I want to be like Pep

[jays_p77]

Can people help me where I'm going wrong...

I've started the season as Man City and I've tried to play a formation and tactics that I think Pep plays pretty much in real life. Okay, so I've gone with a 4-3-3 (or rather the closest FM offers to 4-3-3 as it doesn't seem to have that as a set formation, which I find astonishing given how many teams utilise it) and an attacking possession led tactical instructions. 

Basically I have my team playing attacking, fluid, retain possession, build up play from the back, high press and a slightly high defensive line. My team consists of a sweeper keeper (Ederson), a ball playing defender (Stones), two attacking full backs (Mendy/Danilo and Walker), a defensive mid (Ferds) a deep play maker (KDB) and an advanced one (Silva), two wingers (Sane and Sterling) and a complete forward (Jesus). 

This seems pretty accurate to how the current Man City team shape up? 

Anyway I'm getting battered most games and most bizarrely not retaining possession at all... any help/tips would be greatly received! 

[lemeuresnew]

most obvious thing is the lack of defensive players. bot full backs on attack with a bpd will ship goals all day long. only 1 defensive midfielder and central defender, who is staying back to retain possession exactly?

maybe head over to tactics forum, read up on the basic principals of the game. plenty of threads explaining why your set up is defensively suicidal

[jays_p77]

Thanks for the reply. I didn't realise a ball playing defender would advance in a positional sense. I just thought he'd be the one to build up play from the back? 

What I find strange though is that this is how a lot of teams setup in real life; Barca, City, Madrid etc. Surely having 1 defensive midfielder isn't a bad thing? I've got a deep playmaker next to them in KDB? 

[lemeuresnew]

no team sets up like that for 90 minutes really though. they do it in certain conditions, not every chance they have. otherwise, your attacking full backs would just be wingers that can tackle

what is KDB's role on, support or defend? if he is supposed to be helping shield your midfield, is that really what he is good at... is your BPD just passing to the def mid, because there is no one else there to pass to? if you have 2 play makers in the middle, focusing passing through the middle as much as possible, what is the point of the 2 wingers? and why do you need the attacking full backs in the same space they are? do you see city doing that a lot, or are there wingers doing other things like cutting in (can Sterling do anything else in real life)?

i could go on, but you would be better off reading up on the basics mate. plenty of threads that can explain it better than me

 

[Armistice]

Pep uses an IWB on the left and a winger infront of him (Delph & Sane respectively) and a more attacking fullback and an attacking mid who cuts inside on the right (Walker and I've seen he started to use Bernardo Silva). But against Chelsea for example, Guardiola used two IWBs and two wingers infront of them, and Silva & De Bruyne were more advanced and closer to the AMC strata and they usually drifted out wide. In both cases though, Fernandinho drops between the two CBs or provides a passing option for them if the opposition doesn't press high up the pitch. I would say neither of his CBs are BPD because this role has More Risky Passes PI hardcoded so that means he can also launch long balls which could lead in possession loss. And surely an Attacking + Fluid combination is not gonna help really, if you want possession.

 

I'm also looking at Guardiola as a model to shape my tactics.

[jays_p77]

Interesting mate. Would you say then Pep's tactics are more structured than fluid? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tactic. I see City's attack as very fluid in terms of the passing and movement but positionally they are more structured. 

[lemeuresnew]

2 hours ago, jays_p77 said:

Interesting mate. Would you say then Pep's tactics are more structured than fluid? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tactic. I see City's attack as very fluid in terms of the passing and movement but positionally they are more structured. 

having support instead of attack duties can help with the positioning. stops people just bombing forward and keeps them deeper for longer to retain possession

again though, you are trying to think you can implement the tactics of one of the best coaches in the world without understanding your basic player roles. you will not find a quick fix to completely change your fortunes and style of play like that

[yonko]

I will go with Control/Structured - retain possession, play out of defense, push higher up, close down more, work ball into box.

SK-S Ederson

FB-A Walker

2 CD-D Stones and Otamendi/Kompany

IWB-S Delph (WB-A when using Mendy)

DLP-D Fernandinho

RPM-S KDB (move into channels PI)

MEZ-A David Silva

IF-S Sterling/Bernardo Silva (Sterling with Get Further Forward PI)

Winger-Support Sane

CF-S Aguero/Jesus

Against other top sides, I would say Pep goes for less risky mentality to control the oppositions' counter attacks. Against Chelsea Walker and Delph were both very conservative IWBs. On the other hand, Sane and Sterling were pushed up very high and wide to keep Chelsea's wingbacks at home. Silva and KDB had complete freedom of movement and particularly moved into wide channels. But that match the exception.

Another difference was obviously when Mendy was playing before his injury vs Delph playing now.

In some matches the roles in midfield can be changed for more possession control to this:

Fernando - HB-D

KDB - DLP-S

Silva - AP-S

[Fosse]

Through a combination of roles, team shape and mentality you can achieve differing levels of aggression - in the sense of how attacking you want to be. 

If you’re trying to replicate (or Peplicate, sorry ) Man City’s current side I’d suggest you dial back some of the factors that make your team so aggressive the combination of your attacking mentality, fluid shape and fullback roles together create almost the most offensively extreme mentalities you can possibly have with full backs and with such a high line there’s a lot of space your central defenders have to deal with.

[roggiotis]

@ yonko  

how about the new role inverted winger instead of inside forward ? (for a 4-1-4-1)

are you sure about the role of the striker ? ( CF-S)

I think Pep tries the Spanish model (without striker ), if you put Aguero in AMC which role you would give him?

 

[Armistice]

5 hours ago, jays_p77 said:

Interesting mate. Would you say then Pep's tactics are more structured than fluid? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tactic. I see City's attack as very fluid in terms of the passing and movement but positionally they are more structured. 

No in fact I think Guardiola is about Fluid or Very Fluid, on this you can read in @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!'s thread dedicated to Guardiola's Barcelona. I doubt his principles since Barcelona have changed at all. I didn't follow Man City this season to be honest so I can't really point it out if he wants his whole team to participate in transitions or just certain positions, to clarify Team Shape. Not sure I'd be able to point it out extremely well honestly. But I've read tactical articles about what he wants from his team this season so that's my interpretation. The thing with more Fluid Team Shapes is that the vertical space shrinks so against packed sides it could turn into a real struggle to break them down, so you need to be careful to make space for the two playmakers so they can unlock sides.

[yonko]

@ roggiotis I don't think Pep is using 4-1-4-1 formation TBH. But in theory it could work with Inverted Winger sure.

Yes, I'm sure about the ST being CF-S. I do not think Pep plays strikerless this season. And last season he did only one or twice if I'm not mistaken - away vs Barca with KDB as AMC.

@ Armistice I think it is common misconception that Pep's style is represented using Fluid or Very Fluid shapes. Have you seen the video of Thierry Henry explaining his style? He's quite structured in the first 2 thirds of the field. Moreover, at Barca only Xavi, Iniesta and Messi had creative freedom and free movement. At Man City so far it looks like only David Silva and KDB have similar freedoms. In addition, Pep allows quite spacing for his players in the build up and possession of the team. 

I think Structured with Pushed up D-Line represents his style quite well.

[yau]

I would definitely try to replicate Peps' tac with counter mentality and structured shape. Hes teams don't rush up, they are patient in build-up phase till particular players get the ball and move it forward. There's one TI that Pep always use and its play much wider.

Last time I watch City i was pretty amazed to see double RPM played by KDB and Silva. they both drifting vertical and horizontal to make space for each other.

 

[Fritz13]

2 hours ago, yonko said:

Against other top sides, I would say Pep goes for less risky mentality to control the oppositions' counter attacks. Against Chelsea Walker and Delph were both very conservative IWBs. On the other hand, Sane and Sterling were pushed up very high and wide to keep Chelsea's wingbacks at home. Silva and KDB had complete freedom of movement and particularly moved into wide channels. But that match the exception.

In some matches the roles in midfield can be changed for more possession control to this:

Fernando - HB-D

KDB - DLP-S

Silva - AP-S

This is why ppl struggle with the game as they are looking for a single super tactic that will defeat every team they face.

In reality as you’ve said it’s about adapting to minimise certain attacking threats that the opposition might offer.

Horses for courses 

[herne79]

2 hours ago, Fosse said:

Peplicate

That should be an insta-ban .

[yonko]

2 hours ago, yau said:

I would definitely try to replicate Peps' tac with counter mentality and structured shape. Hes teams don't rush up, they are patient in build-up phase till particular players get the ball and move it forward. There's one TI that Pep always use and its play much wider.

Last time I watch City i was pretty amazed to see double RPM played by KDB and Silva. they both drifting vertical and horizontal to make space for each other.

 

I don't think I've ever seen both Silva and KDB with the same roles under Pep. Silva is always the more advanced one IMO.

[Armistice]

2 hours ago, yonko said:

@ Armistice I think it is common misconception that Pep's style is represented using Fluid or Very Fluid shapes. Have you seen the video of Thierry Henry explaining his style? He's quite structured in the first 2 thirds of the field. Moreover, at Barca only Xavi, Iniesta and Messi had creative freedom and free movement. At Man City so far it looks like only David Silva and KDB have similar freedoms. In addition, Pep allows quite spacing for his players in the build up and possession of the team. 

I think Structured with Pushed up D-Line represents his style quite well.

I'm not going to debate this as everyone has their own perception on certain roles/duties so it's irrelevant, you could make it work with Very Fluid aswell as with Structured. Anyway, thing is I believe Guardiola expects his whole team to act as a unit since he's a Cruyff and Bielsa admirer and especially the Dutch legend set up the basis of universal football, so that's why my choice would be a more Fluid Team Shape.

 

And of course, as you said, Guardiola is one of the most flexible managers out there so I don't think he sticks too much with a single formation, even though his principles are always gonna be the same. That's what people need to do, to understand his principles in full, then they should be able to translate them into the game and they can play around with formations and adapt quite nicely.

[themadsheep2001]

Lots of people have Guardiola as very fluid. But he has a very defined structure with movement in side it, maintaining players in relevant zones as the play moves forward

Balanced, or even structured.

Control/Standard.

Sweeper Keeper- Support

Complete Wingback Support x 2 (switching to inverted wingback support if you are looking to flood the midfield.

Defensive mid defend.

Supporting playmaker

KDB as a mezzala, or a support striker when 4-2-3-1.

Wingers or inside forwards on support (additional options of getting further forwards or staying wider, depending on approach

Complete forward support.

 

That's where I would start as a basis

[yonko]

8 minutes ago, Armistice said:

I'm not going to debate this as everyone has their own perception on certain roles/duties so it's irrelevant, you could make it work with Very Fluid aswell as with Structured. Anyway, thing is I believe Guardiola expects his whole team to act as a unit since he's a Cruyff and Bielsa admirer and especially the Dutch legend set up the basis of universal football, so that's why my choice would be a more Fluid Team Shape.

 

And of course, as you said, Guardiola is one of the most flexible managers out there so I don't think he sticks too much with a single formation, even though his principles are always gonna be the same. That's what people need to do, to understand his principles in full, then they should be able to translate them into the game and they can play around with formations and adapt quite nicely.

Team Shape in FM is about creative freedom and compactness. On Structured, if you compare the individual mentalities of players in the AMR/L positions on Support Duty with the fullbacks on Attack you will see that they are quite similar. Their similar mentalities will see them act as unit. However, structured will lower the creative freedom of most of the players and open up spaces to allow players with freedom to explore it.

4 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Lots of people have Guardiola as very fluid. But he has a very defined structure with movement in side it, maintaining players in relevant zones as the play moves forward

Balanced, or even structured.

Control/Standard.

Sweeper Keeper- Support

Complete Wingback Support x 2 (switching to inverted wingback support if you are looking to flood the midfield.

Defensive mid defend.

Supporting playmaker

KDB as a mezzala, or a support striker when 4-2-3-1.

Wingers or inside forwards on support (additional options of getting further forwards or staying wider, depending on approach

Complete forward support.

 

That's where I would start as a basis

Have you seen post match analysis of Man City games? I use whoscored.com. Fernandinho is one of the highest passing players usually. Which shows that he clearly is a ball magnet and more than a DM-D. Hence why I would choose DLP-D for his role. David Silva is also usually more advanced than KDB, hence why he would be the Mezzala while KDB is the RPM. And since using Structure shape, you need the fullback(s) on Attack duty. Also, they do not dribble much.

[themadsheep2001]

13 minutes ago, yonko said:

Team Shape in FM is about creative freedom and compactness. On Structured, if you compare the individual mentalities of players in the AMR/L positions on Support Duty with the fullbacks on Attack you will see that they are quite similar. Their similar mentalities will see them act as unit. However, structured will lower the creative freedom of most of the players and open up spaces to allow players with freedom to explore it.

Have you seen post match analysis of Man City games? I use whoscored.com. Fernandinho is one of the highest passing players usually. Which shows that he clearly is a ball magnet and more than a DM-D. Hence why I would choose DLP-D for his role. David Silva is also usually more advanced than KDB, hence why he would be the Mezzala while KDB is the RPM. And since using Structure shape, you need the fullback(s) on Attack duty. Also, they do not dribble much.

I have. He's fulcrum rather than the heartbeat of the side. I wouldn't have him trying to dictate the tempo of the play, which happens through the duo in front.

Silva and KDB vary how aggressive they are, but given how he both crosses and gets into shooting positions, I'd have KDB as the mezzala.

 

I'd still start balanced over structured personally but each to their own

[Armistice]

14 minutes ago, yonko said:

Team Shape in FM is about creative freedom and compactness. On Structured, if you compare the individual mentalities of players in the AMR/L positions on Support Duty with the fullbacks on Attack you will see that they are quite similar. Their similar mentalities will see them act as unit. However, structured will lower the creative freedom of most of the players and open up spaces to allow players with freedom to explore it.

Well if you think in those terms then most top six clubs play on Structured, maybe Arsenal being the only exception. Vertical spaces can be achieved in more Fluid shapes aswell, while in Structured it can lead to isolation if you don't balance it well.

[themadsheep2001]

17 minutes ago, Armistice said:

Well if you think in those terms then most top six clubs play on Structured, maybe Arsenal being the only exception. Vertical spaces can be achieved in more Fluid shapes aswell, while in Structured it can lead to isolation if you don't balance it well.

I'd definitely argue the top six would be a mix of balanced and structured. Liverpool perhaps the only exception. Classically United have always been structured under Ferguson, no idea what Motes wanted, balanced under Van Gaal and structured under Mourinho 

[yonko]

34 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I have. He's fulcrum rather than the heartbeat of the side. I wouldn't have him trying to dictate the tempo of the play, which happens through the duo in front.

Silva and KDB vary how aggressive they are, but given how he both crosses and gets into shooting positions, I'd have KDB as the mezzala.

 

I'd still start balanced over structured personally but each to their own

DLP-D role is not heartbeat of a team. RPM is a role described as heartbeat of the team. That role will also get into crossing and shooting positions. The heartbeat of Man City this season has been KDB. Fernandinho attracts the ball and in many matches more often than Silva or KDB. Thus he is more than simple DM-D.

30 minutes ago, Armistice said:

Well if you think in those terms then most top six clubs play on Structured, maybe Arsenal being the only exception. Vertical spaces can be achieved in more Fluid shapes aswell, while in Structured it can lead to isolation if you don't balance it well.

Many people confuse Fluid in FM with Fluid IRL. They are not the same thing. It is important to consider Team Shape in context of formation, roles, mentality, etc. It is the combination of all elements that results in the replication of certain real life tactics.

[themadsheep2001]

11 minutes ago, yonko said:

DLP-D role is not heartbeat of a team. RPM is a role described as heartbeat of the team. That role will also get into crossing and shooting positions. The heartbeat of Man City this season has been KDB. Fernandinho attracts the ball and in many matches more often than Silva or KDB. Thus he is more than simple DM-D.

Many people confuse Fluid in FM with Fluid IRL. They are not the same thing. It is important to consider Team Shape in context of formation, roles, mentality, etc. It is the combination of all elements that results in the replication of certain real life tactics.

A DLP has playmaker priority over the advanced roles. So I would have him as a DM-D. You're free to choose a different role, but that's what I'm going with. 

[Jean0987654321]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I'd definitely argue the top six would be a mix of balanced and structured. Liverpool perhaps the only exception. Classically United have always been structured under Ferguson, no idea what Motes wanted, balanced under Van Gaal and structured under Mourinho 

I'd argue against that. Arsenal is certainly Fluid, Chelsea certainly Fluid, Liverpool Very Fluid, Pep I think is Fluid, and while we're Rigid. I been watching much of those games...

[yonko]

4 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

A DLP has playmaker priority over the advanced roles. So I would have him as a DM-D. You're free to choose a different role, but that's what I'm going with. 

The playmaker priority is not in the game anymore. Plus Fernandinho sees more of the ball in some matches than Silva and KDB. Pep is not using them like he did with Iniesta and Xavi btw.

https://www.whoscored.com/Teams/167/Show/England-Manchester-City

Check stats and you will see that Fernandinho has the most passes per game in the whole squad. That is not a simple DM-D role. That is DLP. The other playmaker roles are too aggressive for the brazilian's style and role on the team. And the DM-D role is too conservative/restrictive for him.

Now, Silva averages more passes than KDB, but his movement and average position cannot be replicated with a playmaker role, even AP-A. Plus, the RPM role is not about averaging the highest number of passes but about other aspects - dribbles, key passes, through balls, shots. And if you watch all City games, you will see that Silva plays slightly higher than KDB and both drift wide into channels. RPM with attack duty would've described Silva the best, but that is not available, hence the Mezzala role suits him just fine.

[Jean0987654321]

I agree with yonko. Fernandinho is very good on the ball. He proved that with Shaktar. It's almost insulting to put him as a DM (D). Dictates the tempo with ease and keep things tight at the back. DLP(d) for me

[themadsheep2001]

Well aware of what Fernandinho can do. However as I've said, those would be my starting three roles. Feel free to experiment as you see fit 

[Fritz13]

Based on the above in FM terms if you are using attacking fullbacks/wingbacks as well as wingers is there any benefit in setting the width TI to “play much wider”?

[w_x]

De Bruyne sometimes pops up in a right wing back position whilst City have the ball, any way of replicating this movement?

 

I have been using him as a RPM in the right MC slot of a 2 man midfield with Silva next to him (APa as I am still on FM17) with Fernandinho behind as a DMd/HBd/Anchorman depending on opposition, leant away from DLPd as I wanted Silva and De Bruyne to be the ball magnets

[Scrench]

What PPMs does Fernandinho have? I think DM is a good choice, having all three midfielders on playmaker roles could mean that play is forced way too much in the middle.

[Cleon]

8 hours ago, yonko said:

The playmaker priority is not in the game anymore. Plus Fernandinho sees more of the ball in some matches than Silva and KDB. Pep is not using them like he did with Iniesta and Xavi btw.

https://www.whoscored.com/Teams/167/Show/England-Manchester-City

Check stats and you will see that Fernandinho has the most passes per game in the whole squad. That is not a simple DM-D role. That is DLP. The other playmaker roles are too aggressive for the brazilian's style and role on the team. And the DM-D role is too conservative/restrictive for him.

Now, Silva averages more passes than KDB, but his movement and average position cannot be replicated with a playmaker role, even AP-A. Plus, the RPM role is not about averaging the highest number of passes but about other aspects - dribbles, key passes, through balls, shots. And if you watch all City games, you will see that Silva plays slightly higher than KDB and both drift wide into channels. RPM with attack duty would've described Silva the best, but that is not available, hence the Mezzala role suits him just fine.

Who told you this?

[w_x]

4 hours ago, Scrench said:

What PPMs does Fernandinho have? I think DM is a good choice, having all three midfielders on playmaker roles could mean that play is forced way too much in the middle.

Shoots from distance, comes deep to get ball

[yonko]

4 hours ago, Cleon said:

Who told you this?

I think Rashidi posted it somewhere. It was @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! who opened a thread asking about the playmaking priority order. Last time I knew there was a priority for playmakers was when we could manually select playmaker and target man.

Most of my tactics always use couple of playmakers and I haven't noticed one specific priority of one over the other. I think it depends on how the rest of your team is set up, mentality and how the opposition is set up too. Of course it also depends on players' attributes selected as playmakers.

[Cleon]

Just now, yonko said:

I think Rashidi posted it somewhere. It was @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! who opened a thread asking about the playmaking priority order. Last time I knew there was a priority for playmakers was when we could manually select playmaker and target man.

Most of my tactics always use couple of playmakers and I haven't noticed one specific priority of one over the other. I think it depends on how the rest of your team is set up, mentality and how the opposition is set up too. Of course it also depends on players' attributes selected as playmakers.

I've checked with SI today and the ME team told me there is still a priority as far as they're aware.

[Rashidi]

1 hour ago, yonko said:

I think Rashidi posted it somewhere

Someone posted there was an order in the priority of playmakers, so if you had 3 playmakers there would be some kind of defined order in how a playmaker was chosen. That is what i said is untrue. If you have a playmaker in your side he still is a priority for passes. When there is more than 1, its shared.  Therefore no priority. So I think I was quoted out of context.

[yonko]

11 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Someone posted there was an order in the priority of playmakers, so if you had 3 playmakers there would be some kind of defined order in how a playmaker was chosen. That is what i said is untrue. If you have a playmaker in your side he still is a priority for passes. When there is more than 1, its shared.  Therefore no priority. So I think I was quoted out of context.

This is what I was referring to in terms of multiple playmakers, that there is no priority based on your response in that thread. The priority is when there is just one playmaker over the rest of his teammates.

But Cleon's response above states otherwise. Unless there is some misunderstanding somewhere.

So what is the priority order when using multiple playmakers?

DLP, RGA, RPM, AP, WP, Treq, False9

In my current tactic I have my DM as DLP-D, MCL as AP-S and ST as F9. Sometimes my AP changes to RPM depending on which player plays.

[Armistice]

I'm quite sure a F9 is not considered a playmaker.

[Rashidi]

45 minutes ago, yonko said:

This is what I was referring to in terms of multiple playmakers, that there is no priority based on your response in that thread. The priority is when there is just one playmaker over the rest of his teammates.

But Cleon's response above states otherwise. Unless there is some misunderstanding somewhere.

So what is the priority order when using multiple playmakers?

DLP, RGA, RPM, AP, WP, Treq, False9

In my current tactic I have my DM as DLP-D, MCL as AP-S and ST as F9. Sometimes my AP changes to RPM depending on which player plays.

If you check Cleon quoted your sentence "There is not a playmaker priority anymore" which is not true. So wires got crossed, but I am reconfirming again to see if anything has changed since then.

[Jean0987654321]

16 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

If you check Cleon quoted your sentence "There is not a playmaker priority anymore" which is not true. So wires got crossed, but I am reconfirming again to see if anything has changed since then.

Wouldn't make sense for there not to be a playmaker priority. Otherwise whats the point of player roles?

[Rashidi]

So if I play with 2 playmakers in the middle how would they be prioritised? Playmakers will always be prioritised for passing the ball to, but when there is more than one then this is shared. 

How it is shared depends on your tactic and the way you have distributed your roles and duties. As far as I am aware it’s shared, which is why I have used as many as 3 playmakers in a tactic.

[mikcheck]

Trequartista role also attracts the ball just like a playmaker, correct?

[yonko]

7 hours ago, Cleon said:

I've checked with SI today and the ME team told me there is still a priority as far as they're aware.

Is that for multiple playmakers in a tactic or for a single playmaker? Is the False 9 considered a playmaker?

5 hours ago, Rashidi said:

If you check Cleon quoted your sentence "There is not a playmaker priority anymore" which is not true. So wires got crossed, but I am reconfirming again to see if anything has changed since then.

 

4 hours ago, Rashidi said:

So if I play with 2 playmakers in the middle how would they be prioritised? Playmakers will always be prioritised for passing the ball to, but when there is more than one then this is shared. 

How it is shared depends on your tactic and the way you have distributed your roles and duties. As far as I am aware it’s shared, which is why I have used as many as 3 playmakers in a tactic.

It would be nice to get some clarity on this one, for sure. 

[Jean0987654321]

3 hours ago, mikcheck said:

Trequartista role also attracts the ball just like a playmaker, correct?

Yep...

[mikcheck]

Thanks, i was 99% sure about that.

[howard moon]

On 31/10/2017 at 22:23, themadsheep2001 said:

I'd definitely argue the top six would be a mix of balanced and structured. Liverpool perhaps the only exception. Classically United have always been structured under Ferguson, no idea what Motes wanted, balanced under Van Gaal and structured under Mourinho 

Perhaps off-topic, but in saying that, for example Ferguson played mostly a structured style, giving freedom to an attacking unit whilst keeping structure elsewhere: how does one create this ‘freedom’ for individuals? Is it through player role, duty, PIs (such as roaming) or some combination?

For example, I can see how you’d suggest that 2007/08 United was structured, with Ronaldo Rooney and Tevez being given the creative license. So would you be looking to give these 3 attacking duties, or roles with high creative freedom, or something else?

[jc577]

3 minutes ago, howard moon said:

So would you be looking to give these 3 attacking duties, or roles with high creative freedom, or something else?

It’s a difficult one because I don’t think any of them were playmakers, and giving all three players attack duties on structured could lead to isolation between your attack and midfield.

[themadsheep2001]

1 hour ago, howard moon said:

Perhaps off-topic, but in saying that, for example Ferguson played mostly a structured style, giving freedom to an attacking unit whilst keeping structure elsewhere: how does one create this ‘freedom’ for individuals? Is it through player role, duty, PIs (such as roaming) or some combination?

For example, I can see how you’d suggest that 2007/08 United was structured, with Ronaldo Rooney and Tevez being given the creative license. So would you be looking to give these 3 attacking duties, or roles with high creative freedom, or something else?

I would do it through two things

firstly giving the team more creative freedom as a whole, secondly, that trio had free roles. I'll probably recreate this again once the release is out. But you're looking at CF or DLF/S, IF (how high varied, but often attack) and either a treq or shadow striker at AMCL

[howard moon]

57 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I would do it through two things

firstly giving the team more creative freedom as a whole, secondly, that trio had free roles. I'll probably recreate this again once the release is out. But you're looking at CF or DLF/S, IF (how high varied, but often attack) and either a treq or shadow striker at AMCL

Would be really interested to see that as I’ve yet to find anything that adequately represents how that team played: a lot of interpretations have strange formations that ignore the fact that formation in FM is defensive shape, but also to clearly explain what shape, mentality and player roles should be used.

You say you’d increase creative freedom across the team - would that not be achieved by setting the shape to fluid?

[themadsheep2001]

14 minutes ago, howard moon said:

Would be really interested to see that as I’ve yet to find anything that adequately represents how that team played: a lot of interpretations have strange formations that ignore the fact that formation in FM is defensive shape, but also to clearly explain what shape, mentality and player roles should be used.

You say you’d increase creative freedom across the team - would that not be achieved by setting the shape to fluid?

That's then changing the shape. I want the shape to still have that structure, but having more creative freedom within it