I really don't know what to do next

[Bunkerossian]

18 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Wow, I've just seen this.  If this meant to be that way and if it encourages people to stop using defend duties there, SI will be in for a hell of a ride imo (ditto the mods) unless they have changed how it all works quite a bit . There may be a few exceptions, but it's been the only reliable way in-game in such formations to have somebody who actually stays deeper centrally, which is crucial in two main ways. 1) Obviously intercepting breaks/clearances before they even come about to anything. 2) As FM 2017 can so comically highlight, providing an easy outlet for ball retention/back passes. There's probably a few exceptions, but generally, without any such player not only have sides it harder to keep the ball, they also squeeze the area when going forward, making the pitch smaller than needed be, which the defending team tries to do anyway (football, rather team sport logics 101).

In-game stats wise this manifests itself in quite a few additionally shots for little return, as they are poorly or under pressure, as sides cannot rebuild as easily with everybody "supporting" attacks and going forward (including added wood work hits, oftenly). Additionally easy clearances for added set pieces against the defending team. Plus a few more. FM 2012 or so had an AI bug that had only been picked up after the final patch had commenced AFAIK, as AI frequently wouldn't use such duties there.  PaulC had even written a post about it in GD when they rectified it in time for the next full release, arguing that players may find it a bit harder a game simply for fixing this.   Curious now!

Most guides mandate a holding player in midfield, to provide some static protection of the back line- it would be weird if the new game told you to not protect your defense.

[jc577]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Most guides mandate a holding player in midfield, to provide some static protection of the back line- it would be weird if the new game told you to not protect your defense.

Conversely it does make sense when playing a flat 4 in midfield to have both CM's contributing to both attack and defence as long as they have the right attributes. Not using a defend duty in CM doesn't equate to your defence being exposed.

[Bunkerossian]

5 minutes ago, jc577 said:

Conversely it does make sense when playing a flat 4 in midfield to have both CM's contributing to both attack and defence as long as they have the right attributes. Not using a defend duty in CM doesn't equate to your defence being exposed.

This one is hard to get. At most, IMO, you'd get a midfield that does neither truly well.

Also, I think that FM 18 actually marks weaknesses of tactics in such a way that it refers to areas where you don't have a player. Maybe the ˝weakness˝ of a flat 4 midfield that the game perceives lies in the absence of a DM?

[Cleon]

19 minutes ago, pheelf said:

Logically, I completely agree with you but unless it's some sort of shocking oversight by the programmers of the new tactical interface that's pretty much what it would encourage players to do.

The important question is whether it really is a blunder OR is it the way the game has been working under the hood this whole time and has only become more transparent.

I would like to believe the former but given that there was no mention in that video of any major changes to the way that players behave then I'm left skeptical as to whether that is the case.

I’d wait until you test it and see how it functions first. I have a feeling the video is somewhat misleading like the  team cohesion one was, then the narrator made out that vision would allow a player to make those defensive splitting through balls. He is wrong as even if what he was saying was true, that’s not what vision does so he’s still be wrong. 

The zone things you refer to though, it might not be straight forward. As some roles will have under gone some changes again, they do every year. Especially when new ones are introduced, some of the older ones which may overlap change slightly. 

So id not personally read too much into the zones on the videos, when the video was made when the game isn’t completed more than likely.

[pheelf]

1 minute ago, Cleon said:

I’d wait until you test it and see how it functions first. I have a feeling the video is somewhat misleading like the  team cohesion one was, then the narrator made out that vision would allow a player to make those defensive splitting through balls. He is wrong as even if what he was saying was true, that’s not what vision does so he’s still be wrong. 

The zone things you refer to though, it might not be straight forward. As some roles will have under gone some changes again, they do every year. Especially when new ones are introduced, some of the older ones which may overlap change slightly. 

So id not personally read too much into the zones on the videos, when the video was made when the game isn’t completed more than likely.

I guess I'll just have to wait to definitively conclude either way. I am intrigued however that in some sense like @jc577 states it does appear logical especially when I compare it to real life (I know I shouldn't really do that). When I think of Leicester City and their title winning season playing 4-4-2 with Drinkwater & Kante in central midfield I can very much envision translating that as two players playing on a support duty. The key I feel is intelligence to know when to go and when to stay. This was exhibited time and time again by them during the season, when Kante surged forward Drinkwater would hang back and vice versa.

I just hope that the video hasn't opened up a huge can of worms

[Svenc]

The problem to me either way is that compared to football, FM is pretty static/rigid. In football, you can make a case of players having "common sense", guys would oft even "take turns" who would hang back and who would push forward. But in-game from my experience in particular in flat midfields, not having one guy on defend would compress the area (which as argued is also not beneficial for attacks and ball circulation), as eventually both of them will push too far forward. If you take a look at sequences with genuinelly guys on defend, every time the ball is played back again to them, the defending team has to push up to engage. Doesn't happen with guys on support, as eventually, both will be sitting roughly box-side, so you will also have limited balls played from deeper areas to advancing fbs or anything. I know players who average an absurd amount of corners per match (whilst the numbers in-game may be a tad higher, top teams in real football average no more than 7), and that is one of the things that can contribute to it.

To simplify, if play has reached the final third, draw a circle around all your players excluding the centre backs who hang back anyway, with both midfielders on support, and with one of them on defend. The smaller that circle is, the easier a defending team has it to mark the players and/or engage them if they are passed to. Deeper players will always find more space either way, in football and sim. Needless to say, I'd advice to sticking to those guides, in particular if you want to keep it simple. It really is no wrong. I personally haven't yet found a use where in such a flat midfield two support guys would be of hugely benefit, in particular long-term. FM 2012 was a much easier game imo in parts for the aforementioned "bug" of AI frequently not fielding a midfielder truly occupying a deeper midfield space. If you had one such, you imo already had an edge over any AI right there.

[Bunkerossian]

1 hour ago, Svenc said:

The problem to me either way is that compared to football, FM is pretty static/rigid. In football, you can make a case of players having "common sense", guys would oft even "take turns" who would hang back and who would push forward. But in-game from my experience in particular in flat midfields, not having one guy on defend would compress the area (which as argued is also not beneficial for attacks and ball circulation), as eventually both of them will push too far forward. If you take a look at sequences with genuinelly guys on defend, every time the ball is played back again to them, the defending team has to push up to engage. Doesn't happen with guys on support, as eventually, both will be sitting roughly box-side, so you will also have limited balls played from deeper areas to advancing fbs or anything. I know players who average an absurd amount of corners per match (whilst the numbers in-game may be a tad higher, top teams in real football average no more than 7), and that is one of the things that can contribute to it.

To simplify, if play has reached the final third, draw a circle around all your players excluding the centre backs who hang back anyway, with both midfielders on support, and with one of them on defend. The smaller that circle is, the easier a defending team has it to mark the players and/or engage them if they are passed to. Deeper players will always find more space either way, in football and sim. Needless to say, I'd advice to sticking to those guides, in particular if you want to keep it simple. It really is no wrong. I personally haven't yet found a use where in such a flat midfield two support guys would be of hugely benefit, in particular long-term. FM 2012 was a much easier game imo in parts for the aforementioned "bug" of AI frequently not fielding a midfielder truly occupying a deeper midfield space. If you had one such, you imo already had an edge over any AI right there.

I have today tried a 4-2-3-1 in line with @pheelf 's assessment of my squad. In my first cup game of the season- the opposition were vastly weaker. One of the 2 central MF-s was a DLP-D, and the other was a CM-Su. Even though the CM-Su had good Work Rate and Stamina, I had issues with getting countered down his side because the IF ended up dispossessed fast. Only did a DLP-Su + CM-D solve that problem. The game is strict on pairings IMO, too strict. To be fair, I wouldn't say any of the players who played in the midfield are first teamers. Two of them are all-rounders though.

[herne79]

One game is not enough to draw any long term conclusions from (such as "the game is too strict on pairings").

What you've actually done is identify an issue for that match and fixed it, which is what you've been wanting to do.  I'd call that a win.

[Bunkerossian]

12 minutes ago, herne79 said:

One game is not enough to draw any long term conclusions from (such as "the game is too strict on pairings").

What you've actually done is identify an issue for that match and fixed it, which is what you've been wanting to do.  I'd call that a win.

Yes. Can't get the inside forward role to be even remotely useful when on the ball, mind. Maybe W. Routledge is just a poor player.

[herne79]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

Yes, Can't get the inside forward role to be even remotely useful when on the ball.

You've only played one match!  How on earth can you say that?

11 minutes ago, herne79 said:

One game is not enough to draw any long term conclusions from

 

[Bunkerossian]

8 minutes ago, herne79 said:

You've only played one match!  How on earth can you say that?

 

I tried a WM-Su before, in pre-season, with the instructions to cut inside and dribble more. Same player, didn't do well now, or then. He just ends up running headlessly into a tackle. I suppose the setup allows my left back to go forth and direct crosses, but the player in front of him...

[herne79]

I don't care what you've done in pre-season, we're not talking about pre-season.

We're talking about you saying how useless your IF is when you've only played one match competitive match using the role.  The only conclusion you can draw from that is he was ineffective during that particular match.  That's all.

You can begin to look for reasons why he may have been ineffective (for example, was he marked well? was it tactical? is he a bad choice for the role? did he just have a bad game? a combination of one/all of the above? something else?) but you can't draw conclusions.  What if he plays a blinder in your next match?  Will he still be useless then?

You need 3 or 4 matches to start drawing conclusions and at the moment you are using just one match to do so.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, herne79 said:

I don't care what you've done in pre-season, we're not talking about pre-season.

We're talking about you saying how useless your IF is when you've only played one match competitive match using the role.  The only conclusion you can draw from that is he was ineffective during that particular match.  That's all.

You can begin to look for reasons why he may have been ineffective (for example, was he marked well? was it tactical? is he a bad choice for the role? did he just have a bad game? a combination of one/all of the above? something else?) but you can't draw conclusions.  What if he plays a blinder in your next match?  Will he still be useless then?

You need 3 or 4 matches to start drawing conclusions and at the moment you are using just one match to do so.

 Regarding tactical causes- how does an IF-Su work with an AM-At and a DLF-Su?

[MBarbaric]

5 hours ago, Svenc said:

if play has reached the final third, draw a circle around all your players excluding the centre backs who hang back anyway, with both midfielders on support, and with one of them on defend. The smaller that circle is, the easier a defending team has it to mark the players and/or engage them if they are passed to.

The best one sentence advice I've seen ever. 

[Armistice]

1 hour ago, MBarbaric said:

The best one sentence advice I've seen ever. 

Totally agreed. Only recently I noticed my team lacks a lot of depth and a bit of width (my CMs were extremely narrow) when trying to break stubborn defences. Not like it hasn't been pointed out before by many 'tactics father figures' here, but I think that sentence sums up how depth & width work in practice.

[Bunkerossian]

It's helpful because it has a practically applicable check.

Lost to Arsenal 2-0 away, but not too aggrieved. One set piece goal, and one after I had tried Overload, in the last 3 minutes.

[pheelf]

7 hours ago, Svenc said:

The problem to me either way is that compared to football, FM is pretty static/rigid. In football, you can make a case of players having "common sense", guys would oft even "take turns" who would hang back and who would push forward. But in-game from my experience in particular in flat midfields, not having one guy on defend would compress the area (which as argued is also not beneficial for attacks and ball circulation), as eventually both of them will push too far forward. If you take a look at sequences with genuinelly guys on defend, every time the ball is played back again to them, the defending team has to push up to engage. Doesn't happen with guys on support, as eventually, both will be sitting roughly box-side, so you will also have limited balls played from deeper areas to advancing fbs or anything. I know players who average an absurd amount of corners per match (whilst the numbers in-game may be a tad higher, top teams in real football average no more than 7), and that is one of the things that can contribute to it.

To simplify, if play has reached the final third, draw a circle around all your players excluding the centre backs who hang back anyway, with both midfielders on support, and with one of them on defend. The smaller that circle is, the easier a defending team has it to mark the players and/or engage them if they are passed to. Deeper players will always find more space either way, in football and sim. Needless to say, I'd advice to sticking to those guides, in particular if you want to keep it simple. It really is no wrong. I personally haven't yet found a use where in such a flat midfield two support guys would be of hugely benefit, in particular long-term. FM 2012 was a much easier game imo in parts for the aforementioned "bug" of AI frequently not fielding a midfielder truly occupying a deeper midfield space. If you had one such, you imo already had an edge over any AI right there.

I agree with what you say with respect to vertical compression in the final third and also that there will be a tendency to see the players not being smart enough to not over commit leading to problems on the counter. However, I wasn't making an argument about the attacking part of the CM (S) role and was focusing on the defensive stance where the video is showing weakness (had that video not shown that I probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all to be honest).

While it is true that having a player in the central midfield holding firm on the defend duty can help him be better positioned should the attack break down increasing readiness to defend it also has problems which wouldn't be there if he was playing on a support duty.

Having a defend duty on one side (say MCL) means that should the opposition attack through the MCR position then the player is going to have a hell of a job to go over and cover that space. This will be further exacerbated should the MCR be high up the pitch at that point. The asymmetry is the cause of that problem.

Additionally, while in an attacking sense vertical compression isn't ideal when talking about defending it is preferable, a defend/support setup has the potential to create massive vertical gaps between the two central midfielders where as in a support/support setup that wouldn't be the case. In a sense the defend/support partnership is the same as a cover/stopper partnership.

It's not my intention to encourage people to disregard the advice in the guides (I apologize if that's the way it's coming across). Incidentally, in which guide is there an explanation of why a Defend / Support central midfield is best in a flat 4-4-x formation? I've read a lot of guides which give out very prescriptive rules but rarely do they flesh out explanations as to why those rules exist

[Svenc]

That wasn't a 4-4-2 flat midfield, but IIRC the last time I permanently didn't have a defend duty in central midfield, I was trying to show to somebody how beneficial it is to have that. Whilst reloaded/restarted seasons always invite a few randomness, the same (top) side that with a deeper midfielder had a decent shot conversion, and a win percentage of about 80% struggled for each without. The win percentage dropping below 60%, even. I regularly started to have these matches where it was set piece after set piece, as compressing the area makes it easier for defenders to get a foot in, which else I rarely have. I personally can't watch that stuff, as there's just no proper buildup eventually and ball circulation anymore, in parts as centre backs don't advance in FM and just aren't an option to play a backpass too (FM has never dealt in the "Lucios" of the centre back world, for better and -- ask Hitzfeld -- sometimes worse). Plus, you will never have consistently somebody sitting deeper for easy switches of the flank, like this (this is technically an anchor man at DM, but the point stands):



When things eventually look like this.



I would be interested in viable applications though (outside of just pushing everybody up in an attempt to overrun/pin back or something). The worst offenders here are actually this season's most popular download tactics, all ultra narrow types, with all players pushed up. Imo that stuff shouldn't even work, sides would just sit deep, pack the centre and force them to long shots if anything, but SI had made it so for FM 2017 that central areas aren't defended all that well (half space / wide midfielder positioning "issue"). However, if an AI manager happens to field a back five, and a few DMs, those matches can turn into comedy gold as AI dropping deep and packing it with a back five "mitigates" some of the defensive holes on FM 2017. Reported a few of those in the bugs forum, not sure if SI actually saw them (no reply).

Shots in the box off set pieces marked green. As you can probably antipicate from the first positioning screenshot, the other ones were quite "rushed" affairs. No matter who receives the ball here, he's immediately pushed to something -- like shooting. Damn, once this thread is finished, I have to re-install the game again (not really played until May).

[pheelf]

5 hours ago, Svenc said:

That's not wavy gravy at all!!......Well...at least the goalkeeper was earning his wages or at least made to look good.

Even though the discussion on duties in the central midfield is slightly off topic it has been an interesting discussion @Svenc and it seems to have inadvertently helped those in the thread by forcing them to think about space in the final third so kudos for that.

I fired up a save myself in which I played with Sampdoria and the 4-4-1-1 formation that @Bunkerossian wants to use. I ran two saves concurrently, one with a D/S central midfield and another with a S/S central midfield.

The results were that the D/S was more successful as expected. Although the S/S still allowed the team to exceed the preseason expectation and wasn't awful.

There were other mitigating factors though, in the D/S structure I had the LM as a WM(S) emulating the IF (S) role knowing that if I didn't do that there would be nobody attacking that area of the pitch which meant that I had to put the left full back on attack otherwise I wouldn't have any width down that flank.

In the S/S structure I had the LM as a W(S) so retained a support duty left back.

Therefore in reality one change in duty in the midfield led to several other necessary changes in duty to restore a balance which then makes it slightly more difficult to definitively answer whether the D/S was more successful because of the midfield.

The problem is that you can't really replicate the Drinkwater / Kante (or any other central midfield pair in a 4-4-2) partnership in FM with either the D/S or S/S setup and that is where the rigidity of tactics really starts to tell.

Anyway, I think all my postings have probably hijacked poor @Armistice's thread by now so I think this will be my last in this thread.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, pheelf said:

That's not wavy gravy at all!!......Well...at least the goalkeeper was earning his wages or at least made to look good.

Even though the discussion on duties in the central midfield is slightly off topic it has been an interesting discussion @Svenc and it seems to have inadvertently helped those in the thread by forcing them to think about space in the final third so kudos for that.

I fired up a save myself in which I played with Sampdoria and the 4-4-1-1 formation that @Bunkerossian wants to use. I ran two saves concurrently, one with a D/S central midfield and another with a S/S central midfield.

The results were that the D/S was more successful as expected. Although the S/S still allowed the team to exceed the preseason expectation and wasn't awful.

There were other mitigating factors though, in the D/S structure I had the LM as a WM(S) emulating the IF (S) role knowing that if I didn't do that there would be nobody attacking that area of the pitch which meant that I had to put the left full back on attack otherwise I wouldn't have any width down that flank.

In the S/S structure I had the LM as a W(S) so retained a support duty left back.

Therefore in reality one change in duty in the midfield led to several other necessary changes in duty to restore a balance which then makes it slightly more difficult to definitively answer whether the D/S was more successful because of the midfield.

The problem is that you can't really replicate the Drinkwater / Kante (or any other central midfield pair in a 4-4-2) partnership in FM with either the D/S or S/S setup and that is where the rigidity of tactics really starts to tell.

Anyway, I think all my postings have probably hijacked poor @Armistice's thread by now so I think this will be my last in this thread.

Mind you, I wanted to use the 4-4-1-1 with Swansea. For Sampdoria, that one is hard to pull off due to the absence of good wide players.

[Bunkerossian]

I need help- but it's something different, this time. I need help figuring out why a change I made, WORKED, and got my team to wrestle control of the game from the opposition.

I lined up with a 4-1-2-2-1, versus an opposing 4-1-4-1.

Initially, I had a DLP-D in the DM slot, and in front of him a CM-A and a BBM. IF-Su on the left and a W-A on the right- a DLF-Su was up top. But the opposition were seeing a lot of the ball while creating chances, and what's worse, they didn't even need to do much hoofball- something for what their lineup was presumably meant for. Rondon dropped deep and cut my defense off from midfield. I had decided on switching the DLP-D to a DM-Su, and making the BBM into a RPM. Effects were instant, and soon my team earned a penalty which was scored, and ultimately gave me the win.

Hoping @herne79 or @Cleon could shed some light on this.

[Cleon]

A RPM takes the game by the neck so to speak and drives forward. A DLP on defend in the DM spot doesn’t, they dictate it from their own half which at times can make it easier for the opposition. However a RPM is very forward thinking, so is always looking to make things happen deep in the oppositions half. This probably made the opposition need to defend more. The RPM will have also linked better and provided support for the striker and wide players.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, Cleon said:

A RPM takes the game by the neck so to speak and drives forward. A DLP on defend in the DM spot doesn’t, they dictate it from their own half which at times can make it easier for the opposition. However a RPM is very forward thinking, so is always looking to make things happen deep in the oppositions half. This probably made the opposition need to defend more. The RPM will have also linked better and provided support for the striker and wide players.

A BBM doesn't do this, then? Interesting to know. I thought BBM and RPM were nearly identical.

[Cleon]

5 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

A BBM doesn't do this, then? Interesting to know. I thought BBM and RPM were nearly identical.

A RPM is a playmaker, a B2B player is basically a runner. So the roles differ dramatically. One focuses on creating play for others and being involved in all aspects. While the other is more focused on getting into the box and being advanced as quickly as possible. They both provide different kinds of support. They’re nothing alike. 

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, Cleon said:

A RPM is a playmaker, a B2B player is basically a runner. So the roles differ dramatically. One focuses on creating play for others and being involved in all aspects. While the other is more focused on getting into the box and being advanced as quickly as possible. They both provide different kinds of support. They’re nothing alike. 

Is there a guide which categorizes midfield roles according to the type of support they provide?

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

Is there a guide which categorizes midfield roles according to the type of support they provide?

Yes.  It's in game found under the role descriptions and the default player instructions.

If you think a BBM and an RPM are "nearly identical" then you aren't reading and understanding these descriptions and PIs.

So, pop quiz.  Just from the in game description and looking at the PIs, what's the main difference between a DLP and an RPM?  And don't list the different PIs, what do the two roles do?

(It's not my intention to call you out or try to make you look silly here.  Having at least a basic understanding of what each role does goes an awfully long way to creating a balanced tactic and the type of player that may be suitable for the role).

[Bunkerossian]

13 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Yes.  It's in game found under the role descriptions and the default player instructions.

If you think a BBM and an RPM are "nearly identical" then you aren't reading and understanding these descriptions and PIs.

So, pop quiz.  Just from the in game description and looking at the PIs, what's the main difference between a DLP and an RPM?  And don't list the different PIs, what do the two roles do?

(It's not my intention to call you out or try to make you look silly here.  Having at least a basic understanding of what each role does goes an awfully long way to creating a balanced tactic and the type of player that may be suitable for the role).

Well, the RPM dribbles more by default, and roams, while the DLP holds position. But what makes a RPM ˝the heartbeat of the team˝ compared to a BBM? The mere fact that he's a playmaker?

[jc577]

18 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Well, the RPM dribbles more by default, and roams, while the DLP holds position. But what makes a RPM ˝the heartbeat of the team˝ compared to a BBM? The mere fact that he's a playmaker?

Partially, but I think it's because he drives the team forward with the ball whereas the BBM is more of a runner without it.

[herne79]

23 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Well, the RPM dribbles more by default, and roams, while the DLP holds position. But what makes a RPM ˝the heartbeat of the team˝ compared to a BBM? The mere fact that he's a playmaker?

No.  You're just listing PIs, so you're not actually understanding what the roles do.

An RPM is designed to bring the ball out of defence/midfield into more advanced areas before releasing the ball to a team mate.  A DLP is more of a static "tennis ball machine" - he'll take up deeper positions and launch passes from there.  Do you see the difference to your definition?

So now, what's the difference between a BBM and an RPM?  (And don't just list PIs again).

(Nobody else answer please, it's really important to see if bunkerossian is paying attention and taking things in).

[MHovel]

4 hours ago, herne79 said:

No.  You're just listing PIs, so you're not actually understanding what the roles do.

An RPM is designed to bring the ball out of defence/midfield into more advanced areas before releasing the ball to a team mate.  A DLP is more of a static "tennis ball machine" - he'll take up deeper positions and launch passes from there.  Do you see the difference to your definition?

So now, what's the difference between a BBM and an RPM?  (And don't just list PIs again).

(Nobody else answer please, it's really important to see if bunkerossian is paying attention and taking things in).

I think it might be hard for him to understand it via description in game, and if I get his mind he might need help to understnad how they operate on the field.

Formation, ti, pi, is less important.

He first need to understand the player roles, otherwose he might think he is obligated when choosing roles and this is where he get lost in game (its just an assumption, i might be wrong).

[Bunkerossian]

10 hours ago, herne79 said:

No.  You're just listing PIs, so you're not actually understanding what the roles do.

An RPM is designed to bring the ball out of defence/midfield into more advanced areas before releasing the ball to a team mate.  A DLP is more of a static "tennis ball machine" - he'll take up deeper positions and launch passes from there.  Do you see the difference to your definition?

So now, what's the difference between a BBM and an RPM?  (And don't just list PIs again).

(Nobody else answer please, it's really important to see if bunkerossian is paying attention and taking things in).

It's very hard to find a difference, other than potentially off/on the ball running. But surely the BBM could run with the ball, as well? The descriptions of their activity near the goal aren't totally different, either. Both are willing to take long shots.

[Svenc]

22 hours ago, pheelf said:

That's not wavy gravy at all!!......Well...at least the goalkeeper was earning his wages or at least made to look good.

Typically strongly the latter (in this case absolutely). This is also the origin of the "super keeper myth", the mythical FM figure that would keep scorelines realistic if sides had too many "sitters" in a match of FM (which is also a legend that remains strong with players who average goals no side in football pulls off, strangely). Naturally, such tactics oft highlight where the game's many many flaws are, and in this case, keepers would get decent ratings and MOM awards simply because him making a thousand saves that David Jame's grandpa could pull off in sequence -- drunk -- after a night of beers and watching his son's best of VHS clips -- with his hands tied behind his back.

All of this is still going strong I've just seen. Unfortunately the mods and everybody who's worked this out at least some is fighting a losing battle here, and such players will continue to be frustrated and go with bad theory, until SI may upgrade a few of their feedback. [Or don't make it possible to get loads of poop shots off, as it's naturally related to some bad defending, and limited AI.] Then again, Liverpool seem to do that currently too -- creating loads of average to weak shots even in the box to limited return, to a slightly less exaggerated extent, of course.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

It's very hard to find a difference, other than potentially off/on the ball running. But surely the BBM could run with the ball, as well? The descriptions of their activity near the goal aren't totally different, either. Both are willing to take long shots.

I think this possibly sums up your issues quite well.  You've been reading so many different things and asking so many questions that you have become so confused by it all you don't know if you're coming or going.  You're not taking things in and have information overload which are perhaps caused by a lack of a plan.  You can see this easily because Cleon actually answered the BBM/RPM question just a few posts up:

14 hours ago, Cleon said:

A RPM is a playmaker, a B2B player is basically a runner. So the roles differ dramatically. One focuses on creating play for others and being involved in all aspects. While the other is more focused on getting into the box and being advanced as quickly as possible. They both provide different kinds of support. They’re nothing alike. 

Now don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to find fault or make you feel bad at all.  I used to be much the same not that long ago - just throw a bunch of things at the TC and hope something worked (it very rarely did) - so I absolutely sympathise with you.

Here's what I suggest:- stop posting in this thread, stop posting completely (for now).  Come up with a plan - think about how you would like your team to play football.  If it helps, find a little inspiration from real life.  It doesn't have to be a recreation of a tactical system, just a little inspiration.  Then pick a decent team with some quality players, players that you feel may suit your plan (you could even create your own club and cherry pick your players to suit).  Put your plan into action, see how you get on.  Start a new thread if you need help, but stick to the plan.  Don't change your mind half way through the thread, stick to the plan.

And all the while you're doing this, bear in mind two simple pieces of advice from @Cleon and @Svenc :  forget worrying about Team Shape, just use Flexible; and "Additionally, what doesn't help, the basics would do. Half the stuff players in the tactics community engage in are no requirement whatsoever to get sides to at least perform. "

btw, you don't always need a plan but if you have one - especially if you are struggling to set something up - things can become much easier to set up.  And if you wonder what the hell is a plan and how do I do that, read the "Inspiration and First Steps" section in the opening post of this https://community.sigames.com/topic/364527-developing-my-4-4-2/

[Bunkerossian]

10 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I think this possibly sums up your issues quite well.  You've been reading so many different things and asking so many questions that you have become so confused by it all you don't know if you're coming or going.  You're not taking things in and have information overload which are perhaps caused by a lack of a plan.  You can see this easily because Cleon actually answered the BBM/RPM question just a few posts up:

Now don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to find fault or make you feel bad at all.  I used to be much the same not that long ago - just throw a bunch of things at the TC and hope something worked (it very rarely did) - so I absolutely sympathise with you.

Here's what I suggest:- stop posting in this thread, stop posting completely (for now).  Come up with a plan - think about how you would like your team to play football.  If it helps, find a little inspiration from real life.  It doesn't have to be a recreation of a tactical system, just a little inspiration.  Then pick a decent team with some quality players, players that you feel may suit your plan (you could even create your own club and cherry pick your players to suit).  Put your plan into action, see how you get on.  Start a new thread if you need help, but stick to the plan.  Don't change your mind half way through the thread, stick to the plan.

And all the while you're doing this, bear in mind two simple pieces of advice from @Cleon and @Svenc :  forget worrying about Team Shape, just use Flexible; and "Additionally, what doesn't help, the basics would do. Half the stuff players in the tactics community engage in are no requirement whatsoever to get sides to at least perform. "

btw, you don't always need a plan but if you have one - especially if you are struggling to set something up - things can become much easier to set up.  And if you wonder what the hell is a plan and how do I do that, read the "Inspiration and First Steps" section in the opening post of this https://community.sigames.com/topic/364527-developing-my-4-4-2/

I'll disregard the yellow at least temporarily, to mention another issue- the differences of Regista and the RPM confuse me as well.

I am probably overloaded as you say. I feel like a Soviet citizen in a Western mall. So many colorful things, compared to the bland selection of shops at home, and the brain cannot cope. BTW, I am fromm South-Eastern Europe (former Communist country), so maybe there's a connection.

I did have a plan-once. With HSV, I wanted a Target Man-centered tactic, and it had still ended in failure. There must be a cause, but I couldn't find it. The reason why this was the only time I went in with a plan was my attempt to try and be an adaptive manager who just works with what he has- and that might not always include excellent target men.

[Cleon]

9 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I think this possibly sums up your issues quite well.  You've been reading so many different things and asking so many questions that you have become so confused by it all you don't know if you're coming or going.  You're not taking things in and have information overload which are perhaps caused by a lack of a plan.  You can see this easily because Cleon actually answered the BBM/RPM question just a few posts up:

Now don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to find fault or make you feel bad at all.  I used to be much the same not that long ago - just throw a bunch of things at the TC and hope something worked (it very rarely did) - so I absolutely sympathise with you.

Here's what I suggest:- stop posting in this thread, stop posting completely (for now).  Come up with a plan - think about how you would like your team to play football.  If it helps, find a little inspiration from real life.  It doesn't have to be a recreation of a tactical system, just a little inspiration.  Then pick a decent team with some quality players, players that you feel may suit your plan (you could even create your own club and cherry pick your players to suit).  Put your plan into action, see how you get on.  Start a new thread if you need help, but stick to the plan.  Don't change your mind half way through the thread, stick to the plan.

And all the while you're doing this, bear in mind two simple pieces of advice from @Cleon and @Svenc :  forget worrying about Team Shape, just use Flexible; and "Additionally, what doesn't help, the basics would do. Half the stuff players in the tactics community engage in are no requirement whatsoever to get sides to at least perform. "

btw, you don't always need a plan but if you have one - especially if you are struggling to set something up - things can become much easier to set up.  And if you wonder what the hell is a plan and how do I do that, read the "Inspiration and First Steps" section in the opening post of this https://community.sigames.com/topic/364527-developing-my-4-4-2/

Couldn't agree more with this. Stop taking in what people are saying as this is confusing you even further. Just focus on the basics and learning what the roles do for yourself. This has been suggested throughout the 8 pages so far. Just mess around and learn th descriptions of a role and the default instructions they start with. Try and have fun and keep things as simple as possible.

[Cleon]

7 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I'll disregard the yellow at least temporarily, to mention another issue- the differences of Regista and the RPM confuse me as well.

I am probably overloaded as you say. I feel like a Soviet citizen in a Western mall. So many colorful things, compared to the bland selection of shops at home, and the brain cannot cope. BTW, I am fromm South-Eastern Europe (former Communist country), so maybe there's a connection.

I did have a plan-once. With HSV, I wanted a Target Man-centered tactic, and it had still ended in failure. There must be a cause, but I couldn't find it. The reason why this was the only time I went in with a plan was my attempt to try and be an adaptive manager who just works with what he has- and that might not always include excellent target men.

The description of the RPM and the Regista should be more than enough to show you the slight differences between them. I don't feel you're taking the time to actually read them though with all the constant questions about roles? Sure the descriptions aren't always excellent but they contain more than enough to tell you the basics of a role and what it does and how it differs from other similar roles.

A Regista is more possession based and dictates from deeper positions and doesn't really join attacks. A RPM is more aggressive and runs with the ball at their feet and supports attacks while creating for the forward/wide players.

[Armistice]

I am not sure if my approach is correct, but I usually do what herne suggested and try to read the locked PIs of each role. So let's say Regista. He has Roam from Position locked in so that means he will look around for space. Also, description says he is a more aggressive DLP. Aham, so he's like a 'Roaming' Deep Lying Playmaker if that makes any sense, he will stay deeper, but always look for space to get the ball in those areas if it's the case, so he can spray them forward.

 

Now for Roaming Playmaker, he's got Dribble More locked in along Roam from Position so that means, not only he will look to run with the ball, but he will also Roam, look for space to get the ball and do his job as a playmaker. He is in a constant movement. He will also push forward, you will see him in more advanced areas than a Regista. It's a bit similar to the difference between DLP and AP. 

[Cleon]

11 minutes ago, Armistice said:

I am not sure if my approach is correct, but I usually do what herne suggested and try to read the locked PIs of each role. So let's say Regista. He has Roam from Position locked in so that means he will look around for space. Also, description says he is a more aggressive DLP. Aham, so he's like a 'Roaming' Deep Lying Playmaker if that makes any sense, he will stay deeper, but always look for space to get the ball in those areas if it's the case, so he can spray them forward.

 

Now for Roaming Playmaker, he's got Dribble More locked in along Roam from Position so that means, not only he will look to run with the ball, but he will also Roam, look for space to get the ball and do his job as a playmaker. He is in a constant movement. He will also push forward, you will see him in more advanced areas than a Regista. It's a bit similar to the difference between DLP and AP. 

Spot on. Also the start position of the player is important too, so in this case one is a DM and one a MC. This impacts the areas they come from and the areas they'll likely realistically be able to get into constantly. 

[Armistice]

Also, you can take a look at this site www.guidetofootballmanager.com (hope it doesn't count as advertising as it's not my website of course), go to Roles & Duties (or Google that directly, can't post link as I'm on the phone) and for each Role, you will see a list of useful/complementary PPMs. That will give you an idea of what a player is more prone to do in the respective role. That + reading locked PIs & role description in game should be enough for your needs. Don't try to dig too deep or you won't be able to crawl out the hole (I'm telling you from my personal experience).

[Bunkerossian]

2 minutes ago, Armistice said:

Also, you can take a look at this site www.guidetofootballmanager.com (hope it doesn't count as advertising as it's not my website of course), go to Roles & Duties (or Google that directly, can't post link as I'm on the phone) and for each Role, you will see a list of useful/complementary PPMs. That will give you an idea of what a player is more prone to do in the respective role. That + reading locked PIs & role description in game should be enough for your needs. Don't try to dig too deep or you won't be able to crawl out the hole (I'm telling you from my personal experience).

That site is what I was reading a lot, before. I got myself into a hole indeed.

[herne79]

47 minutes ago, Armistice said:

Also, you can take a look at this site www.guidetofootballmanager.com (hope it doesn't count as advertising as it's not my website of course), go to Roles & Duties (or Google that directly, can't post link as I'm on the phone) and for each Role, you will see a list of useful/complementary PPMs. That will give you an idea of what a player is more prone to do in the respective role. That + reading locked PIs & role description in game should be enough for your needs. Don't try to dig too deep or you won't be able to crawl out the hole (I'm telling you from my personal experience).

 

44 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

That site is what I was reading a lot, before. I got myself into a hole indeed.

Don't.

There is a fair bit of useful info there, but also a lot of subjective opinion some of which is wrong.

PPMs are individual, useful for how you want your player to play.  Saying "this PPM is useful for this role" is not only subjective but also very generalised.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

Information overload is a hell of a thing.

I was late to the party with FM16, and struggled massively with it all the way through. In the end I had to quit and just go away and do my own thing and play other games. When I got back into it, I took only the very basic advice: So a balance of roles and duties, you know the usual D/S/A thing. And I made myself a 4-4-1-1, maybe one team instruction, left it on standard/flexible, and ended up in a six year career that lasted until I got a new rig and had to end it. 

I won't say I mastered the game, no chance, it still completely schooled me at times. But I won trophies, I won in competitions that I usually always struggled with, and I was rather consistent at doing it. A lot of it was luck, don't get me wrong, I *still* can't analyse the game as well as I want to, and that's okay, but I finally started having fun. I won't say I stopped reading and learning from guides, but I put them aside and stopped relying on them. Even guru topics on here, I stopped looking at them so much, because I would read them and want to try and do it myself and get pissed off when I couldn't. And maybe that's my fault, but I feel the point I'm trying to make is, while the guides are nice, the best thing to do is to just focus on the tools provided within the game, especially with roles and descriptions, read them, try to understand them, and watch them, so you get a handle on them.

 

Unsure? Don't use them. Stick with the basics and safe stuff. Leave the extravagant roles for later when you have a more comfortable foundation and don't mind experimenting a bit. That's what I did with my 4-4-1-1, it was all boring generic roles, and as it went along I made it more and more exotic and ridiculous, and the purpose of that entire formation was my desire to use a Ball Winning Midfielder. That was it. And it gave me six seasons of fun and games.

[Armistice]

I think most people take guides too biblical, I'm quite sure those who make guides are trying to show you some principles and how they work instead of telling you "This is the way, follow it". I know, I went through this and for example when I tried to do some possession tactic I was thinking back "but that dude used that role hmm, I'll use it too" without really being sure what it does in the tactic. Instead the principles were simple: use carefully those Risky Passes roles, pass shorter, less long shots, less crosses and long balls etc, you get my drift. You can create possession tactic in more than a single way and that's what people fail to understand, including me.

 

Of course reading ME events is a tricky part but it will come down to more experience, more matches played, more situations. Sticking to a style of play until you get its grip works the best imo, so it will be easier for you to spot things. 

[Cleon]

14 minutes ago, Armistice said:

I think most people take guides too biblical, I'm quite sure those who make guides are trying to show you some principles and how they work instead of telling you "This is the way, follow it". I know, I went through this and for example when I tried to do some possession tactic I was thinking back "but that dude used that role hmm, I'll use it too" without really being sure what it does in the tactic. Instead the principles were simple: use carefully those Risky Passes roles, pass shorter, less long shots, less crosses and long balls etc, you get my drift. You can create possession tactic in more than a single way and that's what people fail to understand, including me.

 

Of course reading ME events is a tricky part but it will come down to more experience, more matches played, more situations. Sticking to a style of play until you get its grip works the best imo, so it will be easier for you to spot things. 

This is true. This is why I always point out in all my guides you should take elements from it and apply them to your save rather than copying. I tend to write about the principle side of things because they'll always be relevant rather than focusing on my own specific tactic.

[Seagullfan]

I have never used more than a couple of adjustments to TI/PI’s and whilst I am no world beater I can take over a struggling relegation candidate and finish mid table, develop a squad and move through the leagues, go on decent unbeaten runs and be content with my lot. 

Sometimes it’s best not to over complicate things, keep it simple and the results will follow.

[Armistice]

 

Any particular reason why lately most of my moves end up like this? Players crowd the central areas and end up taking long shots from the edge of the box. It's frustrating to watch. I am trying to put more emphasis on the wings, but it seems that most of the time my attacking wingbacks are marked out like in this case, so my central players can't really pass them the ball.

[herne79]

Devil's advocate:-  You're winning 3-1 and dominating the match stats.  Even if most of your moves do end up like that, how big is the problem?

[Cleon]

Also you've shown us the move at the very end. The answer as to why it happens lies in the build up not the end of it. Your wingbacks don't look marked out to me btw. In another thread didn't you post the set up you use and you asked the team to play wider?

Edit - 

This is your set up?

Your players are taking shots from the edge of the box because in the screenshot you posted, there is no space because the AI has held its defensive line.

The 40 and 28 are playmakers so hang back. You've instructed the team to play wide so really you've told the WB's to stay out wide but the problem with this (pretty sure I mentioned in the other thread I had no idea why you'd use this anyway) is everyone else is central focused. So you're cutting the WB's off from everyone else by making them wider than they should be, hence the wide positions they are in rather than moving inwards towards the channels.

[Armistice]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

Devil's advocate:-  You're winning 3-1 and dominating the match stats.  Even if most of your moves do end up like that, how big is the problem?

Well in the next two games I lost at home to a relegation candidate and drew with the team lying at the bottom of the table while encountering the very same problem so it made me to ragequit which is not something I like because I don't really like to reload a save and play those games again and eventually win them. This pattern happens quite often recently so I need to make sure we keep winning.

 

29 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Also you've shown us the move at the very end. The answer as to why it happens lies in the build up not the end of it. Your wingbacks don't look marked out to me btw. In another thread didn't you post the set up you use and you asked the team to play wider?

Edit - 

This is your set up?

Your players are taking shots from the edge of the box because in the screenshot you posted, there is no space because the AI has held its defensive line.

The 40 and 28 are playmakers so hang back. You've instructed the team to play wide so really you've told the WB's to stay out wide but the problem with this (pretty sure I mentioned in the other thread I had no idea why you'd use this anyway) is everyone else is central focused. So you're cutting the WB's off from everyone else by making them wider than they should be, hence the wide positions they are in rather than moving inwards towards the channels.

Yes, that is the set-up. Hmm I will take a closer look at the build-up and try to spot why things end up like this. If I am to draw a pattern though, this is what happens usually. Defenders pass it short (usually, not always) to my midfielders, who, in turn, pass it longer to my DLF, or obviously seize up their options. The DLF picks the ball and either waits for support or passes it ahead to my AF or just runs forward with it. When we reach the final third, my central players usually ignore the wingbacks and try to squeeze the ball through the opponent's tight defence in central area. Most of the times it doesn't work and ends up like that.

 

For me Play Wider was selected just for that, to encourage more wing play so we can stretch them. If my wingbacks are also narrow, how am I supposed to create horizontal gaps between their defensive line?

 

Yeah the LWB is not marked, but the RWB is not an option for a pass tbh, if Cain was to try and do that.

[Cleon]

Quote

Hmm I will take a closer look at build-up and try to spot why things end up like this. If I am to draw a pattern, this is what happens usually. Defenders pass it short (usually, not always) to my midfielders, who, in turn, pass it longer to my DLF. He picks the ball and either waits for support or pass it ahead to my AF or just runs forward with it. When we reach the final third, my central players usually ignore the wingbacks and try to squeeze the ball through the opponent's tight defence in central area. Most of the times it doesn't work and ends up like that.

The bold bit is doing exactly what you've set up the team to do. Look at the TI, you instructed the team to play out of defence. You use two CM's who are playmakers and don't really do running as such. This leaves one MC who can make forward runs but isn't likely a passing option to begin with, so they hit the striker dropping off deep. They're doing exactly what you've told them to do via TI's and the roles you've selected. Not sure why you'd be expecting much variance from this?

Quote

For me Play Wider was selected just for that, to encourage more wing play so we can stretch them. If my wingbacks are also narrow, how am I supposed to create horizontal gaps between their defensive line?

I explained this before to you but you are already wide naturally. If you don't have the playwider TI activated the players will still be wide, they'll just not be wide and separated from play like they currently are. I honestly don't know why you can't see this yourself? It's so obvious.

Your wingback won't be narrow, they'll be normal width that is not the same as being narrow. They still play wide. It means in situations like the above you posted, the WB's can play in the channel more to be a passing option.

So in this instance your NO 2 could theoretically be on the inside of the number 11 instead of the outside. Now if he was, the whole picture looks a lot different doesn't it and you have a passing option who is still offering width. But currently you've instructed them not to do this.

You use a formation that has natural width due to the wingback and a midfield who play narrow. Asking the wingbacks to stay even wider, how do you expect them to be passing options or support outside of providing crosses? You're just separating them off from the rest of the side.

I feel this is a classic case of you not understanding how the roles and TI's you use work. You want the players to play differently to how you've set them up to actually play.

For the past 8 pages @herne79 and myself we've been saying a similar thing all throughout to you and that other lad. We don't keep repeating the same things to belittle you or make you feel small, we are doing it so you can improve. You need to understand what the basics of a role are and how they impact your shape.

Your 352 isn't that different to mine yet the difference in play will be drastically different. My strikers are the same as yours just the opposite way around. My midfield is the same exact I have a CM S to provide extra running support instead of a AP like you have. And I have two complete wingbacks and no TI's. Those are the only differences.