I really don't know what to do next

[Bunkerossian]

8 minutes ago, Cleon said:

There are plenty of patterns to see you just have to learn to see them. But sadly this isn't something someone can teach you, it has to be something you find a way of seeing somehow. There are guides that try and assist and show how person a thinks about stuff and how they spot issues. But at the end, it has to come from you because you have to teach your own mind to see the issues to begin with. I understand its hard and  causes frustrations (as someone who also battles mental health issues) but it is achievable if you focus on the correct things.

To keep things simple focus on supply and support above all else. You can see if your defender is not passing to the midfield and is misplacing his passes. You can see if the midfield isn't passing to the strikers much. Then what you do is look at why. So you'd pause the game and have a look around at the players and see if they're not passing because they are under pressure, out of positions, the receiver isn't a realistic passing option etc. Start small with the obvious things like that. Then you can also focus on when your strikers have the ball, what other players help him out. Do the midfield/wingbacks get up and support him etc. 

The red bolded bit got my attention. Isn't this a subjective matter? Perhaps the AI does indeed think the receiver isn't a realistic passing option, but I do. There's another thing, which is linked to my own perception of risk: I'd consider it a worse thing for the player to wait with passing the ball and consequently get dispossessed, than to boot it up. Regarding the yellow bold- what is generally considered to be ˝out of position˝? How much is a player allowed to move, without compromising the positional structure? This is something I don't know. Of course a Cb going forward a lot is alarming, but what about some more subtle things like AMC-s going wide for some reason? Is that a sign of issues, or acceptable?

[Cleon]

3 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

The red bolded bit got my attention. Isn't this a subjective matter? Perhaps the AI does indeed think the receiver isn't a realistic passing option, but I do. There's another thing, which is linked to my own perception of risk: I'd consider it a worse thing for the player to wait with passing the ball and consequently get dispossessed, than to boot it up. Regarding the yellow bold- what is generally considered to be ˝out of position˝? How much is a player allowed to move, without compromising the positional structure? This is something I don't know. Of course a Cb going forward a lot is alarming, but what about some more subtle things like AMC-s going wide for some reason? Is that a sign of issues, or acceptable?

How is it subjective? Someone is either a realistic passing option or they aren't. You can tell by seeing if the player is too advanced for the passing style you use and for the player on the ball. So if you had a DLP who had a very short passing style but your AMC was in the final third but unmarked, is he likely to be a realistic option? Not really but he might be from time to time but would likely be a better option if the DLP wasn't restricted in the passing style he'd been given. You can also see if a player is marked by the opposition or not, or is likely to get the ball intercepted if the passer passes to him. It really is black or white there's no real interpretation needed, its simple, he either is or isn't an option.

For the second part of the question this actually depends on the system as a whole and your own idea of what is acceptable and what isn't. It comes down to risk vs reward. Players being out of position have a domino effect on the other players, because it means that player isn't doing his job at that particular moment in time. So is someone else going to step in and cover him or does someone else have to deal with being exposed etc. All of this can be worth if if the reward from attacking was worth it.

The AMC going wide is a good example though and one that is relatively easy to see. So lets presume you have a AMC who has just drifted out wide to mark someone or to attempt to cut out danger. Pause the game and look around, how does this now impact the centre of the pitch? Does the AI have the advantage here? Do they have runners in these areas who not can't be picked up? Does the AMC being out of position now mean one of the central midfielders have to step up and deal with runners? if so, then what happens when the midfielder steps up, how does this impact what the MC is supposed to be doing?

Or from an attacking point of view, the AMC goes wide and isn't central anymore, yet the striker has dropped off the front and took his marker with him and opened up space. Would the AMC have been better centrally and running into this space? What does the AMC actually offer by going out wide, is he creating space for someone else behind to run into?

You'll only know if its a good or bad thing based on seeing what the players around him are doing in both defensive and attacking phases. Having a AMC go wide isn't always a bad thing but depending on how you funnel play and defend as a whole, it could be a massive risk.

[Bunkerossian]

13 minutes ago, Cleon said:

How is it subjective? Someone is either a realistic passing option or they aren't. You can tell by seeing if the player is too advanced for the passing style you use and for the player on the ball. So if you had a DLP who had a very short passing style but your AMC was in the final third but unmarked, is he likely to be a realistic option? Not really but he might be from time to time but would likely be a better option if the DLP wasn't restricted in the passing style he'd been given. You can also see if a player is marked by the opposition or not, or is likely to get the ball intercepted if the passer passes to him. It really is black or white there's no real interpretation needed, its simple, he either is or isn't an option.

For the second part of the question this actually depends on the system as a whole and your own idea of what is acceptable and what isn't. It comes down to risk vs reward. Players being out of position have a domino effect on the other players, because it means that player isn't doing his job at that particular moment in time. So is someone else going to step in and cover him or does someone else have to deal with being exposed etc. All of this can be worth if if the reward from attacking was worth it.

The AMC going wide is a good example though and one that is relatively easy to see. So lets presume you have a AMC who has just drifted out wide to mark someone or to attempt to cut out danger. Pause the game and look around, how does this now impact the centre of the pitch? Does the AI have the advantage here? Do they have runners in these areas who not can't be picked up? Does the AMC being out of position now mean one of the central midfielders have to step up and deal with runners? if so, then what happens when the midfielder steps up, how does this impact what the MC is supposed to be doing?

Or from an attacking point of view, the AMC goes wide and isn't central anymore, yet the striker has dropped off the front and took his marker with him and opened up space. Would the AMC have been better centrally and running into this space? What does the AMC actually offer by going out wide, is he creating space for someone else behind to run into?

You'll only know if its a good or bad thing based on seeing what the players around him are doing in both defensive and attacking phases. Having a AMC go wide isn't always a bad thing but depending on how you funnel play and defend as a whole, it could be a massive risk.

I can try watching things again, but after so many games on Comprehensive, nothing had stood out, yet my results are suboptimal. The AMC going wide was a hypothetical example BTW. But there is an issue with the implementation of a playing style. I often don't have a clear idea on how should a team play because of the roster traits. Not to mention that there often is not enough money to remodel a team to uniformly fit one playing style.

Current team has a GK and D-line unsuitable for passing football, a midfield almost devoid of wide options and blessed with good technical ability, and a varied strike force (poachers, fast, creative forwards and one TM). It's a hodgepodge, and I of course need decent results when the league starts. What to do?

[Cleon]

10 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I can try watching things again, but after so many games on Comprehensive, nothing had stood out, yet my results are suboptimal. The AMC going wide was a hypothetical example BTW. But there is an issue with the implementation of a playing style. I often don't have a clear idea on how should a team play because of the roster traits. Not to mention that there often is not enough money to remodel a team to uniformly fit one playing style.

Current team has a GK and D-line unsuitable for passing football, a midfield almost devoid of wide options and blessed with good technical ability, and a varied strike force (poachers, fast, creative forwards and one TM). It's a hodgepodge, and I of course need decent results when the league starts. What to do?

A playing style is normally the end goal unless you are a super rich team who can afford the luxury of buying ideal players from the off. But for most that's what we build towards, not what we start off with. So the next time you start a game have a think about how you'd like to play eventually if money wasn't an option and then you slowly build towards that over many years. But you can always add some little bits to the current side and do things on a smaller scale though. 

In your current situation due to no money and having no wide players, then surely you'd be looking at 4132, 4312, 352, narrow diamond etc? Something that suits your current players more.

 

[Bunkerossian]

11 minutes ago, Cleon said:

A playing style is normally the end goal unless you are a super rich team who can afford the luxury of buying ideal players from the off. But for most that's what we build towards, not what we start off with. So the next time you start a game have a think about how you'd like to play eventually if money wasn't an options and then you slowly build towards that over many years. But you can always add some little bits to the current side and do things on a smaller scale though. 

In your current situation due to no money and having no wide players, then surely you'd be looking at 4132, 4312, 352, narrow diamond etc? Something that suits your current players more.

 

Yes, you're coorect, a 4-4-2 diamond was suggested to me in the ˝Failure prevention thread˝, and it is one of the formations I had tried. But all the formations seem to play suboptimally against decent opposition. The bolded parts indicate that in this game, only long-term managers can work, instead of those that in RL take a club, and try to shore things up fast with what they have. Kind of a flaw to the game.

[Cleon]

12 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Yes, you're coorect, a 4-4-2 diamond was suggested to me in the ˝Failure prevention thread˝, and it is one of the formations I had tried. But all the formations seem to play suboptimally against decent opposition. But the bolded parts indicate that in this game, only long-term managers can work, instead of those that in RL take a club, and try to shore things up fast with what they have. Kind of a flaw to the game.

No that's you who has said that not me. You can take a team and shore them up no-one has said anything different yet straight away you claim its a flaw in the game because you misunderstand something. You can't blame the game for your own failings/misunderstandings. All formations play sob optimally because you're the common denominator between them. Instead of really understandings something or having some kind of plan, you seem to constantly shift around in the hope you stumble across something that works rather than creating/understanding how things work. That's the flaw with you not the game. The game has many flaws they're just not what you suggest they are. You was on about not having a playing style, I just pointed out that normally a playing style is something you build towards long term. Those managers you are thinking about in real life, also have long term plans even if they go into a club and shore things up immediately. You can bet that their long term vision is different from the short term vision. There is no reason you can't play this way too. I even hinted towards it in the post you quoted...........

I get its hard to spot issues and can be frustrating and sympathise. I don't mean to sound harsh but immediately you played the 'game is flawed' card. There's a massive difference between what a user isn't capable of doing and what the AI can't do. When people can't normally do something the easiest thing to do is blame the game. 

442 diamond is a great formation, I did quite a big  article on it with playing attacking defensive football. 

[jc577]

To be fair I sympathise with you @Bunkerossian I've spent so much time reading different threads etc that I've lost sight of how I actually want to play and just want something that works. It's really frustrating. But I refuse to download tactics, there's absolutely no enjoyment in that for me personally.

[Cleon]

Just now, jc577 said:

To be fair I sympathise with you @Bunkerossian I've spent so much time reading different threads etc that I've lost sight of how I actually want to play and just want something that works. It's really frustrating. But I refuse to download tactics, there's absolutely no enjoyment in that for me personally.

Then use the guides for how they are intended to be used, to guide rather than set in stone rules. Think how you want to play then focus systems that allow this. If you want quick balls into the box then ideally you want wide men of some kind to provide the balls to strikers who are in and around the box. So you'd want players in the box not strikers who drop off the front and so on. Just think of football in basic terms and logically and you'll always be on the right track.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, Cleon said:

No that's you who has said that not me. You can take a team and shore them up no-one has said anything different yet straight away you claim its a flaw in the game because you misunderstand something. You can't blame the game for your own failings/misunderstandings. All formations play sob optimally because you're the common denominator between them. Instead of really understandings something or having some kind of plan, you seem to constantly shift around in the hope you stumble across something that works rather than creating/understanding how things work. That's the flaw with you not the game. The game has many flaws they're just not what you suggest they are. You was on about not having a playing style, I just pointed out that normally a playing style is something you build towards long term. Those managers you are thinking about in real life, also have long term plans even if they go into a club and shore things up immediately. You can bet that their long term vision is different from the short term vision. There is no reason you can't play this way too. I even hinted towards it in the post you quoted...........

I get its hard to spot issues and can be frustrating and sympathise. 

442 diamond is a great formation, I did quite a big  article on it with playing attacking defensive football. 

Of course I'm the common denominator. I've never downloaded a tactic in my life- I always do things on my own. It's just that I didn't expect that the game required me to have a long-term style for every club I want to manage. I actually manage FM as I'd do in RL. I wouldn't mandate a possession football focus with a team whose defenders can't pass. I'd maybe authorize the midfield to use their technical prowess if they get the ball. But the defenders would be under strict orders to boot it if danger lurks. Can this work?

My failures to spot issues in my tactics are such that I'd gladly send saves over to any interested person. I've taken screenshots in games myself, but no useful conclusions popped up. And that was when I had a plan: I wanted my wingers to bombard the penalty box with crosses, so that a TM may score headers.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Bunkerossian said:

It's just that I didn't expect that the game required me to have a long-term style for every club I want to manage

You don't need one, necessarily. What you do need to do is create something that suits your players.

[Rashidi]

28 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Yes, you're coorect, a 4-4-2 diamond was suggested to me in the ˝Failure prevention thread˝, and it is one of the formations I had tried. But all the formations seem to play suboptimally against decent opposition. The bolded parts indicate that in this game, only long-term managers can work, instead of those that in RL take a club, and try to shore things up fast with what they have. Kind of a flaw to the game.

I have to strongly disagree with you, the diamond is one of the best formations I have played in FM17. It's not the engines' fault if you can't make it perform. The problem people have in the game isn't that they don't know football. It's because your instructions in the game aren't visually depicted in a way that is verifiable. You can't know how they look, until the match is played out. 

It's not like using a chalkboard during a session and telling the attackers how to move on and off the ball. The engine works, they way it visually translates tactical instructions doesn't. IMHO the game has always had a steep learning curve for anyone who wants to overachieve, which demands a knowledge that allows the manager to visualise how his teams move on and off the ball on the tactic screen. Hopefully in the future, UI changes make it possible for people to visually see how their tactical instructions play out. My only criticism of this is that it shouldn't; dumb the game down to the  wimbo screens of before. If I see lines and arrows depicting where people should run on and off the ball in all circumstances and it does that 100% of the time, then it stops being a simulation of human behaviour and starts becoming a "paint by numbers" exercise. It will allow good players to massively overexploit the game. The challenge lies in balance. Enough to understand what the players are doing without giving managers like me the advantage of exploiting match engine flaws.

[Bunkerossian]

3 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

You don't need one, necessarily. What you do need to do is create something that suits your players.

I am trying. It's just that I need special tips on dealing with hodgepodge rosters. A D-line+GK that suck at passing, with a midfield that has you spoiled for choice regarding skill and creativity. Strikers are varied. I tried a 4-3-3 Narrow, a 4-3-2-1 and a Diamond 4-4-2, as per someone's suggestions. I'm obviously messing up the roles.

[Cleon]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Of course I'm the common denominator. I've never downloaded a tactic in my life- I always do things on my own. It's just that I didn't expect that the game required me to have a long-term style for every club I want to manage. I actually manage FM as I'd do in RL. I wouldn't mandate a possession football focus with a team whose defenders can't pass. I'd maybe authorize the midfield to use their technical prowess if they get the ball. But the defenders would be under strict orders to boot it if danger lurks. Can this work?

My failures to spot issues in my tactics are such that I'd gladly send saves over to any interested person. I've taken screenshots in games myself, but no useful conclusions popped up. And that was when I had a plan: I wanted my wingers to bombard the penalty box with crosses, so that a TM may score headers.

You don't have to have a long term vision. But if you don't even have a short term vision of how you want to play, how do you even know if the players are doing what you want? For that to happen you have to know how they should be playing to realise if something was an issue or not. How can you spot issues or even know what to look for without knowing what the players should currently be doing?

Yes that can work but you'd need to realise that you'd give the ball away easily at times when the defenders hoof it if your midfield don't get hold of it straight away.

The thing is sending the game to someone else to look at doesn't ever help you because the guides that already exist show how others spot issues and you don't find them helpful. So someone pointing stuff out again doesn't help you because you still won't spot the issues yourself. I could gladly look at the game and point out flaws but I already do this in my own guides, so it wont benefit you. Some how you need to start noticing the basic stuff and then everything else falls into place.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Bunkerossian said:

I am trying. It's just that I need special tips on dealing with hodgepodge rosters. A D-line+GK that suck at passing, with a midfield that has you spoiled for choice regarding skill and creativity. Strikers are varied. I tried a 4-3-Narrow, a 4-3-2-1 and a Diamond 4-4-2, as per someone's suggestions. I'm obviously messing up the roles.

Why do you need all sorts of special tips though? Assess the squad! See who you can use and how. We all have to do this. Even Cleon.

If the GK and defence suck at passing, you obviously don't want them to keep the ball too long and ideally you want to give them plenty of passing options, but it's not required. Playmakers in midfield will obviously draw the ball to those players more.

 

You can try whatever formation you want. Set them up properly though.

[jc577]

2 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Then use the guides for how they are intended to be used, to guide rather than set in stone rules. Think how you want to play then focus systems that allow this. If you want quick balls into the box then ideally you want wide men of some kind to provide the balls to strikers who are in and around the box. So you'd want players in the box not strikers who drop off the front and so on. Just think of football in basic terms and logically and you'll always be on the right track.

One of the most fundamental ideas for any tactic I create is verticality and speed, both with and without the ball. So in essence transitioning quickly from attack to defence. So I aim to set my team up in a medium block, press around the half way line and then attack with speed if there is space to do so - I realise it's not always possible. But whenever I try to set it up, everything looks so disjointed and I end up having 33% of the ball or something stupid which isn't what I want. I spend ages thinking about it, and it just goes to s*** i mean i've been working on it/reading up on it for months and I'm still no closer.

[Cleon]

4 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I am trying. It's just that I need special tips on dealing with hodgepodge rosters. A D-line+GK that suck at passing, with a midfield that has you spoiled for choice regarding skill and creativity. Strikers are varied. I tried a 4-3-3 Narrow, a 4-3-2-1 and a Diamond 4-4-2, as per someone's suggestions. I'm obviously messing up the roles.

It doesn't matter if the defenders and GK suck at passing as long as they get the ball to your midfield. If your midfield is that spoiled for skill and creativity they should more than make up for the defensive deficiencies. It's not like you're expecting the defenders and keeper to dwell on the ball for minutes at a time and dictate play. Even the worse defenders can still pass the ball a short distance to the midfield. 

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, Cleon said:

You don't have to have a long term vision. But if you don't even have a short term vision of how you want to play, how do you even know if the players are doing what you want? For that to happen you have to know how they should be playing to realise if something was an issue or not. How can you spot issues or even know what to look for without knowing what the players should currently be doing?

Yes that can work but you'd need to realise that you'd give the ball away easily at times when the defenders hoof it if your midfield don't get hold of it straight away.

The thing is sending the game to someone else to look at doesn't ever help you because the guides that already exist show how others spot issues and you don't find them helpful. So someone pointing stuff out again doesn't help you because you still won't spot the issues yourself. I could gladly look at the game and point out flaws but I already do this in my own guides, so it wont benefit you. Some how you need to start noticing the basic stuff and then everything else falls into place.

I respectfully disagree. An argumented explanation of what I'm doing wrong in the role and position selection would help me more than looking at the movement of players. I have a neurologicalvisual problem, and it might mean my brain can't process a lot of movement at the same time, and keep things correlated.

I'll admit my lack of ideas, though. I only look at the end result, honestly- I'm a Machiavellist in soccer. And results-wise, I'm not happy.

[Rashidi]

2 minutes ago, jc577 said:

But whenever I try to set it up, everything looks so disjointed and I end up having 33% of the ball or something stupid which isn't what I want. I spend ages thinking about it, and it just goes to s*** i mean i've been working on it/reading up on it for months and I'm still no closer.

This suggests that you haven't thought  these things out:

1. Who is creating space
2. Whois attacking space
3. How are you attacking space?
4. How are you defending? Narrow, wide?
5. Where does your pressing begin?

[Cleon]

2 minutes ago, jc577 said:

One of the most fundamental ideas for any tactic I create is verticality and speed, both with and without the ball. So in essence transitioning quickly from attack to defence. So I aim to set my team up in a medium block, press around the half way line and then attack with speed if there is space to do so - I realise it's not always possible. But whenever I try to set it up, everything looks so disjointed and I end up having 33% of the ball or something stupid which isn't what I want. I spend ages thinking about it, and it just goes to s*** i mean i've been working on it/reading up on it for months and I'm still no closer.

Teams who normally play quick transitions and attack at speed when there is space tend to see the possession drop anyway. It's not how much of the ball you have its what you do with it that counts. It sounds to me like you want to play counter attacking yet have lots of possession? If so, then naturally a proper counter attacking set up is a possession tactic when there isn't an opportunity to go forward, they both come hand in hand. So if I was you, I'd concentrate on the counter attacking part above all else and the possession will come once you have the balance. But the possession will be possession when nothing worth while is on, which is what you'd want.

[Rashidi]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

I have a neurologicalvisual problem

That explains a lot, now that I know where you are coming from it makes things easy.

 When a transition breaks down can you pause the game and go back a few seconds to identify which player may have caused it or was it down to a failure in support?

[Bunkerossian]

6 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

This suggests that you haven't thought  these things out:

1. Who is creating space
2. Whois attacking space
3. How are you attacking space?
4. How are you defending? Narrow, wide?
5. Where does your pressing begin?

If you don't me replying to this- I'd like to illustrate my pattern of thinking.

Only item number 5 is clear to me when I create tactics, and usually, I don't change the default settings there, or if I do have strong, tall defenders, I go deep. On point 4. ..how can one even set a team to defend wide? The first three items are complete blanks for me- I have no plan or opinion. I never think of things revolving around space. I guess the graphical interface doesn't help here, as such things don't show in the formation.

[jc577]

13 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

This suggests that you haven't thought  these things out:

1. Who is creating space
2. Whois attacking space
3. How are you attacking space?
4. How are you defending? Narrow, wide?
5. Where does your pressing begin?

In my preferred 4-3-3 formation:

1. My DLF-S who drops deep, hopefully drawing centre-backs out of position.

2. My IF-A should attack space quickly, my IF-S will do so a bit later on in the move.

3. Not quite sure what you mean by this. I aim to attack space with quick, short but vertical passes forward. 

4. Playing on Control mentality so I guess we will be defending fairly wide.

5. I've set the front three to close down more + tackle harder to apply a bit of pressure and allow everyone to transition into defence, then press around the halfway line.

11 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Teams who normally play quick transitions and attack at speed when there is space tend to see the possession drop anyway. It's not how much of the ball you have its what you do with it that counts. It sounds to me like you want to play counter attacking yet have lots of possession? If so, then naturally a proper counter attacking set up is a possession tactic when there isn't an opportunity to go forward, they both come hand in hand. So if I was you, I'd concentrate on the counter attacking part above all else and the possession will come once you have the balance. But the possession will be possession when nothing worth while is on, which is what you'd want.

I appreciate that, and i've no problem having less possession than my opponent, especially if i'm confident in how we defend. However, below 40% is too low for my liking. Ideally it'd like it to range between 55%-45%, to me this shows efficient use of the ball. Playing as Man United obviously there are going to be times where we see a lot of the ball. It's not that I want a lot of possession, I don't mind either way as long as the ball is being moved with purpose and we're not just tick tocking it around. 

Simply put my idea is: 

If there's space, be ruthless and go for goal. Attempt to create as many opportunities as possible where we can transition quickly.

If not, move the ball around with purpose i.e. quickly and look to create openings.

[Cleon]

2 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

If you don't me replying to this- I'd like to illustrate my pattern of thinking.

Only item number 5 is clear to me when I create tactics, and usually, I don't change the default settings there, or if I do have strong, tall defenders, I go deep. On point 4. ..how can one even set a team to defend wide? The first three items are complete blanks for me- I have no plan or opinion. I never think of things revolving around space. I guess the graphical interface doesn't help here, as such things don't show in the formation.

The shape you use should tell you where the space will be. The same if you look at your opponents shape and then imagine your tactic on the top of it, you'd see where the space is and then this would cover 2 and 3. 

[Bunkerossian]

6 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

That explains a lot, now that I know where you are coming from it makes things easy.

 When a transition breaks down can you pause the game and go back a few seconds to identify which player may have caused it or was it down to a failure in support?

The thing is- I can't determine why it failed, because there are multiple causes every time. I can find the player. But was the cause of the failure poor decision-making, a rushed pass, a superior player defending against the attacking attempt, or maybe a lack of support...that gets very hard to determine. One thing I notice, that opposition attack highlights mostly start from throw-ins. Does this tell something? On Comprehensive mode.

[Cleon]

Quote

I appreciate that, and i've no problem having less possession than my opponent, especially if i'm confident in how we defend. However, below 40% is too low for my liking. Ideally it'd like it to range between 55%-45%, to me this shows efficient use of the ball. Playing as Man United obviously there are going to be times where we see a lot of the ball. It's not that I want a lot of possession, I don't mind either way as long as the ball is being moved with purpose and we're not just tick tocking it around. 

You have to remember that possession on FM isn't measured the same as in real life. Possession on FM only equals time on the ball, which considering how you want fast transitions means you'll have a high turnover rate. Which takes away from the possession. It's not calculated the same as real life, which uses passing normally. 55% in FM terms is a lot. However no amount of possession percentage shows whether the ball was used efficient or not. You'd only know that by seeing what the players did when they had possession.

[jc577]

4 minutes ago, Cleon said:

You have to remember that possession on FM isn't measured the same as in real life. Possession on FM only equals time on the ball, which considering how you want fast transitions means you'll have a high turnover rate. Which takes away from the possession. It's not calculated the same as real life, which uses passing normally. 55% in FM terms is a lot. However no amount of possession percentage shows whether the ball was used efficient or not. You'd only know that by seeing what the players did when they had possession.

I remember reading that bit about possession in your 'art of possession' thread funnily enough  I agree if we're looking to transition the ball quickly there will be many turnovers, but I still think possession numbers below a certain percentage is too low. I realise that this is a high risk way of playing, as it's more dependent on the opposition that other styles of play, however i can't help but feel there must be something i'm doing wrong tactically which means our transitions our failing significantly more than succeeding.

[Cleon]

1 minute ago, jc577 said:

I remember reading that bit about possession in your 'art of possession' thread funnily enough  I agree if we're looking to transition the ball quickly there will be many turnovers, but I still think possession numbers below a certain percentage is too low. I realise that this is a high risk way of playing, as it's more dependent on the opposition that other styles of play, however i can't help but feel there must be something i'm doing wrong tactically which means our transitions our failing significantly more than succeeding.

At a guess without seeing anything tactically, I'd say the midfield can't catch up play fast enough compared to your attacking players.

[jc577]

1 minute ago, Cleon said:

At a guess without seeing anything tactically, I'd say the midfield can't catch up play fast enough compared to your attacking players.

So it's equally/more important to have fast players in midfield? Seen as my attackers are quick and known if my centre-mids are that pacey, would dropping them down the MR/L positions make sense?

[Cleon]

Just now, jc577 said:

So it's equally/more important to have fast players in midfield? Seen as my attackers are quick and known if my centre-mids are that pacey, would dropping them down the MR/L positions make sense?

Well if you think about it, if you want to attack quick and provide support. What happens if the midfield is slow and can never catch up with the attackers? You'll either give the ball away due to no support, shoot because of no support or the attackers will hold onto the ball for far too long. So you need to negate these issues and make sure the attacking players aren't cut off from the rest of the team, unless they can provide for themselves which normally isn't consistent enough.

[jc577]

3 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Well if you think about it, if you want to attack quick and provide support. What happens if the midfield is slow and can never catch up with the attackers? You'll either give the ball away due to no support, shoot because of no support or the attackers will hold onto the ball for far too long. So you need to negate these issues and make sure the attacking players aren't cut off from the rest of the team, unless they can provide for themselves which normally isn't consistent enough.

The only way I can think of to increase support to attacking players is to raise my d-line to normal from slightly deeper so that we're a couple of yards higher up the pitch? I'm stumped. 

[Cleon]

1 minute ago, jc577 said:

The only way I can think of to increase support to attacking players is to raise my d-line to normal from slightly deeper so that we're a couple of yards higher up the pitch? I'm stumped. 

What about the roles/duties you use as well?

[HUNT3R]

Or the team shape? But mostly, what Cleon said. The entire tactic needs to be taken into account.

[Rashidi]

3 minutes ago, jc577 said:

The only way I can think of to increase support to attacking players is to raise my d-line to normal from slightly deeper so that we're a couple of yards higher up the pitch?

1. Change roles and duties, one forward player with a role that encourages him to come deeper
2. Use a player with a ppm that tells him to drop deeper
3. Use a player with a ppm that dictates tempo
4. Use a player with good technical skills that allow him to hold up the ball and distribute
5. Use faster support players so they keep up
6. Make sure you have players with good off the ball in support players who are actually moving around

That's just 6 things I can do and I haven't even touched the TIs yet, so you're not exactly trying everything out. As always people need to assess their squad to see what they can do. Its not the tactics fault if you chose the wrong player to do a job or you failed to account for combinations to create support.

[Cleon]

Pfft @Rashidi spoilt the game by making a big list of things to try 

[herne79]

58 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Teams who normally play quick transitions and attack at speed when there is space tend to see the possession drop anyway. It's not how much of the ball you have its what you do with it that counts.

And if anyone wants a real-life example of that, just watch Real Madrid play.  Against Dortmund the other night in the Champions League they did exactly this to devastating effect.

[jc577]

26 minutes ago, Cleon said:

What about the roles/duties you use as well?

 

25 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Or the team shape? But mostly, what Cleon said. The entire tactic needs to be taken into account.

This is why I get frustrated. I know the reasoning behind both your suggestions, but my thinking is so one-dimensional sometimes. 

 

25 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

1. Change roles and duties, one forward player with a role that encourages him to come deeper
2. Use a player with a ppm that tells him to drop deeper
3. Use a player with a ppm that dictates tempo
4. Use a player with good technical skills that allow him to hold up the ball and distribute
5. Use faster support players so they keep up
6. Make sure you have players with good off the ball in support players who are actually moving around

That's just 6 things I can do and I haven't even touched the TIs yet, so you're not exactly trying everything out. As always people need to assess their squad to see what they can do. Its not the tactics fault if you chose the wrong player to do a job or you failed to account for combinations to create support.

Thanks Rashidi, a lot to think about here. One thing i'll say is that i'm against using the PPM 'comes deep to get ball' in a forward player as I still want him available to attack space if/when the quick transition is on. 

I'll have a proper go again tonight and think about roles/duties and the players used in the roles.

[Bigpapa42]

Just want to interject to say I love threads like this. Someone who wants to learn and improve and some folks taking the time to really try to help. Bravo, folks.

[Gee_Simpson]

2 minutes ago, Bigpapa42 said:

Just want to interject to say I love threads like this. Someone who wants to learn and improve and some folks taking the time to really try to help. Bravo, folks.

Yeah and it's also helpful for those of us who struggle tactically looking in too  Some good tips in here for sure.

[Cleon]

Quote

This is why I get frustrated. I know the reasoning behind both your suggestions, but my thinking is so one-dimensional sometimes. 

I think this is true from a lot of posters I see on here. My advice is to forget everything you think you know and start again because you've likely got bad habits when tactic creating and have preconceived ideas about things. Also do lots of trial and error, that's the only way to learn and translate your ideas into FM. 

[HemHat]

3 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I think this is true from a lot of posters I see on here. My advice is to forget everything you think you know and start again 

Forget everything you know about real life football and learn what wins in FM, basically.

[Cleon]

1 minute ago, HemHat said:

Forget everything you know about real life football and learn what wins in FM, basically.

Not really, most people I know use their real life knowledge to make realistic workable system in FM. It's just common sense at the end of the day and thinking about things logically. 

[Svenc]

From my experience players who don't seem to watch anything in football are actually the worst off on this. Sometimes I'm wondering if players actually watch half the stuff IRL they oft obsess over in the game.

e.g. Just won against Real, Barcelona, then suddenly lose to the bottom of the table. Point is?
- My forward has scored but 3 goals from 8 matches, comically bad, is it?? (only if you fail with Maths and haven't looked at a scoring table ever)
- My team just converts every 10th shots, surely not acceptable (or is it?)?
- Seasons in particular with a fairly average side on the level can be a bit of a an inconsistent ride -- I can go on decent runs but then the exactly opposite happens too (ever looked at what happens to mid-table teams in real football?)
-  Plenty, plenty, plenty more.

 

The one thing that I agree with is that what is the most logical on FM isn't necessarily the most successful. This is related to both engine as well as AI issues. That does not mean that the game aims to reward any of that, intentionally. It's basic football stuff. Like, basics of all basics, really. I should know. I'm hardly Mourinho either. However, that's overall a fairly nonsensical assumption to say, just forget about football, and all. It's also trolling. And nothing of value for these decent guys. Hence the response.

[Bunkerossian]

I will admit that I only watch two teams on a consistent basis. Celtic and the Croatian NT. I also watch the European and World Cups. I have never regularly watched EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, or Ligue 1 game. I had watched Serie A games before, when I was a kid.

[HUNT3R]

There's watching matches and there's really watching matches.

Watching matches as a fan is one thing. That means generally being somewhat aware of who is really attacking etc.

Watching matches like a tactician is different. You start to really notice a certain player always dropping deep (and then noticing another surging past) or pulling wide to create overloads with the wide player(s). You notice one player being used as the midfield controller and dictating play and tempo. etc etc etc.

[Rashidi]

19 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

There's watching matches and there's really watching matches.

Watching matches as a fan is one thing. That means generally being somewhat aware of who is really attacking etc.

Watching matches like a tactician is different. You start to really notice a certain player always dropping deep (and then noticing another surging past) or pulling wide to create overloads with the wide player(s). You notice one player being used as the midfield controller and dictating play and tempo. etc etc etc.

This I can guarantee you is the issue. I still remember the day I was watching the game Liverpool played against bournemouth, we were leading, and then I saw Can go down and take a long time to get up. I turned around and went to get a beer. My mates asked if I was ready to celebrate. I was actually getting ready to drown my sorrows. Liverpool's transition from attack to defence was woeful. When we watch the game we need to watch it like tacticians. We need to be able to see if anyone is coming up to support..there is so much to watching a game, and really "watching" the game.

[Gee_Simpson]

40 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

There's watching matches and there's really watching matches.

Watching matches as a fan is one thing. That means generally being somewhat aware of who is really attacking etc.

Watching matches like a tactician is different. You start to really notice a certain player always dropping deep (and then noticing another surging past) or pulling wide to create overloads with the wide player(s). You notice one player being used as the midfield controller and dictating play and tempo. etc etc etc.

Yeah personally that's my main problem. I have only ever watched matches throughout my life from a football fan perspective rather than a tactical perspective. So now it's hard to readjust and adapt my thinking.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Gee_Simpson said:

Yeah personally that's my main problem. I have only ever watched matches throughout my life from a football fan perspective rather than a tactical perspective. So now it's hard to readjust and adapt my thinking.

To be fair, I used to watch matches as a tactician for a while and it was exhausting! I didn't enjoy those matches as I focused too much on who was doing what. I did learn a lot in doing so, but these days, I'm back to watching it as a fan. I do notice movements etc still, but I don't pay as much attention to it as before so I'm able to enjoy watching it again.

It's the same in FM. There are matches that I put all my concentration into as a tactician. I have found a happy medium when my tactic is settled, to just watch them as part fan of my team/football and as tactician.

[Gee_Simpson]

7 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

To be fair, I used to watch matches as a tactician for a while and it was exhausting! I didn't enjoy those matches as I focused too much on who was doing what. I did learn a lot in doing so, but these days, I'm back to watching it as a fan. I do notice movements etc still, but I don't pay as much attention to it as before so I'm able to enjoy watching it again.

It's the same in FM. There are matches that I put all my concentration into as a tactician. I have found a happy medium when my tactic is settled, to just watch them as part fan of my team/football and as tactician.

I hope to reach that stage in FM some time soon, where I can focus more on the other side of the game like player development etc and just watch matches on extended/key highlights.

[Rashidi]

@Armistice I am using your formation, and then I make changes based on the kind of players I have to achieve a style of football that incorporates some counter attacking elements. This is the first part of a two parter. I am doing this show out of order lol, but I reckon you need the help more than me worrying about a schedule. I hope it helps. In this video I actually spend more time analysing my squad to see what they can do, what are their weaknesses before adapting the 5 man defence to hit on the break. My next match is against Spurs which should be a bigger test.

 

I hope it helps.

[Bunkerossian]

Well, here's me after watching the highlights of my last match. I still can't find any glaring issues with my team. If I was just giving my opinion, I'd say Chievo just have bloody good ball-winners. I've tried to play with them before, so I know the kind of ruthless butchers they got on the roster. They were able to neutralize my passers, and let their passers flourish. When they put me under pressure, I went from Standard to Counter, which allowed crosses from the right side of their team, and some long shots. But I believe you people- there must be a flaw with my roles- I'm just blind.

I have no tactical insight into the flaws of my team, at all. I took one screen shot, so if someone cares to decipher...

This produced a sitter for Chievo, which my GK saved.