I really don't know what to do next

[looping]

Just now, Bunkerossian said:

There are 9 PKM-s from that game- this is what I meant when I asked which one.

The full match.

[Svenc]

9 hours ago, Armistice said:

Well tides turned around the corner if you play too much.  The form in the league has been hit and miss and we dropped down the table. We nicked some lucky wins when it was the case of winning and we lost more points than expected/needed.

What do you base this on? FM lacks in tools and stats to fully judge this by. It's easy to fall for the trap that as long as you're winning, everything's fine, and vice versa. This happens in football all the time too. When speaking about analysis, and applying it to FM, that's partly what I meant. For instance, even in more simple terms, you did/does your team at all rate in comparison to opponents in terms of how many shots/chances they created (on target, overall). Likewise, how did it rate in terms of shots conceded (which is a stat that's never been in the game and needs to be collected manually). Did this change suddenly? Given that matches are always going to be decided in key seconds, pitifully few, that's quite a big of a deal.

@Bunkerossian I wish you well. However I wouldn't continue playing if the game, or any game, makes you feel worse or bad about things. As long as the game doesn't make you go like this, that's probably fine (there's other unfortunate mental traits after all), but this is perhaps a bit of a cliche, I'd play top teams and look for a few downloads so that it may lift you up.

 

[looping]

I just watched the first 10 minutes but that's more tan enough. I have no idea what's your tactic, roles, duties, mentality and shape.

That space between their left Wb and your right Fb. Your fb is doing nothing. Couldn't he be higher so he could intercept a pass to their left WB? You could push your defense a bit higher so you would protect better the flanks?

 

I see Budimir playing some supportive role (dlf?) in the left of your attack. Budimir is hardly mobile and playing center-left he will drift wide where he'll have to dribble. You could make him play in the  Center striker and Schick (who is quicker) in the left.

I think you are playing a high mentality. Control? You are playing very direct to your strikers agaist a Wall of 4 players (3 cb and 1 dm). Perhaps lowering mentality and being a bit more patient could help.

 

 

[looping]

I forgot:

Tell me if you see space somwhere. Couldn't your fb make forward runs to stretch opposition? Your are playing only through  the middle.

Be careful if your fb are more adventurous, you may need a more conservative midfielders.

[Bunkerossian]

I'm playing Standard and Flexible. Budimir is a Target Man-Support. He is Left Only, so I put him on the left side, while also hoping he could get into situations where he jumps against the FB. I had put the D-Line one notch higher after about 20 minutes. I have no idea why the full backs do not go forward.

[Bunkerossian]

2 hours ago, Svenc said:

What do you base this on? FM lacks in tools and stats to fully judge this by. It's easy to fall for the trap that as long as you're winning, everything's fine, and vice versa. This happens in football all the time too. When speaking about analysis, and applying it to FM, that's partly what I meant. For instance, even in more simple terms, you did/does your team at all rate in comparison to opponents in terms of how many shots/chances they created (on target, overall). Likewise, how did it rate in terms of shots conceded (which is a stat that's never been in the game and needs to be collected manually). Did this change suddenly? Given that matches are always going to be decided in key seconds, pitifully few, that's quite a big of a deal.

@Bunkerossian I wish you well. However I wouldn't continue playing if the game, or any game, makes you feel worse or bad about things. As long as the game doesn't make you go like this, that's probably fine (there's other unfortunate mental traits after all), but this is perhaps a bit of a cliche, I'd play top teams and look for a few downloads so that it may lift you up.

 

I dislike playing most top teams. And besides, the board expectations are most commonly such that I would quickly get the boot, if my usual results at the beginning of the season were to happen. @Rashidi in his videos advises beginners (and I'm essentially one, since I have no idea how to make a good tactic), to play mid-level teams.

[Armistice]

After Sheff Utd, Bradford was destroyed 4-0 in FA Cup 2nd Round. Burnley at home in the 3rd Round. If only we can do at least half a job in the league.

 

Leicester U23 featuring the likes of Chilwell, Ulloa, Okazaki and Zieler were also knocked out the Checkatrade Trophy by us. 

[looping]

2 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

I'm playing Standard and Flexible. Budimir is a Target Man-Support. He is Left Only, so I put him on the left side, while also hoping he could get into situations where he jumps against the FB. I had put the D-Line one notch higher after about 20 minutes. I have no idea why the full backs do not go forward.

Ok.

Don't use a TM. Never, at least until you master the ME. When using a Tm the ball gets hoofed to him more often than not. A dlf is very similar without the magnet effect. Or a defensive forward with hold up the ball PI. Choose between DF and dlf depending on visión and passing attributes. High attributes-->dlf.

A player in a wide position needs some dribbling skills and some pace, unless you use a wide target man or another specific role and that's not the case. Would you use Budimir as a winger? Sure not. A striker in a center left position is somewhat a mix of a striker and a winger (very simplified).

As for the defensive line. Push it higher. If you still see that space, push it higher and use offside trap if it's too high (are there any through balls? Then use offside trap)

Can you tell me the duty of your fb? Support perhaps? Why not attack duty, at least on one side? What roles/duties you have in midfield? Can they cover both fb bombing forward(attack duty)?

[herne79]

One thing about using a very high def line + offside trap, have a think about relevant attributes for your central defenders (and their duties) before you commit.

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, looping said:

Never, at least until you master the ME. When using a Tm the ball gets hoofed to him more often than not.

 

You don't need to master a ME. Actually, that's completely pointless, as it's work in progress anyway, and always have a few niggles here, a few niggles there. You need to apply common sense football logics. The only thing that's missing is a big fat marker that says players are encouraged to belt the ball to the target man. If you then don't know what that means, that he has to have guys around his or may drop the ball, no "mastering of the ME" will help ever. Anybody who fundamentally struggles here, I'd shy away from even trying. You are fighting an up-hill battle that you cannot possibly win. This goes for many more things. Why do teams defend deep? When do teams do it? Which teams do it? What does it mean to play a slow probing passing game in particular without enough movement between the lines as far as attacks are concerned? What does that typically result in in football too? How to combat that? If you can't answer any of that, and FM has never provided any of this admittedly (would be a huge task), this is not going to be much fun to play the game more "tactically".

 

@Bunkerossian

I can see Rashidi's point, and it's totally valid, but SI promote the club you pick as a "level of diffulty" themselves. I don't agree with them, there's a reason why the top managers tend to be at the top clubs. It's the way it is tough. You won't even get into such bad runs as your players will carry you all itself. For instance, take a look into your league's stats and look how much more successful dribbles the world class dribblers complete in this game. Even if those guys are without options, they still will tear defenses a new one. And as FM doesn't hugely much simulate the challenges of managing big star egos either, that's what always tends to happen typically. However, if that's not your thing, fire away.

[looping]

11 minutes ago, Svenc said:

You don't need to master a ME. Actually, that's completely pointless, as it's work in progress anyway, and always have a few niggles here, a few niggles there. You need to apply common sense football logics. The only thing that's missing is a big fat marker that says players are encouraged to belt the ball to the target man. If you then don't know what that means, that he has to have guys around his or may drop the ball, no "mastering of the ME" will help ever

You keep not understanding anything...

Of course is not needed to master the ME. You know what lie for kids mean? My point is: Tm is a very specific role which can disrupt your tactical setup. Ignore it because it only overcomplicates things. 

Start with THE MOST BASIC concepts. No need to use a TM yet. You can achieve (almost) the same with a DLF without the hoof the ball effect. 

 

 

[Svenc]

1 minute ago, looping said:

You keep not understanding anything...

 

And you will, unfortunately, keep on looping.

[looping]

45 minutes ago, herne79 said:

One thing about using a very high def line + offside trap, have a think about relevant attributes for your central defenders (and their duties) before you commit.

Yes, but don't go two steps forward. The point now is to understand how a higher defensive line helps to cover flanks better.

Step by step.

[looping]

Just now, Svenc said:

And you will, unfortunately, keep on looping.

I'm just trying to help him using the method that finally allowed me to progress a bit. Give me the chance at least.

 

[Rashidi]

3 hours ago, looping said:

The point now is to understand how a higher defensive line helps to cover flanks better.

I will give you the chance, I see this as one of those methods where you ask them to crash a car. And then explain why they crashed right?

[Bunkerossian]

8 hours ago, herne79 said:

One thing about using a very high def line + offside trap, have a think about relevant attributes for your central defenders (and their duties) before you commit.

I definitely can't play a line too high. Only one of my defenders has great Anticipation. Pace is lacking for that approach, as well.

 

9 hours ago, looping said:

Ok.

Don't use a TM. Never, at least until you master the ME. When using a Tm the ball gets hoofed to him more often than not. A dlf is very similar without the magnet effect. Or a defensive forward with hold up the ball PI. Choose between DF and dlf depending on visión and passing attributes. High attributes-->dlf.

A player in a wide position needs some dribbling skills and some pace, unless you use a wide target man or another specific role and that's not the case. Would you use Budimir as a winger? Sure not. A striker in a center left position is somewhat a mix of a striker and a winger (very simplified).

As for the defensive line. Push it higher. If you still see that space, push it higher and use offside trap if it's too high (are there any through balls? Then use offside trap)

Can you tell me the duty of your fb? Support perhaps? Why not attack duty, at least on one side? What roles/duties you have in midfield? Can they cover both fb bombing forward(attack duty)?

I attached the formation I used in that game. I asked in my opening post in the Sampdoria thread, for people to tell me if my midfield roles were right. Nobody gave input.

[herne79]

7 hours ago, looping said:

Yes, but don't go two steps forward. The point now is to understand how a higher defensive line helps to cover flanks better.

Step by step.

No, the point is that if you offer advice you need to properly think through the implications of that advice especially if it is very specific. 

Advising someone to increase the def line and then pushing it higher again (if needed) along with using the offside trap may have other implications which you didn't mention, hence my post about relevant player attributes.

[Bunkerossian]

7 minutes ago, herne79 said:

No, the point is that if you offer advice you need to properly think through the implications of that advice especially if it is very specific. 

Advising someone to increase the def line and then pushing it higher again (if needed) along with using the offside trap may have other implications which you didn't mention, hence my post about relevant player attributes.

I understand. However, at least pushing the defense line one notch up from Standard, let my GK deal with crosses, instead of my defenders. So I guess I can thank @looping for that at least. I won't push the D-Line up any more though. Cesena are a Serie B side, and yet they made my best defender quite busy with balls over the top.

[Cleon]

4 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I understand. However, at least pushing the defense line one notch up from Standard, let my GK deal with crosses, instead of my defenders. So I guess I can thank @looping for that at least. I won't push the D-Line up any more though. Cesena are a Serie B side, and yet they made my best defender quite busy with balls over the top.

I don't think pushing the defensive line up would have really had a bearing on the keeper dealing with crosses, it's just a coincidence. Regardless of the defensive line the keeper will play the same unless you change his role to something else like a keeper sweeper.

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, Cleon said:

I don't think pushing the defensive line up would have really had a bearing on the keeper dealing with crosses, it's just a coincidence. 

Well, if that is true, then I do have a major problem in my head. I was sort of relieved when I finally noticed something I thought was relevant. Looks like I need someone to analyze things for me, afterall.

[looping]

The whole point is not fixing anything, at this moment. First of all, you must understand what every instruction does. Start with defensive line. Move it. See the effect it produces, even if it is a negative effect. The point is to see what happens if you tick or untick an instruction. The same applies for roles and duties. 

If you thing this is a terrible idea, fine, but that somewhat worked for me, despite I still have a lot of job to do.

[looping]

5 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Well, if that is true, then I do have a major problem in my head. I was sort of relieved when I finally noticed something I thought was relevant. Looks like I need someone to analyze things for me, afterall.

@Bunkerossian You said there was too much space on the flanks. I suggested to move defensive line up to see the effect it produces. Push it higher. Is there the same space, mor or less? That's the whole point I'm trying. Move it up and down and do it aggressively for the greater effect. Then watch if that space is bigger, smaller or the same.

If the space is reduced but you start suffering from through balls, use offside trap. Then, we'll have a new issue to tackle: through balls and the use of offside trap. But focus first on the space in the flanks. Moving up/down your defensive line, is more, less or the same space in the flanks?

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, looping said:

@Bunkerossian You said there was too much space on the flanks. I suggested to move defensive line up to see the effect it produces. Push it higher. Is there the same space, mor or less? That's the whole point I'm trying. Move it up and down and do it aggressively for the greater effect. Then watch if that space is bigger, smaller or the same.

If the space is reduced but you start suffering from through balls, use offside trap. Then, we'll have a new issue to tackle: through balls and the use of offside trap. But focus first on the space in the flanks. Moving up/down your defensive line, is more, less or the same space in the flanks?

On one flank, it seemed the same, or more. The opponent seemingly played an Inverted WB on the other side, and I had no issues there.

[looping]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

On one flank, it seemed the same, or more. The opponent seemingly played an Inverted WB on the other side, and I had no issues there.

Take screenshots of similar situations with different defensive line levels and post them here. Start with standard def line and take an screenshot. Push it higher (to the max) and in a similar situation take another screenshot. Then move defensive line to much deeper and take another screenshot.

[MBarbaric]

that space on the wing is openng because you play with 3 players in attack. since, in FM a starting formation is your defensive shape, that means you will, by default have that huge gap. i don't know what kind of team you manage or where are you expected to finish in the end of the season. but, if you aren't predicted to finish among top teams, it means you will need to defend more often than not. so chosing 3 strikers isn't the best idea to start with.

that being said, a huge gap on weak flank doesn't really need to be an issue if your midfielders are set up well and good enough (workrate, positioning, aggression) they will (most of the time) impede opposition on the ball side by having more players there so the opposition isn't able to pass the ball towards the weak side anyway.

additionally, you might use PI on your outside strikers to man mark opposition full backs. this way they will cover their forward runs.

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, MBarbaric said:

that space on the wing is openng because you play with 3 players in attack. since, in FM a starting formation is your defensive shape, that means you will, by default have that huge gap. i don't know what kind of team you manage or where are you expected to finish in the end of the season. but, if you aren't predicted to finish among top teams, it means you will need to defend more often than not. so chosing 3 strikers isn't the best idea to start with.

that being said, a huge gap on weak flank doesn't really need to be an issue if your midfielders are set up well and good enough (workrate, positioning, aggression) they will (most of the time) impede opposition on the ball side by having more players there so the opposition isn't able to pass the ball towards the weak side anyway.

additionally, you might use PI on your outside strikers to man mark opposition full backs. this way they will cover their forward runs.

Sampdoria is the team. I have a lot of strikers, but very few wide players.

[pheelf]

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

I definitely can't play a line too high. Only one of my defenders has great Anticipation. Pace is lacking for that approach, as well.

I attached the formation I used in that game. I asked in my opening post in the Sampdoria thread, for people to tell me if my midfield roles were right. Nobody gave input.

I never thought that I'd say this but I actually agree with @looping but not for the reasons that he has highlighted. I don't like your front 3 at all and agree that the Target Man doesn't really make sense in that setup. Your midfield 3 doesn't particularly make sense either especially with that front 3.

You've decided to play a False 9 but have no False 10 in that setup. If adopting a False 9 I'd expect to see roles such as a Shadow Striker, Attacking Midfielder (Attack), Inside Forward (Attack), AMC/R/L Advanced Playmaker (Attack), Ramdeuter even a central midfielder on attack could do a job except that they'll make runs from deep so will need a more patient approach overall to give them time to get up the pitch.

Therefore you have a player who is creating space by dropping off the front line but none of your players can really exploit it except perhaps the Box to Box Midfielder who will occasionally do it but even then because you've instructed your team to play the ball regularly into the Target Man who is on the other side then automatically the ball isn't going to be fed down that side of the pitch very often.

You're playing an Advanced Playmaker but also a target man which I would have thought would be counterproductive in that a lot of the players will bypass the midfield completely looking for the Target Man.

These things don't require spending ages in the match engine to spot but come from a misunderstanding of how the roles actually work which I'll admit aren't exactly easy to decipher at times but if you apply common sense really shouldn't be anybody's ability to understand. I think perhaps you are getting too hung up on analyzing matches without understanding exactly how you are setting your team up to play. Hence why you are getting frustrated as you have no basis to work on as to whether something is working or not.

If you really want to play with a target man I'd suggest you get rid of the Advanced Playmaker and instead play a Deep Lying Playmaker (Defend) and put him in the centre of the midfield. I'd also consider adding More Direct Passing / More Risky Passes to his role. That way he comes deep to get the ball and uses he superior passing / vision (otherwise why bother with a playmaker at all) to feed long passes into your Target Man. I'd also put my Target Man in the middle of my front three and have him flanked by 2 attack duty strikers or 1 attack duty striker and 1 support duty striker (like a Defensive Forward).

That way he can provide flick ons and simple passes into the channels for the other two strikers to run on to.

I'd also be thinking about where and when I'd like to try and win the ball back from the opposition. As I said defenders are the most important attackers and attackers are the most important defenders. In such a setup I'd be giving serious thought to making my front 3 press high in order to try and force mistakes from opposition central defenders which generally you should outnumber or at least match in numbers. 

If the opposition broke through that then I'd think about injecting a bit of steel into my midfield (Ball Winning Midfielder for e.g.) knowing again that the opposition can't outnumber me in the central midfield either. I'd also think very carefully before changing the defensive line and ask yourself the question of how doing it is going to affect your ability to defend/attack. Always ask yourself the question before making any changes, how does this change help my attack? Make sure there is a valid reason for any change you make otherwise you're just playing blind. Then once you've made the change look at the match to see whether its having the desired effect and if there are any unforeseen negative consequences and note it down. That way you learn about your system and how different changes influence it.

I hope I've been of help

[Bunkerossian]

2 minutes ago, pheelf said:

I never thought that I'd say this but I actually agree with @looping but not for the reasons that he has highlighted. I don't like your front 3 at all and agree that the Target Man doesn't really make sense in that setup. Your midfield 3 doesn't particularly make sense either especially with that front 3.

You've decided to play a False 9 but have no False 10 in that setup. If adopting a False 9 I'd expect to see roles such as a Shadow Striker, Attacking Midfielder (Attack), Inside Forward (Attack), AMC/R/L Advanced Playmaker (Attack), Ramdeuter even a central midfielder on attack could do a job except that they'll make runs from deep so will need a more patient approach overall to give them time to get up the pitch.

Therefore you have a player who is creating space by dropping off the front line but none of your players can really exploit it except perhaps the Box to Box Midfielder who will occasionally do it but even then because you've instructed your team to play the ball regularly into the Target Man who is on the other side then automatically the ball isn't going to be fed down that side of the pitch very often.

You're playing an Advanced Playmaker but also a target man which I would have thought would be counterproductive in that a lot of the players will bypass the midfield completely looking for the Target Man.

These things don't require spending ages in the match engine to spot but come from a misunderstanding of how the roles actually work which I'll admit aren't exactly easy to decipher at times but if you apply common sense really shouldn't be anybody's ability to understand. I think perhaps you are getting too hung up on analyzing matches without understanding exactly how you are setting your team up to play. Hence why you are getting frustrated as you have no basis to work on as to whether something is working or not.

If you really want to play with a target man I'd suggest you get rid of the Advanced Playmaker and instead play a Deep Lying Playmaker (Defend) and put him in the centre of the midfield. I'd also consider adding More Direct Passing / More Risky Passes to his role. That way he comes deep to get the ball and uses he superior passing / vision (otherwise why bother with a playmaker at all) to feed long passes into your Target Man. I'd also put my Target Man in the middle of my front three and have him flanked by 2 attack duty strikers or 1 attack duty striker and 1 support duty striker (like a Defensive Forward).

That way he can provide flick ons and simple passes into the channels for the other two strikers to run on to.

I'd also be thinking about where and when I'd like to try and win the ball back from the opposition. As I said defenders are the most important attackers and attackers are the most important defenders. In such a setup I'd be giving serious thought to making my front 3 press high in order to try and force mistakes from opposition central defenders which generally you should outnumber or at least match in numbers. 

If the opposition broke through that then I'd think about injecting a bit of steel into my midfield (Ball Winning Midfielder for e.g.) knowing again that the opposition can't outnumber me in the central midfield either. I'd also think very carefully before changing the defensive line and ask yourself the question of how doing it is going to affect your ability to defend/attack. Always ask yourself the question before making any changes, how does this change help my attack? Make sure there is a valid reason for any change you make otherwise your just playing blind. Then once you've made the change look at the match to see whether its having the desired effect and if there are any unforeseen negative consequences and note it down. That way you learn about your system and how different changes influence it.

I hope I've been of help

I honestly did not know what other role would be suitable for technically sound forwards that have to drop deep to link a bit with the midfield. So I put F9, on the side where my BBM is. The reason for the TM being on the left is that the player himself is Left Only, and also, I had thought that being left of the center, he could attack the full back in aerial situations, at least sometimes.

I have BWM-s, but one of them is old and hasn't got much stamina any more, so I put him on CM-D to still take advantage of his mental stats. Would a CM-D on the side work in any way?

[pheelf]

19 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I honestly did not know what other role would be suitable for technically sound forwards that have to drop deep to link a bit with the midfield. So I put F9, on the side where my BBM is. The reason for the TM being on the left is that the player himself is Left Only, and also, I had thought that being left of the center, he could attack the full back in aerial situations, at least sometimes.

I have BWM-s, but one of them is old and hasn't got much stamina any more, so I put him on CM-D to still take advantage of his mental stats. Would a CM-D on the side work in any way?

The problem as I see it is that you seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. You need to decide which style of play you want to play as you can't do both. You can't have a target man and want to play direct but also make full use of a False 9 who is technically gifted and need balls played into his feet, it has to be one or the other. 

Personally, I would get rid of the Target Man simply because it's a more limited role and as such restricts the way my team can play if I want to get the best out of him. You can also be a bit more aggressive with your midfield and play a SDA setup given that you want a player coming from a deeper position exploiting the space the False 9 is creating.

If you want to play a False 9 on the right, I'd put a Deep Lying Forward on the left (my Target Man...just because he's not attracting the ball like a magnet doesn't mean that he wont behave like a great Target Man) and either a Poacher/Advanced Forward through the centre.

I don't see the relevance of what him being left footed has to do with him playing on the left? I could make a case that given that he is left footed he should be on the right so that when he shoots he has a better angle to work with.

Age is just a number @Bunkerossian, if you are concerned about his stamina then keep an eye on him and if you feel he is getting too tired then sub him off. All you need to do is look after him and he should be fine provided he doesn't have other mental traits (inconsistency etc.) which would affect the way he plays. A CM (D) wouldn't really work in that setup if he was shifted to one side as his role in your setup is to drop deep when needed and shield your back 4. If you play him on either side and the opposition is attacking on the opposite flank then he just leads to more work for him to get over and cover the other side.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, pheelf said:

The problem as I see it is that you seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. You need to decide which style of play you want to play as you can't do both. You can't have a target man and want to play direct but also make full use of a False 9 who is technically gifted and need balls played into his feet, it has to be one or the other. 

Personally, I would get rid of the Target Man simply because its a more limited role and as such restricts the way my team can play if I want to get the best out of him. You can also be a bit more aggressive with your midfield and play a SDA setup given that you want a player coming from a deeper position exploiting the space the False 9 is creating.

If you want to play a False 9 on the right, I'd put a Deep Lying Forward on the left (my Target Man...just because he's not attracting the ball like a magnet doesn't mean that he wont behave like a great Target Man) and either a Poacher/Advanced Forward through the centre.

I don't see the relevance of what him being left footed has to do with him playing on the left? I could make a case that given that he is left footed he should be on the right so that when he shoots he has a better angle to work with.

Age is just a number @Bunkerossian, if you are concerned about his stamina then keep an eye on him and if you feel he is getting too tired then sub him off. All you need to do is look after him and he should be fine provided he doesn't have other mental traits (inconsistency etc.) which would affect the way he plays. A CM (D) wouldn't really work in that setup if he was shifted to one side as his role in you setup is to drop deep when needed and shield your back 4. If you play him on either side and the opposition is attacking on the opposite flank then he just leads to more work for him to get over and cover the other side.

Here are the stats of the Target Man and the legendary BWM.

[Rashidi]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

No, the point is that if you offer advice you need to properly think through the implications of that advice especially if it is very specific. 

Advising someone to increase the def line and then pushing it higher again (if needed) along with using the offside trap may have other implications which you didn't mention, hence my post about relevant player attributes.

Hence my reference, about asking people to crash first so they learn not to crash :-)?

[IscoDisco]

37 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Sampdoria is the team. I have a lot of strikers, but very few wide players.

Retrain. You must have players that can fit that role. Doesn't matter about there familiarity within that role, use there stats and retrain. 

[pheelf]

5 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Here are the stats of the Target Man and the legendary BWM.

I think your striker would make a pretty good DLF(S) and have the added benefit of being able to impose himself physically on the opposition. As for Palombo, his Natural Fitness is 20 and you're concerned about his ability to play? The Ball Winning Midfielder role also isn't as taxing as you might think. Yes, they run down the opposition a lot but that's only in the centre of the park. When you compare it to the shift that you expect your wingbacks to put in it pales into insignificance.

I'm also slightly confused with something you said in a previous post that you want your TM to be winning headers against the oppositions fullback. Why? Surely you want him in the box winning headers where it really hurts the opposition?

[Bunkerossian]

5 minutes ago, IscoDisco said:

Retrain. You must have players that can fit that role. Doesn't matter about there familiarity within that role, use there stats and retrain. 

Wide players need pace, and my team is in very short supply of pacey players in general. I have one left back/MF with OK pace, one RB, and one striker that could be an AMR in a pinch, who is the fastest in the team.

[looping]

19 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Hence my reference, about asking people to crash first so they learn not to crash :-)?

No. The point is going step by step. Identify one problem and see how instructions affect this problem. 

I see lots of advice given but this reminds a lot to me. General advice is not going to help, first you must understand how VISUALLY instructions affect the ME. It's not a tactical problem, it's an observation and communication problem. With every highlight the ME is trying to tell you something. You must answer to this but you must use its language (instructions, roles, duties...). Even if the tactic is not perfect (or completely wrong) the problem is not tactical. The problem starts BEFORE the tactic.

To illustrate: imagine someone asks you where do you live. You perfectly know where do you live and you could show him the way to get there. But he asks you speaking Zulu. You won't understand what he is asking and won't know how to answer but you perfeclty know where do you live.

If you spoke Zulu you would understand the question and could answer. Even if you don't remember where do you live you could call your wife/mother/whoever to remind you. The advice you give is what your wife/mother would say but is certainly useless if you don't speak Zulu.

Guides are dictionaries. You can learn some words but you won't learn a language Reading a dictionary.

Some people are more skilled tan others. Some people need more help to learn Zulu.

Hope you understand what I mean.

[Bunkerossian]

6 minutes ago, pheelf said:

I think your striker would make a pretty good DLF(S) and have the added benefit of being able to impose himself physically on the opposition. As for Palombo, his Natural Fitness is 20 and you're concerned about his ability to play? The Ball Winning Midfielder role also isn't as taxing as you might think. Yes, they run down the opposition a lot but that's only in the centre of the park. When you compare it to the shift that you expect your wingbacks to put in it pales into insignificance.

I'm also slightly confused with something you said in a previous post that you want your TM to be winning headers against the oppositions fullback. Why? Surely you want him in the box winning headers where it really hurts the opposition?

Yes, you're right on the TM, but he could theoretically play like a pseudo Wide Target Man. Full backs will have no chance against him in the air, most likely. If he can flick it onto someone like my other 2 strikers, that is also highly beneficial. But your argument of putting him in the centre is valid, too.

Regarding Palombo, I thought his low Stamina would tire him out fast if he were a BWM. I guess I should put him on the side CM position, as a BWM-D?

[pheelf]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Yes, you're right on the TM, but he could theoretically play like a pseudo Wide Target Man. Full backs will have no chance against him in the air, most likely. If he can flick it onto someone like my other 2 strikers, that is also highly beneficial. But your argument of putting him in the centre is valid, too.

Regarding Palombo, I thought his low Stamina would tire him out fast if he were a BWM. I guess I should put him on the side, as a BWM-D?

Alright, say he wins a header against the fullback then what? He is so wide and deep that the header isn't going to be one on goal that is threatening so is likely to be a flick on. So he flicks the ball on but the problem with that is that he only has one target for the flick on and that's the Advanced Forward meaning he has no real options as to where to head the ball. The False 9 is too far away to be on the end of a flick on and the player on his side coming from midfield isn't exactly busting a gut to get up and support which means that he is incredibly restricted in what he can do.

He is too easy for the opposition defenders to deal with, they'll even allow you to win the first ball and contest the second which because there is only one realistic target will mean they'll win it back easily. It's too predictable.

If you put him in the centre however you automatically double his choices of where the flick on can go planting indecision into the minds of the defenders which is far more threatening. They don't know which of the two strikers flanking him the ball is going to so if they make the wrong decision then they have a real problem. Worse still if he heads it in between the two central defenders as that again creates indecision as to who should deal with it and forces them to decide whether to follow the ball or keep marking their man.

By putting him in the middle of your front 3 you've also made him a presence in the middle of the box where he can bully the central defenders and win headers which he might actually be able to head towards the goal. Just a simple change and you have made him far more dangerous.

Palombo may tire more quickly than say a player with exceptional stamina but because of his perfect natural fitness he'll be able to recover between games really quickly also. All of this however is pure speculation without knowing how its playing out in your game. Is he usually ending games with the lowest condition of your players?

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, pheelf said:

Alright, say he wins a header against the fullback then what? He is so wide and deep that the header isn't going to be one on goal that is threatening so is likely to be a flick on. So he flicks the ball on but the problem with that is that he only has one target for the flick on and that's the Advanced Forward meaning he has no real options as to where to head the ball. The False 9 is too far away to be on the end of a flick on and the player on his side coming from midfield isn't exactly busting a gut to get up and support which means that he is incredibly restricted in what he can do.

He is too easy for the opposition defenders to deal with, they'll even allow you to win the first ball and contest the second which because there is only one realistic target will mean they'll win it back easily. It's too predictable.

If you put him in the centre however you automatically double his choices of where the flick on can go planting indecision into the minds of the defenders which is far more threatening. They don't know which of the two strikers flanking him the ball is going to so if they make the wrong decision then they have a real problem. Worse still if he heads it in between the two central defenders as that again creates indecision as to who should deal with it and forces them to decide whether to follow the ball or keep marking their man.

By putting him in the middle of your front 3 you've also made him a presence in the middle of the box where he can bully the central defenders and win headers which he might actually be able to head towards the goal. Just a simple change and you have made him far more dangerous.

Palombo may tire more quickly than say a player with exceptional stamina but because of his perfect natural fitness he'll be able to recover between games really quickly also. All of this however is pure speculation without knowing how its playing out in your game. Is he usually ending games with the lowest condition of your players?

Not really. At CM-D though, he isn't influencing the game that much, so I will most likely heed your advice. My main problem is and has been- how to set the midfield up, so that it is somewhat safe for my wide defenders to come up. I have a dilemma: static or mobile roles on the sides of the midfield.

Does Heading affect the range of headers? I thought he could reach both of the strikers with flick-ons, or ground passes if he chests a ball down. I suppose I complicated things too much. This tactic is meant to create pressure on the opposition's penalty box, and utilize the composition of my roster.

[pheelf]

17 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Not really. At CM-D though, he isn't influencing the game that much, so I will most likely heed your advice. My main problem is and has been- how to set the midfield up, so that it is somewhat safe for my wide defenders to come up. I have a dilemma: static or mobile roles on the sides of the midfield.

Does Heading affect the range of headers? I thought he could reach both of the strikers with flick-ons, or ground passes if he chests a ball down. I suppose I complicated things too much. This tactic is meant to create pressure on the opposition's penalty box, and utilize the composition of my roster.

I'd say the midfield is the engine of the team so preferably roles which are mobile especially since you're playing a flat midfield to start with. SDA would provide a good balance in this particular setup for the midfield as even though you have 3 strikers you still need the midfield to support attacks. If you get rid of the False 9 then SDS might be enough.

Do you watch football IRL? Headers tend to be very short range passes because of the way the human body is structured, the neck can only generate so much power. How often do you see goals from headers which are from 30+ yards out?

Maybe 1/20 flick on headers may reach the striker on the other side (if the defenders are half asleep) but realistically you might as well say that it won't happen. If you want the player to bring it down and then play a ground pass then play a DLF, he'll still flick it on when appropriate but he wont be as restricted.

The intention of the tactic may have been to create pressure on the oppositions box but it doesn't work that way. I can understand the need to use the players you have available to you but at the same time you need to build something which is coherent. Trying to fit all the players into their preferred roles doesn't necessarily correlate with a tactic that works.

[Bunkerossian]

13 minutes ago, pheelf said:

I'd say the midfield is the engine of the team so preferably roles which are mobile especially since your playing a flat midfield to start with. SDA would provide a good balance in this particular setup for the midfield as even though you have 3 strikers you still need the midfield to support attacks. If you get rid of the False 9 then SDS might be enough.

Do you watch football IRL? Headers tend to be very short range passes because of the way the human body is structured, the neck can only generate so much power. How often do you see goals from headers which are from 30+ yards out?

Maybe 1/20 flick on headers may reach the striker on the other side (if the defenders are half asleep) but realistically you might as well say that it won't happen. If you want the player to bring it down and then play a ground pass then play a DLF, he'll still flick it on when appropriate but he wont be as restricted.

The intention of the tactic may have been to create pressure on the oppositions box but it doesn't work that way. I can understand the need to use the players you have available to you but at the same time you need to build something which is coherent. Trying to fit all the players into their preferred roles doesn't necessarily correlate with a tactic that works.

What about a DAS or DSS composition, with the left WB now being able to go up more? I have encountered an issue where my wide defenders rather cut in and pass to the midfielders, than cross.

I honestly watch 2 teams on a regular basis now, plus the EC/WC. But I must admit my soft spot: experts who could do wonderful things with their head. So yeah, I had this vision of flick-ons across the box.

Coherent tactics are my Holy Grail. Forever in search, I concoct stuff on my own, but fail regularly. Picking roles that work well together is very hard for me.

[pheelf]

23 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

What about a DAS or DSS composition, with the left WB now being able to go up more? I have encountered an issue where my wide defenders rather cut in and pass to the midfielders, than cross.

I honestly watch 2 teams on a regular basis now, plus the EC/WC. But I must admit my soft spot: experts who could do wonderful things with their head. So yeah, I had this vision of flick-ons across the box.

Coherent tactics are my Holy Grail. forever in search, I concoct stuff on my own, but fail regularly. Picking roles that work well together is very hard for me.

Either of those could work provided you also have a balance up front. As I've said though the problem with having a defend duty on one side is that if the opposition attacks down the opposite flank then you are giving him a lot of work to go over and cover where as if he is in the middle it's the same amount of work either side. A support duty with 'Hold Position' could provide decent cover with the defend duty in the middle. 

There could be a number of reasons why your wing backs don't cross:

1) No targets in the box (which with a TM (S) / AF (A) / F9 (S) wouldn't surprise me in the least)

2) They are passing it to the AP (S) who attracts the ball

3) They are too deep to be in a position to play a good cross, the further the cross has to travel the less accurate it can be

4) They are being marked and don't have the space to cross the ball

When I think of players which do wonderful things with their head I think of players like Peter Crouch and Jan Koller (before he retired) and I can only recall them scoring headers from inside the box or assisting with flick ons in central areas. If you put Peter Crouch out wide and deep you would lose a lot of the point of playing him in the first place.

I wouldn't say you've failed, more over you are learning even when something doesn't work out the way you want it to, to me that's not failure. 

[Bunkerossian]

3 minutes ago, pheelf said:

Either of those could work provided you also have a balance up front. As I've said though the problem with having a defend duty on one side is that if the opposition attacks down the opposite flank then you are giving him a lot of work to go over and cover where as if he is in the middle it's the same amount of work either side. A support duty with 'Hold Position' could provide decent cover with the defend duty in the middle. 

There could be a number of reasons why your wing backs don't cross:

1) No targets in the box (which with a TM (S) / AF (A) / F9 (S) wouldn't surprise me in the least)

2) They are passing it to the AP (S) who attracts the ball

3) They are too deep to be in a position to play a good cross, the further the cross has to travel the less accurate it can be

4) They are being marked and don't have the space to cross the ball

When I think of players which do wonderful things with their head I think of players like Peter Crouch and Jan Koller (before he retired) and I can only recall them scoring headers from inside the box or assisting with flick on in central areas. If you put Peter Crouch out wide and deep you would lose a lot of the point of playing him in the first place.

I wouldn't say you've failed, more over you are learning even when something doesn't work out the way you want it to, to me that's not failure. 

Well, I was surprised by this. At least the TM and the AF should be on hand to be the targets of crosses. One other thing I noticed was that even when the wide men do ready themselves to cross, they wait too much, and then someone gets in to block it.

[pheelf]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Well, I was surprised by this. At least the TM and the AF should be on hand to be the targets of crosses. One other thing I noticed was that even when the wide men do ready themselves to cross, they wait too much, and then someone gets in to block it.

Not really, the wingback on support is going to cross earlier and from a deeper position. Early on the Target Man is also going to be deep so wont be in the box leaving only the Advanced Forward who doesn't really thrive off crosses and instead wants passes / flick ons played into the channels to run onto. So unless your fullbacks have exceptional crossing ability and can whip accurate balls in behind the defenders for the AF to run onto (which is unlikely) crossing isn't likely to do much for you. Your wingbacks know this and that's why they don't cross and opt to pass infield.

The reason why I think they'd wait is because they are waiting for a viable target in the box to cross to. There's no point just aimlessly pumping the ball into the box and gifting it to the opposition.

[Bunkerossian]

7 minutes ago, pheelf said:

Not really, the wingback on support is going to cross earlier and from a deeper position. Early on the Target Man is also going to be deep so wont be in the box leaving only the Advanced Forward who doesn't really thrive off crosses and instead wants passes / flick ons played into the channels to run onto. So unless your fullbacks have exceptional crossing ability and can whip accurate balls in behind the defenders for the AF to run onto (which is unlikely) crossing isn't likely to do much for you. Your wingbacks know this and that's why they don't cross and opt to pass infield.

The reason why I think they'd wait is because they are waiting for a viable target in the box to cross to. There's no point just aimlessly pumping the ball into the box and gifting it to the opposition.

Not even the instruction Hit Early Crosses helped. I've been suggested by some to take the tactics of others, but I guess what worked for others, doesn't for me. The 442 Diamond that's in the attachment wasn't my idea. In the first friendly I tried it with, it worked well, as I beat the opposing team 5-1. But against a serious opponent like Chievo, it flunked. They either simply passed around me, or used the flanks when I went Counter. @Rashidi says it's a great formation, but my iteration needs improvement in roles, obviously.

The Christmas tree is the last option I have, but it again raises the question: what of the CM trio? It is probably the formation that lets me be most defensive, out of the three. All three formations have a lack of crosses as an issue.

[HUNT3R]

WB-S roles do not have Cross More Often active, so did you activate it if you want more crosses?

[Bunkerossian]

5 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

WB-S roles do not have Cross More Often active, so did you activate it if you want more crosses?

I tried to fix the issue that way. I also added PI-s Stay Wider and Run Wide w/ Ball. No difference.

[pheelf]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Not even the instruction Hit Early Crosses helped. I've been suggested by some to take the tactics of others, but I guess what worked for others, doesn't for me. The 442 Diamond that's in the attachment wasn't my idea. In the first friendly I tried it with, it worked well, as I beat the opposing team 5-1. But against a serious opponent like Chievo, it flunked. They either simply passed around me, or used the flanks when I went Counter. @Rashidi says it's a great formation, but my iteration needs improvement in roles, obviously.

The Christmas tree is the last option I have, but it again raises the question: what of the CM trio? It is probably the formation that lets me be most defensive, out of the three. All three formations have a lack of crosses as an issue.

Hitting early crosses wouldn't help, it actually exacerbates the problem. You have only one player in the box early so as I said unless the crosses coming from deep are super precise that they can give the AF the kind of service he wants then the crossing game isn't going to do much for you.

I'd only suggest taking the tactics of other people if you fully understand how their tactic works if you are seeking to improve your understanding of tactics in general. If you aren't really interested in that and just want to have some fun with the game without necessarily wanting to know how something works then go for it.

The first tactic has 1 player in the box early and the other has no players in the box early but I don't suppose those tactics were built with early crosses in mind. As I said earlier you are trying to extract something from a system which wasn't intended to be used in that way. If you want to play an early crossing game then play with wingers.

[Bunkerossian]

2 minutes ago, pheelf said:

Hitting early crosses wouldn't help, it actually exacerbates the problem. You have only one player in the box early so as I said unless the crosses coming from deep are super precise that they can give the AF the kind of service he wants then the crossing game isn't going to do much for you.

I'd only suggest taking the tactics of other people if you fully understand how their tactic works if you are seeking to improve your understanding of tactics in general. If you aren't really interested in that and just want to have some fun with the game without necessarily wanting to know how something works then go for it.

The first tactic has 1 player in the box early and the other has no players in the box early but I don't suppose those tactics were built with early crosses in mind. As I said earlier you are trying to extract something from a system which wasn't intended to be used in that way. If you want to play an early crossing game then play with wingers.

Honestly, I didn't expect this. Although the second tactic is mine, I thought that advancing wing backs in the diamond tactic make sense for some early crosses. Since I have a sackload of AMC-s and central players in general, I used a 4-3-2-1 formation, and put roles to the best of my non-existent ability.

[pheelf]

4 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Honestly, I didn't expect this. Although the second tactic is mine, I thought that advancing wing backs in the diamond tactic make sense for some early crosses. Since I have a sackload of AMC-s and central players in general, I used a 4-3-2-1 formation, and put roles to the best of my non-existent ability.

Considering their starting position is all the way back in your defensive line why do you think that they'd be able to provide early crosses? They've got to travel at least half the length of the pitch before they are even in a position to consider crossing the ball.

[Bunkerossian]

2 minutes ago, pheelf said:

Considering their starting position is all the way back in your defensive line why do you think that they'd be able to provide early crosses? They've got to travel at least half the length of the pitch before they are even in a position to consider crossing the ball.

If they were a lot closer, wouldn't they opt for a byline cross instead? My own logic, which might be severely faulty. I personally don't mind them bombing up even further, but then someone has to cover for them in midfield.