Creativity is another one yet. I just think that it'd be best if changing one wouldn't affect the other that much. 
A team playing good soccer on control, might suddenly lose every ball when you switch to "counter" simply because the defenders now have a lower pass range, they don't find any teammate and then bomb the ball away.

And that's not what I'd like, you see, so I'm forced to make other adjustments when all I wanted was simply to take less risks. I'm saying it should be easier, and not so inter-connected and overcomplicated.
That's what I'd like, at least.

[herne79]

1 minute ago, Muja said:

And I know that happens automatically now, when you're using the counter mentality... and even the attacking mentality I think, from what I've seen at least.

And I know that precisely because I've been playing this game for A LONG time. But how are newcomers supposed to know that?

No - when you use ANY mentality.  The only different thing that happens with the Defensive, Counter and Overload mentalities are that the criteria that I mention above is slightly relaxed, that's all.  This is why I say mentality is not the driver here but it can have an impact.

I agree about the newcomers - how this is all worded in the mentality descriptions could definitely be improved.

5 minutes ago, Muja said:

Ok, mentality is one thing. But passing range is another. Creativity is another one yet. I just think that it'd be best if changing one wouldn't affect the other that much. 

Mentality is a team level event.  Football is supposed to be a team game after all (although my real life team don't seem to agree at the moment ) thus some tactical settings will modify how your entire team behaves.

But always remember this - player roles and duties are what define player behaviour.  Everything else modifies that behaviour.  So if you want certain players performing certain functions (such as different creativity or passing length) you can do this regardless of what team instructions you apply.  A Trequartista (for example) will always be your fantasista no matter what other tactical instructions you happen to use.  His behaviour may be modified based on your tactical instructions (or choice of player), but he'll still be the fantasista.

[santy001]

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

Santy never said this. There was quite a big re-write of a part of the engine after FM12, but it definitely wasn't done from scratch. 

In addition to this @Muja, there was a question mark on the end, which suggested it was a question. I recalled there being big changes in the past, and vaguely the reasons attached but wasn't certain. 

The only authoritative aspect of FM my voice carries any weight with is Stoke City data. There's very little discussion on that front though, unless Peter Crouch accidentally starts becoming the top goalscorer again.

When it comes to definitions, tactically there is room for improvement (I feel this ought to be clean cut, while attributes should be more vague. So you can explicitly say what you want doing, but if a player isn't doing it, its not as immediately obvious as to why). However, there is a very real issue between what it actually does & means in a lightweight and compact manner. There's also the fact that there is FM terminology, and what people equate to those words meaning based off their interpretation. Which is a battle you can never really win, short of making up your own words. You also need some kind of buffer that explains it in a way that players understand, and allows players to move towards what they want to do. 

That's a very difficult sweetspot to hit. Few people actively engage in trying to provide really valuable feedback through the channels on how it feels to them when they're trying to do this stuff. It's hard to judge, but if you can see a thousand people are saying "I think X does Y because of Z, but its actually not doing Y" then its more likely it'd get looked at. 

Jumping Reach is the perfect example, the attribute was renamed, the description updated and confusion has reduced, it still exists but it is now very much in the territory of where those who are still wrong are more so because they refuse to accept the correct definition or look it up. Rather than it being more ambiguous like it was in the past and Tim Cahill discussions were a frequent topic.

[lemeuresnew]

51 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Jumping Reach is the perfect example, the attribute was renamed, the description updated and confusion has reduced, it still exists but it is now very much in the territory of where those who are still wrong are more so because they refuse to accept the correct definition or look it up. Rather than it being more ambiguous like it was in the past and Tim Cahill discussions were a frequent topic.

stubbornness has always been one of my best personality traits

i think you are spot on with the definitions being blurred by the descriptions and names given. a lot of people seem to struggle with the idea that a controlled setting is actually on the attacking side rather than simply possession and holding back (in a controlled manner) for instance

 

[HemHat]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

The only authoritative aspect of FM my voice carries any weight with is Stoke City data. There's very little discussion on that front though, unless Peter Crouch accidentally starts becoming the top goalscorer again.

He is the top goal scorer this season isn't he? 

[santy001]

Just now, HemHat said:

He is the top goal scorer this season isn't he? 

Indeed, but when he's bagging 30 a season for Stoke in the premier league, maybe I can put his CA back up to 129 like when he was doing it in FM

[rdbayly]

I've read this thread with interest as I agree with the sentiment of the OP. 

I prefer lone striker formations with a winger and IF either side. My frustrations with the game are often from not wanting all of the player instructions that are automatically assigned to players in forward positions. 

The following PIs attached to player roles seem a bit random and unwelcome:

- More risky passes DLF(s) - Why more risky? I want him to lay it off to a free team mate in midfield then make an aggressive run in to the box

- Hold up ball DLF(a) - I don't want him to hold it up, I want him to quickly lay it off and attack the box as above

For other roles there are many other PIs I don't always want such as dribble more, move into channels etc. I think it would be great to have a generic Striker centre role and be able to add your own PIs to play to his strengths just as you can with central midfielders (which I do to great affect)

[Muja]

5 hours ago, santy001 said:

In addition to this @Muja, there was a question mark on the end, which suggested it was a question. I recalled there being big changes in the past, and vaguely the reasons attached but wasn't certain. 

To be honest, when I said "remake the game engine", I was exaggerating to reinforce the concept. Should probably have gone with "big changes" from the very start.
 

Quote

The only authoritative aspect of FM my voice carries any weight with is Stoke City data

That certainly makes you more competent than me in any aspect anyway

5 hours ago, santy001 said:

When it comes to definitions, tactically there is room for improvement (I feel this ought to be clean cut, while attributes should be more vague. So you can explicitly say what you want doing, but if a player isn't doing it, its not as immediately obvious as to why).

In my opinion, every videogame of every genre should give the player all the tools and the information he needs.
When the player fails, it must be because he has made a mistake despite the knowledge he has, not because he's going at it blindly.
When he fails, he must think "oh yeah, that's why I failed", which leads to a desire to improve.
If he thinks "why, god, why?? I told you to do that, why don't you? Do you hate me??" that only leads to frustration. And if he can't find any EXACT knowledge, he's bound to quit the game. 

Nobody likes to play cards without knowing the rules.
 

5 hours ago, santy001 said:

However, there is a very real issue between what it actually does & means in a lightweight and compact manner. There's also the fact that there is FM terminology, and what people equate to those words meaning based off their interpretation. Which is a battle you can never really win, short of making up your own words. You also need some kind of buffer that explains it in a way that players understand, and allows players to move towards what they want to do. 

When you put it like that, you're very right. Terminology seems to be a big problem. Especially when I play the game in my language, and translation might even be off. 
"Contropiede" in italian means both "fast break" and "counter strategy", for example, and that might be why I'm disagreeing with the definition it has in FM.
You're right, it might be unsolvable...

Then maybe explanations should be about what a command actually does IN the game. "A counter mentality will make your players play shorter, riskless passes, at a slower tempo, while staying a bit closer to each other".
In that case I'd think "Counter means a completely different thing in real life, but oh well... let's roll with it".

I wouldn't feel cheated when it does something different from what I'd expect.

What do you guys think of this?



 

[HUNT3R]

39 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

- More risky passes DLF(s) - Why more risky? I want him to lay it off to a free team mate in midfield then make an aggressive run in to the box

Random or not, do you actually find this happening? Because DLF players do lay if off to the midfield from what I've

 

41 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

- Hold up ball DLF(a) - I don't want him to hold it up, I want him to quickly lay it off and attack the box as above

Does he actually hold it up that it's a problem for you? If yes, have you used a False 9 instead?

[HUNT3R]

30 minutes ago, Muja said:

What do you guys think of this?



 

You'll struggle to find someone who doesn't agree that the Mentality terms need changing and better explanations.

[Muja]

Another question that comes to my mind to renforce my point.

Let's look at these two (apparently) different tactical setups:





As you can see, one has counter mentality, the other control mentality.
As shown by the green squares, the "defense line", "tempo", "width" and "passing directness" have the same value.

So what's the difference between the two tactics? Why should I choose one over the other? 
The only thing that is different now is "mentality". What does it EXACTLY mean? The programmers ought to know, so why wouldn't they just tell us? Even in "videogame" terms. They might no be realistic, but anything is better than nothing!

 

[rdbayly]

Hunt3r - This is exemplified by a point you made in this thread about trying through balls was aka 'more risky passes' - I would have liked the game to have told me that. Didn't there used to be a 'try through balls' option you could tick years ago?

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Muja said:

As shown by the green squares, the "defense line", "tempo", "width" and "passing directness" have the same value.

It may look like it, but it won't be. With those settings, you're closer to Standard, although probably still short.

The biggest thing is that Mentality changes decision making. Every decision. So the Counter tactic will see every decision made, being a lot safer than Control.