Football Manager TV: Tactics

[Guest El Payaso]

1 hour ago, apvmoreira said:

And when you have a nervous player, you spend all game asking him to be more calm, you do the same at half-time and nothing happens? I mean, i've never had a player that was calmed after i told him calmly to be calm, for 90 minutes!!

Then try another approach such as 'encourage' or something else. There are lots of possible solutions and if they don't work and the player doesn't perform, then sub him. I've basically never had problems with any of this and I've always been able to solve these issues with logical decisions. 

You can even try that broken record: 'I have faith' for the whole team over and over again what basically all the YouTubers seem to be using. Wonder if this is still well functioning in the game or would there finally be a causation for repeating the same thing over and over again?

[HUNT3R]

2 hours ago, apvmoreira said:

And when you have a nervous player, you spend all game asking him to be more calm, you do the same at half-time and nothing happens? I mean, i've never had a player that was calmed after i told him calmly to be calm, for 90 minutes!!

You need to know why he's nervous. It could be pressure or confidence, neither of which will be helped by telling him to calm down.

[HUNT3R]

13 minutes ago, El Payaso said:

Wonder if this is still well functioning in the game or would there finally be a causation for repeating the same thing over and over again?

Players react to a talk less and less if you spam it.

[qwerty22]

19 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

That wouldn't show you anything you wouldn't see in a match, probably less so because it's showing in isolation whereas defensive transitions are dynamic and in relation to the opposition shape and style. The best way, though still difficult, is to implement all 4 phases into the tactics creator visually and transparently. That hopefully has to be the ultimate goal. 

 

Thanks for you reply

During the match your team will be following the ball, man marking instructions forward runs and so on. But in a training mode you can just demonstrate the movement and covering and maybe your attacking direction runs.

Anyways it was just a little idea to fulfill our fantasy of designing a gameplan/tactic and seeing it pay off on the pitch!

I'm also worried about adding more mental minigames when the original features are largely untouched for years and still pretty underwhelming and vague so far IMHO.

 

[MBarbaric]

1 hour ago, qwerty22 said:

 

Thanks for you reply

During the match your team will be following the ball, man marking instructions forward runs and so on. But in a training mode you can just demonstrate the movement and covering and maybe your attacking direction runs.

Anyways it was just a little idea to fulfill our fantasy of designing a gameplan/tactic and seeing it pay off on the pitch!

I'm also worried about adding more mental minigames when the original features are largely untouched for years and still pretty underwhelming and vague so far IMHO.

 

i think it would actually be of great benefit to the player. If you'd be able to set up the tactic and then see it play in 11v0 scenario, you should be able to see natural movement of your players without interference of the opposition. You'd be able to see transitions to attack, which players move aggressively forward, in what spaces, who stays behind, who moves early, who moves later...  It is very comon practice in coaching to field 11v0 session in order to get your team to learn lines of movement and i think it would certainly help people understand how their tactic plays out on the field in vanilla version, without intereferences.

[themadsheep2001]

2 hours ago, qwerty22 said:

 

Thanks for you reply

During the match your team will be following the ball, man marking instructions forward runs and so on. But in a training mode you can just demonstrate the movement and covering and maybe your attacking direction runs.

Anyways it was just a little idea to fulfill our fantasy of designing a gameplan/tactic and seeing it pay off on the pitch!

I'm also worried about adding more mental minigames when the original features are largely untouched for years and still pretty underwhelming and vague so far IMHO.

 

Dont get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to see more. But football works in 4 phases, currently in the TC its difficult to clearly see all 4. That's got to be the next revolution. Now if you could then combine that with training...

[apvmoreira]

6 hours ago, Spurs08 said:

If you were giving a major presentation and were visibly nervous, I'm pretty sure some twit in your earpiece going "calm down" over and over again wouldn't fix things. Those kind of tools can be helpful, particularly at team talks, but they can't always fix a situation and spamming the option certainly won't help. Instead, you need to look into why he's nervous. Did you put pressure on before hand, whether in a team-talk, individual interaction or in the media? Make a note of it and be more careful next time. Does he have a poor personality? Make sure you've tutored him. Was he put under pressure by the opposition manager? Think about whether he's in the right frame of mind to play. By the time the match has started and you realise he's nervous, it's too late for 80% of what you can do to mitigate it.

6 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Players react to a talk less and less if you spam it.

6 hours ago, El Payaso said:

Then try another approach such as 'encourage' or something else. There are lots of possible solutions and if they don't work and the player doesn't perform, then sub him. I've basically never had problems with any of this and I've always been able to solve these issues with logical decisions. 

You can even try that broken record: 'I have faith' for the whole team over and over again what basically all the YouTubers seem to be using. Wonder if this is still well functioning in the game or would there finally be a causation for repeating the same thing over and over again?

It happens with my worldwide CB, PA/CA 175/180, very high mental stats in the club for 10 years....But it can happen i know, just don't see Bonucci nervous in a league game against Sassuolo...

 

I've seen that in youth players doing the 1st games for the main team, which i understand, specially if they are called to be in the 1st XI right away, but Bonucci... common...

 

Also the fact that i have to wait 15 minutes of game time to send more screaming to the pitch! I want to scream all the time!!! Like Jorge Jesus, or if Gattuso was a coach

 

 

Edited October 16, 2017 by apvmoreira
more quoting

[HUNT3R]

6 hours ago, apvmoreira said:

It happens with my worldwide CB, PA/CA 175/180, very high mental stats in the club for 10 years

This doesn't mean anything though. There are hidden attributes and your management of motivation and confidence to consider instead. These can all affect a player's mental state.

[PHITSO]

When are the formation names going to be fixed/more accurate. No teams in the game play 4-3-3, apparently it's 4-1-2-3 as opposed to the teams that actually use 4-3-3 in real life.

 

I can't play a 3 at the back system like 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 without having to use wingers. If i use wing backs it's a 5-2-3 or 5-3-2. Can't wing backs be brought in line with wingers to allow a little more realism to formations? It's been the same for years on FM now.

This isn't a tactical revamp. It's a reskin and more strange obsessive features off the pitch rather than on.

[pablito15]

13 hours ago, PHITSO said:

This isn't a tactical revamp. It's a reskin and more strange obsessive features off the pitch rather than on.

Well said

[Guest]

15 hours ago, PHITSO said:

When are the formation names going to be fixed/more accurate. No teams in the game play 4-3-3, apparently it's 4-1-2-3 as opposed to the teams that actually use 4-3-3 in real life.

 

I can't play a 3 at the back system like 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 without having to use wingers. If i use wing backs it's a 5-2-3 or 5-3-2. Can't wing backs be brought in line with wingers to allow a little more realism to formations? It's been the same for years on FM now.

This isn't a tactical revamp. It's a reskin and more strange obsessive features off the pitch rather than on.

How do you know what you can & cannot do in FM18?

[Dagenham_Dave]

15 hours ago, PHITSO said:

When are the formation names going to be fixed/more accurate. No teams in the game play 4-3-3, apparently it's 4-1-2-3 as opposed to the teams that actually use 4-3-3 in real life.

 

I can't play a 3 at the back system like 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 without having to use wingers. If i use wing backs it's a 5-2-3 or 5-3-2. Can't wing backs be brought in line with wingers to allow a little more realism to formations? It's been the same for years on FM now.

 

The day I care what the name of a formation is in the game is the day I stop playing. Besides, you can save and rename any tactic. 

Surely it's more important how the tactic works than the name the game gives it? But maybe that's just me. 

Quote

This isn't a tactical revamp. It's a reskin and more strange obsessive features off the pitch rather than on.

You must have got an early copy of the beta. Do share. 

[pats]

16 hours ago, PHITSO said:

When are the formation names going to be fixed/more accurate. No teams in the game play 4-3-3, apparently it's 4-1-2-3 as opposed to the teams that actually use 4-3-3 in real life.

 

I can't play a 3 at the back system like 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 without having to use wingers. If i use wing backs it's a 5-2-3 or 5-3-2. Can't wing backs be brought in line with wingers to allow a little more realism to formations? It's been the same for years on FM now.

This isn't a tactical revamp. It's a reskin and more strange obsessive features off the pitch rather than on.

Do you know you can have your own custom formation and name it whatever you want? or modify the current ones and rename them?

[themadsheep2001]

4 hours ago, pats said:

Do you know you can have your own custom formation and name it whatever you want? or modify the current ones and rename them?

I'm still bemused as to what the complaint is. As the issue doesn't really exist 

[PHITSO]

My issue is that teams on the game are playing the incorrect formations. Teams aren't playing 4-3-3, they're playing 4-1-2-3. Nobody is playing 3-5-2, they're playing 5-1-2-2 etc. I wish formations would be correctly aligned as they are in real life. 

It may seem OTT to you from my side, but for a game so intent on realism, you'd think formations would be a little more accurate.

[westy8chimp]

13 minutes ago, PHITSO said:

My issue is that teams on the game are playing the incorrect formations. Teams aren't playing 4-3-3, they're playing 4-1-2-3. Nobody is playing 3-5-2, they're playing 5-1-2-2 etc. I wish formations would be correctly aligned as they are in real life. 

It may seem OTT to you from my side, but for a game so intent on realism, you'd think formations would be a little more accurate.

I think you need to give a specific example. I, and I'm sure others likewise, cannot understand what you mean. AI teams use a plethora of realistic formations, and you can choose all o the formations listed. The only restriction we have is maximum players in each 'strata' i.e. you cant have a flat back 6

Edited October 18, 2017 by westy8chimp

[themadsheep2001]

16 minutes ago, PHITSO said:

My issue is that teams on the game are playing the incorrect formations. Teams aren't playing 4-3-3, they're playing 4-1-2-3. Nobody is playing 3-5-2, they're playing 5-1-2-2 etc. I wish formations would be correctly aligned as they are in real life. 

It may seem OTT to you from my side, but for a game so intent on realism, you'd think formations would be a little more accurate.

They are accurate. A real life 4-3-3 with a deep holding mid is actually a 4-1-2-3. As they play a holding mid behind two central mids, to differentiate between a flat 4-3-3 which has a flat midfield. Commentators treat the two different "4-3-3s" as they same, when they are in fact positionally different in the various strata. Game is actually more accurate than most pundits

[Bigpapa42]

22 minutes ago, PHITSO said:

My issue is that teams on the game are playing the incorrect formations. Teams aren't playing 4-3-3, they're playing 4-1-2-3. Nobody is playing 3-5-2, they're playing 5-1-2-2 etc. I wish formations would be correctly aligned as they are in real life. 

It may seem OTT to you from my side, but for a game so intent on realism, you'd think formations would be a little more accurate.

As Madsheep points out, its not that the game doesn't represent formations. Its that formations are not a solid and immutable ideas. They are fluid concepts. They change depending on whether you look at it defensively or offensively. Or at kickoff. Formations often change throughout a match, whether as an adaptation or an adjustment. A 4-4-2 becomes a 4-4-1-1 if one of the strikers moves just a bit back. But you still call it a 4-4-2 because that's what it started as? Or is it a 4-4-1-1? Or even a 4-5-1 if the removed forward is closer to the midfielders than the other striker? 

[PHITSO]

12 hours ago, Bigpapa42 said:

As Madsheep points out, its not that the game doesn't represent formations. Its that formations are not a solid and immutable ideas. They are fluid concepts. They change depending on whether you look at it defensively or offensively. Or at kickoff. Formations often change throughout a match, whether as an adaptation or an adjustment. A 4-4-2 becomes a 4-4-1-1 if one of the strikers moves just a bit back. But you still call it a 4-4-2 because that's what it started as? Or is it a 4-4-1-1? Or even a 4-5-1 if the removed forward is closer to the midfielders than the other striker? 

I understand what you’re saying. My main issue lays with the placement of wingbacks when playing three at the back. I can’t play a 3-4-3 etc. because that would require using wingers instead of wingbacks. The game defaults these three at the back formations incorrectly as it incorporates wingers rather than wingbacks. Yes, I know I can just switch the wingers to wingbacks and rename the 5-2-3 to 3-4-3 but i’d much rather the default formation incorporate the correct wide roles from the off as with the wing backs in place, the formation just doesn’t look right on the tactics screen to me. Just look at the systems of Chelsea, Arsenal and Juventus (when they play a back three) the wide men are operating as wing backs, not wingers Perhaps it’s just a matter of SI allowing the wingback role to be selected in the winger position.

[HUNT3R]

33 minutes ago, PHITSO said:

Perhaps it’s just a matter of SI allowing the wingback role to be selected in the winger position.

Selecting a wingback role in the winger position would make him a winger. A wingback is a defender, so this is probably why the formation is called 5-3-2 instead of 3-5-2.

 

You're comparing what you see/hear on TV to FM when there are important differences. FMs formation is the defensive shape where I don't think anyone IRL does that. Your best bet would be to rename the tactic to what you want it to be.

[andu1]

3 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Selecting a wingback role in the winger position would make him a winger. A wingback is a defender, so this is probably why the formation is called 5-3-2 instead of 3-5-2.

 

You're comparing what you see/hear on TV to FM when there are important differences. FMs formation is the defensive shape where I don't think anyone IRL does that. Your best bet would be to rename the tactic to what you want it to be.

It would be nice if there was a tooltip on the tactics page saying the lineup is the defensive shape. Could be nice to know for new players.

 

if there is one, sorry to mention

[herne79]

34 minutes ago, PHITSO said:

I understand what you’re saying. My main issue lays with the placement of wingbacks when playing three at the back. I can’t play a 3-4-3 etc. because that would require using wingers instead of wingbacks. The game defaults these three at the back formations incorrectly as it incorporates wingers rather than wingbacks. Yes, I know I can just switch the wingers to wingbacks and rename the 5-2-3 to 3-4-3 but i’d much rather the default formation incorporate the correct wide roles from the off as with the wing backs in place, the formation just doesn’t look right on the tactics screen to me. Just look at the systems of Chelsea, Arsenal and Juventus (when they play a back three) the wide men are operating as wing backs, not wingers Perhaps it’s just a matter of SI allowing the wingback role to be selected in the winger position.

So what you'd like to see is renaming this formation (currently called 5-2-3 WB) to be labelled the 3-4-3?

The issue then becomes what to relabel the current 3-4-3 as?

As far as naming conventions go, it's more practical to label "flat" formations with such labels as 3-4-3, 4-4-2, 5-4-1, 3-5-2 and so on and then label variants accordingly to indicate positional changes: 5-2-3 WB for example indicates the use of players in the Wingback position rather than "flat" Fullback position (which would be labelled 5-2-3) or players in the "flat" Winger position (the 3-4-3).

Also remember that the formation you pick is your Defensive formation - how your players line up when defending.  You mention Chelsea above for example yet you could easily argue that in some of their defensive work they line up as a flat 5-4-1 and so would be the formation you might pick in the Tactic Creator.

But the bottom line is these default formations built into the game are just blocks which have been placed to give a starting point (along with a simple descriptive label) and are there for you to use or change as you see fit.

[MBarbaric]

15 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Selecting a wingback role in the winger position would make him a winger. A wingback is a defender, so this is probably why the formation is called 5-3-2 instead of 3-5-2.

 

You're comparing what you see/hear on TV to FM when there are important differences. FMs formation is the defensive shape where I don't think anyone IRL does that. Your best bet would be to rename the tactic to what you want it to be.

I think @PHITSO is actually complaining that when using 3-4-3 those wide players should drop into back line during the defensive phase thus, effectively making it 5-2-3 or whatever with 5 at the back.

[Icy]

I might be the only one, but I have a problem personally with the fact that what we have been told that what we see is the defensive formation while in that screen we have our forwards inside of the opponent area. That is why it has always created confusion, a defensive formation should be represented inside of your own half.

In TV, etc, the formation you see is either the average formation or lately you see more the formation of the start of the game, with all the players positioned inside of their own field.

What we need is either different attack and defensive formations (preferred option) or if we have only one represented as right now, it should be the average position.

[herne79]

5 minutes ago, Icy said:

I might be the only one, but I have a problem personally with the fact that what we have been told that what we see is the defensive formation while in that screen we have our forwards inside of the opponent area. That is why it has always created confusion, a defensive formation should be represented inside of your own half.

100% agree and have raised that in the Feature Request forum.

[PHITSO]

48 minutes ago, herne79 said:

So what you'd like to see is renaming this formation (currently called 5-2-3 WB) to be labelled the 3-4-3?

The issue then becomes what to relabel the current 3-4-3 as?

As far as naming conventions go, it's more practical to label "flat" formations with such labels as 3-4-3, 4-4-2, 5-4-1, 3-5-2 and so on and then label variants accordingly to indicate positional changes: 5-2-3 WB for example indicates the use of players in the Wingback position rather than "flat" Fullback position (which would be labelled 5-2-3) or players in the "flat" Winger position (the 3-4-3).

Also remember that the formation you pick is your Defensive formation - how your players line up when defending.  You mention Chelsea above for example yet you could easily argue that in some of their defensive work they line up as a flat 5-4-1 and so would be the formation you might pick in the Tactic Creator.

But the bottom line is these default formations built into the game are just blocks which have been placed to give a starting point (along with a simple descriptive label) and are there for you to use or change as you see fit.

For me, the simple resolution would be to make the wingback role available for use in the wide midfielder/winger position.

We should be able to set seperate defensive and attacking formations.

[andu1]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

100% agree and have raised that in the Feature Request forum.

This should be something added a long time ago. It's not even a feature

[themadsheep2001]

52 minutes ago, PHITSO said:

For me, the simple resolution would be to make the wingback role available for use in the wide midfielder/winger position.

We should be able to set seperate defensive and attacking formations.

Then he is no longer a wing back if he is that strata 

[herne79]

45 minutes ago, PHITSO said:

For me, the simple resolution would be to make the wingback role available for use in the wide midfielder/winger position.

Then he won't defend like a fullback.  He'll defend like a winger because he'll be in the winger position - and positions in the Tactics Creator are your defensive positions.  But you could always raise that in the Feature Requests forum if you feel strongly about it, especially if you have some real life examples of wingbacks who play in the winger position (I can't think of any).

47 minutes ago, PHITSO said:

We should be able to set seperate defensive and attacking formations.

Again you could raise this in the Feature Requests forum, although bear in mind you can use player roles and duties (and other tactical settings) to help shape your attacking formation.  For example, setting a flat 4-5-1 as your defensive formation can easily be shaped in attack into a 4-2-3-1 or 4-1DM-2-3 just by altering the central midfield player roles - add in attacking fullbacks and your attacking shape can even become something more akin to a 2-1-2-5.

9 minutes ago, andu1 said:

This should be something added a long time ago. It's not even a feature

I understand, however to ask to change an existing "feature" of the game (in this case a simple picture of a football pitch) then the best place to raise it is in the Feature Requests forum.

[apvmoreira]

As someone else stated above, there is no information that the tactic screen is your defensive formation. If it is, it should be made explicit, specially for the new players.

 

Having more than one tactic for all the 4 phases, as discussed prior in this topic would be great, but the complexity on liking all phases to make a fluid team would be hard for the majority of players.

 

So, if the tactic screen is the defensive formation, where is the attacking formation, team instructions?

 

 

[herne79]

34 minutes ago, apvmoreira said:

 

So, if the tactic screen is the defensive formation, where is the attacking formation, team instructions?

See the post directly above yours.

[Keyzer Soze]

37 minutes ago, apvmoreira said:

So, if the tactic screen is the defensive formation, where is the attacking formation, team instructions?

 

 

The attacking formating is given by player roles and players mentality, team mentality, team instructions, player instructions

[westy8chimp]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

100% agree and have raised that in the Feature Request forum.

100% disagree that this in itself solves all the issues. The representation is minor... you can show me my two strikers in my own half or as it is now... doesn't matter - what matters is their average position during the match, their position with the ball and their position without the ball.

The average position currently nearly matches the starting formation (especially if you use standard/flexible) So strikers still operate (on average - or infact even without the ball) within the opponents half. So showing me a tactic where they are in my half is useless, until they are also coded to drop deeper during the defensive phase.

EDIT: and to save a fractious discussion about this, i'll find time tonight and login and actually document it with several roles and setups ... i.e. if I play contain with defensive forwards on defend how deep can I make their position with/w.out the ball. And likewise at the other end of the spectrum... and a vanilla standard setup 442 with a DLF and AF for instance.

Edited October 19, 2017 by westy8chimp

[Lynch48]

I don't like the idea to have defensive tactics and attacking tactics to control seperetly, it make so much to do and complicated I don't want spent hours in tactics screen

the current tactics screen is already good and simple

if I want to know how my team attack and defend, I just watch the match 

[westy8chimp]

1 minute ago, Lynch48 said:

I don't like the idea to have defensive tactics and attacking tactics to control seperetly, it make so much to do and complicated I don't want spent hours in tactics screen

the current tactics screen is already good and simple

if I want to know how my team attack and defend, I just watch the match 

Fair point - for those of us that could happily spend hours doing tactics and less time doing the media side of the game... there will be people that aren't as interested in tactics.

My question/query to you would be; yes you can observe how your team defends and attacks... but can you change it as you please? if you play 442 and your strikers don't come back and defend, what do you do? You can go strikerless ...but then you limit your options in attack - you can't for instance have a poacher... you can have a shadow striker but the build up play will have to be different. If you had two tactics you would have far more flexibility in how you instruct your team to defend or attack... and the observation would be all about the transitions - do you have players with the right intelligence and work rate to go from a 541 to 343 for instance? Or are you demanding too much and need to bring your attack more in line with defence or visa versa?

[MBarbaric]

4 minutes ago, Lynch48 said:

I don't like the idea to have defensive tactics and attacking tactics to control seperetly, it make so much to do and complicated I don't want spent hours in tactics screen

the current tactics screen is already good and simple

if I want to know how my team attack and defend, I just watch the match 

tactics screen is neither simple nor good. it has an inherent flaw showing the defensive positioning while players preferred positions default to their attacking preferred position. This might absolutely not interest you and it is fine. You use default tactics and you are good to go into the match in no time. 

others, might want something closer to how tactics in football actually works and it is expected for the game na,ed "football manager", tactics are big part of that. So, even if there is (and should be) separate defensive/offensive strategies/formations you'd still have default ones to use. Thus, you'd still be able to get into the match as quick as you can now.

[Lynch48]

29 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

tactics screen is neither simple nor good. it has an inherent flaw showing the defensive positioning while players preferred positions default to their attacking preferred position. This might absolutely not interest you and it is fine. You use default tactics and you are good to go into the match in no time. 

others, might want something closer to how tactics in football actually works and it is expected for the game na,ed "football manager", tactics are big part of that. So, even if there is (and should be) separate defensive/offensive strategies/formations you'd still have default ones to use. Thus, you'd still be able to get into the match as quick as you can now.

no no I don't like use a default tactics. I do like make my own tactics I just don't want it to be complicated 

in current FM I just chose mentality, players role some instruction and probably some player instruction and tactics is good to go

if in some match I probably change a mentality and some instruction or change player role easy

imagine there is separate defend and attack, if it doesn't work through the match it would be disaster

but I don't know maybe in the future SI can make seperate tactics work

[Keyzer Soze]

Theres no need to have separate tactics for attack and defend. In fact i don't think that make any sense.

What is needed is a few more options, manly players instructions, so that you can ajust players position (and behavior) with or without the ball. That simple.

And i think that could be arranged in the current system. 

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

What is needed is a few more options,

A lot more.

[Keyzer Soze]

3 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

A lot more.

Let's start with a few more, make those right, and then go from there

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Keyzer Soze

[herne79]

1 hour ago, westy8chimp said:

100% disagree that this in itself solves all the issues.

Of course it doesn't solve all the issues, that's not the point.  This isn't about where strikers should or shouldn't actually be on the pitch when defending.

The point is about a simple visual change that may help less experienced users (not us grizzled veterans) gain a basic understanding that - when defending - your strikers aren't up in the opposition box or your midfielders aren't on the half way line.  There may be a better way of getting across the "it's your defensive shape" point, but at least it's a start.

[westy8chimp]

Just now, Keyzer Soze said:

Let's start with a few more, make those right, and then go from there

 

I get your point that probably doesn't make sense or wouldn't be feasible to set two formations - because transitions can happen too quickly.

But if we think about extremes, like Mourinho vs Liverpool 2 years running. He has his wide attacking players virtually playing as full backs in a back 6, where his back 4 all squeeze centrally in sort of a 631

In attack, the wide men like Rashford/Miki become classic inside forward/shadow strikers behind Lukaku. And the back 4 readjust to be more conventional with full backs offering supporting runs, 2 of the CMs push forward.

We can't get close to this sort of behaviour and that's without even thinking of the intricate type of forward roles.

It would be easier to go down the instruction based solution if the starting formation was a generic average position sort of setup - (as it is in appearance at the moment) and then have an extensive list of both defensive and attacking instructions.

Pressing is another ball park - absolutely not an individual instruction based on a scale of less to more with 'sometimes' in between. It needs to be done on zone and/or intensity (time spent pressing). So a quick win for pressing would be top level changing from 'less'/'more' to something more like the defensive line where on the pitch do you want to press "higher->lower" that's not great but better than we have.

If they wanted to make it a lot better they need to let us think about specifying pressing groups by zone. Set an intensity i.e high intensity might be press relentlessly for X seconds before going into defensive shape

[westy8chimp]

2 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Of course it doesn't solve all the issues, that's not the point.  This isn't about where strikers should or shouldn't actually be on the pitch when defending.

The point is about a simple visual change that may help less experienced users (not us grizzled veterans) gain a basic understanding that - when defending - your strikers aren't up in the opposition box or your midfielders aren't on the half way line.  There may be a better way of getting across the "it's your defensive shape" point, but at least it's a start.

 misunderstood you.

[Rashidi]

On 17/10/2017 at 23:34, PHITSO said:

When are the formation names going to be fixed/more accurate. No teams in the game play 4-3-3, apparently it's 4-1-2-3 as opposed to the teams that actually use 4-3-3 in real life.

No decent football manager worth his salt cares a hoot about calling their formation a specific name. The best managers would give you a blank stare and tell you they have 11 players on the pitch, you go figure it out.

[Rashidi]

31 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

I get your point that probably doesn't make sense or wouldn't be feasible to set two formations - because transitions can happen too quickly.

But if we think about extremes, like Mourinho vs Liverpool 2 years running. He has his wide attacking players virtually playing as full backs in a back 6, where his back 4 all squeeze centrally in sort of a 631

In attack, the wide men like Rashford/Miki become classic inside forward/shadow strikers behind Lukaku. And the back 4 readjust to be more conventional with full backs offering supporting runs, 2 of the CMs push forward.

We can't get close to this sort of behaviour and that's without even thinking of the intricate type of forward roles.

It would be easier to go down the instruction based solution if the starting formation was a generic average position sort of setup - (as it is in appearance at the moment) and then have an extensive list of both defensive and attacking instructions.

Pressing is another ball park - absolutely not an individual instruction based on a scale of less to more with 'sometimes' in between. It needs to be done on zone and/or intensity (time spent pressing). So a quick win for pressing would be top level changing from 'less'/'more' to something more like the defensive line where on the pitch do you want to press "higher->lower" that's not great but better than we have.

If they wanted to make it a lot better they need to let us think about specifying pressing groups by zone. Set an intensity i.e high intensity might be press relentlessly for X seconds before going into defensive shape

I think there is a lot that SI want to do with tactics, remember that tactics engine is actually legacy code compared to the rest. The good thing I see happening in FM18 is that we are seeing such big changes to modules that apply what comes out of the match engine and training module. They have laid the foundations with the work on Dynamics and the rest. I do expect these to be like version 1. Maybe in the next two years you will see significant changes to the match engine and the training module. I think the foundation has been laid, for them to push the game in a new direction. And tbh I am glad.

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, Rashidi said:

I think there is a lot that SI want to do with tactics, remember that tactics engine is actually legacy code compared to the rest. The good thing I see happening in FM18 is that we are seeing such big changes to modules that apply what comes out of the match engine and training module. They have laid the foundations with the work on Dynamics and the rest. I do expect these to be like version 1. Maybe in the next two years you will see significant changes to the match engine and the training module. I think the foundation has been laid, for them to push the game in a new direction. And tbh I am glad.

Hopefully - this forum is a good example to show that lots of fans are really thinking about real life managers tactical DNA/identity...and want to either create their own, or emulate a historic manager/tactic - rather than just creating a winning FM tactic.

 

 

[GOODNAME]

No FMTV today ?

[apvmoreira]

3 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

I get your point that probably doesn't make sense or wouldn't be feasible to set two formations - because transitions can happen too quickly.

We can't get close to this sort of behaviour and that's without even thinking of the intricate type of forward roles.

It would be easier to go down the instruction based solution if the starting formation was a generic average position sort of setup - (as it is in appearance at the moment) and then have an extensive list of both defensive and attacking instructions.

If they wanted to make it a lot better they need to let us think about specifying pressing groups by zone. Set an intensity i.e high intensity might be press relentlessly for X seconds before going into defensive shape

Let me try to see this from FM17 perspective:

"But if we think about extremes, like Mourinho vs Liverpool 2 years running. He has his wide attacking players virtually playing as full backs in a back 6, where his back 4 all squeeze centrally in sort of a 631"

 - If you put your wingers/IFs to man mark other team wingers/IFs and you put your FBs to mark central attackers, maybe, or put the FBs to not mark tightly, so they just zonal mark the area between the line and the CBs?

"In attack, the wide men like Rashford/Miki become classic inside forward/shadow strikers behind Lukaku. And the back 4 readjust to be more conventional with full backs offering supporting runs, 2 of the CMs push forward."

 - So, the roles we choose need to be IFs for Rashford and Miki, the 2 FBS, like a CFB with support/defend duty?

 - The 2 CMs, roaming playmakers or Box-to-box, leaving Matic as a defensive playmaker?

"Pressing is another ball park - absolutely not an individual instruction based on a scale of less to more with 'sometimes' in between. It needs to be done on zone and/or intensity (time spent pressing). So a quick win for pressing would be top level changing from 'less'/'more' to something more like the defensive line where on the pitch do you want to press "higher->lower" that's not great but better than we have."

 

 - Here you can go to opponent instructions and define who receives the pressure. IN this case, it should be all roles from the defensive mid onward and let all defensive players with no hard pressure/tight marking. This should make your 3 in the mid to only pressure the opponent mids and Lukaku can receive an individual man marking instructions to man mark the DMC?

 

In a top world class like United is, with the money to choose the right players, this can be done. I've done it with some success in my last save. If needed i can SS some instructions to show.

[westy8chimp]

15 hours ago, apvmoreira said:

If you put your wingers/IFs to man mark other team wingers/IFs and you put your FBs to mark central attackers, maybe, or put the FBs to not mark tightly, so they just zonal mark the area between the line and the CBs?

Utter nonsense - no manager in their right mind uses man marking as a way to set their defensive shape! you can be pulled all over the pitch. Mourinhos wide players full back into a zone to make a back 6

This was vs Liverpool last year, Rashford and Young were the attacking wide men, clearly here dropping back to pretty much a flat 6 with the full backs squeezing in.

 

[apvmoreira]

1 hour ago, westy8chimp said:

Utter nonsense - no manager in their right mind uses man marking as a way to set their defensive shape! you can be pulled all over the pitch. Mourinhos wide players full back into a zone to make a back 6

This was vs Liverpool last year, Rashford and Young were the attacking wide men, clearly here dropping back to pretty much a flat 6 with the full backs squeezing in.

 

I was saying that its possible, not that its well done or not.

 

It can be done, although the results may not be the same.