I really don't know what to do next

[Armistice]

Yeah maybe I misunderstood what Play Wider TI does, but I think you're generalizing a bit when you say I don't know how all most these work together. When I explained the build-up pattern, I didn't say it was wrong or expected something else, I was just describing it. 

 

You see, there's still a problem that I am taking guides too biblical as I said before "hmm this guy said we need width hmm so let's have width". Select Play Wider TI. What do I understand by width? Ability to stretch the defence by using players in wider areas so they can drag a player or two out of the defensive shape. Is it correct? Well it should, but it seems like FM width could also mean players on both sides who actually don't cut inside, they stay wide, but not necesarily hug the touchline, like you pointed out, so they get cut-off from the rest of the team (you can confirm if it's how I said it or not).

 

And also, you could say I don't understand how formations really work. I don't think I am very far from being able to create a good tactic, I just need to learn from those experiences and that's why I post these issues here.

 

For example, before you pointed out the issue, I could notice in this particular case there's space in their halfspace so I was thinking of tweaking roles around to give an attacking midfield the opportunity to exploit the space created by the wide wingback. Is this an option? Well I don't know, but I thought about one situation to try and fix this.

[Cleon]

Quote

Yeah maybe I misunderstood what Play Wider TI does, but I think you're generalizing a bit when you say I don't know how all most these work together. When I explained the build-up pattern, I didn't say it was wrong or expected something else, I was just describing it. 

I'm not generalising, you posted;

Quote

Any particular reason why lately most of my moves end up like this? 

See? If you understood you'd have known the answer. It's not a bad thing I'm not having a go at you. You suggest here that the play isn't what you want, hence why asked why it was happening.

Quote

You see, there's still a problem that I am taking guides too biblical as I said before "hmm this guy said we need width hmm so let's have width". Select Play Wider TI.

You can post as much as you want on the forums and in topics but until you can change your own mindset, people are limited in how they can help you. The issue here isn't just about tactical mishaps, it's more about the way you think/view football. This is why you need to change the mindset but no-one can really help with that side of things, it has to come from you. Also remember that guides are usually to show ideas/principles etc.

Quote

What do I understand by width? Ability to stretch the defence by using players in wider areas so they can drag a player or two out of the defensive shape. Is it correct? Well it should, but it seems like FM width could also mean players on both sides who actually don't cut inside, they stay wide, but not necesarily hug the touchline, like you pointed out, so they get cut-off from the rest of the team (you can confirm if it's how I said it or not).

You are correct but again, remember you already have wide players, why do they need to be wider? By instructing them to be even wider you limit (not enhance) what they do, you take away the players decision making somewhat because you are instructing him to do a specific thing constant, i.e stay wider. That's what TI's and PI's are, they make the player do/try a certain type of thing constant. That's why its vital people understand what they use and how it changes the player/teams behaviour.

Quote

And also, you could say I don't understand how formations really work. I don't think I am very far from being able to create a good tactic, I just need to learn from those experiences and that's why I post these issues here.

I've seen you post 2 formations now and each time they've been almost identical to my own sets up bar the odd role. I also don't think you are far away, you are just confused/don't quite understand certain aspects yet but that will come. What is important now though is you start focusing on the bigger picture i.e how the shape actually functions with the roles/duties/PI's/TI's you use. This is where you'll turn things around and get a better understanding as you're on the right track now.

Quote

For example, before you pointed out the issue, I could notice in this particular case there's space in their halfspace so I was thinking of tweaking roles around to give an attacking midfield the opportunity to exploit the space created by the wide wingback. Is this an option? Well I don't know, but I thought about one situation to try and fix this.

Yups. There are many different ways of doing things. If you wanted you could have the playmaker as the central midfielder on a defence duty maybe then have the 2 runners in the outer MC spots. This then allows the playmaker to create and dictate play from a central position while you have 2 runners either side of him.  This way adds a different dimension and changes the play drastically from how you currently play but neither is better than the other. 

So you have options and was already thinking about these changes, so why not just experiment and see what you notice if you do things the way you are thinking of currently.

[Bunkerossian]

I know herne79 will kill me, but I'm actually here because of a problem that's not crippling. I'm doing well- 6th in the EPL with Swansea after maybe 8 games? It's just that somehow, my team cannot achieve penetration against teams that use 3 at the back. Not even the wing back on the left is making a difference, and my formations are 4-4-1-1 (4-2-3-1) and 4-1-4-1 (4-1-2-2-1), so one would think I could endanger the opposition. But in both games where I faced a 3-man CB line, I lost 1-0. Everton played something even tougher than a standard wingback 3-5-2: a 3-5-1-1 with a DM.

What could be the possible causes of wingers being too subdued when facing lone wide men?

[MBarbaric]

2 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

What could be the possible causes of wingers being too subdued when facing lone wide men?

 them (wingers) being isolated ? try to use strikers who move into channels to help them or/and overlapping full back.

[Bunkerossian]

15 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

 them (wingers) being isolated ? try to use strikers who move into channels to help them or/and overlapping full back.

Would this work if I'm using a lone striker?

[MBarbaric]

33 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Would this work if I'm using a lone striker?

what kind of formation do you play if you use a lone striker and only wingbacks on flanks or did I misunderstand that? anyway, anything can work (and doesn't have to). If you have only one striker you'd need to make sure you have someone running into his position once he moves wide.

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, MBarbaric said:

what kind of formation do you play if you use a lone striker and only wingbacks on flanks or did I misunderstand that? anyway, anything can work (and doesn't have to). If you have only one striker you'd need to make sure you have someone running into his position once he moves wide.

On one flank, I have an attacking FB who's on a WB role sometimes- in front of him is usually a WM-S. The other one is just a conservative FB, with a winger in front. I play a 4-1-4-1 or a 4-4-1-1.

[MBarbaric]

8 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

On one flank, I have an attacking FB who's on a WB role sometimes- in front of him is usually a WM-S. The other one is just a conservative FB, with a winger in front. I play a 4-1-4-1 or a 4-4-1-1.

well you can't play the same way against all oppositions. if you play against three at the back the obvious should be to overload the flanks as they have less men in that zone. So change that WM to W and use a FB on overlap and you should have 2v1. Add to that a playmaker that drifts wide or a CF that does the same and you should have up to 4 players in wide positions. This should be enough to, at least, get parity if not an overload most of the time.

[Bunkerossian]

3 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

well you can't play the same way against all oppositions. if you play against three at the back the obvious should be to overload the flanks as they have less men in that zone. So change that WM to W and use a FB on overlap and you should have 2v1. Add to that a playmaker that drifts wide or a CF that does the same and you should have up to 4 players in wide positions. This should be enough to, at least, get parity if not an overload most of the time.

Does a RPM ever drift wide? I use that typically, while the WM-S was a recent addition to the tactic, after discovering I had a player who sucked as a striker, but could be dangerous from distance. I suppose I'll use a proper winger on the left, then.

[MBarbaric]

15 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Does a RPM ever drift wide? I use that typically, while the WM-S was a recent addition to the tactic, after discovering I had a player who sucked as a striker, but could be dangerous from distance. I suppose I'll use a proper winger on the left, then.

well, he is called roaming playmaker. However, if you want to exploit wide areas you need a player that drifts horizontally not one that will move vertically. ideally, a wide playmaker. 

anyway, there is no point in telling you what to do in this particular situation as already the next match you won't be able to exploit the flanks because opposition will have them covered so you'll need to alter your roles. each match has differnet traps. You should be able to understand yourself where is the space likely to appear and what roles to use in order to target that space. that is valid if you want to be proactive. if you don't, then think about how you want your team to play and stick to that. whatever you chose you need to stick to your decisions/ideas long enough to understand if the tactic is/isn't working because of players, instructions, luck, opposition...

[Bunkerossian]

4 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

well, he is called roaming playmaker. However, if you want to exploit wide areas you need a player that drifts horizontally not one that will move vertically. ideally, a wide playmaker. 

anyway, there is no point in telling you what to do in this particular situation as already the next match you won't be able to exploit the flanks because opposition will have them covered so you'll need to alter your roles. each match has differnet traps. You should be able to understand yourself where is the space likely to appear and what roles to use in order to target that space. that is valid if you want to be proactive. if you don't, then think about how you want your team to play and stick to that. whatever you chose you need to stick to your decisions/ideas long enough to understand if the tactic is/isn't working because of players, instructions, luck, opposition...

Actually, Chelsea are my next opponents, and they play a 3-man backline.

[MBarbaric]

3 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Actually, Chelsea are my next opponents, and they play a 3-man backline.

too bad you can't play chelsea 38 times per season

[Bunkerossian]

2 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

too bad you can't play chelsea 38 times per season

I can't, but your advice could help me fix my weakness so far during the season.

[Wavelberry]

Did it work?

[Bunkerossian]

Just now, Wavelberry said:

Did it work?

Can't really tell. I got destroyed on set pieces, conceded one from a botched clearance and one from a bounce where the GK deflected a shot into a bad area. I will redo the segment of games anyway, because in some later games I made errors- and I'd rather replay and see if different choices yield different outcomes, than just being a victim of my own short fuse. Cheating, I know. But if it helps me in the long run, I am OK with it.

[Wavelberry]

In this dead time with a week between us and the Beta no one will judge you for this. Keep experimenting.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, Wavelberry said:

In this dead time with a week between us and the Beta no one will judge you for this. Keep experimenting.

I was considering this before, but some ˝sense of integrity˝ kept me from doing it. It could be that each game has a lot of random factors, and that my tests will not yield useful results, but I feel it's my best bet at finding the right approach.

[MBarbaric]

1 minute ago, Bunkerossian said:

I'd rather replay and see if different choices yield different outcomes

You might make different choices but replaying games will create different conditions as well. so the choice you made first time they proved wrong, this time might actually prove right. You just won't consider them as you deem them wrong since they didn't work the first time.

if you conceded goals from set pieces and felt you otherwise played well, then the only thing to take from the game is that you were unlucky from the defensive perspective. that is the only way to get experience to tell why you lost some game or why you didn't perform as you planned. repeating matches keeps you in constant loop of guessing and second guessing. essentially preventing you from learning from experience. 

[MBarbaric]

2 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I was considering this before, but some ˝sense of integrity˝ kept me from doing it. It could be that each game has a lot of random factors, and that my tests will not yield useful results, but I feel it's my best bet at finding the right approach.

exactly. however, feel free to experiment. i'd love to hear what was the conclusion.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, MBarbaric said:

You might make different choices but replaying games will create different conditions as well. so the choice you made first time they proved wrong, this time might actually prove right. You just won't consider them as you deem them wrong since they didn't work the first time.

if you conceded goals from set pieces and felt you otherwise played well, then the only thing to take from the game is that you were unlucky from the defensive perspective. that is the only way to get experience to tell why you lost some game or why you didn't perform as you planned. repeating matches keeps you in constant loop of guessing and second guessing. essentially preventing you from learning from experience. 

I'd think the opposite? A match after the Chelsea one was vs. Leicester. Seeing their lineup, I went Standard/Flexible, but after some time where they seemed threatening, I withdrew into Counter/Structured. It proved to be incorrent probably, as I conceded, and later couldn't equalize. I will be more aggressive from the outset in try 2.

[herne79]

On ‎18‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 21:44, Bunkerossian said:

I know herne79 will kill me

Must.  Resist.

6 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

Seeing their lineup, I went Standard/Flexible

Why?  What did you see in their line up that made you think "I know, I'll change all of my Team Instructions, the space between my players, my creative freedom, the risk I take, my transitions and my individual player's mentality before I've even kicked a ball"?

10 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

but after some time where they seemed threatening, I withdrew into Counter/Structured

Why?  What did you see in that period of time that made you think "I know, I'll change all of my Team Instructions, the space between my players, my creative freedom, the risk I take, my transitions and my individual player's mentality"?

You remember that post I made a little while ago that talked about having a plan?  Well, what's the plan?

Resist.  Failed.

(I'm saying these things half jokingly, I don't want to be overly harsh.  Hopefully you get the point ).

[MBarbaric]

42 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

repeating matches keeps you in constant loop of guessing and second guessing.

 

42 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I'd think the opposite?

replayed matches will have different conditions. changing your instructions in second match, based on experience from previous match (played under different conditions), might not even be relevant for the match you play. you'll repeat these matches constantly without really knowing what you do. As herne says, first you need a plan.

you know your team, you see the opposition shape/best players. based on this, you decide where to attack them. Then you decide how to attack them where you want to attack them. This might be just one role change in your team, one TI, one player change...

Then you watch the game unfold. If there aren't significant changes to conditions (red card, opposition changing formation, your team not doing what you expect them in first half...) then you stick to your chosen approach if you are satisfied with what you see. i.e. if the team creates chances expected by the plan.

if not, you might to think why your plan isn't working. is it one of the key players having a bad day? is it, you aren't able to get out of your half and organize an attack? is it... Once you think you might have an idea why the plan isn't working try to get rid of the cause of it and accept that even when you do everything fine, the stars might just be against you on the day.

 

[Cap'nRad]

On 18/10/2017 at 09:58, Armistice said:

 

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.

Few thoughts based on your tactic:

1) You're using wingbacks on attack, so they'll be more likely to make off the ball runs to receive the ball in a position to make the final cross/ pass. If you want your buildup regularly going through the flanks & you want possession recycled out wide you need them to be slightly more supporting & less aggressive. As it is right now they'll be glued to the opposition's backline, which you may not like as it makes them harder to find for simple passes.

2) By my observation playmakers have greater freedom in movement towards the ball, and this affects your team's structure negatively if you use too many. I suspect the lack of a real deeper midfielder is affecting your ability to create space for your forwards, as none of your playmakers and attacking mid are creating space for anyone. The 2 playmakers are trying to make plays by getting near the ball, and the cm(a) is trying to score which eventually congests the attacking third as no one is creating space by simply staying deep. A bit more discipline in the middle may be what you need in that regard.

[Cap'nRad]

4 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

I was considering this before, but some ˝sense of integrity˝ kept me from doing it. It could be that each game has a lot of random factors, and that my tests will not yield useful results, but I feel it's my best bet at finding the right approach.

The purpose of experimenting by replaying should be to experiment with a specific action in mind, the results of which you can't tell without playing a match.  In that case, regardless of random factors and regardless of the final outcome of the match, you can clearly see what effects/ on the pitch behaviour your changes brought.

3 hours ago, herne79 said:

You remember that post I made a little while ago that talked about having a plan?  Well, what's the plan?

Exactly. If you're experimenting something you need to focus on the actual changes and not the final outcome of the match. Needless to say, you must already have an outcome you wish to see in mind, a plan which you aim to accomplish using your tests. 

[Svenc]

As soon as you set yourself up to reload / restart you set yourself up to fail. That's not a hard rule, but it's in the type of player you are from experience. Treat this like your journey to the dark side into the unfuns of management, not some kind of puzzle that needs definite cracking. Short fuse.... not that kind of game, in particular if it may replicate some of the frustrations managers go through... if not quite near as severe. Imagine if the game allowed you to have a combined total 80 attempts, but not a goal to show for it in the first 7 matches. How about your side sliding down the tables quicker than a stripper on her pople, losing every single match until well into October, including the Europa League group matches they qualified for the season prior. Imagine key players in your squad revolting against you and getting you sacked, only for you to be replaced by a guy that had spend half a decade with the wife, pension and golf courses already. What about that one stubborn side conceding a record average of 20+ shots -- and their manager teasing you by sitting on top of you in the tables, as your overpaid primadonnas haven't been able to hit a cow's arse in weeks (as if your Brazilian playmaker French-kissing with Barcelona in the summer transfer window hadn't been stressful enough, verdammte Scheiße!)... . All football just from this early season. Some of those involve some of the supposedly better managers, even. True, if that were in-game, SI would face lawsuits again.

Take it easy, man!

[Bitner]

2 hours ago, Svenc said:

As soon as you set yourself up to reload / restart you set yourself up to fail. That's not a hard rule, but it's in the type of player you are from experience. Treat this like your journey to the dark side into the unfuns of management, not some kind of puzzle that needs definite cracking. Short fuse.... not that kind of game, in particular if it may replicate some of the frustrations managers go through... if not quite near as severe. Imagine if the game allowed you to have a combined total 80 attempts, but not a goal to show for it in the first 7 matches. How about your side sliding down the tables quicker than a stripper on her pople, losing every single match until well into October, including the Europa League group matches they qualified for the season prior. Imagine key players in your squad revolting against you and getting you sacked, only for you to be replaced by a guy that had spend half a decade with the wife, pension and golf courses already. What about that one stubborn side conceding a record average of 20+ shots -- and their manager teasing you by sitting on top of you in the tables, as your overpaid primadonnas haven't been able to hit a cow's arse in weeks (as if your Brazilian playmaker French-kissing with Barcelona in the summer transfer window hadn't been stressful enough, verdammte Scheiße!)... . All football just from this early season. Some of those involve some of the supposedly better managers, even. True, if that were in-game, SI would face lawsuits again.

Take it easy, man!

Loved this post. Sums what we feel, and what happens. as i said, rejoice your little victories, don't let anyone take them from you.

take a look at this, 3v in 6 games, i call that a small victory, doesn't change a lot for me of for the team... but why take away the feelgood factor? (yeah, i beat Olympiacos Away)

Cheers,
Bitner 

[Armistice]

6 hours ago, Cap'nRad said:

Few thoughts based on your tactic:

1) You're using wingbacks on attack, so they'll be more likely to make off the ball runs to receive the ball in a position to make the final cross/ pass. If you want your buildup regularly going through the flanks & you want possession recycled out wide you need them to be slightly more supporting & less aggressive. As it is right now they'll be glued to the opposition's backline, which you may not like as it makes them harder to find for simple passes.

2) By my observation playmakers have greater freedom in movement towards the ball, and this affects your team's structure negatively if you use too many. I suspect the lack of a real deeper midfielder is affecting your ability to create space for your forwards, as none of your playmakers and attacking mid are creating space for anyone. The 2 playmakers are trying to make plays by getting near the ball, and the cm(a) is trying to score which eventually congests the attacking third as no one is creating space by simply staying deep. A bit more discipline in the middle may be what you need in that regard.

Well I don't know what you mean by staying deep because a DLP is probably the deepest role you could get on a support role.

[Bunkerossian]

11 hours ago, herne79 said:

Must.  Resist.

Why?  What did you see in their line up that made you think "I know, I'll change all of my Team Instructions, the space between my players, my creative freedom, the risk I take, my transitions and my individual player's mentality before I've even kicked a ball"?

Why?  What did you see in that period of time that made you think "I know, I'll change all of my Team Instructions, the space between my players, my creative freedom, the risk I take, my transitions and my individual player's mentality"?

You remember that post I made a little while ago that talked about having a plan?  Well, what's the plan?

Resist.  Failed.

(I'm saying these things half jokingly, I don't want to be overly harsh.  Hopefully you get the point ).

Leicester were trying to exploit my lack of pace. They had players like Ahmed Musa and Mahrez, which are fast. However, Musa, and the Brazilian guy at AMC had subpar sets of attributes to really  dictate the game. So I thought withdrawing was a good idea. I had underestimated Pereira, their RB, and from one of his overlapping runs, I conceded. At least I know Martin Olsson is a useless player.

[herne79]

59 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

So I thought withdrawing was a good idea.

So why not just change your defensive line?  Or amend your Fullback duties to be less forward thinking?  Or Man Mark / quickly close down Mahrez?  You changed Mentality and Team Shape twice.  Altering Mentality and Team Shape changes much more (as outlined above) than just your def line.

If you change Mentality and Team Shape you change pretty much your entire tactical system.  Just changing Mentality changes several Team Instructions, your individual player's mentalities and the amount of risk your team is willing to take.  And that doesn't even include all the changes that altering Team Shape will make on top of that.

[Bunkerossian]

20 minutes ago, herne79 said:

So why not just change your defensive line?  Or amend your Fullback duties to be less forward thinking?  Or Man Mark / quickly close down Mahrez?  You changed Mentality and Team Shape twice.  Altering Mentality and Team Shape changes much more (as outlined above) than just your def line.

If you change Mentality and Team Shape you change pretty much your entire tactical system.  Just changing Mentality changes several Team Instructions, your individual player's mentalities and the amount of risk your team is willing to take.  And that doesn't even include all the changes that altering Team Shape will make on top of that.

One issue I have is that my full backs on opposite sides have opposite qualities. The right side has more conservative players, while the left side features attacking full backs. I suppose I could have dropped the D-line. Does manipulating the D-line have an effect on being able to deal with flick-ons and the ability to win the ˝second ball˝ which results from an opponent's header?

[Cap'nRad]

5 hours ago, Armistice said:

Well I don't know what you mean by staying deep because a DLP is probably the deepest role you could get on a support role.

the dlp(s) moves toward the ball just like other playmakers, and during attacking moves still ends up on the edge of the area looking for through balls/ long shot opportunities. He will still be quite advanced for a midfielder needing to create space for others; I think most if not all of the support roles are like this.

Best way to see for yourself is to play a match and, when you see the opponent's area being congested, pause and ask yourself which player would you rather sacrifice staying deeper to create space for other players. Once you get that answer, play around with his roles, duties & Pi's until he  behaves how you want.

[Bunkerossian]

First replayed match- massive difference. I got wrecked 0-4 the first time. Now, lost 2-3, and only to a late goal, too. The weakness to set pieces was still there, but as one of my taller men (Fer) did not get injured this time around, I conceded only one goal from a corner. In the first game, I had set some of Chelsea's CB-s to Never be closed down, now I did no such thing. Surely this has no bearing on set pieces, though?

I typically allocate an attacking duty to the right CM in my 4-1-4-1. This time he was on Support, while the only Attacking duty was allocated to my left FB. One of my goals was indeed a flank move, as well. And without the shout I had used in the first game: Clear Ball to Flanks. I had started out at Counter/Structured, and after the reduction of Chelsea's lead to 1-2, I switched to Standard, and stayed like that for the rest of the game. The RB was doing bad, so I replaced him with a youngster (duty change to FB-D), and I placed the right winger to Attack, to threaten the Chelsea LWB.

The yellow part was probably crucial in giving me extra attacking threat.

[Armistice]

3 hours ago, Cap'nRad said:

the dlp(s) moves toward the ball just like other playmakers, and during attacking moves still ends up on the edge of the area looking for through balls/ long shot opportunities. He will still be quite advanced for a midfielder needing to create space for others; I think most if not all of the support roles are like this.

Best way to see for yourself is to play a match and, when you see the opponent's area being congested, pause and ask yourself which player would you rather sacrifice staying deeper to create space for other players. Once you get that answer, play around with his roles, duties & Pi's until he  behaves how you want.

It's the two playmaker roles that I want to see sitting deeper. But as you said, pretty much support mean they will also go forward, unless I put the DLP for example in DM slot (?), or give him a defend duty.

[MBarbaric]

53 minutes ago, Armistice said:

unless I put the DLP for example in DM slot (?)

even if you put him in DM, with S duty he will still go forward congesting space. If you need space in the central zone between opposition lines, it is best to keep the dlp on d (doesn't really matter if he is in DM or CM slot, but could be important if you need extra space...).

[Bunkerossian]

I have played the second game, however, Leicester had come out with a stronger team. The end result showed that, too. 0-3. It played out the same as the first game, except they added in one corner kick goal and a goal that was the result of me trying to score, late in the game.

Even though I had been creating chances (a lot on the same side I would later concede), I could not score, and this time Simpson was the deadly RB who set up the goal. I had played on Standard/Flexible up to that point, a 4-4-1-1. Going Control actually gave Leicester full initiative, and more and more chances.

[Armistice]

1 hour ago, MBarbaric said:

even if you put him in DM, with S duty he will still go forward congesting space. If you need space in the central zone between opposition lines, it is best to keep the dlp on d (doesn't really matter if he is in DM or CM slot, but could be important if you need extra space...).

You know I actually experimented with a different set-up in the last couple of games, a DLP-D and two CM-S and everyone is given shorter passing and it's actually working much better even though I thought I needed an attack duty to attack the space the DLF creates by dropping deep.

[Bunkerossian]

3. repeated game- vs. Crystal Palace. It started out like the original one- lots of fictitious pressure, corners, offsides... but the 5-4-1 they used was easily handling things. Around 30-some minutes, I opted for a single shout: Shoot on Sight. I have 4 players in my roster that are a genuine long shot threat, and 3 of them were out on the pitch.  In the second half, I indeed took the lead through a long shot, by my Inside Forward (moved up from WM-S). The opposition switched to a 4-3-1-2, and so I had to adjust: the Stopper defender was set to Defend duty, while the mentality was dropped from Control to Standard, and removed the SoS shout. I scored a second as the result of an initial header knock-down by the IF, but the opposition were having more chances, too.  CP did score a goal late on, but couldn't do it twice.

Conclusion: Shoot on Sight is more useful than the guides tell.

[Cleon]

14 hours ago, Armistice said:

You know I actually experimented with a different set-up in the last couple of games, a DLP-D and two CM-S and everyone is given shorter passing and it's actually working much better even though I thought I needed an attack duty to attack the space the DLF creates by dropping deep.

I think people often forget that support players still attack normally as a general rule, they just attack/start from deeper positions.

[Armistice]

1 hour ago, Bunkerossian said:

3. repeated game- vs. Crystal Palace. It started out like the original one- lots of fictitious pressure, corners, offsides... but the 5-4-1 they used was easily handling things. Around 30-some minutes, I opted for a single shout: Shoot on Sight. I have 4 players in my roster that are a genuine long shot threat, and 3 of them were out on the pitch.  In the second half, I indeed took the lead through a long shot, by my Inside Forward (moved up from WM-S). The opposition switched to a 4-3-1-2, and so I had to adjust: the Stopper defender was set to Defend duty, while the mentality was dropped from Control to Standard, and removed the SoS shout. I scored a second as the result of an initial header knock-down by the IF, but the opposition were having more chances, too.  CP did score a goal late on, but couldn't do it twice.

Conclusion: Shoot on Sight is more useful than the guides tell.

Did this thread become some kind of personal journal for your tactical experiments?

 

50 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I think people often forget that support players still attack normally as a general rule, they just attack/start from deeper positions.

Yes but an attack duty is bombing forward earlier so I thought a support duty would initially hamper my attack potential because the two strikers would take actions on their own and end up shooting like wild horses.

[Svenc]

On 21.10.2017 at 20:03, MBarbaric said:

even if you put him in DM, with S duty he will still go forward congesting space. If you need space in the central zone between opposition lines, it is best to keep the dlp on d (doesn't really matter if he is in DM or CM slot, but could be important if you need extra space...).

I don't have a video recorded from current editions... but whilst this is directly after a set piece, you'll notice teams pushing up as soon as the ball is played back here. That's Busquets plus Mascherano staying deeper, which highlights the dynamics of this.. they need to be engaged when they receive the ball, and in the opponent pushing up, space opens up again. Fairly common sense, but perhaps as a vizualization.

On that topic, I've seen a few interesting theories  around the "download scene" in particular, where ultra narrow, everbody pushed up tactics are the thing this iteration (see a couple pages back for some of the more curious matches you'll get with this). They'Re this popular as of FM's apparent defensive issues in central spaces, naturally. This works wonders. There is however a bad theory going around such places that in generally "defensive AI" was harder to beat. It's a good sign this exists despite all the defensive issues, in particular with such tactics, as they don't make any football sense. A defensive team aims to compress the space all itself. Keeping the pitch small is the entire point of keeping things compact. An opponent that aims for no less than victory, whilst contributing to such, is illogical. If such reduces the likelyhood of scoring / breaking the deadlock, in particular with worse / average players that won't succeed in opening holes simply by individual skill, that's a massively plus. That only a few defensive AI approaches "crack" over the engine's current defensive holes can still create curious dynamics, mind...

[Weston]

On 21/10/2017 at 08:43, Cap'nRad said:

the dlp(s) moves toward the ball just like other playmakers, and during attacking moves still ends up on the edge of the area looking for through balls/ long shot opportunities. He will still be quite advanced for a midfielder needing to create space for others; I think most if not all of the support roles are like this.

Best way to see for yourself is to play a match and, when you see the opponent's area being congested, pause and ask yourself which player would you rather sacrifice staying deeper to create space for other players. Once you get that answer, play around with his roles, duties & Pi's until he  behaves how you want.

 

On 21/10/2017 at 12:07, Armistice said:

It's the two playmaker roles that I want to see sitting deeper. But as you said, pretty much support mean they will also go forward, unless I put the DLP for example in DM slot (?), or give him a defend duty.

 

On 21/10/2017 at 13:03, MBarbaric said:

even if you put him in DM, with S duty he will still go forward congesting space. If you need space in the central zone between opposition lines, it is best to keep the dlp on d (doesn't really matter if he is in DM or CM slot, but could be important if you need extra space...).

This is something I ponder a LOT. I play a narrow midfield diamond, and I like to have one DLP and one BWM/AM/CDM, but I'm never certain which I want in the DM position and which I want to be a CM. (This is usually paired with some sort of BBM.) Is there any general conventional wisdom on this? Naturally I would gravitate to whichever circle was greenest, and usually the creative types prefer to be a bit higher up and the defensive types prefer to be a bit deeper, but people keep telling me to ignore the positional familiarity.

While the inclination is to have the defensive one protect the defense, I feel like a ball-winning midfielder would be better in CM because I want to win the ball higher up the pitch if I'm pressing, and he will always drop deeper to harass the opponents with the ball regardless, no? And if I already have a CAM contributing some playmaking in more advanced spaces wouldn't I want the DLP in the DM position to separate the two and also provide a deeper regista type option in contrast? I assume he will still be able to intercept some balls before the get to the defense even if he doesn't have great defensive attributes. Should I change the CB roles to compensate for this?

I hesitate to put a DLP on defend because I want him to pass forward freely and come from deep a bit when we're in possession. Am I misinterpreting this? You say having the DM support would congest things so I assume having the BWM CM on defend as well would exacerbate this, but I don't know if I want them running opposite directions from each other...

Any thoughts are welcome, apologies if this was already touched on, this thread was too long for me to read in full.

[herne79]

23 minutes ago, Weston said:

 

 

This is something I ponder a LOT. I play a narrow midfield diamond, and I like to have one DLP and one BWM/AM/CDM, but I'm never certain which I want in the DM position and which I want to be a CM. (This is usually paired with some sort of BBM.) Is there any general conventional wisdom on this? Naturally I would gravitate to whichever circle was greenest, and usually the creative types prefer to be a bit higher up and the defensive types prefer to be a bit deeper, but people keep telling me to ignore the positional familiarity.

While the inclination is to have the defensive one protect the defense, I feel like a ball-winning midfielder would be better in CM because I want to win the ball higher up the pitch if I'm pressing, and he will always drop deeper to harass the opponents with the ball regardless, no? And if I already have a CAM contributing some playmaking in more advanced spaces wouldn't I want the DLP in the DM position to separate the two and also provide a deeper regista type option in contrast? I assume he will still be able to intercept some balls before the get to the defense even if he doesn't have great defensive attributes. Should I change the CB roles to compensate for this?

I hesitate to put a DLP on defend because I want him to pass forward freely and come from deep a bit when we're in possession. Am I misinterpreting this? You say having the DM support would congest things so I assume having the BWM CM on defend as well would exacerbate this, but I don't know if I want them running opposite directions from each other...

Any thoughts are welcome, apologies if this was already touched on, this thread was too long for me to read in full.

The choice is entirely yours based on the type of system you want to play.  A cop out answer perhaps, but who do want at DM: Pirlo or Casemiro?  Xabi Alonso or Busquets?  The answer is - you guessed it - entirely up to you based on the type of system you want to play.

If it helps, take some inspiration from real life.  For example the midfield trio of Busquets (DM to break up play and recycle possession) with Iniesta and Xavi in the 2 CM slots as playmaker types.  Or Pirlo at DM (to imperiously spray the ball around) with the tough tackling Vidal ahead partnered by the dynamic Pogba.

[Weston]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

The choice is entirely yours based on the type of system you want to play.  A cop out answer perhaps, but who do want at DM: Pirlo or Casemiro?  Xabi Alonso or Busquets?  The answer is - you guessed it - entirely up to you based on the type of system you want to play.

If it helps, take some inspiration from real life.  For example the midfield trio of Busquets (DM to break up play and recycle possession) with Iniesta and Xavi in the 2 CM slots as playmaker types.  Or Pirlo at DM (to imperiously spray the ball around) with the tough tackling Vidal ahead partnered by the dynamic Pogba.

Fair enough. It's not just my Juventino bias, but the latter sounds better to me, personally. I just ask because what I prefer is not always congruent with what is feasible or accurately represented in the game, and not every playmaker is Pirlo! I guess the biggest step for me is just learning to get over the glaring green circles and do what feels right.