Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Neil Brock

Football Manager TV: Tactics

Recommended Posts

I think FM failed me completely on this one. Going through the wishlist, many people wanted the ability to be more hands on with training and player development, they've completely ignored that demand. Instead added Injury features for what? to deal with community complaining about injuries?

One of the most exciting part of FM is team building, rags to riches story. Make that wonderkid to play to its full potential. Should have introduce more of that kind of feature instead of useless one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that with the Inside Winger-role, wide players get to be more flexible in terms of positions they can play in FM18. It makes no sence that some players can play ARM/ALM perfectly and have no "dot" at all at RM/LM. I feel a bit of the same with using wingers on oposit flank with cutting inside duties. I feel FM should add (a lot) more flexibilities here as most players have no problems playing on either side of the pitch. Moses under Conte is a good example of how flexible most wingers are. He had no problem going down to a RWB, even though he hadn't play in that position earlier. I feel some of the same issue in DM/CM/ACM. You can for example have a DPL in CM that's not able to play DPL in DM at all.. Just look at Pirlo. With the new streamlined tactic setup I hope for more flexibility on where you can make players work on the pitch as well. With the right roles, duties and indivudual adjustments you should be able to use almost everyone wherever you want on the pitch.

 

With all that said I'm really excited for the inside winger role. I feel thats something that have been missing in FM for a long time with the most effective winger-tactics have been to use wide midfielders on attacking duty. With all the fancy roles in the defencive- and attacking positions its just a bit boring to end up using a DM-WM-CM-midfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Woho said:

Moses under Conte is a good example of how flexible most wingers are. He had no problem going down to a RWB, even though he hadn't play in that position earlier.

FM works in the same way... if the player has the necessary attributes, players like Moses will adapt to a new position and play well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to see a improvement in terms of defensive off the ball movement when it comes to inverted wingbacks. Too often you notice them trotting back out wide when you lose the ball instead of pressing the ball and letting the winger track the wide player, as is the case in real life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2017 at 06:08, 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.

I would love this. Such a small, simple change that might help people intuit things better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Double Indemnity said:

I would love this. Such a small, simple change that might help people intuit things better.

I don't see whats the problem here, and i don't understand why suddenly people are surprised that the formation in the tactic screen represents our defensive formation. What did you think it was?

If you set your tactic, in the tactic screen, to play in a 442, they will defend with a line of 4 defenders, with 4 midfielders ahead, and 2 players in the front. Did you need to have all the players position in the defensive midfield to realise that?

So what did you think? You set your players in a 442, but because they are spread all over the pitch in the tactic screen they will defend in those position? I really don't understand the problem here.

 

What SI should had explain, and make perfect clear, is that with the right team shape, mentality and team/player roles, you can transform a 442, when defending, into a 443 or 343 or something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

What SI should had explain, and make perfect clear, is that with the right team shape, mentality and team/player roles, you can transform a 442, when defending, into a 443 or 343 or something else.

I love that new feature in match tactics > "sneak a player on when nobody is looking" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eplekrar said:

are we able to go back to the boxes on the tactics screen? Instead of the shirts...

Wow, why would you want this :D

Only through using another skin I’d have thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DP said:

Wow, why would you want this :D

Only through using another skin I’d have thought. 

I've grown fond of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

I don't see whats the problem here, and i don't understand why suddenly people are surprised that the formation in the tactic screen represents our defensive formation. What did you think it was?

If you set your tactic, in the tactic screen, to play in a 442, they will defend with a line of 4 defenders, with 4 midfielders ahead, and 2 players in the front. Did you need to have all the players position in the defensive midfield to realise that?

So what did you think? You set your players in a 442, but because they are spread all over the pitch in the tactic screen they will defend in those position? I really don't understand the problem here.

 

What SI should had explain, and make perfect clear, is that with the right team shape, mentality and team/player roles, you can transform a 442, when defending, into a 443 or 343 or something else.

I don't think it's that clear cut for a new player. It just looks like a generic shape that you should then apply defensive and attacking phases to through roles and instructions.

The 442 doesn't defend as you say anyway... the wingers hog the touchline and the 2 cms hold hands in the centre. The strikers make very little effort to be involved in the defensive phase. the banks don't shift from one side to the other dependant on where the ball is.

When you are told it is your defensive shape it never really makes sense because you are using attacking roles (or as a newbie you would think the best position/role to use would be the one suggested by the AI). no real life team defends as 4231 (the tactic suggested for an abundance of teams by the AI) and the default 4231 has no DMs. They have not flowed the ideas through the whole game. Too much is open for interpretation or relies on research of the game.

Also as discussed to death ... you don't really have total control over your transitions or how you defend effectively. for instance you say you can transition easily to a 343 ... but given we can't use an instruction or roles in pairs (i.e. one full back go up the other stay back) you have to specify one full back as attacking and the other as defend/support ... you don't get a true 343.

It's about mirroring real life formations - I can happily play with any formation in FM and use roles and duties to create a type of football. What I can't do is press like Rodgers or Klopp or Guardiola ... I can't defend like Mourinho with a back 6. I can't sit deep like Pullis or Allardyce and dictate that I want a set piece 20 yards inside my own half to be treated as an attacking play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

I don't think it's that clear cut for a new player. It just looks like a generic shape that you should then apply defensive and attacking phases to through roles and instructions.

The 442 doesn't defend as you say anyway... the wingers hog the touchline and the 2 cms hold hands in the centre. The strikers make very little effort to be involved in the defensive phase. the banks don't shift from one side to the other dependant on where the ball is.

When you are told it is your defensive shape it never really makes sense because you are using attacking roles (or as a newbie you would think the best position/role to use would be the one suggested by the AI). no real life team defends as 4231 (the tactic suggested for an abundance of teams by the AI) and the default 4231 has no DMs. They have not flowed the ideas through the whole game. Too much is open for interpretation or relies on research of the game.

Also as discussed to death ... you don't really have total control over your transitions or how you defend effectively. for instance you say you can transition easily to a 343 ... but given we can't use an instruction or roles in pairs (i.e. one full back go up the other stay back) you have to specify one full back as attacking and the other as defend/support ... you don't get a true 343.

It's about mirroring real life formations - I can happily play with any formation in FM and use roles and duties to create a type of football. What I can't do is press like Rodgers or Klopp or Guardiola ... I can't defend like Mourinho with a back 6. I can't sit deep like Pullis or Allardyce and dictate that I want a set piece 20 yards inside my own half to be treated as an attacking play.

Altough i don't disagree with you, i think we are talking about different things.

I only stated that i think that it should be obvious for every one that the tactic screen represents your defensive formation. You are talking about limitations in the ME that prevent us, and AI managers, to simulate how some real life managers defend in the game.

I know that there are limitations, and that those limitations can have a double effect by bringing more confusion to people that are playing the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

I only stated that i think that it should be obvious for every one that the tactic screen represents your defensive formation.

I agree that it should be obvious to everyone, but as things stand at present imo it isn't obvious to everyone - especially new or inexperienced players.  Part of the issue there is how the media presents us with formations so that we become accustomed to them without actually understanding what they mean, but showing an FM formation which covers the entire pitch when it's supposed to be the defensive formation doesn't exactly help matters either.

There's a few small quality of life changes that could be made to the Tactics screen which imo would really help people's basic understanding.  Making it more obvious that your chosen formation is how you defend and other tactical settings shape how you attack is just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I agree that it should be obvious to everyone, but as things stand at present imo it isn't obvious to everyone - especially new or inexperienced players.  Part of the issue there is how the media presents us with formations so that we become accustomed to them without actually understanding what they mean, but showing an FM formation which covers the entire pitch when it's supposed to be the defensive formation doesn't exactly help matters either.

There's a few small quality of life changes that could be made to the Tactics screen which imo would really help people's basic understanding.  Making it more obvious that your chosen formation is how you defend and other tactical settings shape how you attack is just one.

Thing is, the day SI change the tactic board to, for example, represent the 11 players in only half the pitch, the same confusion will happen, with players with doubts about the players positions in the opponent half.

The game have this representation since forever i think, but for some reason that i don't quite understand, only last year that all this confusion start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a terminology thing as well though. You say it is my defensive formation - and even if there is a UI issue with it being shown over the full pitch - my team doesn't necessarily defend in the shape displayed were it to be displayed in my own half. A CMD when the opposition have the ball can be just as deep as a DM S. A wingback (in DM) can be as deep as a full back when the opponents have the ball.

I still think it is and should be deemed a generic shape (average position in a standard setup) roles, duties and instructions should then create the without ball and with ball positions/behaviours. In which case we could do with a lot more roles and instructions (Player & Team).

On paper the best solution would be defensive shape and offensive shape options ... or even finer than that split the pitch into zones and be able to tell the players where you want them when the ball is in those areas, but in reality that would be too confusing. Too time intensive for users that don't care about tactics... and in real terms the ball transitions so much and so quickly that we wouldn't see those exact positions anyway - we would see headless chickens running all over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

On paper the best solution would be defensive shape and offensive shape options ... or even finer than that split the pitch into zones and be able to tell the players where you want them when the ball is in those areas, but in reality that would be too confusing. Too time intensive for users that don't care about tactics... and in real terms the ball transitions so much and so quickly that we wouldn't see those exact positions anyway - we would see headless chickens running all over.

 

i think the idea is that you give that instrucion/position with the role and duty that you assign to each player, altough i agree it's short in terms of options available at this moment.

I don't like the with ball/without ball solution because, imo, it could easily leave to very akward and game breaking tactics, with human managers building tactics where you would crowd 11 players in the box in the defense moment, and then with a slow built up, have a very ofensive formation in the attacking moment.

i like your idea, if i understand it correctly, of the game automaticly create a with/without ball screen, after you had built the tactic, where it show the "consequences" of your choices in terms of position, roles and duties. This could be useful. Idealy, you could even had the possibility of some fine tunning in the player position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

 

i like your idea, if i understand it correctly, of the game automaticly create a with/without ball screen, after you had built the tactic, where it show the "consequences" of your choices in terms of position, roles and duties. This could be useful. Idealy, you could even had the possibility of some fine tunning in the player position. 

That is exactly what I was talking about and what already proposed in another thread. To setup formation, roles, etc and then have a button to show the resultant offensive and defensive positions in the field. That would really help to understand the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Payaso

I think that the functionality of the formation is one of the biggest flaws that the game has and I am surprised that it hasn't been fixed yet. If the developers of the game want to make the ME look like football then this most definitely should be the first step when beginning. With the current system compared to real life no team in the game would have strikers selected at all and the highest players in the formation would maybe be AMCs. While currently the top heavy formations are becoming more and more rewarding as any team won't be able to defend in numbers and playing some super attacking football with for example 4-2-4 or 4-2-3-1 has basically only benefits as the opposition cannot hit you on a break while defending short handedly. Because of this Tottenham for example was way too devastating team on FM 2017.

I think one option would also be to be able/having to double role players: give a role to a player and decide how he is expected to perform when you are in possession and this is already existing as we all know. But what the game hugely lack is the ability to give all the players a defensive role as you cannot influence on for example defensive movement. You can decide closing down settings and tight marking etc. which actually are instructions that don't really seem to have any major effect on players' performances but that is it. Something like 'cover this area' instruction would be a decent solution I think.

But in long term it simply needs to change what a formation represents in the game or give us the ability to choose both defensive and attacking formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the dogma that the formation is the defensive set-up, is still the biggest tactical flaw in FM. It doesn't match the player roles and the stratas where those player roles are located (the in-game logics) nor with the way people refer to real life football formations (football logics). There is not a single team in real life that defends in a 4-2-3-1, with three attacking midfielders and a striker.

I liked the earlier FM's more in those aspects, where the formations with the arrows allowed you to create a hybrid. The screen showed the basic formation. If you wanted to push someone up in possession, you needed to give him an arrow forward. If you wanted someone track back when out of possession, you gave him an arrow backwards. Just like on a real tactical board. You played a 4-2-3-1 (for example), you defended like a 4-4-1-1, attacked like a 2-4-1-3. Simple and logical, in accordance to real life football. If duty was replaced with the reintroduction of an arrow that allowed you to push up or push down a role to one strata higher or lower, a lot of problems would be solved. You could make a center back push up in possession with that forward arrow, but he would still defend like a center back. You could give a striker a backward arrow, which would make him defend like an attacking midfielder, but would make him attack in accordance with his role.

Keep the roles, delete the duties and replace them with an optional forward or backward arow. All would be much more logical, without having to throw away the tactics creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...